|Abused MenPage 19 of 21 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21)|
i've made my point about abused men above, but that does not mean that there aren't abused women. i seriously doubt that the majority of womens' shelters have women who are not abused.
I do not dispute that there are women who are very legtimately in women's shelters.
I certainly do not want to undermine these women's need for support.
But , having talked to a few people who have first hand knowledge , and atleast in my location , there are many women who abuse the system.
Does it not make sense that there are a fairly significant number of messed up women who would take advantage of this system? Like I said , all that is needed is to cry abuse . The whole system is geared towards taking a woman's word for it unquestioningly.
The shelters themselves like to claim that they are badly in need of funding and therefore they are they not going to turn away clients. In fact , they are often encouraged.
Also , the abused might often be abusers themselves since they live a very rough lifestyle that is surrounded in abuse by and directed towards both sexes.
I guess it's case where anyone who wants the true picture of women's shelters might want to inquire and find out for themselves .
Posted: 12/15/2007 7:59:10 PM
|i am glad this thread is getting some dignity back into it. this is a very serious topic for both men and women who have been abused. when sharing the same rooms and giving their pain voice, there is no "bantering" between men and women, let alone competition. if anything, solutions are shared and mutual support is offered. i find it very offensive that people can make fun of this topic or of either the men or women who have suffered from TRUE abuse. likewise, the shelters in and around these areas are way overloaded and people are being put out, before they can even find affordable housing. so not sure what is going on elsewhere as reported. |
fortunately, many victims do make friends in 12 step such as al anon. which reminds me, not everyone who is abused "asks" for it--neither male nor female. some participate in the dysfunctional game, but get out when they get some help. but pouring boiling hot water over my friend was far from solicited. my male friend was one of those also called "victims" . his wife also was dual diagnosis, her bi-polar disorder set off further by chemical dependency. he too got custody of his children. it could have gone either way. now that he is way more saavy, i think he will see the signs in the future.
Posted: 12/16/2007 5:06:05 PM
Do you really think, in this day & age, that judges simply say "oh, poor woman?" The majority of murders (of any kind) are committed by men & sentences are often light, have you noticed? Give me a break
Posted: 12/16/2007 6:19:04 PM
It's called the v-pass. "What about my children? They will miss out on their mother".
Christ.. seriously.. if mommy's a murder, I'm totally fine at the thought of them missing out on her being around.
Posted: 12/17/2007 3:57:15 PM
Today, it will be women working alongside men who will help change it to be more honestly reflective of reality.
I agree. Unfortunately, many women won't acknowledge a problem exists or some of the root causes that need to be dealt with to solve the problem, one being anti-male bigotry.
Anti-male bigotry exists. The more we talk about it, the more female allies we will have to help solve the problem.
I agree .
Anti-male bigotry not only exists , but , man bashing is blatantly in everyone's face . It's scary that people actually don't see it or won't acknowledge it.
I don't see anything wrong with that statement and I don't see it as women bashing at all. I'm not sure how you see it as creating a divide between men and women.
Calling men who commit the crime of sticking up for themselves : "bashers" , is insanity.
Cedar77, I must admit that in Georgia an hour outside of Atlanta there is a town where there is a shelter and the things you mentioned are happening. My gf is there and she shouldn't be. There are five women in the shelter and One uses the telephone to make dates with men and she is always out on a date while the other women in the home take care of her kids. One goes back to her abuser once a week for sex and One decided to return to the bf and one is just living there because she doesn't want to go to work. Now my gf calls me and tells me about the catered meals they bring in for them. They eat better than most working people. I have refused to take her calls because it sickens me to hear the way they live and they are suppose to be there getting their lives in order. I say all this to say that Cedar77 is not that far off in his thoughts and some may flame him but it is still oh so true.
Thanks for your honesty.
The difference between the media produced image of women's shelters and the reality of these shelters is astounding.
I believe the desired image created by the media goes like this....there are so many vicious and violent man-animals out there lurking about , that the shelters just can't keep up .
Man bad / woman victim .
Nice hey ?
Women's shelters should not be used as a "place to crash" as well as a means of promoting the man-bashing agenda.
