Posted on 03/08/2005 2:18:36 PM PST by JFK_Lib
....Domestic abuse can and does happen to women of all ages, races, and socioeconomic and educational backgrounds. Although abuse happens to men and to same-sex partners, domestic violence usually involves men abusing their female partners. In fact, the Department of Health and Human Services estimates that as many as 4 million women suffer abuse from their husbands, ex-husbands, boyfriends or intimate partners in the United States each year.
Domestic abuse — also called domestic violence, intimate partner violence or battering — occurs between people in intimate relationships. It takes many forms, including coercion, threats, intimidation, isolation, and emotional, sexual and physical abuse. ....
Emotional abuse. Uses put-downs, insults, criticism or name-calling to make you feel bad about yourself. Intimidation. Uses certain looks, actions or gestures to instill fear. The abuser may break things, destroy property, abuse pets or display weapons. ..... Privilege. Makes all major decisions, defines the roles in your relationship, is in charge of the home and social life, and treats you like a servant or possession.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Really? Re-read the threads about that incident. A lot of the posters thought it was funny.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
i find these reports insulting.
my adoptive mother was in a rage her whole life. she threw things. she destroyed our lives.
my adoptive father was a doormat.
only after she died did we, my father, brother and i, discover that we like each other and get along. she controlled our relationships with each other. now angry words have no place in our family.
So a woman who throws old dishes in the heat of an argument is mentally ill? Interesting.
I would say this woman was incredibly immature, but mentally ill does seem to be a bit of a stretch.
He's letting her know she's crossed the line. She needs to respect his boundaries. And he has every right to let her know what they are. And we're not talking about "hitting" to the point of bruising. We're talking about a "slap" causing no bodily injury and a very minimal amount of pain. Feminist spin notwithstanding, this isn't real "violence". And I'm just curious. What about a woman slapping a man in the case of an inappropriate and crude pass? OK by you? Yes or no?
...let's face it, he's not relationship material.
If she is gravely insulting to him, than she's not relationship material either. I'm so sick and tired of conservative "chivalrous" BS which actually ends up supporting the feminists instead of opposing them.
Every forum will have its idiots, I suppose.
My wife doesn't do it, but my mother did (maybe once a year of so), and I've talked to several other men who've witnessed the same thing. It seems to be some kind of catharsis, and an excuse to buy some new dishes. I've always considered it more of an idiosyncracy than anything else.
The second woman I knew was a neighbor who showed up at my house crying because her husband had beat her up for splashing water in his face with a tennis ball she threw into their pool. They were having an argument, and she said something like, okay fine, threw the ball in the pool, and he chased her into the house and beat her up. The next day he was all sweetness and light and apologized. He was a state police officer. Still is, actually.
The third woman I know was made to leave the room every time her husband had a male visitor, and this man would hold a knife to her throat.
I know of one woman I think had a history of abuse, and she killed her husband with a knife as he was attempting to leave.
The warning signs of an abuser: male of female:
In the beginning, they try to be everything to you. Meet every want, prince charming on steroids. They want to control everything, want to know who you talked to, who you saw, what you talked about, did you talk about them, they try to isolate you from friends, family, tell you that they are doing you a favor being with you, etc. Incredibly jealous, easily hurt, angry when hurt, explosive tempers. In other words, they try to become your god.
Everyone can lose his/her temper. Everyone has the potential to be jealous. But it is the unreasonable irrational reactions that are warning signs, to me.
JFK_Lib - I read it well enough, and you dont think that boxers get angry and deliver their blows in anger? Was Mike Tyson ever angry in the ring you think? Maybe we should ahve designated Hate Auditors at all boxing matches and promptly cart off to prison anyone that lands a blow in anger?
Oh, and your suggestion that I take a reading comp class is very insulting, threatening and abusive. I want an appology or else I am going to report you to the Hate Crimes Commission for abusing me by harming my self esteem! LOL!
technochick99 - As far as put downs and emotional abuse, it depends. Perhaps we are all talking in too general of a way. An occasional insult it not abuse. A pattern of insults is abuse. And that applies equally to men and women.
