This is crap stats. The victims include, one the one hand, someone like Amy and her once in a lifetime boob grab, and on the other hand, someone in a long term abusive relationship involving multiple attacks, stalking, and even murder. Each of these two cases counts equally in the stats. It's like counting blue whales and honey bees, and thinking the total makes any kind of sense.

Even by extending the definition of domestic violence to include all the Amys, and extending it over an entire lifetime, it still only comes to one in four. Frankly I think it's an astoundingly low figure, given all the massaging.

I'd want to know how many people were victims of DV in each of the last 10 years, say, before I would know whether to be outraged or not.

I would love to see the survey that was used. I don't believe for a second that 1 out of 4 women are being beat up by their husbands/boyfriends. I'll bet anything that "emotional abuse" counts, as are threats of violence even if they are just empty words like "if you do that, I'll kill you."

By the way, my friend Sergeant Heather works domestic violence cases, and she says the single best way to get somebody to leave an abuser is to get them to go to a group session where other victims talk. It's non-judgmental -- the person isn't having some friend tell them "How could you possibly stay?!"...meaning "What an idiot you are!" -- and so they don't have to defend themselves; just listen.

Just an FYI for anybody who knows any victims.

Sadly, most services for victims are for women only, or are situations where men are not welcome. I don't know if there are groups like this that exist for men, or where men are able to come without being demonized. I'll have to ask the Sarge.

I would not be surprised if "He forgot my birthday" counts as spousal abuse.

Unfortunately I don't think many men would attend any support group - we've been conditioned to accept the abuse.

Beat me! Beat me!

Since the statement is "in their lifetimes", maybe it includes any physical discipline as a child. I know when I got my ass whupped, it was domestic, and it was violent.

What I don't get is, why the need for ridiculously inflated numbers? If one of out 20 women, for example, are true victims of domestic abuse, isn't that enough for our attention? And why doesn't anyone give a shit about the men who are abused?

That is, other than Amy and a few others.

And why doesn't anyone give a shit about the men who are abused?

Because the feminist dogma says that men are always the abuser and at fault. It doesn't matter if she is coming after the guy with a knife and a baseball bat -- he hits her in self-defense, its still his fault.

Look at the Violence Against Women Act.

Essentially being a straight, white and male is against the law.

Notwithstanding the inflated VAWA view of what constitutes DV (not just physical, but also glaring, yelling, ignoring, etc.), we already know the answer to Amy's question:

Virtually every (non-feminist) study has shown that, at every level of violence, women initiate domestic violence at LEAST as often as men do. When only one partner is abusive, it is the woman 70% of the time. That women get hurt more often (which assumes that men are actually willing to admit to the E.R. doctor that a woman cut/bashed/burned them) is not surprising, and is basically beside the point. A lot of stupid people start fights that the other guy finishes. And some people are just sick puppies who get off on the attention that comes with instigating abuse.

This being the case, we know that the stats for women abused during their lifetime are the same, or perhaps even LOWER, than the stats for men who suffer DV. Also, men are the recipients of the vast majority of society's non-domestic violence.

What does this say about Obama's feminist and "progressive" view of the sexes?:

1) Men are strong and capable, but also invisible and expendable, and

2) Women are weak semi-adults who just can't be expected to ever make it on their own without the protection of the "alpha," and who cannot be held responsible for bad behavior.

The more help women need, the more pathetic they must be, right?

Dunno. If you start looking through the lit. and sites, you will see that many conflate Domestic Abuse, with Violence against Women. Once that is done, it really doesn't matter how many guys are abused, or how many report it. The main one I want to point to is the Unicef one, because it will give you an overall caste to how all of this is viewed:
UNicef

One of the reasons for silence of anyone on all of this, is it sounds like whining if you say "women aren't the only ones." The oddly paradoxical idea that women are always the victims takes away their ability to NOT be. But that is the way obviously the UN looks at it, and that sort of thing spills over. Look at page 3 with the definitions esp. this:

Psychological abuse which includes behaviour that is intended to intimidate and
persecute, and takes the form of threats of abandonment or abuse, confinement to the
home, surveillance, threats to take away custody of the children, destruction of objects,
isolation, verbal aggression and constant humiliation.
Economic abuse includes acts such as the denial of funds, refusal to contribute
financially, denial of food and basic needs, and controlling access to health care,
employment, etc.
Acts of omission are also included in this Digest as a form of violence against women
and girls.4 Gender bias that discriminates in terms of nutrition, education and access to
health care amounts to a violation of women's rights. It should be noted that although the
categories above are listed separately, they are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, they often
go hand in hand.

er, yeah, my ex did, and continues to do much of that... who's going to save me?

Oh, wait... I'm a guy, I'm just supposed to suck it up, right?

there are also some interesting stats at: "http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/vrithed.txt"

There may well be newer stats... but the UNICEF stats are one of the spots they get that "1 in 4" have been abused...

The thing is, it IS a problem for both sides. Focussing on one side seems to make it worse.

Focussing on one side seems to make it worse.

You act as though that's not intentional.

I think too many modern feminazis watched those dystopian future movies where all the men were killed off or enslaved and women ran everything, and they got all moist and tingly.

And they want to try it out in real life.

So they need girly-men like Biden who will gladly chop off their dicks to get the girls to like them.

Maybe they are counting "verbal abuse", which is a whole other joke. So many women claim "he verbally abused me". Ok, it does happen sometimes, but this is my favorite quote on the subject:

"Just becasue the argument wasn't FUN, doesn't mean it was abuse!"

"he verbally abused me"

Why not? It got Christian Bale arrested and hauled off for questioning. And he was hollering at his mom for talking trash about his wife. But that's U.K., not here. At least, not yet.

It's sad that people who claim to want to help women actually make things worse by watering down words like "abuse".

That stat is from here:

http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles1/nij/183781.txt

Dr. Helen just sent me the reference.

I just printed this thing -- all 48 pages of it -- but I don't know if I'll have time to pick it apart by Wednesday (taping a show with Dr. Helen on this issue...just found out this morning). (For my column, I take a week or weeks to pick apart a single study sometimes.)

Anyway, if anybody is interested in going through and finding out what the flaws are in it, I would be most grateful. I'll confirm what your findings are -- confirm that I agree with you, but I could sure use a little help on this.

P.S. the epidemiologist who kicks my ass about how to read studies says, "There is no such thing as a perfect study -- every study of humans has major flaws that handicap any attempt to draw general conclusions from it (often, however, one can draw specific conclusions, like that the authors are incompetent). Some studies just have fewer or smaller flaws than others on their topic -- so learn to think along a continuum, not just 'good data' or 'fudge.'"

Also, I am most suspicious of self-reported data, especially on sexuality and domestic affairs. And that goes for data reported to the police. How many times have you heard of people using restraining orders or accusations of domestic violence (untrue ones) to impune somebody?

