Thanks for posting this useful information. The Quota-Hire-in-Chief has a department that deals entirely with domestic violence against women, quite forgetting (or refusing to hear) the pertinent information on this issue.

If the T-shirts really have been worn by Mira Sorvino, I can't help thinking most of the stories they receive will be from creative men anyway...they're likely to be more attracted to celebrity sweat than you Amy, and will happily take it second hand if they can't get it direct from the source :)

Their wording isn't clear though, it looks like they just mean you get one of a limited edition(?) run and she has one, which she undoubtedly wears at their press conferences and nowhere else.

I agree appeal is sickening, plus I can't see what it's intended to achieve - these "consciousness raising" campaigns always strike me as a complete waste of time.

Who on earth is Mira Sorvino? Why would anybody care for her T-shirt?

"Gal pal" - sounds like the name of a feminine hygiene product of dubious necessity.

as with other gender related issues, the approaches drive which one is heard and accepted, but that isn't the fault of one or the other gender.

Men are still trying to figure out if they should tell anyone that the reason they have a raised bruise that spells out Lodge Cast Iron on the back of their head may be beyond his girlfriend's PMS, while women have pretty much gotten it into administrative policy that a police contact in a DV is going to involve a lot of questioning, and probably overnight in the local lock-up for the guy, regardless of who did what.

Somewhere along the line everything became a zero-sum game where helping one side meant not helping the other...

Perhaps it would work better to say "shouldn't we help all victims of domestic violence, regardless of gender?"

I know, crazy talk...

"Who on earth is Mira Sorvino? Why would anybody care for her T-shirt?"

Google is your pal. She's Paul Sorvino's daughter. Look her up on IMDB.com or on (NSFW) SuperiorPics.

Amy,

I posted this comment over at Dr. Helen's website:

------------------------------------------------------------------

While it's great that she responded as she did, I think it's unfortunate that she didn't go further.

http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

As I'm sure you're aware, there is some controversy over studies using CTS1. Some people believe it to be an inaccurate measure of relationship violence for what I believe to be spurious reasons.

So, if we go through that list and exclude all of the studies and reviews where Mr. Fiebert identifies CTS as the scale being used (I've pegged the number at around 73), we find that we are left with 183 scholarly investigations that show that women are as likely or more likely to abuse the men that they're with as men are to abuse the women they're with. If we also exclude those studies and reviews since 1996 where it's not clear whether the original CTS or the newer CTS was used (I've pegged the number at around 11), we find that we're left with 167 scholarly investigations that show the same results. If we go even further and exclude all of the references to studies and reviews where either CTS was used (even those where Mr. Fiebert clearly identifies CTS2 as the scale being used (all of which (11) were from 1996-on)), we're still left with 156 scholarly investigations that show that women are as likely or more likely to abuse the men they're with as men are to abuse the women they're with.

Regardless of how you view the inclusion of studies using either version of the CTS, Mr. Fiebert over at UC Long Beach has a list of some pretty damning evidence that shows that the feminist line is just a bunch of clap-trap. "Domestic violence" is a problem for both genders, not just a problem for women. Women are, according to the research, as violent as men. The only differences between men and women vis-a-vis "domestic violence" appear to be how damage they cause (a completely irrelevant issue, in my opinion) and how much they report (the difference of which, I believe, can be attributed to socialization (men are taught to just accept women's violent behavior because you're typically a bunch of weaklings) and to incentives created by the government that encourage women to report (and sometimes lie about) domestic violence (read: money) and that encourage men to not report it (read: we're far more likely to be arrested if we call the police when we are victims simply because we have a penis, so why bother?)).

------------------------------------------------------------------

I think it's pretty clear that this person has an agenda and doesn't care that her agenda isn't driven by facts (she's no different than the people who are shouting and screaming about private health insurers because of the costs of health insurance but refuse to look at the vast amount of evidence that the 51 large governmental bodies that regulate health insurance have done more to destroy the health insurance market than any profit-seeker has done). I've sent the above response to the email address listed. I doubt that she'll bother reading any of the information or that she'll change her warped opinion, but I figure it can't hurt.

The BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars going into the pockets of our DV "warriors" depends on the Duluth Model being accepted as true -- which means accepting that most men are latent or actual psychopaths. They won't go down without a fight.

Ok, then. Let's make it rough and tumble.

I get tired of this debate here, so I shouldn't even comment, but all I hear are people who don't really understand DV and how it occurs, and are trying to recast females as the main abusers, and males as equal victims, when that is so obviously not true.

My friend was killed by her boyfriend 2 years ago. Did she hit back, did she initiate the violence at times? Absolutely. Did they both have significant emotional problems, substance abuse issues and a very dysfunctional relationship? Yes. But she was 5'3 and 105 pds and he was 6'4 and over 200 pds. Plus he had a gun and blew her brains out. Prior to that, he'd served time for beating the crap out of her on the hood of a car, witnessed by several bystanders.

Maybe she started the fight. Maybe she hit him first - "intiating" the violence. Who knows? But one thing is clear. He was bigger, stronger, and therefore, much more dangerous. Men his size are carrying a loaded weapon, even when they're unarmed, and he should have walked away, not beat or killed her.

Both of them used to live here at my trailer park, and I know if I dare say that owning a trailer park gives me some observational qualificiations on DV, I'll be criticized, but I don't care. This myth that you all are trying to propagate of the poor, physically abused male being just as common - or some sort of equal percentage of DV cases - is wrong.

There may be some, but they are rare. In over 20 years here, I've never seen one, though I've had plenty of dysfunctional couples, who fight like cats and dogs, but the damage that the females suffer at the hands of the males is usually far worse, and, although males can be emotionally abused, I've never seen one so afraid of his woman that he couldn't leave, as I've repeatedly observed with females. Because of social conditioning and size, women are more easily controlled and intimidated - which doesn't mean they don't fight back, but this doesn't justify the stronger person hitting the weaker person. And, in my experience, many male abusers will provoke their victims into physical violence because that gives them the justification to hit back even harder.

So, women have a right to make these pleas on behalf of other women. Good for Mira Sorvino. Why should she be critcized for standing behind this cause? Women are far more likely to die through DV than men. So, if men want to raise money for other men - DO IT! Go recruit your own male celebrities and spokesmen. Again, it's always the women who are faulted for not organizing, lobbying, fundraising on behalf of men. If you truly believe in this cause - as opposed to just trying to use subterfuge to discredit female DV victims - then lead the fight yourselves.

not to mention that if the victim is in a cyclically abusive relationship, as most of them are, the victim WILL often instigate the beating just to get it over with, because the tension of waiting for it is often worse, and the honeymoon period is what comes after. does that make him an equal victim? don't think so. just shows that people don't have any kind of understanding of what these relationships are actually like. and before you ask, yes, i do have actual experience of them.

LS... It's not so much the fundraisers, or getting some celebrety on the bandwagon, and what we don't need women organizing for us. What we need is the acceptance that DV happens to either gender. Women don't kill as often but the studies, as controlled above indicate they abuse as much. I'm thinkin' based on how many times men never report such things, they are abused more in truth.

But this is why I think you have to do an overall statement rather than start the argument over who damages who and how much. Abuse is abuse. If you have that 105# woman constantly ringing your gong with plates, and slapping, and the occasional pan, what d'ya call that? If boyo says anything, he will get exactly the response you just gave. "Well you just have to walk away..." Not, "OK, well we should lock her up..."

I'm sorry you lost a friend like that.

But were they not abusing each other? It wasn't a one sided deal. In the DV world they only see the one side, unless the guy is dead, and if he is they will blame him for it.

The genders are each going to need different resources when they are being abused, because of the different forms it is likely to take, but abuse is still abuse. you cannot look at as if one side is always the victim.

But that IS how it is looked at now.

Lovelysoul writes: Women are far more likely to die through DV than men.

Not true.

From the article: But aren't husbands more likely to kill their wives than vice-versa? Again, we enter the arena of "who's the biggest victim?" It bothers me to have to document that the sexes kill their spouses about equally, but there are life-and-death consequences that result from feminists persuading the public that it is almost exclusively husbands who kill wives.

Also, you can complain all you care to about how the men are bigger and stronger and shouldn't hit their wives back, but the responsibility is on those who initiate the violence.

Should I go throw a punch at the UF champion of the world and not expect retaliation because I'm not as big or strong as he is? Wouldn't it be stupid of me to expect him to just walk away from me if I assault him? If you hit someone, you should have reasonable expectation of being hit back. And if you're weaker and smaller and less able to defend yourself, you're simply an idiot for doing that. But it's up to men to diffuse the idiocy, and women get to perpetrate it.

I find it utterly amazing that you would shift blame to a man for retaliating against violence than a woman who threw the first shot. You don't fault the man for not walking away. You fault the woman for being dumb. Hitting someone who is fully capable of pulverizing you in response is an act of stupidity worthy of a Darwin Award.

Being a woman is not a license to hit someone with impunity.

This just demonstrates how most people misunderstand the dynamics involved in abuse. "Whatever" is exactly right - the victim WILL ultimately strike first in order to get it over with. Any long-term DV victim can sense when their abuser is about to explode, and the tension of waiting for it can be worse than the actual abuse.

But make no mistake, there is always an abuser and a victim. Abusers are not attracted to other abusers. An abuser is a type of person who is attracted to certain weaknesses and vulnerabilities in another. They choose their partners for the qualities that make them easier to manipulate and provoke into this cycle of violence.

However, over time, victims do change. They either become meeker and more compliant or stronger and more deviant. The latter is when these relationships become especially toxic because the victim has lost all concern for staying alive.

I was involved with an abuser. He would get in my face and rage at me. If I tried to escape, he'd block me. If I shut a door, he'd punch a hole through it or kick it in. There were times I pushed him back, or slapped him, which would only escalate the abuse into something physical, but it would also GET IT OVER WITH QUICKER. Striking him was what he was after...it was what he wanted me to do...so he would then be justified in becoming physical. I'd "asked for it" then.

But I know which of us was the abuser and which of us wasn't. I'm in a relationship now with a man who is not an abuser, and I never, ever, have the sightest desire to strike him.

So, you cannot tell anything by who "strikes first" or who "initates" the violence. Those studies do not tell the full story. These couples are caught up in a cycle of violence which is very complex. Yet, one person is usually the one who really craves the violence itself, and the other is the one who craves the honeymoon period afterwards, where their partner is remorseful, loving, and promises never to be angry again. They both get something out of the dynamic, but one partner is usually inherently more physically violent than the other.

I meant "defiant" not "deviant".

Here are the stats from the ABA. Women ARE more likely to be killed by DV than men.

http://www.abanet.org/domviol/statistics.html

Perhaps I lack sensitivity, empathy, or even basic human decency; but when I read about a woman with substance abuse problems who tolerates a long-term relationship characterized perpetually by the cycle of domestic violence and "honeymoon periods"; when I read about her reuniting with lover boy after he has completed an extended sentence of incarceration for beating the crap out of her; I find it hard to muster up any sympathy at all when "Romeo" shoots her in the back of the head.

Is it a tragedy? Sure. But it just seems like there are more worthy causes to worry about when somebody insists on maintaining a life more dangerous than playing in traffic.

The real pity, in my mind, is that this wasn't a murder-suicide. Please tell me this couple didn't breed.

Oooh, dueling stats! Can I play?

Sure I can!

All of this points out that you should know who the hell it is you're having sex with.

Sorry, Lovelysoul, you're wrong. Women are not more likely killed than men, and the site you posted doesn't even claim to have accurate data.

From your link: This survey is provided as a service for legal practitioners and advocates who may find it useful to include current statistical data in their arguments to the court. It is not intended to be a comprehensive listing of research in the area of domestic violence. All citations conform to the format for court documents described in The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation (18th Ed.). The ABA Commission on Domestic violence does not engage in research, and cannot vouch for the quality or accuracy of any of the data excerpted here. Users are advised to independently confirm data with source documents cited.

They basically say their research is shoddy, whereas my source and Amy's have both made it their business to compile accurate data. If you want to arrive at preconceived conclusions, you're going to automatically discount whatever data doesn't support your contentions, as you and whatever are finding out.

You both paint vivid pictures of domestic abuse as if one anecdote to could prove to be representative. Even if you found a thousand such instances of women who are abused by men in their lives, it would still prove nothing, since violence against men is underreported. Besides, what man would tell you that his wife is hitting him? Be real. How would you hear about such a thing? Not only is it underreported, not would a man not likely discuss this experience with a woman, but you're completely close-minded to the possibility. What are the chances that a man is going to spill his guts to you?

Moreover, neither one of you brought any data to the table to support your contention that women only initiate the violence to "get it over with" and bring on the honeymoon period. Even if you did, stupid motivations are not a defense.

Again, being a woman is not a license to hit people. And being a man is not a restriction against hitting back.

I understand why you have that view, Mario, but it is quite cold. No one deserves to die like that. And, the sad thing is that this is almost always learned behavior. They were probably both abused children, with limited opportunities and low self-worth, which led them to a lifestyle that was slightly above living on the street.

I can't help but have empathy for both of them, which is why I volunteer and try to do all I can to help children in abusive situations, hoping maybe to prevent this behavior from being passed on to yet another generation...because we can't just say, "Oh, let the wounded, dysfunctional people kill each other. What does that have to do with me? Why should I worry about that?"

This kind of human suffering effects us all in subtle ways and sometimes comes pouring directly into our lives unexpectedly. He could've missed when he pointed that gun - could've hit your wife or daughter or one of the cops standing outside, which might've been your son, brother, or best friend.

But, for what it's worth, no, they didn't have children, thank goodness.