Shelters for BOTH women and men , and children , should be there for only those who legitimately need them , and there is definately legitimate need.
Posted: 12/17/2007 4:11:03 PM
My thoughts... honestly? "Boo hoo. Grow a pair."
You are exactly WHY the problem's so hidden.
Part of me suspects the men ONLY keep quiet about being abused because they're a) humiliated and b) they know if they raise a hand to fight back or defend themselves, they'll be the one's carted off to jail.
Women keep quiet out of shame and fear, too, but what the men fear... is a lot different.
Posted: 12/17/2007 6:41:57 PM
I'd recommend forcibly but not painfully moving her out of the house until she relents.
What? And you think a female abuser wouldn't have you arrested for that? Thus pretty much negating all the abuse she heaped on you before you put her outside?
I don't even disagree that she should be put out, but what'll happen is the whole thing'd get turned around on YOU.
Posted: 12/17/2007 7:59:46 PM
|Chrysostom: You are obviously oblivious to the problem. The fact is, that there are plenty of men out there who have suffered this, and it was never simple. But you are unlikely to hear about it, because of the stigma that you will make those men feel.|
TillyToo and El_Mariachi: Whoo Hoo! You go, girls! Good on You!
Posted: 12/18/2007 6:33:42 AM
Have you ever seen a man get abused by a female ? What are your thoughts ?No I have never witnessed it, but I can tell you I have seen the result of it.
I work at the jail and have seen (booked in) the pairs involved in domestic violence. When it happens these days, often both parties are brought in and booked. We have to book one party through while the other is locked down ... can't have the fight continuing while we're trying to get vitals & medical information on them.
I have seen the women and had to administer medical care to the men ... the women were the ones who brutalized the men. I will say that it probably is not at all reported at the rate in which it occurs. Men are not programmed to talk about it and are not programmed to complain about it ... BUT THEY SHOULD.
I have had to pass medication down in the female cells and it's interesting that after I book a pair in like that, they go to court within the next few days, he goes home and she has to stay, I know exactly what happened. She was found guilty and he was found innocent.
I'm in the cell with my med cart, she recognizes me as the nurse who booked her (and her husband/boyfriend) into the jail and starts going off ... while waiting in line ... about it being MY fault that he got out and she's still there. HUH?
Her logic ... the judge wouldn't believe her story because I (we ... the nursing staff) had him all bandaged up to make it look like he was hurt ... much worse than he was.
I guess she doesn't get it ... hurting someone else is the crime, not how badly they were hurt.
Posted: 12/18/2007 3:22:13 PM
The only reason that the government got involved with violence against women in particular, is that, until fairy recent history, women were seen as the property of their husbands. It was not a crime at all to physically assault your female spouse, or to force sex upon her.
And in the year 2007 as it still stands, it's socially acceptable for a woman to slap a man if he says some thing that offends the woman. But a woman can say what ever she wants and use abusive language as much as she likes and if the man slaps her for it, he is in the wrong. Neither gender has the right to do this in these situations.
Posted: 12/18/2007 6:50:47 PM
|The rule of thumb was NEVER a law; it is a persistent myth that, I believe, was rekindled by feminists. There are numerous sites that explain the misconception, but here's an excerpt from one of them:|
"It's certainly the case that, although British common law once held that it was legal for a man to chastise his wife in moderation (whatever that meant), the 'rule of thumb' has never been the law in England. Despite the phrase being in common use since the 17th century and appearing many thousands of times in print, there are no printed records that asspciate it with domestic violence until the 1970s. The false stories that assumed the wife-beating law to be true may have been influenced by Gillray's cartoon.
Even if people mistakenly believed that law to exist, there's no reason to connect the legal meaning with the phrase - which has been in circulation since at least 1692, when it appeared in print thus:
Sir W. Hope, Fencing-Master, 1692 - "What he doth, he doth by rule of Thumb, and not by Art."
That makes it clear that the origin refers to one of the numerous ways that thumbs have been used to estimate things "
I'll go back to lurk mode now.