JFK_Lib - Yeah, good law really thrives on these ambiguous terms built on slippery slope arguments, right? Good lord, if you think a stern look is abuse then there is nothing I can do to remedy your perception.
technochick99 - Perhaps the reason why many of us are very upset over the 'trivial slap' comment, besides the fact that we disagree with you, is that of incrementalism. Abuse doesn't always start out as a full beating, or else the abused would high tail it out of there. Typically, it starts out small, perhaps with a slap, then tends to escalate from there. You know...'I'm sorry, it will never happen again', and sooner or later... it does. And it escalates.
JFK_Lib - Yep, more slipepry slope. Uh huh, lets throw all fathers in prison who ever lose their temper for the sake of the families well being, never mind their incured poverty or the harm caused by having a fatherless family. That sure makes a whole lot of sense.
Oh, and are you a conservative?
technochick99 - The emotional abuse component targets the self-worth of the abused. 'You're worthless', 'You're ugly', 'No one else would want you'... etc. It strikes at the heart of the person
JFK_Lib - Some people are worthless. I have known a lot of people who would kill you and leave you for the buzards if they saw any gain from it and thought they could get away with it.
That is *real* abuse and violence, not this silly 'lookism' agitprop.
VinceJS - Yes, I do think a slap (as long as it's not going to cause real bodily harm) can be a justified response to a grave insult, but this I would consider as justified self-defense to a verbal and emotional assault. And certainly, when a woman is openly disrespectful in front of a sergeant's men, that definitely calls for some sort of strong response; otherwise he loses the respect of his men.
JFK_Lib - But you dont get it, Vince. If a woman verbally assaults a man that is OK as it is a justified response to the oppression from the patriarchy. When some female students at the u of MD posted flyers all over campus accusing a random group of male students of being rapists, that wasnt slander as they were only acting out of self-defense agaisnt the patriarchal structure rampant at UMD. /sarcasm LOL!
goldstategop - Battered victims still love the guy who's abusing them and its easy to arrest someone but in practice its difficult to impossible to get a spouse prosecuted and sent to prison. You will rarely find an abuse case where the abuse is obvious enough to convince a jury. And its even harder to get a woman to leave a relationship in which all the power belongs to her mate. We've got to end to domestic violence but like with the war on drugs, we're never going to jail our way out of it.
JFK_Lib - Man, that is crying shame we cant jail all the men who look at women mean, or tell them that, yes, those pants make their butts look big. And can you believe that they still love their men anyway; what a shame!
BTW, why do you presume that all these situations are male abusers targeting female victims? You sound like an anti-male bigot to me, frankly and you are abusing me by hurting my self esteem. What is with you abusers anyway? Why arent you in jail already?.
goldstategop - I don't agree. Self-defense is one thing but a man hitting a woman to save his ego strikes me as a cowardly and selfish thing to do. If a guy can't take a negative comment from a woman and deal with it constructively, let's face it, he's not relationship material.
JFK_Lib - So a person does not have a right to defend themselves from verbal assault? There is no defense when verbally assaulted with 'fighting words' except to call our already overworked police or file a lawsuit? You are hoodwinked, dude.
ken21 - my adoptive mother was in a rage her whole life. she threw things. she destroyed our lives...my adoptive father was a doormat...only after she died did we, my father, brother and i, discover that we like each other and get along. she controlled our relationships with each other. now angry words have no place in our family.
JFK_Lib - Sounds rough. You have my condolences.
BTW, the shift key is your friend.
I took exception to JFK_Lib's use of the word "trivial"; but not entirely. That's the word which has caused lots of confusion on this thread. I can understand the word "trivial" from the perspective of "no assault is trivial, including a slap"; but I can also see it from a larger perspective -- allow me to explain -- in that mere words are now being used to penalize and imprison men, certainly put them into the "lawyer" mill.
Bill Cosby, is having to defend himself against dubious, questionable charges in a case that is ONE YEAR OLD, and the female "in question" is given immunity -- including the publication of her name (dittos in the Boeing CEO case). He HAs TO FORK OUT DOLLARS to defend himself (the question of his innocence or guilt to be put aside for the moment) against "mere words uttered via legal leviathan" by a female. The accuser gets full 'IMMUNITY AND PROTECTION". Is her name EQUALLY PUBLISHED IN THE NEWS? (No. Piffle on feminista version of "equality".) Pfft. That's extortion by legal means.