"Besides, what man would tell you that his wife is hitting him? Be real. How would you hear about such a thing? Not only is it underreported, not would a man not likely discuss this experience with a woman, but you're completely close-minded to the possibility. What are the chances that a man is going to spill his guts to you?"

Pretty good, actually, since I'm their landlord. People tell me all kinds of sob stories to get out of paying rent. Plus, I hear just about EVERYTHING that goes on in my park. Trailers are paper thin. And I have the cops on speed dial. So, when they're called, I'm there, even if it's 3 am. Drunks aren't very good liars either. I hear the whole he-said/she said saga. If any male tenant of mine had even a slightly credible story of abuse, I would've heard it.

"Again, being a woman is not a license to hit people. And being a man is not a restriction against hitting back."

Do you want to hit back? I'm sorry, but there's something about your comments that sets off warning bells. You seem awfully eager to have an excuse to "pulverize" a woman who's probably half your size. You're actually making my case with your comments.

Can you play duelling statistics? You may think so, but you're not. Do you not see what you both are doing? You're reporting statistical date from legal sources. As in, what gets reported.

My sources have already pointed out that violence against men is underreported, so how, pray tell, would legal sources be of any use whatsoever in supporting your contentions? Sheesh. Think, people. Think.

Lovelysoul writes: Do you want to hit back? I'm sorry, but there's something about your comments that sets off warning bells. You seem awfully eager to have an excuse to "pulverize" a woman who's probably half your size. You're actually making my case with your comments.

Actually, what you're telling me is that you recognize the inadequacy of your arguments. You're resorting to ad hominem and pulling quotes out of context. I don't do relationships with women (most regular posters here know I'm gay), for one thing, and I have never hit a woman, nor do I have any desire to. And I have never hit anyone I was in a relationship with either, nor would I.

Personal attacks do not make your case. Even if I were the most abusive, woman-beating, drunken slob on the face of the earth, that would not make your case. You realize that, too, I think. It's pretty commonplace on the internet, and Amy's blog is no exception, to resort to ad hominem non-arguments when your argument has been exposed for what it is.

And no, I don't believe that being the landlord would give you some kind of insight as to what the statistics are. You only have a trailer park as your sampling pool and you assume your tenants would tell you if they were experiencing such things. Men are too embarrassed to go to the police with this. How do you manage to convince yourself that men would pour out their heart and soul to you?

You didn't bother to read my source, or Amy's. It explains all the statistics, and explains why a legal source is inadequate. (It can only deal with what gets reported, and domestic violence against males is underreported.)

And quite frankly, your reply has convinced me you know perfectly well that what I'm telling you is true, but it doesn't jibe with what you want to believe: that women account for virtually all the victims in domestic violence cases, men account for virtually 100% of the perpetrators. That when women do initiate, it's because they're so victimized they just want to get the beating over with, or they're acting in self-defense.

I'm sorry you're so unwilling to face the truth.
Give it time. Eventually, you may come around.

My friend was killed by her boyfriend 2 years ago. Did she hit back, did she initiate the violence at times? Absolutely.

Then she was an abuser also.

Maybe she started the fight. Maybe she hit him first - "intiating" the violence. Who knows? But one thing is clear. He was bigger, stronger, and therefore, much more dangerous. Men his size are carrying a loaded weapon, even when they're unarmed, and he should have walked away, not beat or killed her.

So if you saw me go to the door of a bar or club; slap a 320 lb. bouncer in the face; and I got crap beaten out of me you would say the same thing? That the bouncer should just walk away because he's bigger, stronger, and more dangerous? Or would you comment that I got what I deserved?

Common sense dictates that you don't assault people who are bigger and stronger then you. If you do and end up dead then that's just natural selection adding a little chlorine to the gene pool. Nothing wrong with that.

But she was 5'3 and 105 pds and he was 6'4 and over 200 pds. Plus he had a gun and blew her brains out.

Thanks for refuting your own point. It saved me the trouble. In real live DV incident's aren't the same as a boxing match played out in someones living room. Female perpetrators use weapons, or; the element of surprise as an equalizer. It doesn't matter how large a man is if a female perpetrator has a gun. Or waits until he falls asleep to pour boiling grease over his genitals; a situation that happened here recently. But of course the newscaster didn't use the word domestic violence once. Because the victim was a man. I wonder how many more incidents of domestic violence aren't counted, and are reported as murders or assaults instead because the victim is a man? I'm willing to bet that a lot are.

Mike Hunter writes: Thanks for refuting your own point. It saved me the trouble. In real live DV incident's aren't the same as a boxing match played out in someones living room. Female perpetrators use weapons, or; the element of surprise as an equalizer. It doesn't matter how large a man is if a female perpetrator has a gun. Or waits until he falls asleep to pour boiling grease over his genitals; a situation that happened here recently. But of course the newscaster didn't use the word domestic violence once. Because the victim was a man. I wonder how many more incidents of domestic violence aren't counted, and are reported as murders or assaults instead because the victim is a man? I'm willing to bet that a lot are.

Nicely done, Mike, but you're dealing with the I-don't-want-to-be-convinced mindset.

Be prepared to have all kinds of innuendo and personal attacks thrown at you. And also be prepared for inadequate sources to back up their claims, such as law enforcement, which can only work with what's reported.

Here's a good source that I posted earlier, which of course, was ignored, since it disproves the idea that women are the only victims and men the only perpetrators, and reports the scandalous fact that women and men are about even when it comes to killing their partners in domestic violence incidents.

But you know, lovelysoul is the landlord of a trailer park, so of course, she knows!

"You seem awfully eager to have an excuse to "pulverize" a woman who's probably half your size. You're actually making my case with your comments."

I see this a lot, unfortunately. Unfortunate, in that it assumes guilt.

Your view is the one not supported. Those are MULTIPLE studies given by the ABA, so the preponderance of evidence would clearly indicate that women are much more likely to be the victims of DV, especially deadly DV, than men. The fact that this jives with my own personal observations only confirms what the multiple studies already prove.

All you present is that male DV is "underreported". Perhaps it's "underreported" because it doesn't actually happen as much? The men who get grease poured on them are most likely long-term abusers. Women don't typically pour grease on someone who's been kind to them. If the man reports it then, and it doesn't get much airtime, it's likely because the police have already seen this guy before abusing his partner.

Despite your attempts to minimize it, owning a trailer park is probably ground zero for domestic violence. I deal with the cops and the complainants, and, more importantly, THE NEIGHBORS, who hear basically everything. As I said, trailer walls are paper thin. Almost nothing happens here that others don't know about, whether reported or not. If some poor guy was getting the crap regularly beaten out of him by a woman, they'd hear it, and I'd hear about it.

My other male tenants would certainly sympathize with the male victim and would tell me. Yet, that has NEVER happened in 20+ years of owning this park in FL, where I get tenants from all over the country, as well as other countries. At the request of my tenants, I've helped several women escape male abusers, but never a man. We've seen a few men be mentally abused, and we've always urged them to leave as well - offering help with housing and so forth - but the mythical physically abused (and totally innocent) male has yet to show up in my park. Amazing how that parallels the multiple studies on DV!

"So if you saw me go to the door of a bar or club; slap a 320 lb. bouncer in the face; and I got crap beaten out of me you would say the same thing? That the bouncer should just walk away because he's bigger, stronger, and more dangerous? Or would you comment that I got what I deserved?

Common sense dictates that you don't assault people who are bigger and stronger then you. If you do and end up dead then that's just natural selection adding a little chlorine to the gene pool. Nothing wrong with that."

This analogy doesn't apply because you don't have a long-term relationship with the bouncer, but by this analogy, it seems clear that you believe that someone bigger and stronger rules. The person being intimidated by your size has no right to feel angry or strike back if you verbally abuse them, lest you will "pulverize" them. That is an abuser mentality, plain and simple. You have it, gay or not.

Here's a good source that I posted earlier...

Patrick,
I've taken the trouble to read your link (the whole damn thing).

The author does himself NO favors at all at several points.

For example, he quotes the following very reasonable statement from someone else: "Unsubstantiated and false accusations of spouse abuse or child abuse ruin a man's reputation even if he is ultimately found to be innocent."

Just to be clear, I AGREE with the statement above, okay?

Then your author writes:
"Why are men so damaged by "reputation ruining"? Men's ability to earn leads to their ability to gain love. Destroying earning potential means destroying love potential. Observe how frequently a man will die from a heart attack or cancer — or just commit suicide — shortly after his reputation is ruined. Yet these deaths are recorded as heart attacks, not husband abuse. And not murder."

This approach is NOT going to help promote understanding of under reported DV against men.

Lovelysoul, the word is "jibe," not "jive."

Your argument depends upon claiming expertise which you don't have, and attacking your opponents personally with innuendo. (By the way, that's a very flattering perception you have of trailer park residents and your own tenants, if you assume that they have the monopoly on domestic abuse.) Again, even if I were the most abusive woman-beater on the planet, you cannot support your arguments with anything about me personally. Pointing your finger at me and saying, "You're an abuser!" is not winning the ground. On the contrary, it's conceding it. You're effectively admitting that you have nothing but smear.

I did not say I wished to pulverize anyone, my reference to pulverizing was to illustrate that it is foolish to attack someone or something that has the obvious physical advantage, and the word "pulverize" was used merely to illustrate the distance between two potential combatants, to indicate that a physical confrontation would be no contest, not to indicate any desire on my part.

Nonetheless, it is not sufficient to disprove the arguments of your opponents (which you have failed to do, by the way). They must be demonized, and with what amounts to among the very lowest of accusations. You have not too subtly tried to claim that I am an abuser, or that I have an "abuser mentality." Or is the fact that you've failed to make your case that makes it imperative to demonize your opponents?

Ironically, the only person that's been abusive in this exchange is you. I have not called you anything nor insinuated anything about you personally. But because I say, accurately, that men and women are about even when it comes to killing their partners in domestic violence situations, you have repeatedly smeared me. What will you do for an encore? Will you perhaps claim I'm a child molester or a rapist next? It's about the only thing lower than what you've already insinuated, more than once.

You also depend upon claiming the ABA's data is accurate, even when they themselves claim it is not. You have nothing, in other words, and you know it.

And I will not attack you personally, except to say that I think your choice of screen name can only be deliberate irony. I will dignify your calumny any further, but I will continue to post the truth to your misinformation and propaganda. And I'm grateful that Amy uses her public platform to expose these lies for what they are, and expends her energy in disseminating the truth about this issue.

Jody, so you don't think the author's approach is going to help promote understanding? So, what? Too bad his data is accurate and relies upon multiple sources. Is there some point to this criticism? The author's premise is to disprove the propaganda that women are the typical victims of domestic violence and that men are the typical perpetrators, and he has done so, ably and well.

You don't like his statement and you're convinced that it doesn't promote understanding or is helpful? Fine. Email him and tell him so. But his information is rock solid.

And I appreciate the fact that you at least read the website. LS clearly has not.

I love how lovelysoul simply ignores the reference list covering HUNDREDS of studies that show that women are just as violent as men.

"Those are MULTIPLE studies given by the ABA, so the preponderance of evidence would clearly indicate that women are much more likely to be the victims of DV..."

First of all it was already shown how those ABA studies are biased. Second of all even if women are more likely to be victims of domestic violence, so what? Domestic violence is wrong no matter what the gender of victim happens to be.

"The men who get grease poured on them are most likely long-term abusers. Women don't typically pour grease on someone who's been kind to them."

Yea blame the victim!!! You could have just as easily have said women who get shot in the head are the most likely to be long-term abusers. To imply that it's the fault of the person on the receiving end of DV because the victim somehow 'made' the abuser do it, is obviously a ridiculous position. Just for the record the woman who perpetrated this horrible act stated that she did so because she thought that her boyfriend was cheating on her.

"If the man reports it then, and it doesn't get much airtime, it's likely because the police have already seen this guy before abusing his partner."

Or because of societies double standards. When a woman slaps a man it's funny; but, when a man slaps a woman it's Domestic Violence.

"This analogy doesn't apply because you don't have a long-term relationship with the bouncer..."

So it's ok for men to beat women that they aren't in a long term relationship with?

"But by this analogy, it seems clear that you believe that someone bigger and stronger rules."

No I believe that people shouldn't expect to be able to go around assaulting who ever they want without any consequences. Especially those who are bigger then them. That's just common sense.

"The person being intimidated by your size has no right to feel angry or strike back if you verbally abuse them..."

I said nothing about verbal abuse. But you are correct that have no right to assault someone because you don't like what they said; or, because you feel intimidated by their physical attributes. That's not only common sense it's the law.

"That is an abuser mentality, plain and simple. You have it, gay or not."

If you actually believe that you have the right to hit someone because you don't like what you said then you are the one with the "abuser mentality". By the way I'm not gay. You're confusing me with another poster.

lovelysol is right in stating that women are more likely to be killed in DV situations.

But just because she is right does not mean she is correct.

For exapmle a woman might hire someone to killer her husband, or convice her new boyfreind or husband to do it for free.

Thats obviously a case of domestic violence, but when recorded in crime statisitcs its not written down as a case of DV,

But this isnt to say LS should get a pass for quoting faulty data - she knows of the bias and activley chooses to ignore it.

For example a woman attacks her boyfreind and her dies in the melee - according to LS the guy is at fault bcause he should ave walked away

But if a man were to attack his girlfreind and he were to die in the fight LS would again say the man is at fault

And by the way LS you've made it quite clear you are in favor of "primary agressor" laws which mandate the arrest of men in DV situations(even when the primary agresser was a woman)

And with such a well known attitude it doesnt supprise me that the men you know never mention getting abused by their partners, they probably dont want to listen to your scorn on top of the shame they already feel

Lujlp, I live in a pretty small community, and the cops don't often arrest anyone, or they'll make them separate until they both cool down. But I do believe cops should have the discretion to determine who is most dangerous. If not, why are they even out here? They're trying to protect all of us. Cops are not on some political/gender crusade, nor should they be.