Posted: 12/18/2007 7:50:49 PM
The "Rule of Thumb for Wife-Beating" Hoax
Feminists often make that claim that the "rule of thumb" used to mean that it was legal to beat your wife with a rod, so long as that rod were no thicker than the husband's thumb. Thus, one constantly runs into assertions like this:
someone might want to be careful using "rule of thumb" in a sarcastic way. my criminal law teacher at UCLA noted that rule of thumb started in England for punishing wives who cheated on their husbands. the rule was that the rod used to beat them could not be thicker than one's thumb(!).
However, Christina Hoff Sommers documents how the link between the phrase
"rule of thumb" and wifebeating is a feminist-inspired myth of recent vintage.
In her book "Who Stole Feminism" (NY: Simon & Schuster, 1994, p. 203) Sommers writes:
...The 'rule of thumb' story is an example of revisionist history that feminists happily fell into believing. It reinforces their perspective on society, and they tell it as a way of winning converts to their angry creed...
The 'rule of thumb', however, turns out to be an excellent example of what may be called a feminist fiction. Is is not to be found in William Blackstone's treatise on English common law. On the contrary, British law since the 1700s and our American laws predating the Revolution prohibit wife beating, though there have been periods and places in which the prohibition was only indifferently enforced.
That the phrase did not even originate in legal practice could have been ascertained by any fact-checker who took the trouble to look it up in the Oxford English Dictionary, which notes that the term has been used metaphorically for at least three hundred years to refer to any method of measurement or technique of estimation derived from experience rather than science.
According to Canadian folklorist Philip Hiscock, "The real explanation of 'rule of thumb' is that it derives from wood workers... who knew their trade so well they rarely or never fell back on the use of such things as rulers. instead, they would measure things by, for example, the length of their thumbs." Hiscock adds that the phrase came into metaphorical use by the late seventeenth century. Hiscock could not track the source of the idea that the term derives from a principle governing wife beating, but he believes it is an example of 'modern folklore' and compares it to other 'back-formed explanations.' such as the claim asparagus comes from 'sparrow-grass' or that 'ring around the rosy' is about the plague.
We shall see that Hiscock's hunch was correct, but we must begin by exonerating William Blackstone (1723-1780), the Englishman who codified centuries of legal customs and practices into the elegant and clearly organized tome known as Commentaries on the Laws of England. The Commentaries, a classic of legal literature, became the basis for the development of American law. The so-called rule of thumb as a guideline for wife-beating does not occur in Blackstone's compendium, although he does refer to an ancient law that permitted "domestic chastisement"....
In America, there have been laws against wife beating since before the Revolution. By 1870, it was illegal in almost every state; but even before then, wife-beaters were arrested and punished for assault and battery. The historian and feminist Elizabeth Pleck observes in a scholarly article entitled "Wife-Battering in Nineteenth-Century America":
It has often been claimed that wife-beating in nineteenth-century America was legal... Actually, though, several states passed statutes legally prohibiting wife-beating; and at least one statute even predates the American Revolution. The Massachusetts Bay Colony prohibited wife-beating as early as 1655. The edict states: "No man shall strike his wife nor any woman her husband on penalty of such fine not exceeding ten pounds for one offense, or such corporal punishment as the County shall determine."
[Pleck] points out that punishments for wife-beaters could be severe: according to an 1882 Maryland statute, the culprit could receive forty lashes at the whipping post; in Delaware, the number was thirty. In New Mexico, fines ranging from $225 to $1000 were levied, or sentences of one to five years in prison imposed. For most of our history, in fact, wife-beating has been considered a sin comparable to to thievery or adultery. Religious groups -- especially Protestant groups such as Quakers, Methodists, and Baptists -- punished, shunned, and excommunicated wife-beaters. Husbands, brothers, and neighbors often took vengence against the batterer. Vigilante parties sometimes abducted wife-beaters and whipped them.
Just how did the false account originate, and how did it achieve authority and currency? As with many myths, there is a small core of fact surrounded by an accretion of error. In the course of rendering rulings on cases before them, two Southern judges had alluded to an 'ancient law' according to which a man could beat his wife as long as the implement was not wider than his thumb. The judges, one from North Carolina and one from Mississippi, did not accept the authority of the 'ancient law.' The North Carolina judge refered to it as 'barbarism,' and both judges found the husband in the case in question guilty of wife abuse. Nevertheless, their rulings seemed to tolerate the notion that men had a measure of latitude in physically chastising their wives. Fortunately, as Pleck takes pains to remind us, they were not representative of judicial opinion in the rest of the country.
