Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  > American men, WAKE UP      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 YourDarkAngel
Joined: 6/14/2005
Msg: 1
American men, WAKE UPPage 2 of 2    (1, 2)
Guess we are second class citizens, after all.



SELMER, Tennessee (AP) -- A woman who killed her preacher husband with a shotgun blast to the back as he lay in bed was sentenced Friday to three years in prison, but she may end up serving only 60 days in a mental hospital.

Mary Winkler must serve 210 days, or about seven months, of her sentence before she can be released on probation, but she gets credit for the five months she has already spent in jail, Judge Weber McCraw said.

That leaves only two months, and McCraw said up to 60 days of the sentence could be served in a facility where she could receive mental health treatment. That means Winkler may not serve any significant time in prison. (Watch the judge sentence Mary Winkler )

Winkler, 33, was convicted of voluntary manslaughter in April and could have received up to six years for killing her husband, Matthew, in the parsonage where the family lived in March 2006.

At her trial she testified she was physically and emotionally abused by her husband, but at her sentencing hearing Friday she said, "I think of Matthew every day, and I'll always miss him and love him."

She pleaded to the judge for leniency, and asked to be reunited with her three daughters, who are now in the custody of Matthew Winkler's parents. The judge denied Winkler's request for full probation or judicial diversion, which would have eventually cleared her record of the conviction.

Prosecutors had sought a murder conviction against Mary Winkler, who they alleged had been trying to keep her husband from learning about a check-kiting scheme. They claimed she had become caught up in a swindle known as the "Nigerian scam," which promises riches to victims who send money to cover the processing expenses.

Winkler, however, testified during her trial that her husband hit and kicked her, forced her to look at pornography and demanded sex she considered unnatural. Jurors were shown a pair of tall, platform shoes and a black wig Winkler said she was pressured to wear during sex.

Matthew Winkler's family said at the sentencing hearing that Mary Winkler's allegations amounted to a second attack on her husband, a popular 31-year-old preacher at the Fourth Street Church of Christ in Selmer.

"The monster that you have painted for the world to see? I don't think that monster existed," said Matthew Winkler's mother, Diane Winkler.

When Mary Winkler took the stand, she turned to her husband's family and told them she was "so sorry this has happened." She said she understood they were angry with her and that she prayed every night for them to have peace.

Mary Winkler was arrested a day after shooting her husband. She was found 340 miles away on the Alabama coast, driving the family minivan with her daughters inside.

Diane Winkler testified that the girls, ages 9, 7 and 2, were having nightmares about people with guns breaking into their house.

"You've never told your girls you're sorry. Don't you think you at least owe them that?" she asked.

Mary Winkler's sister, Tabitha Freeman, asked the judge to give her a chance to be reunited with her children, and called her "the best example of a good person I can think of."

"She just needs them. She's not complete without them," Freeman said.



If the situation were reversed, the husband would be serving life in prison or on death row.

This happens more than you think.
 crystalise
Joined: 6/11/2005
Msg: 2
American men, WAKE UP
Posted: 6/8/2007 11:15:28 PM
this is a gender bashing post about to happen....
 YourDarkAngel
Joined: 6/14/2005
Msg: 3
American men, WAKE UP
Posted: 6/8/2007 11:42:47 PM
and more men abuse and torture women then the other way around.


That's feminist bullshit.




"The Hidden Side of Domestic Violence: Male Victims"
Originally published in The Women's Quarterly, 1999.
Richard J. Gelles, Ph.D.,
Joanne and Raymond Welsh Chair of Child Welfare and Family Violence