These are male and female cops, and, like me, they get tired of dealing with the same couples caught up in cyclical DV events. But it's always pretty evident who does what to whom, and who is the primary aggressor, which is usually the male. I don't need a "bias". IT JUST DOESN'T HAPPEN. IT ISN'T COMMON. Males are not cowaring in fear of their female partners.

DV incidents almost always start with verbal abuse. No smaller person just comes home and hits someone twice their size out of the blue, like the analogies Patrick uses. There is almost always an escalating verbal argument first, and physical abusers are usually verbal bullies, who know how to provoke the worst in their victims.

We've disussed this before and I can certainly see that when a female does decide to retaliate, she'll usually use a weapon - stabbing, shooting or maybe even grease. And it's more likely to be deadly then. And it may be on the news, like Steve McNair's murder.

But the guy is not usually AFRAID of her! He often doesn't even suspect it. Many times that's because he's been abusive to her for years and gotten away with it, so why would today be any different? Or she could just be crazy. However, the situation is decidely different from the long-term intimidation and fear that females typically endure with male abusers.

My main point is that you all are trying to equalize a situation that isn't equal. You can poke fun at my park, but people in this income bracket tend to have more DV incidents than average, so at least I have observed some. You're just living in fantasy - imagining all these fearful, helpless males suffering from DV at the hands of dominating women.

You don't back this fantasy up with anything except the assertion that women are "just as violent". Whatever and I addressed this, using our personal experiences, which "jibe" with what any good DV counselor would tell you. We did not dodge your charges or ignore them. We simply explained why your data should not be considered accurate. It does not tell you who the primary aggressor is.

Yet, you like that because it seems to make things even. Women are just as abusive as males. End of story, tied up in a nice, neat package of gender parity.

Well, the problem is that this isn't true. Anyone with half a brain and even minimal experience with DV - from trailer park owners to cops to counselors - knows that males are more often the abusers. Wishing it to be different does not make it so - nor does it address the very real need we have to fix the underlying social and family problems that cause this abuse.

A lot of men out there are hurting. Not at the hands of women, but as a result of low self-esteem, drug abuse, family histories (particularly having been abused themselves, as my abuser was), and many other factors. If we fail to acknowledge this, for the sake of gender parity, we're doing nothing to actually prevent DV.

No, I don't believe Lovelysoul is correct. She's ignored the statistical data supplied by Amy's link, supported by mine, and is relying instead upon DOJ statistics, which are necessarily faulty, since they can only deal with what is reported. But, luj, you do point out that there are other means of harming someone without the direct approach.

And LS is so offended by the suggestion (read: fact) that men and women are equally likely to kill each other in domestic abuse situations, rather than the popular mythology that women are the victims only or at least overwhelmingly, and men the only perpetrators, she has resorted to ad hominem, plucking words out of context, and daring to assign an abuser mentality (lacking evidence) to those who disagree with her.

Is it really so difficult to address the issues without accusing your opponents of some pretty sick and depraved things?

I'm guessing LS knows she's lost this round (again, as she's indicated that she's weighed in on this issue in the past), and invective is all she has left.

Stick a fork in her. She's done.

Luj, there is also some information on the link I supplied that suggest men aren't even conditioned to think of certain behaviors as abuse. It's not hard to see why. A slap delivered by a woman to a man has been glorified as dramatic in movies, for instance, while the reverse would be considered appalling. We've seen movies, even cartoons, where the woman belabors the man with a skillet, rolling pin or whatever's handy. Past time we stopped glorifying that imagery or viewing it as comical.

While I personally abhor violence, I don't begrudge the right of anyone to defend themselves. If someone, regardless of gender, is going to resort to hitting someone, the recipient, regardless of gender, has every right to hit back.

LS:"This analogy doesn't apply because you don't have a long-term relationship with the bouncer..."

Mike Hunter: "So it's ok for men to beat women that they aren't in a long term relationship with?"

Domestic violence is not a brawl between strangers with no intimate relationship. Lovelysoul is correct that your analogy is irrelevant.

"DV incidents almost always start with verbal abuse. No smaller person just comes home and hits someone twice their size out of the blue, like the analogies Patrick uses. There is almost always an escalating verbal argument first..."

So you actually do believe that it's ok to assault someone because you don't like what they said. You really are sick!

"Domestic violence is not a brawl between strangers with no intimate relationship. Lovelysoul is correct that your analogy is irrelevant."

Whether two people are strangers or have an intimate relationship is irrelevant. It's not ok to assault someone because you don't like what they said. It's also illegal. Moreover people should have enough common sense to not attack someone who is twice their size. If they do then they should expect a beating.

Everyone agrees on this point; but, when the assailant happens to have a vagina, and the person who is struck doesn't, suddenly in many peoples minds everything changes. Just because you're a woman doesn't entitle you to special privileges. You have to play by the same rules as everyone else.

"While I personally abhor violence, I don't begrudge the right of anyone to defend themselves. If someone, regardless of gender, is going to resort to hitting someone, the recipient, regardless of gender, has every right to hit back."

We are arguing very different scenarios. No question if someone just comes up and clocks you, for no reason, then you have a right to defend yourself.

What I am talking about is the bully abuser, who gets in his victim's face, and yells, "You fucking cunt!...Bitch!...whore!...." and on and on...WANTING to provoke that little defensive slap, so he can pummel her. That happens, and it's wrong. Especially when the male is twice as big, a little slap doesn't equalize the situation. He is still packing a much bigger weapon - his fist. It's not a fair fight, and he knows it. He's going to do a lot more damage, then whine, "She started it!"

That's what I hear you justifying. That it's fair for him to beat her because she hit first. I shouldn't have suggested you were abusive, as of course, I don't know, but that IS the abuser's justification.

"Moreover people should have enough common sense to not attack someone who is twice their size. If they do then they should expect a beating."

"Attacking" means different things to different people. To the abuser, a tiny slap or defensive push away can be an "attack" because most of them cannot handle insubordination of any kind.

I think most rational people know the difference, but we're not talking about rational people. And the whole "expect a beating" verbiage really bothers me. This is used by abusers as justification all the time, and I really think it's not a free for all excuse. The physical response should be truly defensive and commensurate with the force used. Breaking an arm and two ribs isn't an appropriate retaliation for a smack on the cheek. Don't you agree?

Lovelysoul in a day and age when the foolowing theings are considered abusive UNDER THE LAW if done to women by men

Looking at them angirly
Refusing sex on a womans demand
Asking a woman for sex when she doesnt feel like it
Refusale to by gifts
Controling accsess to money - no matter the underlying circumstances
Walking away from an argument -got to had it to the DV people on that one, refusing to fight is now considered to be abusive

With all of these non physical, non violent, totally inane things qualifiying as abuse and granting women restraining orders how can a woman striking an man in andger NOT be considered abuse to you?

Incedentally primary agressor laws were passed to pervent the offiecer you say were tired of responding to DV incedents from arresting both parties for assualt - all of those women getting arrested for DV didnt look good to the funding whores and those laws REFUSE OFFICER DISCRETION, the laws MANDATE the arrest of the male no matter the circumstances

He could have a knife stuck in his back and not a scratch on her and the primary agresor laws force the cops to arrest the man

How the fuck is the equality?

I'd really like to see all those laws listed, one by one, lujlp. Is that true or just propaganda?

Almost every sort of injustice has occurred at least once, somewhere, but I highly doubt most cops would arrest a man with a knife in his back, unless she was also black and blue. I've seen them arrest both parties. I have a lot of respect for these officers. They do, in most cases, try to assess what is going on between the parties and make the right call. Of course, mistakes are made, but they're not intentional.

"With all of these non physical, non violent, totally inane things qualifiying as abuse and granting women restraining orders how can a woman striking an man in andger NOT be considered abuse to you?"

Again, it gets down to context. Yes, if unprovoked, it's abuse. But the problem is that abusers TRY to provoke a slap, so they can respond with 10 times the force!

That's even what Mike and Patrick are saying. There's no qualification in their comments that the physical response be in keeping with the level of force used. If a woman slaps a guy on the cheek - like Scarlett O'Hara slapped Rhett Butler - she should then "expect a beating".

It's like if someone dents your car, are you going to take a sledgehammer to theirs? How is that an appropriate response?

I don't think responding violently is ever healthy, especially in an intimate relationship, but if you're going to do it, then the force used should be the same. But that's not what tends to happen in abusive situations. A 105 pd woman strikes a 200 pd man, and her smack is barely forceful enough to register, but his response is to beat her to a pulp and put her in the hospital. The level of abuse in that situation is NOT equal.

LS, I can provide plenty of counter-examples. But it doesn't matter because you are going to dismiss each and every one of them out of hand, with some explanation for how they don't constitute what in your mind is the "typical" situation.

You've said before, when challenged on it, that you love men. But you clearly do not respect men. You have disrespected every guy here who has tried to debate you on this issue. You have called all of us abusers for disagreeing with you. You have this fever fantasy that we are all going home and beating up our wives. That seems to be the way you see every single man in the world. In your explanations of domestic violence, there is no way a woman could ever be at fault. If he instigates it, he's at fault. If she instigates it, he's at fault.

In your world, every man is a 275-lb linebacker. Every woman is a 4' 11" weakling, and none of them ever has a weapon. Apparently there are no 300-lb. women living in your trailer park, which makes it an exceptional outlier. Nor are there any man who are short, sick, disabled, elderly, or in anything other than gym-twice-a-day perfect health and strength. And the same goes for every man who comments here, apparently. And we all fit into one of two categories -- either we have abused our spouses, or we're going to.

LS, you've jumped the shark. I'm turning your show off.

"What I am talking about is the bully abuser, who gets in his victim's face, and yells, "You fucking cunt!...Bitch!...whore!...." and on and on...WANTING to provoke that little defensive slap, so he can pummel her."

There's no such thing as a "defensive slap". If you don't like what someone says then you can choose to walk away and not associate with that person.

Being offended by someones words is not a justification for assault; the fact that someone is bigger or stronger then you is not a justification for assault; the fact that you have a vagina and the person on the receiving end of your physical attack doesn't is not a justification for assault. Assault is illegal. Got it?

"If a woman slaps a guy on the cheek - like Scarlett O'Hara slapped Rhett Butler - she should then 'expect a beating'."

A woman shouldn't strike a guy in the first place; except of course in cases of self defense. Striking someone is assault, and there is no justification for it. It's illegal, and if you do it to your husband or boyfriend it's domestic violence.

If I slap a bouncer because he won't let me in a bar, then common sense tells me that I'm probably going to get a beating. If you don't want people to hit you back, then there is a simple solution. Don't go around attacking people. And no, -once again- taking offense to what they say is not a justification for assault. You can always walk away.

I find it hilarious that you claim to be against domestic violence, but; in reality promote DV as long as it's done by a woman to a man. And by hilarious I mean sickening.

I never said anything like what you're claiming, Dave. Only that the type of verbiage they are using sounds pretty abusive. It is the same justification that abusers use to beat women. That is just a fact.

I love men, and I grew up in a time when men were never supposed to strike women, no matter what. I believe that most gentleman do adhere to that. My father and boyfriend certainly would. I believe you would.

But there seems to be this change occuring, among some men, whereby being a gentleman is no longer expected and a slap justifies an entire beating. They can verbally abuse all they want and the woman is supposed to take it without responding, and if she does respond, she should expect to be "pulverized". That is wrong.

"There's no such thing as a "defensive slap". If you don't like what someone says then you can choose to walk away and not associate with that person."

A woman cannot just walk away a lot of the time, Mike. I couldn't. He would block me, and he was a lot bigger than me. I couldn't get out of his way or into another room without pushing him back, which of course, would then justify him becoming physical with me with much greater force.

You all don't understand what occurs in DV situations...or maybe you do, but I won't go there. I've been trying to explain it from the female victim's point of view - and explain why some stats come out the way they do - but clearly, you don't want to hear it. And, apparently, "whatever" and others who have experienced DV have left me here to defend this side all alone, so it's not a fair debate at this point.

2 things LS

1 - men have nothing on women when it comes to verbal abuse

2- in a world where many women refuse to act like ladies why would men teat them as such?

"1 - men have nothing on women when it comes to verbal abuse."

True, and couples can fight verbally all day without causing physical damage. Have at it.
But a true abuser will not be able to do that. A true abuser WANTS to engage physically to the point of causing damage. It isn't defensive - that's just a cover. For the abuser, escalating into physical violence is a release, almost like an orgasm, and they aren't satistfied until things reach that level.

"in a world where many women refuse to act like ladies why would men treat them as such?"

Because men should have enough self-respect and self-control to be gentlemen even if others around them behave badly. That's what being a gentleman has ALWAYS been about. It's not what surrounds you. It's what's inside you. Plus, if you don't model that behavior, how are we supposed to teach our children?

And she still continues to ignore the reference list containing HUNDREDS of studies that show that girls and women are just as violent or more than men. We can't be letting little things like facts get in the way of a good emotional argument, now can we?

Numerous problems seem to exist with the bulk of those studies. Many were survey studies. The surveys were voluntary, and therefore, the most abusive individuals are unlikely to agree to complete them in case they give themselves away as serious abusers. And, understandably, current victims would be too frightened to agree to take the surveys in case their abusers found out. Apparently, the researchers often didn't even bother to make sure that the respondents were interviewed alone!