In 1976, Del Martin, a coordinator of the N.O.W. Task Force on Battered Women, came across a reference to the two judges and their remarks. Neither judge had used the phrase "rule of thumb," but a thumb had been mentioned, and Ms. Martin took note of it:
Our law, based upon the old English common-law doctrines, explicitly permitted wife-beating for correctional purposes. However, certain restrictions did exist... For instance, the common-law doctrine had been modified to allow the husband "the right to whip his wife, provided that he used a switch no bigger than his thumb" -- a rule of thumb, so to speak.
Ms. Martin had not claimed that the term "rule of thumb" originated from common law. Before long, however, the "ancient law" alluded to by two obscure Southern judges was being treated as an unchallenged principle of both British and American law, and journalists and academics alike were bandying the notion about. Feminist Terry Davidson, in an article entitled "Wife Beating: A Recurring Phenomenon Throughout History," claims that "one of the reasons nineteenth century British wives were dealt with so harshly by their husbands and by their legal system was the 'rule of thumb'" and castigates Blackstone himself. "Blackstone saw nothing unreasonable about the wife-beating law. In fact, he believed it to be quite moderate."
These interpretive errors were given added authority by a group of scholars and lawyers who, in 1982, prepared a report on wife abuse for the United States Commission on Civil Rights, Under the Rule of Thumb: Battered Women and the Administration of Justice -- A Report of the United States Commission on Civil Rights_. On the second page, they note: "American law is built upon the British common law that condoned wife beating and even prescribed the weapon to be used. This 'rule of thumb' stipulated that a man could only beat his wife with a 'rod not thicker than his thumb.'" It went on to speak of Blackstone as the jurist who "greatly influenced the making of the law in the American colonies [and who] commented on the 'rule of thumb,'" justifying the rule by noting that "the law thought it reasonable to intrust [the husband] with this power of... chastisement, in the same moderation that a man is allowed to correct his apprentices or children."
The publication of the report established the feminist fable about the origins of the term in popular lore, and the misogyny of Blackstone and "our law" as "fact." Misstatements about the "rule of thumb" still appear in the popular press.
That same 1993 Time magazine article that popularized the nonexistent March of Dimes study on domestic violence and birth defects and reported that "between 22% and 35% of all visits by females to emergency rooms are for injuries from domestic assaults" also cited new York University law professor Holly Maguigan: "We talk about the notion of the rule of thumb, forgetting that it had to do with the restriction on a man's right to use a weapon against his wife: he couldn't use a rod that was larger than his thumb." Professor Maguigan's law students would do well to check their Blackstone.
Posted: 12/19/2007 2:37:13 AM
|it's been a while since i've posted on this thread and am glad that FINALLY people are honestly sharing. i've tried on behalf of many of the younger males i advocate for in foster care, to open the topic of male sexual abuse. broadening that topic to abuse per se, seems to have made it a bit safer. |
i have noted in the past that our local rape crisis center, one county over, is finally addressing the male population for some of you who have registered concerns in that area. there is apparently some seed money and preliminary testing of the waters, but you all (males and parents of abused kids or those in your care), need to make more noise and get your hands on some of the same funding and services.
the arena is already encircling the concept of abuse for women, so rather than compete with it--make sure it includes men. it will happen a lot faster and those who are abused will totally understand another abused person, once the stories are shared. if there is no arena in your area, and since many of you mention dysfuntion and chemical dependency as a basis for the abuse you have mentioned--i strongly suggest that you look into al anon. there are many male meetings only cropping up, in addition to female only, for those who cannot share yet with the members of the opposite sex. many meetings, especially east coast near nyc et al will openly share amongst men and women together. i guess it depends upon your "corporate culture", as they say in business.