I met Alan and Faith nearly 25 years ago. I was in the process of interviewing men and women on what were then both a taboo topic and an issue that had been treated as an unmentionable personal trouble—violence in the family. I was one of the first researchers in the United States to attempt to study the extent, patterns, and causes of what I then called ”conjugal violence,” and what today advocates label ”domestic violence.” There was precious little research or information to guide my study—the entire scientific literature was two journal articles. With the exception of the tabloids, the media and daytime talk shows had not yet discovered the dark side of family relations. Both Alan and Faith discussed their experiences with violence in their intimate relations and marriages. The violence was sometimes severe, including a stabbing and broken bones. And yet, Alan and Faith ended up as mere footnotes in my initial book, The Violent Home (Sage Publications, 1974). I admit now and knew then that I had overlooked the stories of Alan and Faith. The reason why their stories were relegated to mere notes was they did not fit the perceptual framework of my research. Although I titled my study an examination of family or conjugal violence, my main focus, the issue I hoped to raise consciousness about, was violence toward women. Alan, as it turned out, had never hit his wife. The broken bones and abrasions that occurred in his home were inflicted by his wife. Faith was a victim of violence; her husband, ex-husband, and boyfriends had struck her and abused her numerous times. These events were dutifully counted and reported in my book and subsequent articles. Faith’s situation was the focus of my article ”Abused Wives: Why Do They Stay?” However, Faith’s violence, which included stabbing her husband while he read the morning paper, was reported as a small quote in my book, with little analysis or discussion. In my first study of family violence, I had overlooked violence toward men. I would not, and could not, ever do that again.

My recognition of the issue of violence toward men came about in a strange way. Two years after my initial study of family violence, the American Sociological Association included a session on ”Family Violence” as part of the association’s annual meeting program. This was the first time this scholarly association had devoted precious meeting time and space to this topic. However, unlike most sessions, which are open to anyone registered for the meeting, this session required a reservation. I wrote the day I received my preliminary program to request admission to the session, and was subsequently informed that the session was ”filled.” I do not believe I stopped to consider how or why a session could be completely filled as soon as it was announced. I was desperate, however, to link up with others in my field who were interested in the rarely studied topic of family violence. So, uninvited, I went to the session anyway and sat in the back of the room, hoping to hear what was going on, but avoiding being labeled a ”gate crasher.”

The session was held in a small ballroom, and there were about 20 persons in attendance, all sitting in a circle. The room was far from overflowing. The session was chaired by two sociologists from Scotland who were about to publish their own book on family violence, titled Violence against Wives: A Case against Patriarchy. Much of the session focused on the application of feminist theory, or patriarchy theory, to explaining the extent and patterns of violence towards wives, both in contemporary society and over time and across cultures. Much of the discussion was informative and useful. However, eventually someone raised the question of whether men were victims of domestic violence. The session leaders and many others in the group stated, categorically, there were no male victims of domestic violence. At this point, I raised may hand, risking being discovered as a gate crasher, and explained that I had indeed interviewed men and women who reported significant and sometimes severe violence toward husbands. I was not quite shouted down, but it was explained to me that I must certainly be wrong, and even if women did hit men, it was always in self-defense and that women never used violence to coerce and control their partners, as did men.

Alan and Faith were suddenly no longer footnotes, but I did not fully appreciate the significance of this until two years later.

The research I conducted for The Violent Home was a small study, based on 80 interviews conducted in New Hampshire. That research pointed to the possibility that family violence was indeed widespread and the probability that social factors, such as income and family power, were causal factors. But the study was too small and too exploratory to be more than suggestive. In order to build a more solid knowledge base and understanding of family violence, my colleagues Murray Straus and Suzanne Steinmetz and I conducted the First National Family Violence Survey in 1976. The survey interviewed a nationally representative sample of 2,143 individual family members. The results were reported in a number of scholarly articles and, finally, in the book Behind Closed Doors: Violence in the American Family (1980, Anchor Books). What surprised my colleagues and me the most was the high rates of violence towards children, between siblings, toward parents and between partners that were reported by those we interviewed. Up until this point, estimates of child abuse and wife abuse were placed in the hundreds of thousands and no higher than one million. But our study, based on self-reports, placed the rates in the one to two million range.


The most controversial finding, as it would turn out, was that the rate of adult female-to-adult male intimate violence was the same as the rate of male-to-female violence. Not only that, but the rate of abusive female-to-male violence was the same as the rate of abusive male-to-female violence. When my colleague Murray Straus presented these findings in 1977 at a conference on the subject of battered women, he was nearly hooted and booed from the stage. When my colleague Suzanne Steinmetz published a scholarly article, ”The battered husband syndrome,” in 1978, the editor of the professional journal published, in the same issue, a critique of Suzanne’s article.