This methodology also totally excludes violence which occurs after the end of a relationship, which accounts for 76% of all spousal assaults, and which is overwhelmingly committed by men, so thus discounts most of the most serious violence against women.

Richard Gelles, one of the researchers in these oft-quoted studies, himself disputes the finding that women are just as violent as men:

"To even off the debate playing field, it seems one piece of statistical evidence (that women and men hit one another in roughly equal numbers) is hauled out from my 1985 research – and distorted –to 'prove' the position on violence against men. However, the critical rate of injury and homicide statistics provided in that same research are often eliminated altogether, or reduced to a parenthetical statement saying that “men typically do more damage.” The statement that men and women hit one another in roughly equal numbers is true, however, it cannot be made in a vacuum without the qualifiers that a) women are seriously injured at seven times the rate of men and b) that women are killed by partners at more than two times the rate of men.”

Once again, biased, inaccurate studies, or heavily distorted studies, are used to try to create a picture of gender parity which doesn't exist. But all the various studies done by reputable sources, such as Dept of Justice, are deemed unreliable.

Lovelysoul,
That's a remarkably clear and helpful comment.

Justin Bowen wrote (way above): The only differences between men and women vis-a-vis "domestic violence" appear to be how damage they cause (a completely irrelevant issue, in my opinion)...

I simply don't understand how Justin can view this as an irrelevant issue.

Oh, LS. You sometimes come off as such a brick (and as a woman who has a reflexively negative, fearful, and thoroughly PC view of men). This is sad, because I do think that you have brains, and see yourself as a kind, unbiased person.

Gelles' quote only proves you wrong, and your dissenters correct: women INSTIGATE violence just as often as men -- at EVERY LEVEL OF SEVERITY -- but end up hurt badly much more often as a result. So, it looks like women are both violent and stupid and/or masochistic at the same time. Of course, a man who tries to beat a woman who is capable of kicking his ass (with or without a weapon) is just as stupid and/or masochistic.

Some men are cruel, violent assholes who should be horse-whipped in the public square for what they've done to their women.

But guess what? Some women are vicious, violent bitches who should be horse-whipped in the public square for what they've done to their men.

You just don't want to admit that women have no basis to claim the moral "high ground" on the issue of DV -- even if they end up taking the worst of it in terms of end result.

How unsettling for you that your world view seems to depend in large part on accepting the lies that feminism has insinuated into your mind, and which are now being steadily exposed and eroded.

Jay R, if you'd read the entire thread, you'd realize that we had already discussed and conceded that women initiate violence - in fact, those were some of my earliest statements. But, as Gelles says, none of this data can be viewed in a vacuuum without examining the broader context.

Victims involved in cyclically violent relationships WILL tend to initiate violence in order to get it over with. This is presumably true with males or females.

Nothing is worse than waiting for a storm to hit you. I live in hurricane-prone FL, and many occassions, we just wish the storm would GET here. The waiting and preparing - not to mention the fear - can be worse than the hurricane itself.

The same is true with DV. A victim can sense when the abuser is about to rage and explode on them, but the waiting for it can be agony. Unless you've experienced this, you can't understand it. All a victim of DV wants is to get to the other side of the storm.

Therefore, it should not be surprising that some will initiate the violence to get there faster, but this doesn't prove your beloved male rights activist's assertions that women are inherently more violent than men, or that they are more often the perpetrators.

In fact, it doesn't appear that there are any credible studies showing that. I have linked to almost all on that list and tried to look up some of the researchers, many of whom seem not to even exist.

Yet, by golly, if some bitter mysogynist with a website posts a bunch of "studies", they must be true, right? You always come off as someone who believes every shred of male-rights propoganda without question.

Maybe the men who respond with such passion and negative vehemence in these threads should invest time raising funds for their own shelters and anon support groups. They could start a positive movement.

I have linked to almost all on that list and tried to look up some of the researchers, many of whom seem not to even exist.

Just because you are too lazy, ignorant, or inept to find the universities to which most of the researchers on that list are affiliated with does not mean that they don't exist. It took me less than 5 minutes to figure out which universities researchers a dozen of those researchers were affiliated with. On top of boolean searching being a wonderful tool that the software gurus have given us, there is also the ability to pull up journal issues via academic databases that are accessible through public libraries, university libraries, online libraries, and, in many cases, online editions of the journals themselves. Such an argument is just as bad as the "I don't know how the world got here, so it must have been created by some white guy with a beard sitting up in the clouds" argument. It's fallacious reasoning.

I simply don't understand how Justin can view this as an irrelevant issue.

I consider it to be an irrelevant issue because in my opinion EVERYONE who initiates violence against someone else, regardless of whether or not there are any consequences, ought to be charged with and convicted for assault and thrown in prison, just like any person who initiates violence when there are consequences (much like how we charge people for and convict people of attempted murder, attempted rape, attempted arson, attempted larceny, and so on, even when they were completely unsuccessful in their endeavors, and then send them to prison). If you pull someone's hair, slap someone, bite someone, choke someone, scratch someone, punch someone, kick someone, gouge someone, stab someone, shoot someone, bludgeon someone, or do anything else with the intent to cause any amount of physical harm - except in cases of self defense where there is no other option (which would exclude every case where women killed or assaulted their boyfriends or husbands while they were sleeping (or ran them over with a car while they were walking or running)) - you belong in prison with the rest of the violent criminals.

I believe that the criminal justice system ought to focus on the intentions of the people who are committing violent acts, not the outcomes. If a person is shown to have had the intention of initiating violence against another person, only then should any consequences be taken into account and not a second before (failure to use intent as the determining factor in criminal cases is exactly why we have children and young boys being labeled as sex offenders for the rest of their lives for pinching girls' butts and sending text messages with naked pictures of themselves and their girlfriends to others and why men who restrain young girls after those young girls ran into the middle of traffic so that they can yell at them are forced to register as sex offenders for the rest of their lives).

The problem of "domestic violence" (which is just violence that we treat differently than other forms of violence because the parties involved just happen to know each other) is never going to go away until we treat all violence the same. As long as we're making judgments about whose violent intentions are worse, the problem will never go away. Furthermore, the current approach being taken is actually harmful. All of the research shows that violence is learned behavior. People who see violence around, especially children, are more likely to be violent or be victims of violence. Treating women differently than men simply because women cause less damage simply tells kids that violence without consequences is okay. Kids see this and don't differentiate between the "good" violence (read: violence perpetrated against men) and the "bad" violence (the violence perpetrated against women (which is just a small fraction of the overall violence in this country)). All they see is that violence is okay.

It is to women's benefit to have all people who intentionally commit violent acts, no matter how small, thrown in jail. It is only when all violence is treated as being unacceptable will anything change. In the vast majority of cases, women are responsible for raising children. They get custody of children in the overwhelmingly vast majority of cases and do most of the child-rearing in marriages. If they want to put an end to violence, they need to work on the next generation. They need to be the examples for their children. If they want to raise children who reject violence then they need to reject the use of violence just as much as they claim to want to reject being victims of violence (I believe that there is a large number of mentally-ill women out there who want, because of their mental illness, to be treated like crap, despite their rhetoric (how else can you explain why they keep going back for more)). Until they do so, nothing is going to change.

Many were survey studies. The surveys were voluntary, and therefore, the most abusive individuals are unlikely to agree to complete them in case they give themselves away as serious abusers. And, understandably, current victims would be too frightened to agree to take the surveys in case their abusers found out. Apparently, the researchers often didn't even bother to make sure that the respondents were interviewed alone!

Fine. Let's suppose you're right about that. That would mean that every government report or statistic that is to any degree subject to the same biases should also be thrown out (which means you now have absolutely no statistics to use since criminal justice statistics are skewed upwards because women have powerful incentives (read: child custody and huge cash payments upon divorce) to lie in courts). So we're back to square one.

Once again, biased, inaccurate studies, or heavily distorted studies, are used to try to create a picture of gender parity which doesn't exist. But all the various studies done by reputable sources, such as Dept of Justice, are deemed unreliable.

See above.

Again, we're all back to square one.

To everyone following this thread: lovelysoul has just tacitly agreed to throw out all statistical evidence since all statistical evidence is subject to bias. I humbly suggest that everyone refrain from using any statistical evidence to support any claim. I humbly suggest that we all rely solely upon anecdotal evidence and emotional arguments to support our claims.

Seriously, though. The fact that you even suggested that people writing in peer-reviewed journals and published authors don't exist is, for me, proof enough that you're not even worth debating. You're completely ridiculous.

>>I believe that the criminal justice system ought to focus on the intentions of the people who are committing violent acts, not the outcomes.If a person is shown to have had the intention of initiating violence against another person..

Justin,
I don't understand.
Violence that occurs between people who are intimate often has no objective witnesses.
How can the courts begin to divine intention, without respect to the outcome, when it is now to the obvious benefit of both parties to claim there was absolutely no prior intention?

(Forgive me if I've misread you. It's late.)

Justin,
I don't understand.
Violence that occurs between people who are intimate often has no objective witnesses.
How can the courts begin to divine intention, without respect to the outcome, when it is now to the obvious benefit of both parties to claim there was absolutely no prior intention?

(Forgive me if I've misread you. It's late.)

In such situations (where there is no evidence of a party's guilt), I'm in favor of there being no convictions (just like I'm against simply taking a woman's word when it comes to rape). In my opinion, the integrity of the system (which must be based upon the protection of individual rights) must be upheld at all costs. Once the integrity of the system is compromised, you no longer have a criminal justice system, but rather a powerful tool for one group to use against another group (one look at the entire history of the US is proof of this fact). Justice is not served by simply placing a quota on the number of innocent people you catch in your dragnet. The criminal justice system is there to impose justice, not create injustice (which is what happens when innocent people are falsely convicted for crimes they didn't commit or when the criminal justice system looks the other way when individuals belonging to certain groups are having their rights violated). I'm in favor of justice. Sometimes you can't offer an individual justice, but that's better than creating more injustice.

In such cases, I also believe there are other ways to help true victims. Counseling services, services to help victims to get back on their feet after being victimized, protective services and so on can be offered to help true victims. I see nothing wrong with offering counseling services and rehabilitation services to people who claim to be victims of crimes. Strings could be attached to the receipt of those services to limit the free rider problem. When children are involved, I'd be in favor of generous supervised visitations for the accused party (the use of claims of abuse by women for the purposes of getting custody or denying visitation for the fathers is notorious in the US because there are absolutely no consequences for women who do that, even when the truth is learned) and greater enforcement of protection orders (you can't have one without the other as that will simply lead to problems).

In fact, I would go a step further. I would like to see judges be given the power to force certain victims (namely, perpetual victims) and all offenders to get counseling. If those victims and offenders have children, I would like to see judges be given the power to remove those children from those homes until the parent(s) can prove that they have sought out the help that they so obviously need and are in the process of getting it so that they're not putting their children in danger (it's a special, and sickening, kind of sickness that causes people to believe that it's better for children to stay in a stable, violent relationship than to leave and raise them alone in a less-stable, less-violent household). Many people, both men and women, get into and stay in abusive relationships because they have some kind of mental problem that prevents them from recognizing the true nature of the situations that they're putting themselves in. Often times it's easy to see who the deadbeats are; they drink too much, they do drugs, they never graduated from high school, they can't maintain a job for more than a few weeks or months at a time, they have criminal records, and so on (if you fall into any of these categories, perhaps some introspection is in order before you start huffing and puffing). We could save huge amounts of money in enforcement costs in the long-run and prevent much of the violence from taking place in the first place if we insist that people who lack the ability, for whatever reason, to take care of themselves and recognize the warning signs in other people be given the tools to do so (those who refuse to get help should simply be black-listed by the police and have, if there are any, their children taken away from them for child-endangerment if they insist on staying in abusive relationships or are getting into one after another (don't forget, the one common factor in every abusive relationship you've ever been in is you)).

The current approach has been a failure because it's based on the simplistic, wrong-headed idea that men are the big, bad monsters and women are the poor, little victims. We need to restructure our system to reflect reality, and reality is that men and women are victims and perpetrators and are both sick (they're sick for abusing people and sick for putting up with it). I say, prosecute and lock up those who we can, making sure that we don't lock up innocent people, and dedicate much more time, energy, and resources to helping people stop the cycle of abuse.

i don't know whether men get beat up by women any more or less than the other way around. quite honestly, i don't care. whatever the case, dv is a bad thing, and i don't think you can make a case for it being equal and say it's underreported at the same time - how do you know? if it's underreported, how do you have any accurate statistics? and just for the record, that article about who kills who more often? i'll confess, i didn't read the whole thing, but i wonder how many of the women killing their husbands were doing it in retaliation for long-term abuse? i'm not saying that makes it right. i'm saying it is an exegent circumstance.
what bothers me about this site is the tendency to say, maybe not in so many words, that SINCE men are also victims of DV, THEREFORE any efforts to help the female victims are evil and should be abandoned. men are victims too? probably. get some stats. do some campaigning for some assistance programs for them. great, i'm all for it. but why does that have to mean we scrap the programs we have? it seems the aim of this site is to paint all women as evil beings in order to promote men. i'll agree that the feminists have a tendency to do the reverse, but that doesn't make it right either way.
but CLEARLY you don't understand the abuse cycle present in these relationships. i remember it quite clearly. it's not rational, it's not right, but it happens, and the woman/man/whatever who slaps or pushes her abuser in order to get the beating over with is simply not the primary aggressor.
i understand why people get into abusive relationships. they don't usually start out that way, and the little signs along the way are usually only obvious in retrospect. i even understand why people stay in these relationships - for the children is the worst possible reason, because i love him, because i can't afford to leave (more true than we realize), because maybe he'll change, because he'll find me and kill me, because he's not always bad, blah blah blah. they're all stupid reasons. please note that i'm using him as a general pronoun there, i am too lazy to repeatedly type him/her.
personally, i agree that there are women who abuse their husbands. i've never seen it. that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. i think we probably do it more psychologically than physically, but i might be wrong. but in order to get any stats on that, you have to eliminate the women who hit back - or even hit first - their abusive husbands (or vice versa), because it's just not accurate otherwise.