In fact -- wait! -- it happened to me. A business in our neighborhood was taking our residential parking and when the business manager basically told me "screw you and the neighbors if you don't like it" I said to her "You know, you're really a cunt." I didn't threaten to kill her (I would never do such a thing -- threaten somebody -- and as a libertarian, I don't believe I have the right to touch any person or their property). Nevertheless, the weenie fucker who owns the business took out a restraining order against me in Santa Monica Small Claims court. I learned too late this is called a SLAPP suit -- A Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, and, I believe, would have been cause for me to bring an action against them. (I don't run around calling people names -- I was there about a neighborhood issue, very legitimately -- in other words, I was acting for the public good, just with fabulously vulgar verbiage [I love how some women just fall apart at being called that word. It's a vagina, ladies. We all have them. Yes, I got taken to court for calling a woman a vagina. The cunt.)

Oh, and the defense I should've used then: Cohen v. California, 1971 -- the "fuck the draft" case.

Of course, the restraining order was, of course, dismissed. I'm not violent, just hostile.

How many times have you heard of people using restraining orders or accusations of domestic violence (untrue ones) to impune somebody?

Hate to be picky:

im⋅pugn
   /ɪmˈpyun/ [im-pyoon] –verb
1. to challenge as false (another's statements, motives, etc.); cast doubt upon.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=impugn

Impune
Im*pune"\, a. [L. impunis.] Unpunished. [R.]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/impune

"threats of violence even if they are just empty words like "if you do that, I'll kill you.""

Well, the above is illegal, you know, no matter who you say it to. Nothing may come of it, but it's still illegal. And if someone said that to me, I'd take them at their word and be gone. There is a certain crappy subset of people who do tell you point-blank what they are and what they'll do, and another subset of people happily ignore them to their own detriment.

I have experienced domestic violence in my lifetime. And more than just once. I mean hit hard. I had an older brother and we used to fight. Righ at home, too!

"Beat me! Beat me!"

Sure, it's a classic kink, but the footwear is ridiculously expensive.

Speaking of saving money, I just went shopping through Amy's Mall and didn't pay a cent for shipping from Amazon!

Some domestic abuse is hard to define or quantify, but you know it when you see it. I had a tenant last year, just married, who at first appeared part of a happy couple. He seemed to adore her, but then, it became clear that he never left her side. He even insisted on being in the examining room when she had a pap smear!

He'd convinced this poor woman that true lovers must only touch and give pleasure to each other, and this included not allowing her to enjoy a massage, lest some other person would "pleasure her".

She was instructed to wear modest clothing at all times, and he even once (that I witnessed) objected to her petting a cat on her lap because she was "showing it more affection" than him. He read her e-mails and monitored her phone calls to friends and family. She could barely communicate with anyone around her.

It was crazy, controlling behavior under the guise of love, and he grew more threatening as she began to reach out to us and wasn't behaving the way he thought she should, although he never really hit her. He only shoved her slightly in an argument when she was trying to leave.

Fortunately, the ladies here all got together and we helped her escape from him, and I must say the DV laws were very helpful. I was really grateful we had such immediate and thorough support for her - a quick restraininbg order and even relocation funds so we could get her safely out of town to her family.

That slight shove was enough to get the restraining order, and I was relieved that was the case, as I suspect he would've never let her leave without something much more violent occurring.

It's truly a shame that such help isn't as forthcoming for men, but I hope the answer isn't to make it harder for women to get out of those situations.

It was crazy, controlling behavior under the guise of love,

While I agree that does border on DV, and would most likely escalate, I have seen multiple cases where the guy started out trying to be calm and collected; by the time the figting was done she had been yelling and screaming for 45 minutes, the guy for the last ten, and the cops want to yank him for being at fault.

Guess when the neighbors called the cops?

I've seen that too. Trust me, I run a trailer park. There are many dysfunctional couples who bring out the worst in each other (again and again). But I've also seen cases like this where the woman was truly passive and dominated. That's pretty rare for men, I think. At least, I haven't witnessed a man who was being controlled to that degree of being terrified to leave. Women tend to put themselves into those situations a lot more frequently.

"Fortunately, the ladies here all got together and we helped her escape from him."

I love this line from lovelysoul. The ladies helped her. The same for the first battered women's shelters. Women got them open. It wasn't outraged good guys who fought for DV laws. It was. . .women.

Guys, you gotta help your own. You want laws changed? You've got to be willing to stand up and speak publicly about your experience. That's how women did it. You want a battered men's shelter? Start it.

I googled "battered men's organizations." Not a single listing. Googled offered me alternatives. An entire dozen of them. Whose fault is that? How are the dreaded feminists keeping men from doing this for themselves?

It's easy now when words like abuse are misused and statistics rendered from the ridiculous, to forget that back when women started bringing this to public attention, the abuse under discussion was pretty serious shit.

JulieA - "How are the dreaded feminists keeping men from doing this for themselves?"

It's not the dreaded feminists that are to blame. But part of being a man is independence. If we start men's encounter groups we lose that, and we won't be men any more, we'll just be wusses. The only time men get to lean on each other is in conflict, whether on the battle field or the sports field. I'm quite jealous of women's ability to form supportive social circles!

To put it more vividly, if men go to an encounter group, our penises will shrivel up and fall off, and then we'll be no use to ourselves or anyone else.

One in four is bull based on research that uses overly broad definitions which include things most people would not see as abuse. Obama is lying when he cites these figures, not wrong, lying.

Very good point, Julia A. These shelters and programs are also mostly staffed by women volunteers. The court appointed advocates are also females, who probably don't make much money but are passionate about the cause.

Men will have to do this for themselves as well. If a guy has been abused the last thing he probably wants to see is some Nurse Ratched checking him into a shelter.

You could perhaps overcome the wussy factor by making it a sports bar - with pool tables and big screen TVs - but I think Norm is right that most men wouldn't feel very manly about going to a shelter.

And I really question how great the need for that is. Honestly, how many men are really so terrorized or bullied by a female partner that protection would be necessary like it is for women?

Whether the 1 in 4 stat is accurate or not, there are unquestionably abusive and physically dangerous situations for women, and that has motivated change. Most women have seen this either happen to ourselves or someone we love. If enough men out there feel their buddies are being beaten or verbally assaulted, they should take action.

Given its considered abuse for men to spend money ie controling finaces.

Any abused man who leaves and checks into a hotel could be charged with abusing his wife.

So yes free shelters are needed

Juliaa has a valid point.

Part of the problem though is, how does a man defend himself?

If my wife were to attempt to hit me with her fist, and I were to do the same to her, she would be the hospitalized one. I doubt I'd even have a bruise to show.

Certain laws need to change, the way domestic violence is approached by law enforcement needs to change, and frankly we as men do need to undertake the effort on our own behalf to provide outs to our fellows in violent situations.

