Domestic Violence "Epidemic" Afflicting Women? Hardly....

[Annie]

Emmett, good advice and good fathering! I've always been of the mindset that if a man hits a woman, she best get out and fast-the first time, as she mightn't be able to the second time.

 

[Joz]

Joz, I take it you are a young woman and certainly an intelligent and enlightened one. You decision to give the advice to your precious friend to leave her loser husband was indeed correct. Unfortunately there are alot of folks in this world who do things we do not understand. I tend to believe that if we could we would be capable of the behavior. I don't believe the behavior has to be understood to be dealt with. For me, that is for the tree huggers. My advice to your friend would have been to wait until he went to sleep and hit him as hard as she could with a large heavy object.

A man with any real ego or sense of pride would never strike ANYONE except to defend against attack or to protect the weak. I always taught my boys when they were in school to look after smaller kids and never provoke a fight with anybody and used the pitch about how popular that would make them as a tool to acheive that. It worked. I'm proud of the fact that my sons never hurt anyone except when challanged. They are both recovery agents and have been attacked a few times but I also taught them to properly protect themselves to a point where an immediate threat was stopped.
If we channel that energy properly we can be very loving, protecting leaders of our families but unfortunately the moral decay of our generations has led us elsewhere. Dads not in the home, the divorce rate and other contributing factors have caused role models for men to be scarce in our modern day society. In my opinion, random easy access to violent videos, violence in movies, the absence of parents and so forth slowly affects each generation a little more each increment. This is proven by skeletonized little league fields, the absence of community programs and a simple desire on all of our parts to just not CARE.

I got the impression that you were really affected by the experience your friend endured, that is why I wanted to shoot my two cents worth in. I would also go so far as to say it would be wise to be very patient in dating and so forth. The right folks are out there. There are alot of wonderful people in the world and birds of a feather will eventually get together.

Peace

I think what bothers me most about what happened is I felt helpless. As I said, here was a friend who was married, had a baby & was being beat up. I was so sheltered. We were worlds apart. I was still living at home and there's no way my mother would have allowed Diana to come stay with us. And Di did have her family. But I have suffered a bit of guilt over not being able to help.

From your response it sounds as tho' you've been a very consciencious daddy. One that cared enough to teach his boys right. And you also seem to have a healthy attitude about women. Something I think alot of men lack.
I agree that something doesn't always have to be understood to deal with it properly. But I still feel there has to be a type of sickness present for someone to purposely hurt another person. Even with verbal & mental abuse, the person can't thinking right.

We men are funny creatures. Most of us are driven by our hormones and ego.

This needs to be in a thread all by itself.

 

[liberalogic]

Joz, I take it you are a young woman and certainly an intelligent and enlightened one. You decision to give the advice to your precious friend to leave her loser husband was indeed correct. Unfortunately there are alot of folks in this world who do things we do not understand. I tend to believe that if we could we would be capable of the behavior. I don't believe the behavior has to be understood to be dealt with. For me, that is for the tree huggers. My advice to your friend would have been to wait until he went to sleep and hit him as hard as she could with a large heavy object.

A man with any real ego or sense of pride would never strike ANYONE except to defend against attack or to protect the weak. I always taught my boys when they were in school to look after smaller kids and never provoke a fight with anybody and used the pitch about how popular that would make them as a tool to acheive that. It worked. I'm proud of the fact that my sons never hurt anyone except when challanged. They are both recovery agents and have been attacked a few times but I also taught them to properly protect themselves to a point where an immediate threat was stopped.

We men are funny creatures. Most of us are driven by our hormones and ego. If we channel that energy properly we can be very loving, protecting leaders of our families but unfortunately the moral decay of our generations has led us elsewhere. Dads not in the home, the divorce rate and other contributing factors have caused role models for men to be scarce in our modern day society. In my opinion, random easy access to violent videos, violence in movies, the absence of parents and so forth slowly affects each generation a little more each increment. This is proven by skeletonized little league fields, the absence of community programs and a simple desire on all of our parts to just not CARE.

I got the impression that you were really affected by the experience your friend endured, that is why I wanted to shoot my two cents worth in. I would also go so far as to say it would be wise to be very patient in dating and so forth. The right folks are out there. There are alot of wonderful people in the world and birds of a feather will eventually get together.

Peace

Truly wise words in how we should approach violence. What you taught your sons is admirable.