The response to our finding that the rate of female-to-male family violence was equal to the rate of male-to-female violence not only produced heated scholarly criticism, but intense and long-lasting personal attacks. All three of us received death threats. Bomb threats were phoned in to conference centers and buildings where we were scheduled to present. Suzanne received the brunt of the attacks—individuals wrote and called her university urging that she be denied tenure; calls were made and letters were written to government agencies urging that her grant finding be rescinded. All three of us became ”non persons” among advocates. Invitations to conferences dwindled and dried up. Advocacy literature and feminist writing would cite our research, but not attribute it to use. Librarians publicly stated they would not order or shelve our books.


The more sophisticated critiques were not personal, but methodological. Those critiques focused on how we measured violence. We had developed an instrument, ”The Conflict Tactic Scales.” The measure met all the scientific standards for reliability and validity, so the criticisms focused on content. First, the measure assessed acts of violence and not outcomes—so it did not capture the consequence or injuries caused by violence. Second, the measure focused on acts and not context or process, so it did not assess who struck whom and whether the violence was in self-defense. These two criticisms, that the measure did not assess context or consequence, became a mantra-like critique that continued for the next two decades.

While the drumbeat of criticism continued, Murray Straus and I conducted the Second National Family Violence Survey in 1986. We attempted to address the two methodological criticisms of the Conflict Tactics Scales. In 1986 we interviewed a nationally representative sample of 6,002 individual family members over the telephone. This time we asked about the outcomes of violence and the process and context—who started the conflict and how.

The findings again included surprises. First, contrary to advocacy claims that there was an epidemic of child abuse and wife abuse, we found that the reported rates of violence toward children and violence toward women had declined. This made sense to us, as much effort and money had been expended between 1976 and 1986 to prevent and treat both child abuse and wife abuse. Female-to-male violence showed no decline and still was about as frequent and severe as male-to-female violence.

The examination of context and consequences also produced surprises. First, as advocates expected and as data from crime surveys bore out, women were much more likely to be injured by acts of then were men. Second, contrary to the claim that women only hit in self-defense, we found that women were as likely to initiate the violence as were men. In order to correct for a possible bias in reporting, we reexamined our data looking only at the self-reports of women. The women reported similar rates of female-to-male violence compared to male-to-female, and women also reported they were as likely to initiate the violence as were men.

When we reported the results of the Second National Family Violence Survey the personal attacks continued and the professional critiques simply ignored methodological revisions to the measurement instrument. This round of personal attacks was much more insidious—in particular, it was alleged that Murray had abused his wife. This is a rather typical critique in the field of family violence—men whose research results are contrary to political correctness are labeled ”perps.”

Up until now I have focused only on our own research. However, it is important to point out that our findings have been corroborated numerous times, by many different researchers, using many different methodological approaches. My colleague Murray Straus has found that every study among more than 30 describing some type of sample that is not self-selective (an example of self-selected samples are samples of women in battered woman shelters or women responding to advertisements recruiting research subjects; non-select selective samples are community samples, samples of college students, or representative samples) has found a rate of assault by women on male partners that is about the same as the rate by men on female partners. The only exception to this is the U.S. Justice Department’s Uniform Crime Statistics, the National Survey of Crime Victims, and the U.S. Department of Justice National Survey of Violence against Women. The Uniform Crime Statistics report the rate of fatal partner violence. While the rate and number for male and female victims was about the same 25 years ago, today female victims of partner homicide outnumber (and the rate is higher) than male victims. The National Crime Victims Survey and National Survey of Violence against Women both assess partner violence in the context of a crime survey. It is reasonable to suppose both men and women underreport female-to-male partner violence in a crime survey, as they do not conceptualize such behavior as a crime.

It is worth repeating, however, that almost all studies of domestic or partner violence, agree that women are the most likely to be injured as a result of partner violence.

Two new studies add to our understanding of partner violence and the extent of violence toward men. First, David Fontes conducted a study of perpetrated against heterosexual men in relationships compared to against heterosexual women. The ”Partner Conflict Survey” sample consisted of employees from the California Department of Social Services. Altogether, 136 surveys were returned out of 200 surveys distributed to employees in four locations (Sacramento, Roseville, Oakland, and Los Angeles). Not only did men experience the same rate of as did women, but men reported the same rate of injury as did women.

More recently, a survey conducted by University of Wisconsin-Madison Psychologist Terrie Moffit in New Zealand also found roughly the same rate of violence toward men as toward women in intimate relationships.