I have become very wary of many such studies, especially ones sponsored by organisations, people, or groups that might reasonably be suspected of promoting a cause. The biggest trigger for this was a study some years ago about sexual abuse and rape of women. It was based on a survey, basically self-reported, if I remember correctly. It very well could have been one of Russell's. I looked further, going so far as to find the actual questions.

It turned out that drinking and having sex qualified, since judgement was impaired. Deciding later that getting involved had not been a good idea qualified. In fact, almost any sexual experience or relationship in which the woman was not totally satisfied and happy could be added to the negative side.

In light of the study's terms, I saw that many of my pubescent,adolescent, and young adulthood fumblings, explorations, misunderstandings, bad choices, etc. would be interpreted as cases of rape or abuse.

Perhaps Mr. Obama should cite his sources, so that we can determine if he is actually basing them on good science. After all, he has stated that decisions should be made in light of the science, not politics.

"Part of the problem though is, how does a man defend himself?"

By walking away. That may seem unfair, but the physical disparity is such that it has to be that way. Neither partner should strike the other, but even if a woman hits first, a man shouldn't hit her back. The damage he can do by sheer physical force is usually so much greater.

I think that's part of the emotional issue here. Men are angry that women can sometimes hit with impunity, whereas they can't.

But my sense of these situations - from also having been in a violent relationship myself -is that often a male abuser will provoke a first strike from a woman. He reasons he can't legitimately hit her until that point, so often he will get in her face, or yell such hurtful things, that she will react physically first, by shoving him back or slapping him. Then, in his mind, he is justified in beating her.

So the first strike doesn't prove much to me. It could be the woman herself is a batterer, or it could mean she's being battered. It's hard to tell until you separate the individuals from the dysfunction of their relationship.

Who doesn't believe that President Obama has an agenda?

I look at my life, and most of these power mad maniacs in Washington, and I ask myself why I would want them telling me anything. I can't come up with an answer.

My daughter wasn't filmed snorting coke, Mr Biden. I haven't drowned anyone, Mr Kennedy. I wasn't caught taking bribes, Mr Murtha. Nobody ran a brothel from my home, Mr Frank. I didn't have anyone steal a credit report, Mr Schumer.

I'm skeptical of everything these people say or do.

"It was crazy, controlling behavior under the guise of love,"

The creepy thing is that exactly this kind of behavior is whata lot of wives think is a normal part of their role. It's up to them to civilize their brutish husbands, or at least that's what momma taught them.

" By walking away. That may seem unfair, but the physical disparity is such that it has to be that way. "

What slimy trick.

"By walking away."

Oh right - He leaves a house HE is paying for, which he will lose in the divorce because he abondoned the marriage. Happens all the time.

"but the physical disparity is such that it has to be that way. "

Utter bullshit. The "physical disparity" is approximately 17 pounds on average - sorry, ladies; you're not half as dainty as you imagine. And in any case weapons, and we've had them now for about 200,000 years in case you haven't noticed, and the element of surprise equal it out to nothing - if a 150 lb. man can take down a wooly mammoth, it is nothing for a women to knife her husband in his sleep. Or to blow his brains out with a shotgun while he's sleeping and then get off on the charges when she claims he abused her.

"Men are angry that women can sometimes hit with impunity, whereas they can't."

This is the part you meant to call unfair. Why should a women or anyone else be licensed to hit someone who can't hit back?

"How are the dreaded feminists keeping men from doing this for themselves?"

Well, here's some more disingenuous bullshit. JulieA, how about you ask Erin Pizzey, who started the shelter movement in Britain, about the death threats she got when she wanted to do the same for men. You might also look into the efforts by women's groups in this country to scuttle financing for men's shelters in this country. Here's a place to start for you:
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=2925

>>It turned out that drinking and having sex qualified, since judgement was impaired. Deciding later that getting involved had not been a good idea qualified. In fact, almost any sexual experience or relationship in which the woman was not totally satisfied and happy could be added to the negative side.

A court in the Uk has recently found a guy not guilty of rape after a woman claimed she was too drunk to have given consent.
This was prominently reported because the verdict was considered significant (the woman who claimed rape was NOT unaware of the problem proving her case, by the way).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1164808/Thank-God-Im-free-says-chef-cleared-raping-woman-drunk-remember-But-dragged-mud.html

Thing is on the guy end we don't really need shelters. The response needs to be as different as men actually are from women. What keeps the guy ducking the frying pans and plates thrown, is that leaving is the nuke option. He won't be able to come back to his house, he may never see his kids again, and he could easily be bankrupted by the backlash. In this, his abusive parter holds all the legal cards.

This is the major difference... men can use the physical, women have the legal, and the physical if they are like that.

The bottom line is that there is an abusive person, however that person does that. Mental or physical, the genders accomplish things differently. How it is responded to is where the disperity exists.

I would agree that whatever the response, we don't want to take away protections that have been eeked out by women... The reason you don't get hits from 'battered men' is it's pretty much called 'men's rights'. As can be seen by some of the stats, generally assult on men isn't delineated by who did it. That's why there are no sites on it. What is out there is based on the aftermath of the abuse, and that usually is a loss of rights to property, and to seeing children. There is also the fallout of being thrown in jail for defending yourself...

I don't think it's all that cut and dried or easy to tell from the outside who the abuser is. And everyone above makes good points which also lends to the confusion.

lovelysoul, by current laws, when I defended myself from my husband 25 years ago, it is me, not him, they would have arrested. So I can understand the guys' outrage over this blanket assumption. Also, if you see so many cases of abuse, you must know, walking away is not always physically possible without knocking your attacker down or something and when, if you happen to be male, you have to dread the cops being called instead of hoping they will be.

I left a mark defending myself when he didn't leave one on me (he grabbed me in a bear hug and squeezed me as hard as he could to hurt; I instinctively scratched him, just missed his eye). That that's enough to get me arrested instead of him these days is a thought keeps me awake at night and doesn't exactly help me to trust and open up to the opposite gender. I know there are plenty of good men out there; I just don't trust my ability to discern the bad from the good anymore. I know how well a wolf can disguise themself as a sheep and she-wolves are probably even more expert at that than he-wolves given how much women are peer-pressured into looking feminine and demur while our male counterparts macho and alpha.

Norman, your argument about your dicks shriveling up, etc. is silly especially as you yourself state that you can ban together in times of war and the like. What the hell is it if a man's being physically abused but a time of war? His comrades should gather 'round him, not label him a wuss and circle the wagons. Maybe that's the problem, the gender difference. We women will call it what it is. We will view it as being under attack. Frankly, the male of the species is under attack. Send the troops out and start up those shelters and support groups already.