Justin, I do believe that it's pretty impossible to have a reasonable debate using statistics here. The men tend to quote stats that come from studies touted on male-rights sites, from rather obscure sources, often with an obvious ax to grind. Or, if you actually find the studies, as I did here, and read them, they are not as one-sided as they are made to sound - just like with Geller's study. The results are misinterpreted or exaggerated, and the parts that don't support the male-rights viewpoint are reduced to parenthetical phrases or excluded completely.

The same charges are made of any other study, even from more neutral sources. Supposedly, the ABA is "biased", the Dept of Justice is "biased". So, I've come to the conclusion that it is pointless to quote any studies here.

With regard to your idea about treatment, rather than conviction, I think it's a good one. But there are a few problems:

Couples would still have to be separated somehow because there usually IS one primary aggressor, and that person can be extremely dangerous. Also, counseling wouldn't leave a record so that other people could be warned about the abuser. That could be deadly in certain cases.

The abuser is inherently aggressive. The victim usually BECOMES aggressive. I mean, if you kick a gentle dog long enough, he will become mean, right? Eventually, he's going to growl and bite whenever you come near.

It's not so different with these couples. When a victim is abused repeatedly, there's a lot of anger and resentment that builds up. Combine that with the sense of hopelessness and isolation that they usually feel, and this is why victims start responding like their abusers. It's not rational, but it's reality.

There's no way we could determine "intent", much less prove it. That won't work. But giving an option for counseling and rehab instead of prison might help some couples. It might have helped my friend. They really loved each other. He was extremely high and drunk when he killed her, and that was no small part of the equation. Getting some of these couples free of substance-abuse would be more helpful than locking them up.

>>We could save huge amounts of money in enforcement costs in the long-run and prevent much of the violence from taking place in the first place if we insist that people who lack the ability, for whatever reason, to take care of themselves and recognize the warning signs in other people be given the tools to do so...

Justin, I appreciate the thought that's gone into your answer. But one of the many problems I have with the details (like the one above) is quite how you officially identify people who need these "tools" before any assault takes place?

there are several very big problems with this tools-equipping theory (ok, i'm really really tired, i work nights, and not feeling so hot, so some phraseology may be a bit off here. on the surface, great idea. in reality, doesn't work so hot.
generally, abusive people start out the relationship and it looks beautiful. they only start showing the signs gradually - isolating the victim in ways that often make it appear for her own good (again, please note that i am simply too lazy to continually type him/her, so do not read any actual gender specifics here, okay?), insults that don't really seem like insults at the time, etc. etc. outsiders can often see the signs, and victims can usually see them in retrospect, but not usually AS THEY HAPPEN. otherwise, do you really think they would stay in these relationships? most people are not really into getting beaten. it happens. but not very common.
also, the system is not really set up to help the victim very well. yes, there are shelters, and counseling, etc. etc., but if there are children, unless there is evidence of child abuse as well as spousal, the abuser gets visitation. which makes it pretty hard for the victim to discontinue contact with a guy who might very well kill her if she leaves. and did you know it gets listed as a preexisting condition on health insurance? homeowners too. makes it hard to get insurance, for victim and children.
schools and public bathrooms list the signs and the available help all the time. but people don't often recognize their own relationships in these signs. girls grow up believing - for whatever stupid reason - that 'but i love him' is a good reason to stay. 'he'll change if i'm good enough'. 'he only beats me because he loves me'. not making these up. girls can be really really stupid, and i am one, so i get to say that.
i like the idea of treatment, and the shelter in my city actually does offer these programs for abusers. (i know this, because i did a bunch of research on this for a college project and interviewed them).
ok i was going to have another point here but i'm falling asleep. sorry if this doesn't make sense.

Maybe the men who respond with such passion and negative vehemence in these threads should invest time raising funds for their own shelters and anon support groups. They could start a positive movement.

Maybe the woman respond with such passion and negative vehemence in these threads should invest time raising funds for their own shelters; instead of having the government take money from my paycheck and use it to further their agenda which only benefits 50% of the population.

>>...instead of having the government take money from my paycheck and use it to further their agenda which only benefits 50% of the population.

Mike,
I meant as a start.

Just as the original female shelters began with cajoling private donations (in the UK, the movement started in part because homeless shelters stopped offering single sex sleeping quarters) and meetings space.

The women first organized themselves, in the face of official indifference & hostility, raised their own donations - and proved there was a NEED.

I think it would be more productive than getting bogged down - as so often happens - with a stalemate over what statistics do, or do not, prove.

Cousin Dave writes: LS, I can provide plenty of counter-examples. But it doesn't matter because you are going to dismiss each and every one of them out of hand, with some explanation for how they don't constitute what in your mind is the "typical" situation.

You've said before, when challenged on it, that you love men. But you clearly do not respect men. You have disrespected every guy here who has tried to debate you on this issue. You have called all of us abusers for disagreeing with you. You have this fever fantasy that we are all going home and beating up our wives. That seems to be the way you see every single man in the world. In your explanations of domestic violence, there is no way a woman could ever be at fault. If he instigates it, he's at fault. If she instigates it, he's at fault.

In your world, every man is a 275-lb linebacker. Every woman is a 4' 11" weakling, and none of them ever has a weapon. Apparently there are no 300-lb. women living in your trailer park, which makes it an exceptional outlier. Nor are there any man who are short, sick, disabled, elderly, or in anything other than gym-twice-a-day perfect health and strength. And the same goes for every man who comments here, apparently. And we all fit into one of two categories -- either we have abused our spouses, or we're going to.

LS, you've jumped the shark. I'm turning your show off.

I want you to know, I stood up at my desk and applauded when I read this post.

And I agree with whomever said there's no such thing as a defensive slap. If someone is in your face, calling you names, regardless of their gender, any physical response (unless it's physically removing yourself from the proximity of this tongue lasher) is crossing a line. No amount of name-calling, none, merits a physical attack in response. Sounds to me like LS is the one looking for justification to "pulverize" someone.

I find myself also marveling at the idea that the men (who are supposedly bigger and stronger 100% of the time), should be responsible for defusing the situation and turning around and walking away when they're physically struck.

Does anyone else think it's a stupid idea to turn your back on someone who has just hit you? What's to stop this "frail, poor defenseless woman" from picking up a lamp and smashing it over his head? Even the crudest forms of weapons make for one hell of an equalizer. You cannot walk away from a physical attack, unless you've made certain that you're safe from further attack before you do so. To do otherwise, is to invite further assault.

lujlp, I would not accuse you of willfully posting misinformation, but that list of what consistutes abuse is hard to believe. Do you have some kind of source for this?

And the ABA can only deal with what's reported as Domestic Abuse, not with what goes on in peoples' homes. As the site explains (from a book by Dr. William Farrell, professor of Psychology, Sociology, and other pertinent issues), if you ask a man if he's been a victim of domestic abuse, most of them say no without having a clear idea of what it is. On the other hand, if they've been asked, has your wife ever slapped you, hit you with something, threatened you, etc., the answers start to change.

>>if you ask a man if he's been a victim of domestic abuse, most of them say no without having a clear idea of what it is. On the other hand, if they've been asked, has your wife ever slapped you, hit you with something, threatened you, etc., the answers start to change.

This argument, Patrick, sounds remarkably like the way extreme feminists are said to wish to redefine "rape."

Q: Have you ever been raped?
A: No.
Q: In that case, have you ever felt you were persuaded to have sex when you didn't feel like it?
A: Oh, yes!
Conclusion: You Are A Rape Statistic.

patrick you clearly have no idea what you're talking about and even more clearly have no idea what abusive relationships are like. what part of LS's explanation of her inability to get away did you not understand? i've been in that kind of situation as well, and made every effort to get away, and found it impossible. you seem to think that this is an ordinary fight. not so much. every couple fights - in a healthy relationship, it's pretty much restrained to yelling and screaming. in an abusive relationship, the abuser WILL PROCEED TO BEATING YOU UP, and will do whatever it takes to 'justify' the beating.

The women first organized themselves, in the face of official indifference & hostility, raised their own donations - and proved there was a NEED.

Jody,

Glad you brought up the UK shelters. Erin Pizzey was one of those people. Funny, how she was driven out of the shelter she helped found, due to the fact that she held the view that DV was gender neutral and that services for BOTH genders were needed. You can't even find her name mentioned on that shelter's website anymore.

From a 2001 interview:

The problem with Pizzey - for feminism, anyhow - is she never toes anybody's party line. Right now she is writing a book - A Terrorist Within the Family - that says men are as much victims of domestic abuse as women.

Fact is, as others have shown by the above research, is that women are just as violent as men. They may not do as much damage, but they do abuse as similar rates.

>>You can't even find her name mentioned on that shelter's website anymore.

Absolutely E. Steven Berkimer.

That long, sour, heated bust-up has been covered in some detail in the UK for years now. She's never been an easy or a consistent feminist icon, to put it mildly! And the still feisty Pizzey - she's 70 -is very much on the record these days about the need for shelters and trained volunteers to counsel male victims.

Her attitude - and you may find it on point - is that men need to help themselves positively.

"This argument, Patrick, sounds remarkably like the way extreme feminists are said to wish to redefine 'rape.'"

Well, there are slaps and then there are beyond-slaps. Part of the problem is that there doesn't seem to be any data separating the two. (It ties in with how I wish the law could get back to a more reasonable definition of battery, but that's another topic.) I've been slapped a few times. A time or two, I might have even deserved it. And I'm still here, none the worse for wear.

In a confrontation with the average woman (putting aside the 90th percentile steroid-monster who could really hurt me), I'm not going to respond physically to a slap. Maybe not even to a punch, if I can dodge it. I'm going to try to get away if I can't resolve the situation verbally.

However, once she picks up a weapon, everything changes. When I was 15, I had an adult female relative (in her 40s) throw a heavy ashtray at me, Frisbee-style. My one physical asset back then was that I had great reflexes, and I caught the damn thing in the air. She was so surprised that she discontinued her attack. But some years later, the thought occurred to me that I could have been seriously injured; it was coming straight at my head. I resolved right then that, if anyone ever takes up a weapon of any kind against me again, at that point it's combat and gender of the opponent no longer matters. The only thing that matters then is to defeat the opponent, and the cops and lawyers can sort it all out later.

"She's never been an easy or a consistent feminist icon, to put it mildly!"

What's inconsistent about her? I'm not that up on the history of it, so I don't know.

"Her attitude - and you may find it on point - is that men need to help themselves positively."

What they need is for women to stop fighting against them. A couple of months ago, some men in California took you advice, and they sued the state over its discriminatory policy over funding of DV shelters (the state refuses to fund any men's shelters). A court declared the whole system unconstitutional.

How did the feminists react? Of course, they are having conniption fits over it. They don't want men to have shelters! They want a taxpayer-funded system that discriminates against men! Fuck that. I'm a taxpayer and I demand that women have to live by the same Constitutional constraints as I do. If they want to go off and use private funds to establish their own women-only shelters, that's there business. But when they dip into my tax money (and assume state police powers in the bargain), then I have every right to demand that they play by the same rules as everyone else. Today's feminists don't want equality; they want special privileges. Period.

I don't get it, Amy, are you saying that because men are sometimes the victims of domestic violence, that helping female victims of domestic violence isn't a worthy cause?

How does giving these ladies a suit hurt the male victims? What's to stop you from also donating a male suit to a shelter?

LS - you have this fixation of an idea that men are just waiting for an excuse to "pulverize" their woman. You are one fucked up person to have such a view, and to extrapolate a trailer park to all of society! You are very classist.

Cousin Dave:

However, once she picks up a weapon, everything changes. When I was 15, I had an adult female relative (in her 40s) throw a heavy ashtray at me, Frisbee-style. My one physical asset back then was that I had great reflexes, and I caught the damn thing in the air. She was so surprised that she discontinued her attack. But some years later, the thought occurred to me that I could have been seriously injured; it was coming straight at my head. I resolved right then that, if anyone ever takes up a weapon of any kind against me again, at that point it's combat and gender of the opponent no longer matters. The only thing that matters then is to defeat the opponent, and the cops and lawyers can sort it all out later.

Careful, LS will come to the conclusion that you are looking for an excuse to engage in combat against a weak, defenseless woman. Usually 4'11" and 95 lbs.

BTW, ALL men are 6'4" 275lb linebackers and ALL women are 4'11" and 95 lbs. This makes it all the easier!

>>A couple of months ago, some men in California took you advice, and they sued the state over its discriminatory policy over funding of DV shelters (the state refuses to fund any men's shelters).

That made me laugh, Cousin Dave. My advice wasn't to frigging sue!!

When I said act "positively" I meant figure out how to fight FOR your issues - whether it's for male-only shelters or anon. meetings or helplines - not just react against the perceived enemy.

Re: Pizzey. It's a real saga. She claimed vicious harassment by separatist/terrorist feminist factions that she felt had hijacked the shelter movement she started, some counter-claimed she wanted personal control of it for ego reasons, long after her original 1970s role was over - moderates got caught up in the middle, and so it went on.