Under VAWA and Bill Clinton's "deadbeat dads" bill, many very innocent men's livelihoods were put into the dustbin. And on merely showing up as a "divorced dad". I could utter here story after story of men wrongly accused, men who did NOT wish the divorce, whose income, jobs, and personal freedoms were tossed into the dustbin trampled upon by feminist activism via BAD LAWS.
So I can see the word "trivial" as meaning -- in comparison to the large picture of the assault upon the LIVES and LIVEHOOD of men, as used by JFK_Lib. In the larger scope, yes.. a "slap" is trivial in comparison to whole lives, and families destroyed by the Family Law and Courts sytem.
When outrageous laws become the lay of the land, the innocent must proceed forth as never "guilty" and because the law is stacked against them.
I look at all the times the liberals have been trying to wrench some kind of twisted apology out of President George Bush -- that he should APOLOGIZE because no WMDs were found in Iraq. These aren't laws, but rather MSM-produced-catch-22s that were "cleverly" designed to entrap a good man. President Bush was right to simply ignore these boobs. There's nothing to apologize for.
Personally, I just don't care enough to slap someone or use physical force when the other person is being or acting like an idiot. I ignore them, get out of their way, avoid them, after speaking my peace. But not all occasions can be dealt with this way.
I slap at feminism EVERY SINGLE CHANCE I GET and because I abhore feminism. Pure and simple. I do not at all agree with any of the premises they have postulated in 30+ years. I've done my research. And my own research has rendered different findings and results from theirs.
JFK-Lib used a word "trivial", and I'll not hang him on that point; in the big picture -- he is right. A slap is "trivial" in comparison to having your children, your civil and constitutional rights, your due process taken away from you -- abrogated, non-substantive, not accorded.
In the context of this thread, of course, the word is seen in a different light -- at the personal level. True, enough. A slap not given in self or other defense, is assaultive and is not a trivial matter. But really? It can be.
I'm not fudging here.
What I'm trying to point out is how screwed up communication has become due BAD LAWS stemming from liberal identity-politics gamesmanship.
In re:
Back in the 70's - did any help exist for the battered woman? From what I can tell, no. (Based on what my mother has told me and what I remember.) Has the pendulum swung too far? Probably.
Yes, there was help for battered women. It was in the "faith-based" organizations -- as it always has been. Furthermore, a battering male was most often dealt a form of "vigilante justice" by those who knew the women. That has since been outlawed through the onus of "laws" fueled by "lawyers". Feminists refuse EVER to tell the whole truth about women, and the past.
1. Faith-based organizations took in out-of-wedlock pregnant women; fed, nurtured them and any other children; found good homes for the child-in-vitro, should the mother choose to put the child forward for adoption.
2. Faith-based organizations took in battered women and children, and used the power of "contact" to swiftly deal with the offending batterer.
3. Abortion has always been available (perhaps not to every single female on the "planet"; but in the past, abortion was the best kept and very guarded secret between females and their doctors. It was kept private. When RoeVWade came into play -- so did the loss of women's privacy come also into play -- both in the medical and social arenas. Boobs, vaginas, every aspect of a female's anatomy was brought full-force into the public "square". This was also fueled and funded by the "sex-ed" leviathan which was comprised primarily of those of the feminist/socialist bent. Children used to have much more of a child hood. They used to be freed to focus upon EDUCATION and simply growing up. The "sex" thing which grown-ups can barely deal with was forced upon children. Now children are begetting children.
4. The very same political groups launching "government" control and laws simultaneously bashed "faith-based orgs". In a business sense, it was a hostile take-over.
The feminists always posit that women had no choice, have always been "subservient" creatures. I beg to differ. Women had far more power, and freedom in the past - pre-feminism. There were women attending colleges. You won't hear about them from the feminists. There were blacks at colleges and in teaching positions, pre-feminism. You won't hear about this either from the feminists.
The feminist mantra is "the personal is political". Ipso, if your mother didn't perceive there were organizations available to help women (back then), then none existed for ANY WOMAN. It's feminist mantra #2: If SuperBowl Sunday violence is happening to ONE woman, it is happening to ALL WOMEN EVERYWHERE. Most all feminist suppositions are based upon a couple of stories to writ large an agenda for funding, power, and political purposes. If there is one Abu Ghraib, there are Abu Ghraib's happening EVERYWHERE.