Try opening up. I have acted as support to a male friend who admitted to me he was raped (by another male) when hitchhiking. He started to only say that (partly because he knew what I was going through; this was just before I took off to Colorado with my daughter) and wound up telling me the whole horrifying tale just as women will do when I did not react as if he were some kind of wuss (definitely not, pretty macho outdoors guy). It helped him to get this horror out that he had been carrying around for several years and had never told anyone about before. Probably even helped him to see that the other guy overpowering him didn't make him less of a man.

You guys need to learn to do this for each other and, yep, recognize that there are women out there who won't think less of you for having had some misfortune out of your control. Think of the language we women use with each other to support and encourage. We do tell each other we are strong and survivors. How is it wussy to tell another guy he's a strong survivor if he survived rape or a woman chasing him around with an iron skillet (I never did find that amusing in cartoons) for a couple of year. If he survived it, overcame it, he is strong and brave. Just the same as he is if he survived mortar fire on the battlefield.

Frankly, I'm glad to see some of you opening up here even if this is a fairly anonymous forum. It's a good start anyway and maybe something of an idea. I know you'd have to dream up some safeguards against the invariable a-holes who'd crash (including femi-nazi's) and it's not the same as in person but anyone think of maybe opening up an internet forum for support? Bulletin board or something maybe? It'd be better coming from a guy most likely because, as someone said above, a guy opening up about abuse, especially abuse from a female, is not gonna want to see Nurse Ratched any more than women would have gone to groups and crisis centers were they run by men.

I don't know how this can be resolved bottom line, especially when there are children involved and abuse is so hard to prove. But it is something that needs to be looked at, talked about and addressed. And done so without favoring either gender.

And then you have people like my parents who beat on each other. I credit my mother with setting me an example for not taking it but really I can credit my father with the same damned thing. Neither one was "battered" because when they got physical, it was a draw. And I couldn't tell you who most often struck first. Usually Dad if it was fist; usually Mom when things started flying through the air.

Oh, and I don't buy those stats either. Utter trumped-up bullshit.

Two wrongs don't make a right, Jim. I'm not saying women should hit, and I'm certainly not talking about guns. The question was, "How should a guy defend himself?" I'm assuming that means unarmed, as, of course, weapons balance everything.

What would you prefer to hear? That it's alright to punch your woman if she strikes at you? That it's ok to blow her away if there's a gun involved? None of that helps these toxic situations.

Walking away is the rational choice, and that doesn't mean a man is "abandoning" the marriage if he takes the proper steps to protect his interests. If a woman is the batterer, then the male has the same onus as the female to collect witnesses and prove abuse.

We still had to go to court and testify to extend the emergency restraining order our friend got. Her husband was able to mount his own defense. Yet, all in all, he couldn't counter the preponderance of the evidence that he was basically treating her like property, and the judge deemed the situation a threat to her safety...as it should've been.

The thing is, she had witnesses. We had seen the signs and paid even closer attention when she began to reach out to us and share what she was going through. Battered men need to start doing that too, rather than suffer in silence. Start building a case. These events don't usually occur in complete isolation - neighbors and friends suspect more than you think - and there are now all kinds of ways to document abuse, such as tape recorders, hidden video cameras, cell cameras, etc.

I'm sure it's harder for a man to counteract the bias that he likely provoked things, just as it used to be hard for rape victims to counteract the assumption that they "asked for it". Yet, women fought through that bias, using every shred of hard evidence to make things change. Battered men will have to get smart and use the tools available to prove that they are indeed victims, not abusers.

I appreciate the attempt at compassion and balance in many of the comments.

However, it is easy to crow that "women did it" (with men's indispensable help, of course! After all, who voted all that government $$$ to fund the women's shelters?), and so men should "just do it", too. This ignores two fundamental things:

First, as noted in another post, because the government $$$ teat is not unlimited, feminist organizations actively and vehemently oppose even any DISCUSSION of the possible existence of "abused men," much less the idea of using any of the precious $$$ for men, which would "only take $$$ away from battered women for the benefit of men who are probably batterers themselves!" VAWA, for instance, refuses to admit the possibility that a woman could commit DV against a man.

Second, in order to ensure women's protection, society frowns on weak men, and at the same time rushes to help weak women. Women, even more than men, are invested in this basic dynamic. Thus, any man who isn't "man enough" to stand up to his woman, much less avoid being beaten physically and emotionally by her, is deserving of neither sympathy, nor help. His "weakness" instead makes him an object of ridicule -- by both sexes, and he knows it.

It is disingenous for women to deny that this is part of their inherent, and now legally-enshrined, privilege as women, and that men, especially in the face of well-entrenched and well-funded venomous opposition from feminists, face a much steeper climb in organizing assistance for the legions of abused, now-silent men.

Does it strike anyone as odd that VAWA defines verbal abuse, glaring, etc., as "abuse" when directed at women but not when directed at men?

My experience is that women are the masters of verbal abuse and the creation of mental anguish, not just for the men around them but often for their own children. In the old days we called this "bitching" and it was considered a negative trait as opposed to the current view that unbridled bitching is a sign of a "strong, independent woman."

I would like to see a VAMA act where one aspect of violence against men is defined as "withholding sex." This would help us all down the road to true gender equality.

BTW, in California recently, over the staunch opposition of women's advocates, the Court of Appeal recently declared that government-funded women-only shelters violate men's rights to equal protection.

In the face of this ruling .... virtually nothing has been done by the shelters to comply.

I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked!!

"Walking away is the rational choice, and that doesn't mean a man is "abandoning" the marriage if he takes the proper steps to protect his interests. "

lovelysoul, you are quite simply uninformed as to the state of the law on this point. What else can I say? As SwsissArmyD says above, walking out is a final choice for the man - he loses the house, the kids and ends up paying for the new boyfriend. that how it happens in case after case after case in a multiplicity of jusrisdictions. This is one more example of injustices, invisible to women, that make men roll their eyes when they hear how opporessed women are in this society.

"What would you prefer to hear? That it's alright to punch your woman if she strikes at you? "

I'd prefer to hear that women who hit their husbands and boyfriends are starting to get their asses hauled off to jail - that would be a very good start. I would prefer to ehar that the thumbhead opolice aren't still playing Rescue-the-Damsel when it comes to DV. Failing that I simnply cannot believe that any rational person would deny another person the right of self-defense.

Women are smaller than their men - then how do you account for their willingness to hit them in the first place? There's only one explanation for otherwise suicidal behavior like this - they know they can do it with impunity. With impunity. That is the defintion of cowardice. This is what you are defending?

"I'm sure it's harder for a man to counteract the bias that he likely provoked things, just as it used to be hard for rape victims to counteract the assumption that they "asked for it". "

Poor analogy. Women were never locked up as rapists for reporting rape the way that men are locked up as abusers for reporting their wive's abuse.

"Start building a case. These events don't usually occur in complete isolation - neighbors and friends suspect more than you think - and there are now all kinds of ways to document abuse, such as tape recorders, hidden video cameras, cell cameras, etc. "

In my state among others non-consensual surveillance is a criminal offense, even in the situations you describe.