if you were raised yourself in dysfunction which then led you to your abusive mate, there is adult children of alchoholics--typically a subgroup of al anon. sometimes codependency anonymous helps those who cannot seem to leave an abusive situation. if there is no male only group, get to understand the basics within a mixed group and then, if necessary, start one. they say it only takes two to have a meeting!
stopping the cycle of abuse has to start somewheres. when you are emotionally harmed by prior relationships or worse, still in one or keep going from one to the other--books can help only to a degree. you need to start "processing" with real live people. often the real healing takes place going for coffee after a meeting---where you can over time, test who you trust with your secrets.
they say you are only as sick as your secrets. also you cannot give something away, until you own it! also, if you are in aa or na already, please note that many al anon meetings are ad on's for the clean and sober--many of whom cannot even remember what they did while intoxicated. half of my old al anon meeting had people from aa and na who wanted to work on their relationship skills, above and beyond staying clean and sober. they offered a lot of insight to those who were not the addicts and vice versa.
sadly there are still forms of abuse that are unique to women and unique to men. joined forces will only make you stronger. most of the opposition comes from the ignorant and then there are those who are so horrified at what happend to them that they stuff it. many young ones, totally repress what happened to them and "dissociate" in the same way they did to survive as children. oddly this comes from the old hunting animal survival kit. if you are the animal that has been hunted, the body closes off blood supply and allows you to shut down and be prepared to die and be eaten by the predator. this has carried into the human species. it is so sad that our more civilized society continues to perpetuate violence onto the unsuspecting. on the other hand, dissociating has saved many lives. the problem is to , as adults , begin to heal--else your wounds will fester.
i've seen many people heal and make amends. there is hope, but that does not mean to stay within harm's way and for G-d's sake, when you see children being abused--d_mn it, report it!!! it is everyone's business. do not make up stories to get even with someone. just report the truth. get even in other ways that reflect more integrity on your own part and stop playing into the game. also, stop worrying about what if you make him /her mad. if the child eventually dies, you will be in way worse shape. trust me, many do die and many are seriously scarred or will in the future, carry on the tradition of more abuse and more violence or else, be the new generation of male and female victims.
Posted: 12/19/2007 11:07:30 AM
Hey Ace, this is to acknowledge appreciation for those salient recommendations. It'll be a numbers game that's for sure.
Of course , people should do what they can to change the status quo and to promote awareness of the male bashing agenda.
But , I think people will find that the establishment is on a mission and that mission is to use "feminism" and various other special interest groups to divide and mess up and thereby control society.
This is the reason that feminism has gotten to the repressive proportions that we see today.
It will not be an easy fight.
Don't expect the system (media/government) to be sympathetic to justice and the truth.
In fact , you can expect the usual hostility.
Posted: 12/19/2007 12:25:04 PM
|verygreeneyes, in AA the;y call what you describe a "dry drunk". taking everyone elses's inventory is a lot easier than working on oneself. often, even if not drinking but showing dysfunctional behavior, the same term is applied to al anoner's--again, even if they don't drink, because the emphasis is upon the "behaviour". |
typically the hardest journey is for those who have had such abuse (or neglect) since childhood and just carried it unconsciously into their adulthood. they are often unable to "attach" and oddly this is even more an issue for the neglected than the abused. there is nothing you can do for men or women in this "hate" position, except to reach out to those who wish to "recover" and do so w/o harming "themselves or others" as they say in the twelve steps. there are women with just the same behaviour.
i've just decided to walk away from BOTH women and men who continue to blame the other, unless they become dangerous while in my path and then my wrath knows no bounds. the major difference is that this is clearly a world run by men, but the average man does not identify with the male corporate ruler. some women have blamed all men for the few men who have run the world. so now the men w/o power are blaming the women. as women slowly rise to power, they join the male rulers and unite. believe me, i have come across some ruthless women in high positions.
but the masses of men and women with no power fight amongst themwelves, rather than take on the generic "big boys " ( and now including the girls). the ones in power are extremely happy. this keeps everyone busy and away from what is really important. just look at human trafficking...it knows no sexual boundaries. whether used sexually or for labor, people are abused. now you have rich european and american women running to african countries for sexual satisfaction amongst the poor males, just like the males who do this and treat women as objects.