What do the socialists hate? Faith-based organizations. Except if those "faith-based" are Islam-terrorists, obviously.
I'm with you full on "damned leftists". Their leviathan has grown since the simple days of the "bloody hangar" and the blacked-eyed wife, no?
In no way am I suggesting that awareness of "battery and assault" is a bad thing. It's not a bad thing. How else to explain, shot-gun weddings, and potential threats to the new son-inlaw by the new wife's father, uncles, brothers? Liberals would like to posit that such "things of the past" could only have come from within those ignorant "red states" "hick" mentality. This kind of justice, however, did not punish everyone through onerous taxations and bad laws. It was swift, it was dealt with at the local level. Now, men cannot even defend a wife, a sister, a daughter -- lest they become subject to the unholy host of feminist "domestic violence" laws. The civil laws have become "identity politics" and funded the legal industry to become as powerful as it has become. This is wrong.
Long post, thanks for reading.
You are right. However, I suggest to you its a Liberal play at many levels. On one hand, the feminists are pushing to water down masculinity to the "metrosexual level". On another hand, it is in order to feminists/Democrats to fuel another "taxpayer funded" organizations for "battered males" usually "liberal" males. Thirdly, Yes, I do have many hands.. lol.. it's to allow for the potential funding for the gay "domestic violence" bureau and positions. All of a piece, it's bad law, evil civil rhetoricisms. It's not fair, and it's not intended to be. It's about money and political power. And the UN and whatever newer "orgs" the socialists have up their sleeve. It's about abusing "freedom" and "civil liberties".
Excellent post, Alia.
So much said but it seemed almost too short.
Kudos!
First off, your mention of a stern look is a strawman argument. I specifically did not cite it, so please don't respond to my statements as if I did. Actually, I am saying that a pattern of insults is emotional abuse, I am not making a legalese argument. Laws, and the prosecution thereof, are typically vague.
In addition, we are talking about interpersonal relationships with regards to anger and violence. So why you are bringing in boxing, etc is beyond me. (now and before)is beyond me. FWIW, I was at a pro boxing match a few weeks ago with my BF, and I really didn't see much anger in the ring.
Someone losing their temper is one thing. Someone who hits someone in anger in the midst of losing their temper is another.
Yes, I am a conservative - I value self-control.
Are some people worthless? Sure they are. Is insulting your wife or girlfriend in this matter appropriate? No.
You do realize that we are talking about personal relationships here, don't you? Bringing up all of these other things is mixing apples and oranges. It seems to me that we are talking past each other and you are not staying focused on the topic of the article, or what everyone else has been talking about. And you're asking me if I am a conservative? LOL.
Faith based organizations, huh? Hhhmmmmhhhh.... tell that to the priest I went to as a child. Perhaps there wasn't enough information back then. Male relatives? Good if you got them I suppose. Good if they aren't part of the problem themselves!
FWIW, my stepdad would kill someone who abused me. Or he would try, but he's have to get in line behind me, and then my mom :)
Again, I cannot disagree with the bulk of your argument.
Man, you sound VERY bitter. If you are able to justify "trivial slapping" then maybe your defensiveness because of the article is you hiding your abusive tendencies.
Go ahead....make this article part of your arguement against the fem agenda if you wish...but I don't think it has anything to do with that and you miss the point.
Being a victim of domestic violence myself....a few times....(you are drawn to what you are used to)...I can say this epidemic is real and it has nothing to do with the Biblical scriptures at all. If you read the scriptures and not just half of the sentence it will say, "Wives submit to your husbands. Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church"....If you truly love your wife as Christ loved the church, you would treat her with dignity, kindness and seek her best interests.
There's NO EXCUSE FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. PERIOD.
Sorry Fido969, I meant this comment for JFK_Lib
Man, you sound VERY bitter. If you are able to justify "trivial slapping" then maybe your defensiveness because of the article is you hiding your abusive tendencies.
Go ahead....make this article part of your arguement against the fem agenda if you wish...but I don't think it has anything to do with that and you miss the point.