"Start building a case." Even if he gets the case believed, a big iff, he still has to deal with his chances of staying in his own home and keeping his own children - fairly slim chances. You might want to start seeing the structural advantages women have in these situations.

Chief among them is cultural permission to see their husbands as property - their bodies, their behavior and their income, not to mention the presumption of control over their children.

Honestly you mean well, I can see that, but your own experiences and presuppositions and cultural conditioning are blinding you to some essential facts.

>>First, as noted in another post, because the government $$$ teat is not unlimited, feminist organizations actively and vehemently oppose even any DISCUSSION of the possible existence of "abused men," much less the idea of using any of the precious $$$ for men...

But male victims ARE also served by VAWA programs, Jay R.

The link below - giving some statistics on this - is actually from one of the anti-feminist groups, RADAR.

http://www.mediaradar.org/ovw_foia_data.php

JulieA, you have a good point. There are some unique difficulties, though. The big one: where are the money and the people going to come from? As Jay R documents, it'll be a cold day in hell before any government funding is ever made available for assiting men out of domestic violence. And I think it was lovleysoul who mentioned that many workers in women's shelters are volunteers. Well, one reason that they can take that time to do unpaid work is because they have husbands that they can rely on to pay the bills. If the men's sheter needs to recruit the husbands to do unpaid work there, who is going to pay the bills for the husbands?

And anyway, I have to agree that in the men's case, "shelter" is the answer to the wrong question. (Although I did kind of like the idea of the sports-bar hangout...) What men need is not really physical protection, but protection of their legal rights during a cooling-off period, so that they can have some breathing room to sort things out. As things stand now, Jim has reminded us, if the husband moves out to get away from an abusive wife, then he has just granted his abuser what amounts to an uncontested divorce, on whatever terms she pleases.

One other thing I would like to mention is that just because women don't commit violence in the same way men do, doesn't mean they aren't violent. Let me point out that in the extreme case, a woman who wants to harm her spouse will do so by attacking him with a lethal weapon while he is asleep or otherwise unprepared to defend himself (exhibit A: Mary Winkler), or by using methods of deceit or trickery (the classic example: poisoning). Men almost never do that.

Jim, I don't believe men are locked up just for reporting their wife's abuse. Usually, both partners are involved in an altercation. In many DV cases here at my place, both partners have been hauled off to jail because it's basically a draw, like T's Grammy's said about her parent's fights.

Due to your own biases, you are presuming that women never have to prove abuse, or prove themselves fit parents, and that is not true. There are many men who gain custody of their children, especially if the mother is volatile or a substance abuser, as most batterers are. It may take a little more effort to prove, but I've seen several cases as a GAL where it has been proven - not battery, per se, but instability on behalf of the mother.

Yet, unlike men, women do tend to reach out more and tell others about their abuse, so they have witnesses. Friends, neighbors, and families usually have a pretty strong suspicion regarding a consistent batterer, but most of the time, they won't get involved unless the victim personally confirms those suspicions.

I've had three or four female tenants come to me to confide abuse, but in 20+ years, I have never had one single man do the same. If he did, I would help him, just as I did the female tenants. And I believe most of my little community here would also help whether it was a man or woman. But, first, they must know about the situation because most people won't act unless they hear it from the victim's mouth or witness an attack. No one wants to be mistaken about these things and get someone else in trouble.

But abuse is not losing your home, or having a judge decide your children should primarily reside with their mother (usually in the family home). Abuse is not being ordered to pay child support. You are trying to blur the lines between what you don't like about the family justice system and domestic violence.

And look, "walking away" doesn't mean going to Siberia! You don't abandon the marriage just to cool off. Obviously, you have to use common sense and make it clear that you are leaving the house only temporarily because the situation is volatile. File a restraining order. Don't give up your rights. Have a policeman escort you back home to get whatever you need for the time being, then see an attorney. If the wife is a crazy batterer, and there are children involved, have a GAL appointed. The court wants to know that the children are safe, but you have to work with the system and take the steps necessary to prove what's going on.

>>the classic example: poisoning). Men almost never do that.

Oh dear, Cousin Dave - first thing that google spewed up was one of the rare men!

(This fascinating case took ages to crawl through the courts because of the problems of hearsay evidence).

"...The jury's [guilty] verdict came nearly a decade after Julie Jensen was found dead in her bed. The cause of death: Poisoning by ethylene glycol, the main ingredient in antifreeze.
"I think what Mark Jensen did is the most unspeakable offense I can truly recall," prosecutor Robert Jambois said after the verdict. "That's one of the reasons it took so long to bring this case to justice. It took a long time to uncover the lies and the machinations of Mark Jensen."

Yeah, look at the Petersen men - Drew and Scott. Guys just strangle their wives and dump them in a lake. You can't say women murder their spouses more often than men!

"Think of the language we women use with each other to support and encourage." - T'sGrammy

The point I was trying to make, is we don't speak that language, and the responses by both genders in these comments really shows that.

Guys DO really get together and talk about this, but we don't cry over it. Because getting out is the way to stop it, but I mentioned that's a nuke, yeah?

And T'sG? I'd bet money that even today you wouldn't be the one being arrested. A good friend of mine ended up with the skull fracture courtesy of Lodge Cast Iron pan. When he got out of the ER, he was immediately put in jail. When he came back to the house? It was empty. He hasn't seen the kids in more than a year, yet his wages have been garnisheed. It's prolly the rest of us that have been through it, that has kept him alive. Basically she has him by the cajones, because she has law on her side. How much does continuing abuse like that hurt him? He left, he did what everyone else is saying, and the abuse contiues. The only answer seems to be he has to give up seeing his kids, to stop paying for them. To probably irreparably damage his relationship with them for the rest of his life. With a bit of luck his kids will figure their mom out...

"But abuse is not losing your home, or having a judge decide your children should primarily reside with their mother (usually in the family home). Abuse is not being ordered to pay child support." lovelysoul

and yet in all of the abuse site we have mentioned:

Psychological abuse which includes behaviour that is intended to intimidate and
persecute, and takes the form of threats of abandonment or abuse, confinement to the
home, surveillance, threats to take away custody of the children, destruction of objects,
isolation, verbal aggression and constant humiliation.
Economic abuse includes acts such as the denial of funds, refusal to contribute
financially, denial of food and basic needs, and controlling access to health care,
employment, etc.

should be the same for goose and gander, no?

Something is missing from that story, Swiss. But, at any rate, not paying for his kids is wrong. They aren't guilty, and if he loves them, he'll still want to support them, even if he can't see them. The only relationship he will ruin is any future one he might have if he doesn't pay child support.

I cannnot believe that he is completely innocent in this. The law wants kids to have both parents in their lives. Either he isn't fighting hard enough or there's a reason - perhaps that he's not revealing even to his closest friends - why he has been denied a role in his children's lives.