I just wanted to address the bolded portion of your response, though. I highly doubt that the recent moral decay of society has induced more domestic violence. If anything, the liberalization of society over the past few decades has probably reduced domestic violence. Think about it: women have become much more independent over the past 30 years. They have more job opportunities and are often looked at as partners in a marriage rather than subordinates. Also, the increase in divorce rates is tied to women's progress. They no longer have to be ashamed of a failed marriage and put up with abuse.

If you go back 50 years or so, women who were abused really had no way out. Many men believed it to be their right as the superior to discipline their wives. Obviously, they took advantage of it. But because women had to depend on men for financial stability and because the church exerted a more powerful grip on society and condemned divorce, women were stuck in miserable situations.

In today's society, regardless of the amount of violence that children see and may repeat, women have more access to psychological help, financial aid, and are considered to be equal. Not that domestic violence does not still exist, but I think this is one case where we can't deny that a more liberal society is better-suited to address this problem.

 

[ErikViking]

One thing I have reflected on in this matter is the usual use of statistics. Since it is a criminal act we only get it measured in two ways, reported and convicted crimes. When a problem like this is focused upon and the victims are given a general better support the measurable variables might rise while the actual occurances are in fact dropping.

Statistics are often used in a wrong way to make some point.

"8 out of 10 people that were killed in traffic last year had seatbelts."

 

[Nienna]

If anything, the liberalization of society over the past few decades has probably reduced domestic violence. Think about it: women have become much more independent over the past 30 years. They have more job opportunities and are often looked at as partners in a marriage rather than subordinates. Also, the increase in divorce rates is tied to women's progress. They no longer have to be ashamed of a failed marriage and put up with abuse.

Actually, the liberalization of women may have caused an increase in domestic violence. If a man is to view his woman as completely "equal," it is no longer his duty to protect her. Also, more liberal values mean more cohabitation without marriage. Studies show that a woman is more likely to be abused by a live-in boyfriend than a husband.

... because the church exerted a more powerful grip on society and condemned divorce, women were stuck in miserable situations.

Presumably, the church exerted its influence on the men as well as on the women; if a woman was less likely to leave because of the shame of divorce, then a man should be less likely to beat her because of the even more prevalent examples of kindness, patience, and protection found in the Bible.

In today's society, regardless of the amount of violence that children see and may repeat, women have more access to psychological help, financial aid, and are considered to be equal. Not that domestic violence does not still exist, but I think this is one case where we can't deny that a more liberal society is better-suited to address this problem.

I have to disagree. A more liberal society tends to expect the government to provide protection and the solutions to problems. It's putting a band-aid on the wound. A more conservative society would tend to address the problem at its root: a lack of self-control and consideration for others, within the individual, which allows him to believe he may act abusively.

 

[Joz]

"Must spread rep"

You go, Girl!!

 

[liberalogic]

Actually, the liberalization of women may have caused an increase in domestic violence. If a man is to view his woman as completely "equal," it is no longer his duty to protect her. Also, more liberal values mean more cohabitation without marriage. Studies show that a woman is more likely to be abused by a live-in boyfriend than a husband.

Presumably, the church exerted its influence on the men as well as on the women; if a woman was less likely to leave because of the shame of divorce, then a man should be less likely to beat her because of the even more prevalent examples of kindness, patience, and protection found in the Bible.


I have to disagree. A more liberal society tends to expect the government to provide protection and the solutions to problems. It's putting a band-aid on the wound. A more conservative society would tend to address the problem at its root: a lack of self-control and consideration for others, within the individual, which allows him to believe he may act abusively.

Some VERY good points. But I still have some comments.

1) In the portion that I bolded, you are 100% correct with regards to how the influence of the church should be received, but this is an idealistic notion. Of course the church is against violence, but by condemning divorce as a shameful act, it allows domestic abuse to be covered up. Instead of risking public shame, women just endured it. I'm not saying that the church itself encouraged domestic violence, but its powerful grip on society and its demand for conformity to its values did not help the problem. The man's violations of Christian doctrine ("kindness, patience, and protection") were not in the public eye, while divorce was and therefore was scrutinized by the church.

2) I agree with the premarital living arrangement and its connection to abuse. I won't even question its validity-- I read the paper everyday. But claiming that female liberation increases domestic violence is absolutely absurd and illogical. If women are regarded more as partners/equals rather than subordinates, they earn more respect and become more worthy as human beings. The consequences of a male striking a female are much harsher in today's society because the woman has the ability to be heard and acknowledged, not simply treated as a second class citizen.