there are men's groups cropping up all over that do not come from a position of hate. same as the women's groups. my manfriend has been to one for many years. this has been a deliberate effort because men traditionally have "communicated" less with one another than women. so this is a good thing and the women in their lives benefit. then there are the one's who cannot get rid of their rage (men and women). it can be expressed intellectually or physically.
it's understandable, each one claiming that men or women have all the luck--given their personal experiences. those of us who have dealt with and are dealing with the victims of abuse, know this is a tough battle and the greater the numbers from both sexes, all religions and all "races" (a genetically invalid concept)--the more likely there will be less abuse. someone who has had a good mom or a good dad of the opposite sex or at least a significant person in their lives during childhood--has, at least, a fighting chance. that is where hope still lies.
so with that, i am out of here. just wanted to get my stuff to the younger males who did not have good moms who cared. this is a good topic. as with the women's group, it all has to process.
best wishes to all on their journies. ace of space, as with other posts, you give thought and credibility to what needs to be done. cedar, having done the academic work, i would try using the data to get a grant and get a crisis response for men going in your area. or maybe you have done that already.
Posted: 12/19/2007 1:09:54 PM
I can't help but feel that under the Hillary Clinton presidency, men are REALLY going to have to cover their "giblets" while yelling very, very loudly.
I agree .
It's scary that so many men will end up voting for her. A sign of the times.
But , regardless , and no matter who the establishment installs into the presidency , it's going to get a whole lot worse before it gets any better.
It's actually going to be kind of interesting to watch just how much more of a pussy whipping men will take , before they finally start to stand up for themselves.
Posted: 12/19/2007 2:04:45 PM
The Massachusetts Bay Colony prohibited wife-beating as early as 1655. The edict states: "No man shall strike his wife nor any woman her husband on penalty of such fine not exceeding ten pounds for one offense, or such corporal punishment as the County shall determine."
I find this interesting .
Here it is that the legislature felt it necessary to warn women , just like men , that it is illegal to hit their husbands.
This reality , in the year 1655 , is a good refutation of "feminist history " where their skewed , politicised image of history is that men were repressive owners of their wives .
It has never been that way....not at all .
A lot worse before it gets better huh??
At this rate... I think it would be a much better option to buy a sailboat, provision it with 50lbs of rice and 50lbs of beans... A water maker, an air pump to re-fill dive tanks, and a sextant.... Off to Bora-Bora!!
What ? and miss all the fun?
Posted: 12/20/2007 12:04:13 PM
|You know what ,I read profiles on this site by ladies who say they know what they want in life, and they have no clue what they want .|
Watch out for these girls its starts off great then like everything else they through out what they got, finally having what they wanted there whole life .
Posted: 12/20/2007 2:28:12 PM
Better still: never hit anyone unless there are witnesses who'll back your claim of self defense. Even then it's probably more trouble than it's worth.
You can always go to places like this
Posted: 12/20/2007 4:17:51 PM
SIZE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
Actually women's size.. or lack thereof.. is WHY they grab something to hit you with. Even though these types of women are stupid, they're not stupid enough to believe they can hurt a man with their bare hands.
Posted: 12/27/2007 3:43:40 PM
Women act like that because we men have stupidly gone along with it.
While I agree that there are a percentage of women who provoke, I'm not sure I agree with the fact that they do it simply because some men go along with it.
I basically think that women who purposely try to provoke a man.. getting a negative reaction from him.. be it violent or not... are just doing so because they're a$$holes. I honestly don't think they're acting like that just because they think the men will react in some way.
The consequence for putting my freedom at risk by pushing her luck with me--so that she can feel some sense of triumph, or superiority, or control, or whatever it is she thinks she gets out of acting like that--is for me to walk out and not look back.
To me.. what you said there sounds like more of the reason. She thinks if she can make you (or a man) angry and react a certain way, then she has some sort of control. She's still an a$$hole, though.. don't you think?
That's why it's so important to see how a woman behaves when she gets angry _before_ you consider living with or marrying her.
I'm probably screwed then. I am wont to throw things (not at anyone and nothing I could break) when I'm angry. I'd still never hit anyone though... unless in self-defense. But if a guy I'm dating sees me throw a magazine on the floor when I get angry (whether it's angry at him or not).. what else would he think?
sparred with her before
I feel that this comment is indicative of a violent person, don't you?