"I cannnot believe that he is completely innocent in this."

And that about sums up society's existing bigotry when it comes to men, Lovelysoul.

Unfortunatley, I have come to believe the same thing about women who stay in abusive relationships.

"The law wants kids to have both parents in their lives."

Do tell! Well, if that's so, the law has been doing a piss-poor job for the last 40 feminist-infested years, hasn't it?

Seriously, Lovelysoul, how can you say such a thing? Aren't you aware of the federal matching dollars that spur child-support collection -- from fathers who are "in their kid's lives" marginally at best?

Or is it ok that a father is "in his kids' lives" two weekends per month?

And you're right, Swiss. It takes two to keep that unhealthy dynamic going. Yet, this doesn't make the abuser justified. They usually continue to abuse even if their partners change, which proves that the victim isn't really the cause of the abuse, no matter what his/her shortcomings or weaknesses may be.

I don't know about "economic abuse" or "refusal to contribute financially". That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? You can't call the police for that. "Hello, 911? Hurry, I'm experiencing economic abuse!"

If somebody confines you to your home, verbally intimidates and threatens you, holds all the money, follows your every move, tells you how to dress, think and act, that is abusive.

But typical arguments between divorcing spouses, over money and custody, which can obviously get heated and ugly, do not generally apply. If you were getting along, you wouldn't end up in a divorce. It's rarely pretty. What you are describing is the unfortunate fallout of divorce, which as much as you hate the consequences, is not domestic abuse.

True domestic abuse occurs as a pattern of violent and controlling behavior established long before that.

"True domestic abuse occurs as a pattern of violent and controlling behavior established long before that." lovelysoul.

This is very true, but you are acting like it ends. How much easier to abuse is it if you can have the legal system help you?

Also? read your words about my friend and how
""I cannnot believe that he is completely innocent in this.""

IS it the same to say:
"I cannnot believe that SHE is completely innocent in this."

Is anybody? Are we going to split hairs on who is innocent? She put him in the hospital. I've known him for almost 30 years, but sure there might be something buried that I have never known. But I think if we were applying the same rule, and it was a woman, you would not be asking the question.

>>A good friend of mine ended up with the skull fracture courtesy of Lodge Cast Iron pan. When he got out of the ER, he was immediately put in jail.

Jay R,
Come on - have another look at the above two sentences!

Lovelysoul is NOT being blinkered wondering if there are some potentially missing facts. Even a blotto (male!) bar stool lawyer might tactfully ask if there was any linking information gone AWOL!

Swiss,
Seeing your last comment - sure, I'd ask exactly the same question about missing info if the genders were switched.

Yeah, Swiss, he must've had a very bad attorney, and no child advocate, or (my guess) there was DV on both sides.

Jay R, you're assuming every father really wants to be in his kids' lives, but that isn't always the case, which is why we have "deadbeat dads". The legal system is really pushing hard for joint custody arrangements these days. Where a father is there, competent and willing, that is usually what I see happening - split weeks or week on/week off.

If it doesn't happen that way, it's typically because the dad doesn't come to court, doesn't pay child support, or has some issues that makes him unfit to parent.

Yet, when it goes against men - when their own issues or lack of cooperation prevent custody - they may paint it like it's the system's fault or the ex's evil doing. They don't tell the full story, just like I suspect Swiss's friend isn't.

You have to understand that family court is private and there's a lot of weird issues within marriages that get brought to light, but I honestly believe most participants in the family court system - the judges, counselors, child advocates - are trying to make the best possible choices for the kids, and nobody I know wants fathers cut out of kids lives. That's just not the mentality. Quite the reverse.

Unfortunately, sour grapes over settlement issues cause a lot of dads to lose interest or be so punitive towards the ex that they cut themselves out, which is very sad for the kids.

OK, Jody I see your point... he was put in jail because she swore he was abusing her, sans evidence. And then she took the kids and skipped town. There was no external pattern for this like filed reports... he often mentioned how enraged she would get over simple stuff. He put up with it for a fair amount of time, because she never hit the kids, and he figured that's just the way it was. Interestingly, I think had she not left he would still be taking the brunt of all of this. Assuming she didn't eventually kill him. Just like many people seem to stay when they shouldn't.

Now I can imagine that they argued, though I never saw him yell at her. Never heard from mutual friends that he did anything else to her... it was always her whacking him.

Like anything I don't know her side of the story, as I didn't know her that well, except as a control freak....

dunno lovelysoul. Custody is a tricky thing. I have joint, but the custodianship is with my ex. I wanted halfsies, and she didn't, so I get 'em every other weekend, and in the evening on wednesdays. End of story, and I have a very well respected lawyer. I tried to get custodianship, and was told that I would have to prove her insane to do so, by more than one lawyer. The presumption is that the kids should be with the mom, unless you can prove she is a danger to them. Proving that is quite difficult.

It seems like sour grapes until you are made to eat them. I guess that's really a big tangent to the q? of abuse, anyway...

What do your kids want, Swiss? You know, it only works that way when they're small. After age 12 or so, most judges will weigh more heavily what the kid wants. If they're happiest having their primary home being at mom's, then that's what's best for them.

In the teen years, it should become a lot more flexible. I really think the best arrangements aren't rigid. The happiest kids are the ones who can say, "I know it's your night, Mom, but I'd rather stay another night with dad" and that's ok. I hate it when parents go to war over one night, or being an hour late, or split holiday time precisely to the minute. Things happen with kids - great, unexpected opportunities arise - and parents shouldn't be punching a clock or trying to keep it completely balanced. They should work with each other.

lovelysoul, are you being deliberately obtuse or do you seriously not get what the guys are saying? For the record, they are saying if they leave, they automatically forfeit a whole shitload of legal rights. They are the abandoner if they run for their lives.

What the hell? Does anyone really not get the horror in Swiss' example of his friend? Reverse gender and would you really be saying that if a woman got whacked over the head with an iron skillet that "there must be something more to the story"? Are you freaking kidding me? Dude's lucky he's not dead. On what planet was he treated fairly barely surviving then being arrested because he did? Christ almighty. I seriously don't fucking get how she wasn't. Was she in the ER next to him.

Let's all just admit it in one big voice: this is a tough one and who is the victim and who is the aggressor is damned tough to tell since it usually goes on behind closed doors. lovelysoul, don't you think it's possible that if a woman was premeditating screwing her husband over, she might wring her hands and cry about abuse for months just to build her legal case? She really doesn't even have to be that smart a cookie to do the way it's currently set up.

One thing that pisses me off about family court is that they really don't fucking care what the kids want. It's rare they listen. Look at my case. My daughter couldn't testify about her father's abuse because she was 3 and had to be 10. You tell me, could a 3 year old or a 10 year old lie better, coached or uncoached? What makes you think that a judge will listen to Swiss' kids? They're so intent on parental rights that they've forgotten all about what's best for the child(ren). It has been dead for quite some time.