Most journalistic accounts of toward women and many scholarly examinations include descriptions of the horrors of intimate violence. Reports of remarkable cruelty and sadism accompany reports on domestic violence. Fatal injuries, disabling injuries, and systematic physical and emotional brutality are noted in detail. I have heard many of these accounts myself and reported them in my own books, articles, and interviews.


The ”horror” of intimate violence toward men is somewhat different. There are, of course, hundreds of men killed each year by their partners. At a minimum, one-fourth of the men killed have not used violence towards their homicidal partners. Men have been shot, stabbed, beaten with objects, and been subjected to verbal assaults and humiliations. Nonetheless, I do not believe these are the ”horrors” of violence toward men. The real horror is the continued status of battered men as the ”missing persons” of the problem. Male victims do not count and are not counted. The Federal Violence against Women Act identified as a gender crime. None of the nearly billion dollars of funding from this act is directed towards male victims. Some ”Requests for Proposals” from the U.S. Justice Department specifically state that research on male victims or programs for male victims will not even be reviewed, let alone funded. Federal funds typically pass to a state coalition against or to a branch of a state agency designated to deal with violence against women.


Battered men face a tragic apathy. Their one option is to call the police and hope that a jurisdiction will abide by a mandatory or presumptive arrest statute. However, when the police do carry out an arrest when a male has been beaten, they tend to engage in the practice of ”dual arrest” and arrest both parties.

Battered men who flee their attackers find that the act of fleeing results in the men losing physical and even legal custody of their children. Those men who stay are thought to be ”wimps,” at best and ”perps” at worst, since if they stay, it is believed they are the true abusers in the home.

Thirty years ago battered women had no place to go and no place to turn for help and assistance. Today, there are places to go—more than 1,800 shelters, and many agencies to which to turn. For men, there still is not place to go and no one to whom to turn. On occasion a shelter for battered men is created, but it rarely lasts—first because it lacks on-going funding, and second because the shelter probably does not meet the needs of male victims. Men, who retain their children in order to try to protect them from abusive mothers, often find themselves arrested for ”child kidnapping.”

The frustration men experience often bursts forth in rather remarkable obstreperous behavior at conferences, meetings, and forums on domestic violence. Such outbursts are almost immediately turned against the men by explaining that this behavior proves the men are not victims but are ”perps.”

Given the body of research on that finds continued unexpectedly high rates of violence toward men in intimate relations, it is necessary to reframe as something other than a ”gender crime” or example of ”patriarchal coercive control.” Protecting only the female victim and punishing only the male offender will not resolve the tragedy and costs of domestic violence. While this is certainly not a politically correct position, and is a position that will almost certainly ignite more personal attacks against me and my colleagues, it remains clear to me that the problem is violence between intimates not violence against women. Policy and practice must address the needs of male victims if we are to reduce the extent and toll of violence in the home.

 MallardHunter
Joined: 4/20/2007
Msg: 4
American men, WAKE UP
Posted: 6/9/2007 11:24:59 AM
He shouldn't have abused her...
 spacemonkeymafia
Joined: 5/14/2006
Msg: 5
American men, WAKE UP
Posted: 6/9/2007 11:34:56 AM
Well guitarman100 Paris went back to jail. The judge said he didnt agree with what the sheriff did. She started crying for her mommy......Muhahahahahahahahahahahaahaha.
 Jaymz70
Joined: 2/7/2007
Msg: 6
American men, WAKE UP
Posted: 6/9/2007 1:01:14 PM
"If the situation were reversed, the husband would be serving life in prison or on death row."

How right you are! If a man murders his wife, he's a horrible monster. But if a woman kills her husband, she's depressed and needs help and sympathy! I am so sick and tired of women who commit cold-blooded murder and then play Little Miss Prissy Victim. If I were the judge, I would have given her the death penalty!

When will people realize that women are just as capable of violent crimes as men are!
 Jaymz70
Joined: 2/7/2007
Msg: 7
American men, WAKE UP
Posted: 6/9/2007 1:04:05 PM
"Mary Winkler's sister, Tabitha Freeman, asked the judge to give her a chance to be reunited with her children, and called her "the best example of a good person I can think of.""

Yeah, right! I mean, after all, lots of "good people" murder their spouses and mess up the lives of their children who incidentally had NOTHING to do with anything that may have gone on between the husband and wife!