Being a victim of domestic violence myself....a few times....(you are drawn to what you are used to)...I can say this epidemic is real and it has nothing to do with the Biblical scriptures at all. If you read the scriptures and not just half of the sentence it will say, "Wives submit to your husbands. Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church"....If you truly love your wife as Christ loved the church, you would treat her with dignity, kindness and seek her best interests.
There's NO EXCUSE FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. PERIOD.
But the Domestic Violence mavens DO regard stern looks as abuse alogn with virtually any other not-nice reaction a man might have. So when you defend the general notion that actions less than that causing severe injury is a matter for state intervention then you are embracing their whole paradigm whether you wish to or not.
I am discussing what constitutes 'domestic violence', not what every individuals particular take on it is.
Actually, I am saying that a pattern of insults is emotional abuse, I am not making a legalese argument. Laws, and the prosecution thereof, are typically vague.
There are many forms of abusive behavior and not all of them constitute abuse that warrants the states intervention. I know of couples where one spouse abuses the other by nitpicking his wifes behavior referencing courtesy, and she can never relax around him. Should he go to jail for telling her to say please? You cant ignore the absurd degree to which this category of laws is being stretched and redefined.
In addition, we are talking about interpersonal relationships with regards to anger and violence. So why you are bringing in boxing, etc is beyond me. (now and before)is beyond me. FWIW, I was at a pro boxing match a few weeks ago with my BF, and I really didn't see much anger in the ring.
So a man should go to jail, lose his job, and his family lose the income and maybe their lifestyle and home because he did something that is far less violent than what happens in the boxing ring everey day? Or on the football field?
And why the distinction? If someone made a sport of maiming people would it be tolerated? Of course not and that it was defended as a sport would make no difference at all.
If total strangers can punch each other in a ring fror sport without criminal charges being pressed, then how can you say that aa husband and father should be thrown in jail for doing far less when losing his temper and slapping his wife? If what he does in his own home is actionable, then what heppens in the sports arena that far surpasses it should also be actionable.
But logic and reason are not welcome in these politically correct discussion, are they?
Someone losing their temper is one thing. Someone who hits someone in anger in the midst of losing their temper is another.
But why is it a different thing for someone to do it calmly on a regular basis in sport?
Yes, I am a conservative - I value self-control.
Just wondereing if you were as most conservatives I know revere the family and shun state intervention except in the most egregious cases. I wouldnt call slapping to be such an egregious case.
Are some people worthless? Sure they are. Is insulting your wife or girlfriend in this matter appropriate? No.
Why? I cant be honest? Is honesty a crime now?
You do realize that we are talking about personal relationships here, don't you? Bringing up all of these other things is mixing apples and oranges.
For the puirposes of contrast and comparison one can compare apples and oranges. When one demands that apples be treated like oranges is where you have the problem, and men should not be expected to act like women, like ehty dont have testosterone.
At this rate, it wont be long untill testosterone is banned and men have to take estrogen shots.
It seems to me that we are talking past each other and you are not staying focused on the topic of the article, or what everyone else has been talking about. And you're asking me if I am a conservative? LOL.
Seems like a reasonable questions considering your enamorous views on state intervention into families that have even rare spats that get so bad that insults are exchanged. That would never happen in your marriage, right? LOL!
So I disagree with terrorizing innocent men with unjust laws supposedly designed to stop violence, so that must mean I commit that violence?
That is standard Stalinist technique - you must be proud to emulate him, no?
Go ahead....make this article part of your arguement against the fem agenda if you wish...but I don't think it has anything to do with that and you miss the point.
Um, the CNN article is quite specifically about Domestic violence, duh.
Being a victim of domestic violence myself....
Being a newly minted 'victim' does not mena you are right or justified in wanting to see men stripped of their rights and presumed guilty.
There's NO EXCUSE FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. PERIOD.
There is no excuse for using the power of the state to destroy homes, rip apart families and empower the state to intrude in everyones private life.
The last century should have taught us the dangers of handing the state such power.
Period.
You are talking about people who voluntarily enter into a ring to hit each other. You compare that to marriage or dating?
Logic and reason are present in my arguments, but are lacking in yours. I don't have the time to waste debating someone who would even make the argument you just made. It's ridiculous.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.