There are no easy answers. First we had men favored then we had women favored when neither gender should be. We need to look at things. Like why the hell recordings of abuse can't be used (and my state wouldn't allow them either for the record). NY will only allow if both parties agree to the recording as it's occuring. Hardly the way to catch incriminating behavior. I think the fear with recordings is they can be edited and doctored. They are not fail-safe proof. Hollywood wouldn't exist if they were.

Can we start with this is a tough one? It's damned tough to know what goes on behind closed doors. And work from there, never assuming either sex is automatically guilty and the other innocent. (Maybe it's because of my parents, I'm willing to bet there are many, many where the guilt is shared also.) And look at individual facts.

And I think it's highly doubtful, frankly, that the guy that wound up in the ER with a skillet to the skull while his wife is unscathed is the aggressor. You've got to be kidding me.

"What do your kids want, Swiss? You know, it only works that way when they're small. After age 12 or so, most judges will weigh more heavily what the kid wants. If they're happiest having their primary home being at mom's, then that's what's best for them."

So, at 12, what does the kid want? He/She has been living with mom and visiting dad for years. Unless mom and dad live really close, visiting dad for the weekend means that the child is away from his/her friends for the entire weekend.

When my daughter turned 13, she decided that she wanted to live with mom full time. Part of it was that mom was going to school full time and working nights full time, so there was little or no supervision.

"You've got to be kidding me." T'sG

wish I was. I'm the one that called the ambulance, and rode with him the ER. The deputies came later. Movie-of -the-week kind of stuff, except life is stranger than fiction.

T's Grammy, of course I agree it's a tough one. And I think you have some very good ideas for male DV support forums that you mentioned earlier.

Frankly, I just don't understand the skillet story. If that happened here, and I was the GAL, and there were no other mitigating circumstances or issues with the father, then that woman wouldn't have custody. And I don't know any other GAL or advocate in this family court who would allow that either.

I don't understand how: a) she wasn't charged for assaulting him when he was admitted to the hospital. b) How he could be convicted SOLELY on her assertion that he abused her, with no corraborating evidence or witnesses, especially considering HIS serious injury from her. c) How she can run off with the kids without being in a kidnapping-type situation, or violation of a court order, because even convicted felons have visitation rights to their children (unless he was convicted of abusing them as well).

So, those are a lot of unanswered questions, and all I'm saying is there must be a whole lot more to the story. It very well could be that she is a diabolical, plotting personality, who fooled everyone in the court system, and he is a totally innocent victim or her set-up, but without further facts, none of us can know.

As for your situation, it's a travesty, but it also occurred some time ago, and all I can say is that this is not what I see in family court today. Of course, it varies from state-to-state, district-to-district, so perhaps mine is just a better region, but I honestly believe everyone here holds the children's best interest above the parent's.

Here, most of the judges are male. They are fathers themselves, and some have been divorced, and I just do not see an anti-male bias in our family court system. One judge is actually fairly well-known as anti-female. GALs who feel the mother should have primary custody don't like going before him, as he tends to give women a really hard time.

So, I simply can't back up what you and the guys are saying from my experiences in this family court. Doesn't mean that it isn't happening elsewhere, but perhaps you all could find some encouragement that things are changing and have changed in some places.

Steamer, we try to do what is best for kids, and what makes them happiest and keeps them thriving. Kids are going through one of the most traumatic events of their lives when their parents divorce, and the conventional wisdom has been to cause them as little disruption as possible, which used to involve keeping them primarily with mom in their family home, in familiar surroundings and close to their friends.

Increasingly, we are suggesting kids split homes between parents, but I am not all that fond of this arrangement. To me, it seems like a "Solomonesque" solution - splitting the child in half to address the parents desire for total equality, not necessarily what is best and most stable for the child. Yet, that seems to be where things are moving.

I have a girlfriend who took weekends with her son and gave the ex the weekdays. No court ordered that; she chose it. Her reasoning was that weekends are the fun time anwyay - off work, she has time to take him to the zoo, museums, ballgames, and do all the fun bonding things she wants to do with him when she's not so tired.

Technically, she gets less time than dad - 2 days to his 5 usually - but they have a very flexible arrangement, and she takes her son to New Zealand for a month each year to visit relatives and can usually take him for other short vacations throughout the year.

So, if you compared her column of days to his, they might actually be closer, but the point is: no one is keeping score! That's not what matters.

Your kids are not going to remember exactly how many days you spent with them, only what you did in those days. I'm not saying parents shouldn't want as much time as possible, but I often feel that the focus is placed too much on tit-for-tat "equality" with the ex than on real bonding time with the kids.

Lovelysoul, in your state who pays for the GAL?

In my friends' case the explanations could go on and on, but what is the point now? I was only illustrating a view on this, if you don't believe it, that's OK. Friend in question certainly wouldn't talk more on it. Now that it's been a while, he is just trying to make it through. The system that you speak so gloriously of is a blunt instrument sometimes. Last time I tried to schedule a court date, they told me it would be 6mos... Having the kids decide where they want to go is well and good, but if you couple a vindictive parent with a change in money, and the manipulation never ends.

At some point in time you have to decide where the even keel is and get the kids through to adults. Once there, then they can figure out who's been doing what. It would be a different story if they were in danger.

>>Does anyone really not get the horror in Swiss' example of his friend? Reverse gender and would you really be saying that if a woman got whacked over the head with an iron skillet that "there must be something more to the story"?

T's Grammy,
Just to be clear, I absolutely DO get the horror of the story Swiss has reported. And if I heard it was a woman clobbered with a cast iron pan, then shoved in jail straight from the ER on the say-so of the guy who did it, yes - I'd also ask "what ELSE was going on?".

Because the only reasonable reaction to what happened to Swiss Army's friend (as told here) is outrage. The scenario, as told, is completely mental.

I used to cover court (not family, obviously) and I got used to hearing wildly conflicting testimony when there were criminal charges. Often they were black and white versions of the evidence but - usually - the penalties would reflect a sensible approximation of what had actually happened. Yes, very occasionally the more injured party would turn out to have been the prime aggressor.
(There was a guy who bit another guy's finger off, and it wasn't the biter's fault.)

If that's not the case here, then Swiss Army's friend has been shafted on all fronts. Absolutely.

"How she can run off with the kids without being in a kidnapping-type situation, or violation of a court order?" If you're a GAL, you should know that if it she does have full custody, it's not kidnapping. It's only interference with visitation rights, if he has any; and that's not a very big risk. Unless it's been upped last time I checked, it only carries a 3-day sentence. Of course, my daughter's now 26, so I concede it might have changed since I last looked.

You side-stepped my other point. That if a woman is trying to screw a husband over, it's entirely feasible that she will build a case by wringing her hands and crying. I'm amazed that's considered being a witness. I mean, how do you really know you haven't been used as a tool in this manner? You have no real way of knowing that unless you actually saw who struck who. It does not sound that way.