Now she's a senior "darling" (not my quote) of the male DV movement, yet issues contradictory statements about the nature of female violence. She may well react against THAT movement being hijacked too, who knows!

To be honest, that's about as much of it as I can stand.

"LS - you have this fixation of an idea that men are just waiting for an excuse to "pulverize" their woman. You are one fucked up person to have such a view, and to extrapolate a trailer park to all of society! You are very classist."

I actually don't believe that. Patrick used that term - "pulverize" - for anyone who would even slap an abuser. He said they deserved to be "pulverized," or to "expect a beating" if they even fought back with a slap. I don't believe that a slap warrants a full-on beating. The amount of force is in no way justified, except within an abuser's mind.

But I do believe that my trailer park, in southern FL, with such a variety of tenants from all over the world, is a pretty accurate sampling of the world's population and also what DV involves.

Those of us who live here and observe DV know who the primary aggressor is. It's usually an obvious situation - for the neighbors as well as me, the landlord. Unfortunately, the aggressor is typically male. But wouldn't it be even more strange if it wasn't?

Males are biologically and evolutionarily programmed to be more aggressive. How weird would it be if females were shown to be more aggressive in DV, even when lacking the proper hormones and physicality? That would completely go against evolution, biology, and physicality. Of course males are more aggressive than females.

Here is a very good article which demonstrates the complexity of DV. I got this from a male-rights website, but I think it confirms the same things that I, and other women who have experienced DV, have said:

http://articles.latimes.com/1996-04-27/news/mn-63362_1_domestic-violence

LS writes: I actually don't believe that. Patrick used that term - "pulverize" - for anyone who would even slap an abuser. He said they deserved to be "pulverized," or to "expect a beating" if they even fought back with a slap.

Lie.

Crusader writes: Careful, LS will come to the conclusion that you are looking for an excuse to engage in combat against a weak, defenseless woman. Usually 4'11" and 95 lbs.

There is a God. Crusader and I are actually on the same side.

"I find it utterly amazing that you would shift blame to a man for retaliating against violence than a woman who threw the first shot. You don't fault the man for not walking away. You fault the woman for being dumb. Hitting someone who is fully capable of pulverizing you in response is an act of stupidity worthy of a Darwin Award."

So, Patrick, what were you saying then? I took it - after I had just decribed how my friend, caught up in the cycle of abuse, had been murdered by her boyfriend - that you were saying that any woman who struck back, no matter how physically or verbally abused, was deserving of being "pulverized." Is that not what you were suggesting?

"I find it utterly amazing that you would shift blame to a man for retaliating against violence than a woman who threw the first shot."

Again, as I re-read your statement, I think it is important to reiterate that you were referring to a man who SHOT his girlfriend to death, yet you find it "amazing" that I would "shift blame" to him? I think it's important to the posters here to realize that you were defending a murderer with your comments. Let them then decide if my rebuttals have been out of line.

Lyingsoul writes: So, Patrick, what were you saying then? I took it - after I had just decribed how my friend, caught up in the cycle of abuse, had been murdered by her boyfriend - that you were saying that any woman who struck back, no matter how physically or verbally abused, was deserving of being "pulverized." Is that not what you were suggesting?

Suppose I were sitting on the fence post of a penned in yard, which contains a bull. Lyingsoul comes wandering by and starts to climb the fence, intending to wander in the bull's area.

Now, I could warn her that there's a bull in that pen, and that bulls are aggressive, territorial and powerful animals, and that if the bull should happen to notice her, she'll likely be attacked and gored.

I could do all that...but of course, I wouldn't. After all, I wouldn't want to be accused of wanting her to get gored, trampled and likely killed by a bull, or suggesting that she deserved that to happen to her.

Because I say that a someone should not hit someone fully capable of pulverizing them in retaliation, that doesn't mean I want that to happen, or that I think she deserves to have that happen to them. In fact, the question of what they deserve was never brought up, nor even implied. Lyingsoul, full of invective and seething hatred for those who disprove or even challenge her "facts" (especially men), inferred it.

Warning someone that they could face dire circumstances should they do something stupid isn't saying that I want something terrible to happen to them, or that I think they deserve to have it happen.

It's merely pointing out facts. You hit someone, they have the right to defend themselves, including hitting you back. And if you hit someone who clearly has the advantage over you, you're a fool.

Judge Judy once addressed a claim in her court about medical expenses incurred when a woman was hit by her boyfriend. When the woman plainly admitted that she struck him, scratching at his face, slapping, etc., Judge Judy explained to her in her acerbic, patronizing manner, that if you hit a man, and he's bigger and stronger than you, he could hit you back.

And she was awarded nothing for her injuries.

But of course, Judge Judy's just a total woman-hating bitch who thinks women deserve to be injured for hitting their boyfriends, and she wants it to happen to them. She's got an "abuser mentality" and she secretly wants to beat women.

Anyone who isn't an idiot should see the point.

No need to resort to childish name-calling, Patrick.

The problem with your philosophy is that you don't seem to have any qualms about the level of force being entirely different. My friend *might* have hit her boyfriend first (I don't know this), but he SHOT her! Yet, you are suggesting that his use of force is roughly equivalent in justification, and that she should have expected that outcome.

That argument completely absolves the male from having any responsibility for restraint BECAUSE he is bigger and stronger. By your theory, he is allowed to use every bit of that strength - or even a weapon - when it is in no way proportionate to the force used against him.

Those of us who are bigger and stronger are expected by society to use more restraint. An adult is not allowed to beat a child, for instance, no matter how horrible their behavior or injuries they might cause. Even if a small child slaps me, I'm not allowed to do the same, much less beat him with all the strength I have.

It's not a fair fight. It could never be a fair fight physically, so I'm expected to show appropriate restraint, not only because of my age but because of my SIZE.

The bigger, stronger person already has the advantage, so if they can't walk away, they should at least be expected not to use the full force of their strength when responding. That would be true if the stronger person was female.

But you seem to suggest there should be no expectation for someone to weigh that physical difference. That the stronger person should be free to attack like a bull, like a wild animal - totally out of control of its strength - and the victim should get little sympathy for the far greater damage done to them since they should've "known" or expected this.

Well, I say we're not animals. The strong have a responsibility to at least measure their response and fight fair. Pulverizing someone much weaker is never justified, no matter who starts the fight.

patrick is just willfully misunderstanding the nature of an abusive relationship. he's assuming both people are rational, not to mention assuming that the victim is always 'asking for it'.
i wonder, if patrick were in one of these relationships, how long patrick could go with some guy (you are the one who said you were gay, right? if i'm wrong, sorry, substitute some girl) screaming horrible things an inch from his face, backing him into a corner and blocking any attempt to walk away without giving a little push just to get some personal space. and before you say it can't happen patrick, please remember that every single one of those victims said the same thing - and before you suggest, i sincerely hope you never prove me right. i will confess, probably as a result of growing up in the house i did with my father doing the things he did, i probably have a quicker and less rational reaction to that than most. but no one can go on forever, and the abuser will go as long as he has to. patrick is envisioning a normal relationship and a victim who hasn't been broken down emotionally long before the first punch was ever thrown and slowly enough that they didn't even see it coming. not accurate.

Lyingsoul writes: No need to resort to childish name-calling, Patrick.

Oh, mistress of the invective, you took the gloves off first. Need I remind you that you were the one who chose to take this debate to the personal level?

Now, all of a sudden, you cry profusely when you get back what you've been giving?

You remind me of a little girl, probably about two or three years old, in daycare at my gym. I just happened to see an incident as I was leaving one day. She was sticking her tongue out at a boy who so closely resembled her, he could have only been her older brother. She trust her head forward, bulged her eyes out, grew red in the face as she gave her all into this raspberry she was delivering, in that inimitable fashion that only preschoolers can manage.

Her brother's response was predictable. He returned the insult, in exactly the same manner, red faced, bulging eyes, tongue out as far as it could go.

The girl instantly recoiled, looking positively injured, and her eyes welled up as she sobbed, "That's not very nice!" and began to wail.

That's exactly what you remind me of. You were the one who brought this debate to the personal level, spraying invective like a skunk, accusing people you don't even know of some pretty ugly, over-the-top and repulsive things. And now that it's given back to you, you have the impossible gall to actually be offended.

Tough shit, lying bitch. You dish it out, you get it back. That's life. You don't like it? Too bad.

Lyingsoul continues: The problem with your philosophy is that you don't seem to have any qualms about the level of force being entirely different. My friend *might* have hit her boyfriend first (I don't know this), but he SHOT her! Yet, you are suggesting that his use of force is roughly equivalent in justification, and that she should have expected that outcome.

Do you ever stop lying? Ever? Ever?

Seriously, I would like an answer to this question. Because there is no point in even trying to have a discussion with you if you find it completely impossible or unnecessary to avoid this tactic.

Can you show me where I said that she should have expected to be shot? Perhaps you can quote the lines I wrote that he was justified in shooting her?

Let me save you the time. You can't because I didn't, Ms. Invective.

The point being, like the bull story, is that I cannot control the responses or reactions of dangerous animals, whether this animal is over the bovine persuasion or the human.

Your friend was tempting fate when she chose to stay with a dangerous madman like her boyfriend, especially since, by having him arrested, she had every opportunity to distance herself from him. But she chose to stay with him. Worse, she chose to continue to provoke him, even striking him.

Did she deserve to get shot? No. Was he justified in shooting her? Nope.

Is it rocket science to predict that someone in that relationship was going to be seriously hurt or killed, eventually? Hell, no, it's not rocket science to see that coming. In fact, you'd have to be an idiot to miss it. And I believe your friend did see a disaster approaching, but she chose to ignore it.

It's just like the little girl in day care. You think women have the right to slap men, and men have the responsibility to exercise restraint and that they have to walk away. It doesn't work that way.

Both women and men need to exercise restraint and understand that violence, regardless of how lauded it used to be in our society (face-slapping) is not acceptable, and at the first signs of violence (or any type of abuse), need to remove themselves from this relationship. Fail to do this, and they have at least a share in what happens.

Your friend was no innocent victim. This unstable shipwreck of a human being chose to stay with a dangerous madman, and even contributed to, thus encouraging the outcome. She was as emotionally unstable as he was. They are both sick and abusive people and they are both responsible for how it ended.

Besides, we all know perfectly well that had the situation been reversed, and she shot him, you'd be applauding right now.

I only objected to "lyingsoul". That's childish. Debate my viewpoint, criticize my mentality, but no one here ever acts so immature as to change call names. That's truly preschool behavior.

"Did she deserve to get shot? No. Was he justified in shooting her? Nope."

Well, I wasn't hearing you say that. It seemed from your comments that you were placing blame on the victim, and it still seems somewhat like you are, or at least, still saying, "They're both to blame...they're both sick and abusive." No one is more responsible than the other.

Yes, they both had issues, but your take seems to equalize blame too much. I believe the person who takes things to a potentially FATAL level is far more abusive than the other. That is the primary abuser. They are not both equally abusive or equally responsible.

That level of violence isn't necessarily predictable either. My friend had only been with him for about a year. Prior to that, she'd actually had a fairly stable, if somewhat squabbly, scrappy relationship for many years. They fought, made up, fought some more, so I think her view was that this is typical and usually doesn't end so badly. She switched partners without realizing that the new one was far more violent than the old one, probably because she'd already been conditioned to a certain degree of violence. This isn't unusual for battered women, or women who have grown up in abusive homes.

"Besides, we all know perfectly well that had the situation been reversed, and she shot him, you'd be applauding right now."

That is not true. I have what's known as empathy for other people, even those who make extremely bad choices. His life is ruined, just as hers is, and I'd rather find positive solutions to these DV situations instead of just writing people off as losers. But, first, you have to have a real understanding of what happens in DV.

I wrote: Besides, we all know perfectly well that had the situation been reversed, and she shot him, you'd be applauding right now.

Lyingsoul writes: That is not true. I have what's known as empathy for other people, even those who make extremely bad choices. His life is ruined, just as hers is, and I'd rather find positive solutions to these DV situations instead of just writing people off as losers. But, first, you have to have a real understanding of what happens in DV.

Well, now that I have your attention, how do you like it?

As I've said already, you've been making some pretty disgusting accusations toward any man who chooses to contest your perspective and your so-called "facts."

Curiously, lujlp who is female and has also taken issue with your comments, has been spared the accusations of "abuser mentality," etc. Gee, wonder why...Hmmm...

So, how do you like it when someone accuses you of pretty low and despicable things just because you happen to take issue with their perspective on things? Maybe I'll make the point a little bit clearer. Next time you disagree with me, I'll just call you a rapist or a child molester. Or perhaps a misandrist. That, at least, seems to be in evidence.

Lyingsoul writes: Well, I wasn't hearing you say that.

Of course not. You were too busy assuming the very worst. I had to defend myself against accusations. Never said she deserved it, never said I wanted it to happen, never said he was justified...but to satisfy your need to viciously savage any (man) person who disagrees with you, you were only too happy to infer all this. I guess every man is "guilty until proven innocent" with you, huh?

And no, you do not have empathy. Empathy would have prevented you from hurling disgusting accusations with all the abandon of a lunchroom food fight.

I just think it's so idiotic for you to complain about how he should have just walked away and not shot her. Hellooooo? We're talking about people who beat each other up. You're expecting them to observe rules of fair play as they're engaging in violence and keep their responses "in proportion"? What are you? Stupid or something?

She slaps him, so when he hits her back, he's going to take care that he only hits back just as hard as she did. And he's going to be very careful to do this, since he's three times as strong as she is, so he's going to exercise restraint as he hits her back. Oh, yes, that makes perfect sense.