If that is Tabitha Freemsn's idea of "the best example of a good person" she can think of, she either needs to get out more, or she is completely stupid! Good people do not murder their spouses!
 Jaymz70
Joined: 2/7/2007
Msg: 8
American men, WAKE UP
Posted: 6/9/2007 1:08:09 PM
"and more men abuse and torture women then the other way around"

How do you know that? The rate of abuse of men by women may be bigger than you realize. Just because you don't hear about it, or read reports about it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

But if you're going to attack men, then how about this--more women murder their unborn children than men do!

More women take men for everything they worked hard to earn than the other way around.

In short, women can be just as bad as men. In many cases, women can be worse than men.
 MallardHunter
Joined: 4/20/2007
Msg: 9
American men, WAKE UP
Posted: 6/9/2007 2:24:01 PM

But if you're going to attack men, then how about this--more women murder their unborn children than men do!


That is about the dumbest sentence ever...

Men for some reason don't seem to be able to have abortions...

Oh, maybe because they don't have babies...
 YourDarkAngel
Joined: 6/14/2005
Msg: 10
American men, WAKE UP
Posted: 6/9/2007 10:54:53 PM
Yes, Byrd, it is to get people riled up. It's called injustice and it works both ways.

Most men are no where near as violent as the one you mentioned in your post. I'll never defend men like that and consider them scumbags, but it seems there are a certain percentage of women attracted to them. As far as women being victims, you will have that, but I also know of women who have committed extremely violent and repulsive acts against men that rarely reported their abuse---we just have to tough it out. Well, I don't agree. Just google "Susan Wright" or any number of planned killings, and she lied about abuse in order to try to get away with over the top murder. Our culture is in serious denial about this; it still can't come to grips that women can be just as bad as men, and perpetrate these crimes and use "abuse" and "oppressive patriarchy" as buzzwords to gain sympathy to cover up lack of evidence of that aforementioned abuse.

As far as women receiving harsher sentencing in Western culture, well, that's a feminist myth, too, and I can post articles here if anyone still believes that. Women generally receive less punishment for similar or the same crimes. That's one of the reasons why I posted the piece in the first place. It's clearly premeditated murder, and apparently, men's lives are still worth far less, unless you're a celebrity or politician.

BTW, years ago, I dated a woman years ago that had a parent almost similar to the man you described. It was her mother, and she was moody, depressive, often violent, took out her anger at my girlfriend and her brothers, had bouts of unemployment, and even had been committed to a mental health care facility for a time.
 gizmosellschickens
Joined: 5/20/2007
Msg: 11
view profile
History
American men, WAKE UP
Posted: 6/10/2007 5:32:41 AM
The lady killing her husband on the news getting three years in jail is probadly a fair assesement once you add the migating factors. Still, there must of been lots of phyiscal evidence to implicate the husband for spousal abuse. A man did that for self defense probadly get 5 to 8 years in prison for that since the justice systems sentences men more harshly for crimes than females in most situations. Justice needs to be color blind, and judgements need to made based on logic and not emotional type discision to ensure a fair process. If the evidence was not present collaborate with her story of husband abusing her then she should have gotten 25 years to life in prision and probadly no parole since it likely this was pre-mediated from the get-go.
 1Fish2Fish RedFishNewFish
Joined: 9/8/2006
Msg: 12
American men, WAKE UP
Posted: 6/10/2007 6:55:08 AM

'and more men abuse and torture women then the other way around.'
That's feminist bullshit.


I agree with YourDarkAngel and the others who dispute this. You do not hear about a lot of it because society plays the "macho" card - and of course, it isn't "macho" to admit you have been abused by a woman. Regardless of gender, abuse, manslaughter/murder happen. I personally feel that the premise of this thread is inflammatory. I think it should be "American PEOPLE look out" and focus on the court system...
 YourDarkAngel
Joined: 6/14/2005
Msg: 13
American men, WAKE UP
Posted: 6/11/2007 4:13:31 PM
Byrd, that sounds like Katherine Knight, and she was from Australia. She was just as vile as Ed Gein (although neither were prolific killers).
 TroyMcLure
Joined: 4/8/2007
Msg: 14
American men, WAKE UP
Posted: 6/12/2007 10:14:47 PM
she has alledged that he abused her....
I wonder how much consideration was given to this during her sentencing... and what evidentiary support was provided to establish the history of abuse .....
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  > American men, WAKE UP