I don't know. As I said above, I got a restraining order, no sweat when I left a mark and he didn't. Granted, I acted in self-defense but I do have no way of proving that really. It was my word against his. He did what he planned to do and claimed he was only hugging me. A guy only hugging does not imitate a boa constrictor and squeeze as hard as his muscles allow. I was sore from this "hug" but not as much as a bruise and the deep scratch I left just missed his eye and ran down his cheek. Yes, this was 26 years ago when my daughter was a baby but still... No one was there to witness it.

Swiss, in my state, GALs are volunteers, which may be what keeps us more objective. We have no other agenda or "dog in the fight" besides the child.

T, I DON'T know that I wasn't used as a "tool". I mean, that's the tough part of this for all of us. We want to believe our friend who is describing abuse. I mean, I want to believe you - and if you were my (in person) friend and told me what happened, I'd be inclined to believe your story if for no other reason than I've found you to be totally consistent in what you've said throughout the months that I've been on this site.

In my friend/tenant's case, I personally witnessed his odd, controlling behavior - him not letting her have a massage (a Christmas gift to all of us ladies), jealously making her put the cat down off her lap, the way she dressed, the way he hovered near her almost all the time, and the way she immediately changed from a bubbly, outgoing personality to a more subdued, submissive one whenever he was around.

All in all, it wasn't a lot of evidence though, but combined with three other women testifying about different things they had seen, it was enough to paint a psychologically abusive picture of him....not get arrested though. He was never arrested.

She's been back to visit, lost 35 pds, looks wonderful and seems like a whole new person, so that confirms to me that we made the right move there.

But I think we all have to use our best, common sense judgement regarding DV cases, and sometimes we can be off-base or "played". Still, I think it's worth taking the risk to potentially help save an abused person.

You know, I do have a male tenant that I think is in an abusive relationship. She is very hostile, calls him fat, says things like, "You think I could actually love you, the way you look?!" He has actually been brought to tears about it (to others, not me), but the next day, he'll defend her, which is pretty typical of DV victims.

He keeps saying he's leaving, going on an extended trip, so I haven't done anything. Yet, would I if he were female? I'm asking myself this.

I don't think anyone would let a guy talk to a woman that way, but we kind of expect him to be stronger, and we also don't want to embarrass him or hurt his manly pride by implying that he can't handle the situation. He's a big, burly guy.

But, after this discussion, I'm wondering if I should do or say something. But what? Tell her she's a heartless bitch?

"Steamer, we try to do what is best for kids, and what makes them happiest and keeps them thriving. Kids are going through one of the most traumatic events of their lives when their parents divorce, and the conventional wisdom has been to cause them as little disruption as possible, which used to involve keeping them primarily with mom in their family home, in familiar surroundings and close to their friends."

When we split up, my wife was managing a restaurant and I had a 9-5 job. My duaghter spent a lot of nights with babysitters. I asked my lawyer about my daughter living with me. He said, "If you could prove that she is a drug abusing prostitute, you might have a 50/50 chance". That is a direct quote that I have burned in my memory since 1986.

I had my daughter 5 nights every two weeks. That is 35.7% of the time. If I had my daughter more than 40% of the time, I would not have been paying child support. (My wife made more money than I at the time) When my ex wife went back to school and worked full time nights, my daughter slept at a babysitter's house. It was cheaper for my ex to pay an overnight babysitter than to lose the child support by having my daughter stay with me. This was supported by the court because the child is better off with the mother. Don't give me this "What's best for the kids" crap.

heh, steamer, FWIW as of 2003 nothing has changed...

Lovelysoul, being the big burly man is prolly part of the issue. In my age group [44] I was raised with the idea that I would take an injury before seeing a woman injured. right or wrong, hardwired into the brain. It isn't bad unless somebody selfish realizes it, and starts the manipulations. The best thing I can say without the direct knowledge... is model the best behavior you can for him, to contrast his millstoneGF. Don't get into it with her, because she will make his life even more a living hell. Be his friend, and encourage his other friends if you know them. Isolation is often a part of the controlling. Just remember the law of unintended consequence. Many of my friends, ESPECIALLY my female friends, crossed swords with my ex over her treatment of me. While I was happy that someone was stickin' up for me, and that I wasn't crazy, my ex made life hard.

I'm sorry, Swiss...and sorry, too, Steamer. Unquestionably, there is a mother/child bias in these matters, but I really do believe that is slowly changing, albeit more slowly than you'd probably like to see.

I try very hard to be fair and not act on gender biases. Obviously, none of us can completely separate ourselves from our gender, but I have a strong sense of fairness, and I question myself, just like I am now with the male tenant. I want to do what is right.

Yet, sadly, sometimes I think there's not much anybody can do if the victim doesn't ask for help and the abuse is mostly psychological.

He is the sweetest guy, and we were friends even before this. They have only been involved for a few months. What's shocking is that he is a former cop and therefore should "know better" than to get into this type of DV situation! But he's lonely and needy, and she's taken advantage of that...which I guess proves that it can happen to anybody. Men shouldn't be ashamed to come forward and share this when even big, burly cops get abused.

If you all started a forum, I think cases like his would motivate guys to feel better about sharing what they've been through....just as abused women became more comfortable discovering that this happens to suburban housewives and highly-educated women, who seem to have everything. DV doesn't discriminate. It happens to a broad range of people..even tough guys.

People have very different stories. From what I have seen and been told by others these could easily all be true simple because they are in different spots. Even different judges in the same county can be very different.

And that finally nails it, former banker. It's such a crapshoot when you go into family court, that people who need to are avoiding it while those who manipulate use it as a tool.

Talk about the law of unintended consequences but I guess that's all that can be expected when you try to make blanket assessments instead of taking cases on a case by case basis.

Meanwhile, latest studies show that sisters foment happy families whilst brothers cause problems:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7977454.stm

Obviously, men are the problem.

Guys, one thing you need to be careful about is not falling into what I'd call the feminist trap (I know you love being likened to them!)

I mean, for the past few decades, feminism has brought about enormous change in the lives of women, yet if you ask the average feminist whether things are any better, she'd probably say, "Not really. Women are still being victimized, blah, blah, blah..."

And that's because the mindset of these movements is to fight for change, yet never acknowledge any real progress. It's if there's a fear that acknowledging progress causes the whole movement to lose its relevance.

Yet, really, the reverse is true. Today, young women distance themselves from feminism because the label has come to symbolize a certain...irrationality. Largely because of this rabid insistence that things remain so bad for women.

And I'm here telling you that the mens/father's rights movement HAS made an impact on the family court system, but I feel I always get flack for saying so.

It's ok to acknowledge some progress. That doesn't invalidate all your grievances or mean there still isn't room for improvement.