Your friend is not a "victim" of DV. She engaged in it, perpetuated it and encouraged it. She is a "casualty" of domestic violence. She's no more a victim of it than he is.

>>I just think it's so idiotic for you to complain about how he should have just walked away and not shot her.

Patrick,
If you can't see that there's nothing remotely "idiotic" about pointing out that he could have done exactly that, you are truly odd.

You also sound plain silly with that comment.
There are degrees of abuse whether you like it or not.

So, you're saying there's no requirement for restraint based on size?

I just want to be clear about what you're saying because, although you may believe yourself to be consistent, you're jumping around a lot. She doesn't "deserve" to be killed, yet she's not a victim. She's just a "casualty" of DV.

So if a grown-up gets into a physical altercation with a child, it's ok for them to use the full force of their strength against them? Because poeple who are bigger should have no boundaries if they're mad? If someone is angry enough, they're not expected to be able to think clearly enough to weigh the physical disparity? To follow your logic, children couldn't be victims either - just "casualties".

These were not people who "beat each other up". She never beat him up. She may have fought back at times, or shoved or slapped, but I assure you, at 200+ pds to her 105, he was never "beat up".

The abuser mentality is exactly this philosophy: "Once someone makes me mad, they should expect I'll have no self-control...and it's THEIR fault I have no self-control, not mine, because they made me mad."

Don't you see that's how abusers work? Afterwards, it's, "I'm so sorry, but I wouldn't have to do that to you if you didn't make me so mad." And the victim believes it. She believes that her little smack or defensive shove WARRANTED a full on beating...black eyes, broken arms, etc. It's her fault, not his.

You are agreeing with that. Rather than support the idea that the abuser has some accountabilty and expection to show more restraint because of size. Being mad doesn't give someone much bigger the right to act without consideration for the extent of damage they can cause.

Jody, you're a moron.

Okay?

Yes, he can turn around and walk away. However, it is idiotic to expect an established abuser to behave like this. If you hit someone whom you know is an abuser, it is idiotic to expect him to just turn on his heel and walk away. An abuser would hit you back. Please try to keep up.

>>If you hit someone whom you know is an abuser, it is idiotic to expect him to just turn on his heel and walk away.An abuser would hit you back. Please try to keep up.

Patrick,

So if she should have known to expect he "would hit [her] back" - how come he shot her?

That wasn't the expectation.

Patrick, for someone who claims to be so "falsely accused" of being abusive, you sure do act the part. Jody is not a moron. She is one the most intelligent posters here - far more well-read than I expect you are.

"Yes, he can turn around and walk away. However, it is idiotic to expect an established abuser to behave like this. If you hit someone whom you know is an abuser, it is idiotic to expect him to just turn on his heel and walk away."

I think you should be on my friend's killer's defense team. You are an apologist. She should've "known" he'd kill her.

Lyingsoul writes: So, you're saying there's no requirement for restraint based on size?

I'm saying you're an idiot to expect an abuser to exercise restraint based on size. If they were exercising restraint, they wouldn't be hitting each other. If an abuser is exercising any type of restraint when hitting someone, it's probably out of fear of consequences, not out of any concern for their partner.

Lyingsoul: I just want to be clear about what you're saying because, although you may believe yourself to be consistent, you're jumping around a lot. She doesn't "deserve" to be killed, yet she's not a victim. She's just a "casualty" of DV.

Saying that she's a casualty, not a victim, is not saying she deserved to die. If she was hitting him, she encouraged the abuse, perpetuated it, and was equally guilty of it. That is not a victim. She is responsible, at least in part, for the abuse in that relationship.

This is not to say she deserved to get shot. Yes, she was stupid to stay with him, but the penalty of death is a bit harsh, don't you think?

Lyingsoul writes: You are agreeing with that. Rather than support the idea that the abuser has some accountabilty and expection to show more restraint because of size. Being mad doesn't give someone much bigger the right to act without consideration for the extent of damage they can cause.

Lord, you are dense! Is he responsible for the damage he causes when he hits someone? Of course. Is it realistic to expect an abuser to exercise restraint? No. As your friend discovered, that's not realistic at all. And it was her last mistake.

Like the bull in the pen. You think the bull's going to exercise restraint if he encounters you in his pen because you're smaller and not as powerful as he is? Well, he's not.

Let me illustrate...I was thinking of Jon Dalton (aka Jonny Fairplay). Two years ago, he was at a reality show award show, addressing the audience reading his remarks from a teleprompter. Then he stopped, perplexed that he was being booed. Enter former-child star and current professional trainwreck Danny Bonaduce.

At the instruction of a technician backstage, Danny came out and explained to Jonny that "they're booing, 'cause they hate you," then turned to go.

Jonny stopped him, then in a rather bizarre move, jumped into Danny's arms. Danny, with his arms pinned to his side from the elbows up, lifted Jonny straight up by his legs, and Fairplay suffered a cringe inducing face-first fall to the stage behind Danny's back. Broke teeth and jaw bones, and a toe. He stood up and staggered off the stage, leaving Danny by himself on stage. Alexis Arquette takes over the announcement.

Fairplay attempts to file charges, but the L.A. Deputy District Attorney says no charges will be filed, saying that there was insufficient evidence that Danny Bonaduce committed battery and that his actions were in the realm of self-defense and that Fairplay initiated the contact.

Do I agree with the decision? Yup. Do I think Fairplay acted stupidly? Yes, that was a little bizarre what he did. Do I think he's a victim? Nope, he initiated the contact and his actions were offensive. Do I think he deserved to have his jaw, toe and teeth broken? Nope. But he does have some culpability for his own injuries. His actions were bizarre and somewhat disgusting, but certainly not deserving of broken bones.

See for yourself.

It is not a contradiction to suggest that just because I deny a person is a victim that I believe they necessarily deserve the outcome of their actions.

And if anyone's curious, Fairplay and Bonaduce have since kissed and made up...literally. Lord, those two are weirdos.

Jody writes: Patrick,

So if she should have known to expect he "would hit [her] back" - how come he shot her?

That wasn't the expectation.

How do you know? Did you hold a seance, communicate with her spirit and ask her?

Woman slaps a man, and she fully expects to be hit back only as hard as she hit him.

Is it so hard for you to understand that it's unreasonable to expect him to respond within the realms of anyone's expectations? How about, when you establish that someone is an abuser, you simply treat them as dangerous and not try to keep their dangerous responses within certain parameters, because that's stupid.

I cannot believe you and Lyingsoul are screeching "UNFAIR!" because he shot her when he only should have slapped her.

He's dangerous. Is that clear to you? How about when you accept the idea that you cannot set the responses of dangerous people within certain levels because of your concept of appropriateness?

Had she done the smart thing and run away from him and stayed away from him once she established he was an abuser, I would concede that she's a victim. But instead, she proved herself every bit as unstable as he was. She was hitting him, thereby giving her consent to violence within their relationship. Therefore she shares the responsibility for the violence in that relationship, including her own death.

That's what violence does. It escalates. Sooner or later, someone was going to get seriously harmed or killed in that relationship, and someone was. And both partners are to be blamed for this.

>>He's dangerous. Is that clear to you?

Yes it is now, Patrick.

What wasn't clear to her at the time was just how dangerous he was. Again, we are talking about degree.

Jody: Yes it is now, Patrick.

What wasn't clear to her at the time was just how dangerous he was. Again, we are talking about degree.

She shouldn't have concerned herself with how dangerous he was.

>>She shouldn't have concerned herself with HOW dangerous he was.

Patrick,
Quit being so tiresome.

Even people in crappy relationships hope things will improve. They try to believe change is possible on scant evidence. Yes, they make appalling decisions. They stay. They are coerced to stay. Like a frog in gradually warming water, they simply don't notice what outsiders could probably figure out in an instant. But they seldom think they are going to pay the ultimate price.

This wasn't "suicide by slap."

I don't think the actions of celebrity wrestlers, or whatever, are really applicable here. Clearly, Bonaduce didn't expect that, so he dropped him, which is quite different from abuse.

Nobody is suggesting that this couple isn't dysfunctional and irrational. But Jody's point is valid - she may have expected him to hit back but not to shoot her.

At any rate, you're right that she should have realized he was dangerous, but victims of battery tend to take the blame for each event upon themselves. The abuser usually claims that he isn't inherently dangerous and won't beat someone up except when they're being "stupid", "bitchy" or "acting like a slut" or whatever it was that provoked the last incident. Abusers also like to keep their victims isolated and dependent, so that no one else can help the victim see the truth.

So, the victim, in the irrational thought-processes of one who is told repeatedly that they are worthless and "bad", assumes all the blame. She thinks it's not that he's really dangerous or meaning to be violent - it's that she "provokes" him by being "bad". If only she can act better next time, he won't get mad.

Of course, that's not true. Ultimately, it doesn't really matter what she does. The abuser will find fault and provocation anyway. It's better if he can make her hit him first. I think most men know it's not considered cool to hit a woman, so what those of us who have been through DV are telling you is that an abuser tries to provoke that first strike, to justify the beating.

The victim shouldn't play into it, but just think how hard that is not to do. When someone verbally abuses and threatens you, it's human nature to get angry and defensive.

How much abuse do you think you could take without responding? How many in-your-face put downs and insults would it take before you almost didn't care what happened - before you'd feel like you have to stand up for yourself somehow, stupid as it may be?

I'm here to tell you, it takes less than you think it would when you're in that moment.

"How much abuse do you think you could take without responding? How many in-your-face put downs and insults would it take before you almost didn't care what happened - before you'd feel like you have to stand up for yourself somehow, stupid as it may be?

I'm here to tell you, it takes less than you think it would when you're in that moment."

So, LS, you are justifying a man "standing up for himself somehow, stupid as it may be" when a woman is hurling the in-your-face put downs and insults"? It's understandable when he finally gives her a good slap?

Just checking.

Your belief in female privilege and the lack of female accountability is insurmountable.

No, Jay R, I think it's difficult for anyone, male or female, but men are generally stronger and can cause much more damage if they give in to that impulse. More importantly, it's pretty hard for a woman to make a man stay and hear her out - to block him from leaving or getting to another room.

It's easier to calm down and think rationally if you can just get away from the abuse. I know, for myself, that's all I wanted...to get to safety. To get into a room where I could shut the door and have some space until tensions subsided. That is the healthy way for couples to handle conflict. But my abuser was twice my size and wasn't going to let that happen.

There are probably women who are that physically powerful and intimidating too, but they aren't as common. Yet, absolutely, I think if any of you males had experienced this, you would know what it's like, and you probably would respond the same way.

Your only options are to take the abuse stoicly, or try to push your way past the abuser. If they get right up in your face - spewing hate and spitting in your face - the impulse is to slap them. If you're lucky, the shock of that will buy you time to get to the door. If you're not, you're screwed. Sometimes, it seems worth the risk.

Jody writes: Patrick,
Quit being so tiresome.

Even people in crappy relationships hope things will improve. They try to believe change is possible on scant evidence. Yes, they make appalling decisions. They stay. They are coerced to stay. Like a frog in gradually warming water, they simply don't notice what outsiders could probably figure out in an instant. But they seldom think they are going to pay the ultimate price.

This wasn't "suicide by slap."

To my way of thinking, it's not "tiresome" on my part, but stupidity on yours. And in the case of Lovelysoul, it's sexism.

There is no obligation to make sure you hit back only as hard as you've been hit. Much as she would love to find some technicality that makes men more responsible for domestic abuse than women, there isn't one.

The idea that there should be some kind of obligation to hit only as hard as you've been hit when engaging in DV is absurd. You're dealing with people who solve problems with their fists, and you expect them to follow some kind of protocol for beating each other up? Not going to happen.

>>You're dealing with people who solve problems with their fists, and you expect them to follow some kind of protocol for beating each other up?

In the specific case we've been discussing, Patrick, the boyfriend solved the problem with a gun.

Jody: In the specific case we've been discussing, Patrick, the boyfriend solved the problem with a gun.

Exactly! That's because abusers don't have rules for inflicting violence on each other, and we'd be stupid to expect them to.

It doesn't matter Jody. Patrick doesn't care about either of them. The victim is "stupid" yet somehow omnipotent enough to "know" she'd be shot. She deserves to be hit harder since she was so foolish as to tangle with a man twice her size because everyone knows males can't be expected to control themselves. Not like the old days when men actually expected to use restraint with women because they WERE men. As Patrick advises, males today should be expected to have as much self-control as a bull in a pen.

Think how "Gone with the Wind" would've been such a different movie with Patrick directing. Scarlet would slap Rhett, and he'd beat her to a pulp, or pull out his gun. "Stupid Bitch! Frankly, I don't give a damn!"

And in lyingsoul's ignorant world, men are 100% responsible for all domestic abuse. When the woman initiates it, it's because she's an innocent victim and the man made her do it, and if the man initiates it, it's because he's an evil bully.

We should all be expected to follow lyingsoul's quaint little rules. And people who are so out of control as to resort to violence in a domestic relationship are cautious and observant folks. They make sure they never hit harder than they've been hit. It's in the domestic abusers' handbook, Article 34, section D, don't you know. Anyone caught in violation of these standards has their official domestic abuser card taken away.

And if a woman hits her abusive husband, she should always be able to trust that her abusive partner would never hit her back any harder than she hit him. Men are expected to keep restrained and exercise caution as they beat on their partners, but women aren't bound by any such rules. They get to hit as hard as they like. And of course, they aren't responsible for exercising common sense, either. Wouldn't dream of expecting them to conclude one day: "Hey, we're hitting each other. This is dangerous. Somemone's going to get seriously injured or even killed eventually. Time for me to get out of this relationship."