It is called debating, not a personal boxing match.
Oh brother. Ever heard the term verbal sparring? It ain't violent... it's a turn of phrase.
I'm betting your ex hit you because of your smart sarcastic mouth that you run non stop. I've never met an abused woman yet that didn't intentionally provolk the man.
Geesh.. another oh brother moment.
So what of abused guys? Did they run their mouth, too? Or was that brilliant little morsel (sarcasm) just for abused women?
Posted: 12/27/2007 3:50:30 PM
|Oh yeah I'm a big guy and my ex would start fights to try to build a record of me too try and take my kids but I fought for them in court and won I raise my 3 daughters and she pays nothing even though she is supposed to!!!|
Posted: 12/28/2007 9:41:57 AM
If you read what I wrote - I was specifically addressing those who claim that a person somehow deserves to be hit because they "ran their mouth off". I won't deny that there isn't some verbal abuse going on in forums; but to dismiss it as a less serious kind of abuse is both hypocritical and wrong. It's like saying hey, I didn't hit you.....I just kinda nudged you toward the frieght train that ran over you....so it's not abuse.
If you verbally abuse someone, don't be surprised if one day....they stand up to you and knock you down. Better to not start the process in the first place than to cry that they hurt you worse than you hurt them! That's what a 5 yr old says! Bullies almost exclusively use verbal abuse, that doesn't make them any less bullies.
By trying to lessen the seriousness of one "type" of abuse over the other, you're justifying the abuser and blaming the victim. ALL abuse is WRONG.....there are NO degrees.
25% of women murdered are killed by their male partners. 12% of men murdered are killed by their female partners. I know this sounds chauvenistic of me, but somehow I just can't reconcile the picture in my mind of a woman being verbally assaulted to the point that she becomes physically violent. I CAN however envision a male being pushed to that point. My point here is that this 13% discrepancy could well be due to the theory that SOME of this can be attributed to PROVOCATION. Be honest here....how many times have you witnessed situations where the term applies..."if she were a man she'd have had her butt kicked".???
DON'T ENGAGE IN PROVOCATIVE behavior! Verbal abuse is just that. About 12 yrs ago I was dating a high school teacher/football coach who fell prey to the campaign where young boys were being told that "they were resposible" even IF the girl was drunk, attacked them, etc. (I'm talking about a date rape scenario). His feeling was that by promoting this to the young men he was accountable to that he was helping to foster decent behavior. The PROBLEM lay in the fact that is was totally absolving ALL responsibility on the part of the women in question. No longer were they to be held responsible for their OWN provocative behavior. As the mother of 3 teenage daughters (at that time) I was totally outraged at such a campaign. Regardless of gender, PEOPLE need to understand that their actions elicit reactions! Now that is certainly not to say that there aren't many instances where a bully or a pervert needs no provocation to do what's wrong. There certainly are plenty of those running around. HOWEVER, I believe that a good many of these situations COULD be AVOIDED if ALL people were held accountable for ALL of their actions.....including the words they allow to come out of their mouths!
Posted: 12/28/2007 11:33:24 AM
It STILL doesn't justify physical abuse!! NO ONE, not even in the most vague and loosely interpreted way has suggested that ANYTHING justifies physical abuse. We have merely stated how childish it is to NEGATE the seriousness of one TYPE of abuse. Talk about "justification"!!!!
Posted: 12/28/2007 12:32:31 PM
Whoever made up that "Sticks 'n Stones" nursery rhyme obviously didn't get out much. They obviously didn't pay much attention in Sunday school either!
Proverbs 18:21 Death and life are in the power of the tongue. And James 3:8 But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.
The effects of verbal abuse are ACCUMULATIVE. And here again, I'm am NOT advocating justification for physical abuse. It truly saddens me however that female abusers weapon of choice is most often the most deadly weapon of all. It is beyond me how "we" can hold our selves up as nurturers, lovers of peace, and the "gentler" sex while deluding ourselves that our verbal abuse is not destructive.
21 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21)