So, the rules are, in domestic violence: 1)Men are expected to exercise restraint and women can trust that he will always do this.
2) Women do not exercise restraint or common sense.
3) The man is 100% at fault at all times in relationships where domestic abuse is occurring. If the woman hits him, he's at fault. If he hits with woman, he's at fault.

By the way, lyingsoul, you never did answer my question about if you're truly able to engage in a discussion without telling lies. But never fear, I have my answer. The answer is "No, you cannot engage in a discussion without telling lies about what people actually say to you."

I very clearly stated that it doesn't take rocket science to anticipate that someone eventually is going to get hurt or killed in a relationship where mutual violence is practiced. Did I ever say that she should have been able to predict with pinpoint accuracy that he would take out a gun and shoot her? Why, no! I never said anything of the kind, but fiddle-dee-dee! You haven't let an inconvenient detail like facts stand in the way before! Why on earth should you start now? Don't be ridiculous!

This is, by the way, assuming you're telling the truth about this story, but as we've discovered, repeatedly, you don't even tell the truth about what people say four or five posts above you! Josie and the Pussycats have the song for you!

By the way, regarding your complaint about my changing your tag name... If you don't like being called a liar, you...shouldn't...tell...lies. Isn't that special?

I don't lie, Patrick. It's obvious to anyone reading this that you have said, in multiple ways, that she should've expected him to hit her back. And that she should've had no expectation for him to use restraint when he hit her back because he was an established abuser.

I'm perhaps presuming that, in your mind, this logic would apply to all men, or people of greater strength, whether they are established abusers or not. You haven't specifically said that, but you haven't disputed it either. You haven't said, "No, women should not expect to be pulverized by a male just because she might slap him in an argument. I'm just referring to established abusers".

It's not "lying" to follow your logic as you have presented it, and infer meaning from both your statements as well as your ommissions. Unless you say differently, it seems to me that you are talking about all men not being required or expected to show restraint based on size.

I mean, I have repeatedly asked that ("So, you're saying there's no requirement for restraint based on size?") and you've refused to answer, except regarding THIS particular case, not men in general, so my conclusion is not a "lie," just a valid presumption of your beliefs, based on what you've said and avoided saying.

I get that you think it's foolish for my friend to have even touched this particular guy, and I don't disagree, but I still believe his culpability is greater, not only because he was much stronger but because she is dead.

Do you really think that they are "equally responsible" for the outcome? Do you really think her "crime" is as great as his? If she were alive today - if she'd managed to survive the gunshot wound - do you honestly believe that she should face the same charges as him? That they were "beating up each other" so they are equally guilty of abuse?

Take the gun out of it even. If she'd merely slapped him and he put her in the hospital, near death, would they BOTH be just as guilty of abuse?

lyingsoul writes: It's not "lying" to follow your logic as you have presented it, and infer meaning from both your statements as well as your ommissions.

You have done no such thing. You've been willfully and deliberately engaged in posting invective. You were not making logical inferences. You were distorting clear statements into the ugliest accusations you could think of.

Yes, you do lie.

Regarding your "responsibility question," are you talking legally or ethically? I'm not a lawyer.

Are they equally responsible for the abuse? Yes. They abused each other. She was no innocent victim and neither was he. By engaging in physical abuse, they gave their tacit permission for violent exchanges. They both encouraged, supported and provoked physical abuse, therefore they are both responsible for it.

Should their be rules in place based on size? Nope. That would be discrimination. "I'm allowed to hit him because I'm weak and tiny, but he's not allowed to hit me back because he's big and strong."

No, there are no such rules in place. And if stupidity were a crime, she'd be on death row for attacking someone so obviously at an advantage.

It's utterly amazing to me. You foam, snarl and spit like a rabid dog that the bigger person is entirely at fault because he's bigger and should exercise restraint. But nothing at all in the way of responsibility on the part of the woman, who should have seen that attacking a person 2 to 3 times their size is not a good idea.

How about the smaller person exercising a little bit of common sense and realizing that they'd be making a huge mistake in bringing this confrontation to the physical level? Why does the smaller person get carte blanche to hit someone, because the bigger person has to be restrained.

Your segueing none-too-honestly (big surprise) into legal questions, which I am not qualified to answer. To hazard layman's guesses, however, they should be charged with whatever crimes they committed upon each other. He of course, would probably get a manslaughter charge, or homicide. Not murder, however, because he was being attacked. Had she lived to face charges, she'd probably get aggravated battery or felony battery, if he could prove she did any permanent damage.

I say they're both at fault for allowing things to get this far. Either one could have put a stop to this, but neither one of them did. They share the responsibility for the outcome. They. Are. Both. Equally. At. Fault.

why do we continue to try and educate this guy? he clearly doesn't want to be.

he fails to acknowledge that these girls don't just randomly go up and slap the guy. he fails to acknowledge that there is, on occasion, no way to get past the guy to get away from the abuser. he fails to acknowledge any kind of - well documented, by the way - cycle which might lead to the victim wanting to get it over with. he fails to respond to the fact that the abuser will find a reason to hit, regardless of how the victim tries to get out of it. he prefers to see these situations as an abusive guy responding to a girl randomly hitting him. who could have easily gotten away, by the way. funny how he's accusing ls of lying and spewing invective 'like a rabid dog' when he's the one spewing all the insults.

i'm not even going to address the irony that he's accusing ls of hating men while he's the one comparing them to wild bulls.

i'm not going to address the 'example' he gave which is in no way representative of an abusive relationship.

it's not worth my headache.

i sincerely hope that patrick never finds himself in a position to find out exactly how wrong he is about these relationships. but until then, perhaps it would benefit him to consider that those of us who have been IN them, quite possibly have a better understanding of the dynamic. likewise, those of us trying to educate him, might find ourselves better served by leaving him in ignorance.

Justin Bowen: could you maybe explain what the CTS are, why some object to them, and why you think their objections are invalid? I'm really tired of those biased against male victims casually dismissing all the studies that demonstrate DV isn't an exclusively male-on-female event.

LovelySoul, the reason more progress hasn't been made in the fight against domestic violence is people like you.

"Women don't typically pour grease on someone who's been kind to them."

Yes, they will, under the expectation that a.) they will not be arrested or in any way inconvenienced for their violent actions, and b.) the man will not fight back.

"I love men, and I grew up in a time when men were never supposed to strike women, no matter what...But there seems to be this change occuring, among some men, whereby being a gentleman is no longer expected and a slap justifies an entire beating."

A slap doesn't justify an entire beating (as we see from the Chris Brown case). However, a man IS entitled to use EQUAL force in order to defend himself. The problem is: had Rihanna slapped Brown, and Brown slapped Rihanna back, I get the feeling you'd still be condemning Brown and moving to support Rihanna. Instead of the inherent sexism of "men are never to strike women," how about we go with "NO ONE is ever to strike ANYONE," hmm?

bmmg39 writes: LovelySoul, the reason more progress hasn't been made in the fight against domestic violence is people like you.

"Women don't typically pour grease on someone who's been kind to them."

Yes, they will, under the expectation that a.) they will not be arrested or in any way inconvenienced for their violent actions, and b.) the man will not fight back.

You're wasting your time, I think.

Lovelysoul will believe what she wants to believe. Amy opened this thread with a letter from forensic psychologist Dr. Helen Smith, who supported each and every one of her claims with documented studies, which brought many interesting facts to light. Including this piece of information: "Recent studies are finding that both men and women act out physically in relationships and in one recent study, women initiated violence in over 70% of cases."

And another study done by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development found "In fact, 71 percent of the instigators in nonreciprocal partner violence were women...And while injury was more likely when violence was perpetrated by men, in relationships with reciprocal violence it was the men who were injured more often (25 percent of the time) than were women (20 percent of the time)."

But all that is useless where Lovelysoul is concerned. She knows because she's the landlord of a trailer park, and is therefore more of an expert than these silly forensic psychologists or organizations such as the APA and national organizations that actually concern themselves with child health and human development.

She has no compunction about plucking statements out of context and willfully inferring the ugliest invective without supporting statements.

I myself have been accused of saying that women "deserve" to be hit back by their male abusers, and that men are "justified" in hitting someone back. I've also been accused of wanting to "pulverize" women and that I have an "abuser mentality."

And for what? Because I try to point out that it's unwise to expect an abuser to restrict his retaliatory acts to "equal force." You're dealing with a mind that's so depraved it's solving problems by hitting, and you're expecting them to take care that they're only using equal force. (Am I the only one that sees that expectation as just a tad reckless?) Of course, people can do that, but it's unwise to expect them to.

But you are correct in pointing out the inherent sexism of her views. She believes that women do not pour boiling grease on a man's genitals if the man has been kind to her. Which makes about as much sense as the idea that man would never strike a woman who has been kind to him.

An abuser doesn't need "unkindness" to act in an abusive manner. He just needs some kind of offense committed against him, whether real or imagined, no matter how trivial, to justify in their own minds their abusive responses.

I find it also interesting that the vicious mutilation of pouring boiling oil on a man's genitals is somehow provoked (since LS states that a woman wouldn't do it if only the man were kind to her)...but men apparently go about striking women who have been kind to them.

As you point out, yes, an abusive woman would do something like that to a man who's been kind to her. Just as an abusive man would abuse a woman who's been kind to him. She fails to realize that abusers come in both genders.

And as you point out, she claims to have been raised when men were taught never, ever to strike a woman, no matter what. Apparently, she hasn't progressed to the point of your own very wise suggestion, "NO ONE is ever to strike ANYONE!"

I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that her favorite movie is "The Burning Bed," with the late Farrah Fawcett.

LS: "The problem with your philosophy is that you don't seem to have any qualms about the level of force being entirely different. My friend *might* have hit her boyfriend first (I don't know this), but he SHOT her!"

Again, as in the Chris Brown case, a disproportionate response. If a woman slaps a man's face -- even though SHE IS THEREBY GUILTY OF ABUSE IF SHE DOES -- it doesn't warrant the man shooting her dead. But here is the part that troubles me, uh, "Lovely": I get the feeling that, if the man had responded to a slap with another slap, than you'd still be looking only at what HE did and not at what SHE did at all.

I also bring up the Dixie Chicks song "Goodbye Earl," in which a battered woman eventually kills her abuser. This was the justification given whenever anyone would criticize the song for glorifying or making light of murder. Battered Woman Syndrome, you see. So what about Battered Man Syndrome? If a man is abused over and over again, will you be more understanding if he eventually shoots the woman who's been abusing him?

"An adult is not allowed to beat a child, for instance, no matter how horrible their behavior or injuries they might cause. Even if a small child slaps me, I'm not allowed to do the same, much less beat him with all the strength I have."

It isn't just the size difference; it's that a child isn't expected to know better, and that the adult has the authority to discipline the child in other ways: grounding, taking away privileges, and so forth. For your analogy to work, you'll have to concede that women are essentially like children: people who don't know better when it comes to violence, and who can and should be disciplined by men. I wouldn't argue that, of course, but that's what you'd have to argue for your analogy to hold water.

Patrick: "You're wasting your time, I think...Lovelysoul will believe what she wants to believe."

Don't forget: on message boards and blogs you're not just arguing with a person; you're also making your case in front of anyone who might be reading.

I agree with you that LS is set in her ways. I find it amazing that she thinks a smaller adult is physically incapable of hurting a larger one. A smaller person can cause a great deal of pain if (s)he knows the other person is expected not to fight back. I also find it amazing that she thinks women never block a man's exit route so she can continue to berate or to abuse him physically.

When a woman strikes a man FIRST and the man strikes the woman BACK, people like LS and her few allies here seem to concern themselves only with the violence perpetrated against her, as if to say, "Are you saying she's to blame for being abused?!" Never mind the abuse the woman has COMMITTED; these people refuse to look at the situation from the standpoint of female-on-male abuse.

bmmg39, thank you for joining this discussion. I must admit that I was surprised at the findings, but I trust these organizations who make it their business to find out these things.

71% of non-reciprocal domestic violence is perpetrated by women. In other words, when only one person is doing the hitting in a DV situation, nearly 3/4 of the time, it's women doing it.

Moreover, the situations in which women do initiate the violence are glossed over, without any supporting evidence. "Oh, women just hit first because they want to provoke the man to beat her, so they can get the beating over with and move onto the 'honeymoon' phase."

Even when women throw the first punch, they're the victims. Poppycock. I don't dispute that some situations could be just like that, but to dismiss each and every incident in which the woman initiates the violence, or even the bulk of them, is pure bullshit.

It's as if they're absolutely convinced that women could never, ever, ever be brutalizing someone. Women are just lily-white innocent victims. Only men could be so cruel. Never women. Women are all so good and pure and non-violent and virtuous and men are just evil, abusive pigs.

And again, they seem to have a huge concern for the man using equal force. I never said a man couldn't use equal force when retaliating against violence against him. Only that it's dangerous to expect a person given to violence to adhere to that restriction. So, the solution is simple. When women hit, just hit lightly, and the man is sure to use only as much force as you did...yeah, right.

Glad to have an ally is refuting this ridiculous propaganda, and expose the blatant sexism and misandry of their perspective on domestic violence.

The only other point that should be addressed is their sources. They use legal sources, which cannot speak for the true number of domestic violence incidents. Only those which are reported to the authorities. If a man is embarrassed to be injured by a woman, his domestic partner, chances are he's not going to report it as violence. And given the upper hand that women have in marital disputes, which Amy has addressed on other entries, even if the man isn't embarrassed, chances are he'll worry about what he has to lose if it becomes his word against hers.