3) The last paragraph of your response is a fundamental difference between liberalism and conservatism. As a liberal, I look at the world as an obstacle course. We can't control the path of the individual, but we can give him the tools necessary to make it to the end. The conservative agenda attempts to reform the individual through the promotion of a "moral society" so that he can make it through the course on his own.

Personally, I believe that you're right...we are putting a band-aid on it. But I'd rather do that, than leave it open to infection. In my mind, conservatism works well on paper, but is impossible to truly entrench itself in the fabric of American society. I'm a liberal because I deal in reality, not in the ideal.

We can't possibly eliminate all domestic violence (even if we flood the country with conservative values). The least that we can do is offer protection to those who need it.

 

[ErikViking]

I think this issue has less to do with political belonging and christian belief than the western societies traditional view on women.

Trying to twist the issue into a political/religous/race debate only provides the ground some very strange radical feminist groups need for existance.

 

[Nienna]

Some VERY good points. But I still have some comments.

1) In the portion that I bolded, you are 100% correct with regards to how the influence of the church should be received, but this is an idealistic notion. Of course the church is against violence, but by condemning divorce as a shameful act, it allows domestic abuse to be covered up. Instead of risking public shame, women just endured it. I'm not saying that the church itself encouraged domestic violence, but its powerful grip on society and its demand for conformity to its values did not help the problem. The man's violations of Christian doctrine ("kindness, patience, and protection") were not in the public eye, while divorce was and therefore was scrutinized by the church.

I disagree that domestic abuse was not in the public eye. Certainly, it's true that it may not be as noticeable as divorce, which would have been very obvious. But I don't think it could have been so covered-up as you think. 100 years ago, the culture was much more rural or small-town. In a society like that, everyone knows everyone else's business. Without the distraction of tv, computers, etc, the most common form of entertainment was gossip. I'm not saying it wasn't possible to cover up dv, but probably not so much as one would think.

2) I agree with the premarital living arrangement and its connection to abuse. I won't even question its validity-- I read the paper everyday. But claiming that female liberation increases domestic violence is absolutely absurd and illogical. If women are regarded more as partners/equals rather than subordinates, they earn more respect and become more worthy as human beings. The consequences of a male striking a female are much harsher in today's society because the woman has the ability to be heard and acknowledged, not simply treated as a second class citizen.

Again, I have to disagree. It is precisely the attitudes that accompany female "liberation" that would lead to an increase in dv. Males and females are NOT "equal," in the sense of being the same. Men are physically stronger than women, and tend to be more assertive/aggressive. Female "liberation" has led to LOSS of respect for women, even though women have gained opportunities for employment/ voting rights. 100 years ago, speaking a curse word in the presence of a lady was simply socially unacceptable, shocking. Striking a lady was such an action to put other men in mind to beat the guy up. Then, it was openly acknowledged that women are weaker, an accepted social value that men must use their greater strength to protect women. Women were treated with much greater respect and gentleness in the general culture. Now that women are thought to be "equal,"
men have less consideration for them. Just this week, I witnesses grown men plowing over teenage girls in a soccer match. What's the big deal? Women are "equal," right? If they can't take it, they should get off the field. Christmas before last, I got my car stuck in the snow at my mother's house. Mom & I were trying to push my minivan out by ourselves. Mom's neighbor rode up on his ATV--- to help? Oh no! To sit and laugh at us.

See, this is the big lie of radical feminism. I'm certainly not arguing against job opportunities or voting rights for women, but the idea that men and women are completely the same is just a lie.

I also do not believe that women were as much second class citizens in Christianized nations. Their plight is not to be compared to that of women in Islamic countries. They were not treated as chattel, in society in general.

3) The last paragraph of your response is a fundamental difference between liberalism and conservatism. As a liberal, I look at the world as an obstacle course. We can't control the path of the individual, but we can give him the tools necessary to make it to the end. The conservative agenda attempts to reform the individual through the promotion of a "moral society" so that he can make it through the course on his own.

Personally, I believe that you're right...we are putting a band-aid on it. But I'd rather do that, than leave it open to infection. In my mind, conservatism works well on paper, but is impossible to truly entrench itself in the fabric of American society. I'm a liberal because I deal in reality, not in the ideal.

We can't possibly eliminate all domestic violence (even if we flood the country with conservative values). The least that we can do is offer protection to those who need it.

But, the liberal way of dealing with dv doesn't prevent its occurence. Women may have resources to get away from a violent relationship, but it doesn't stop the violence. The abuser is likely to go to pick another victim, and many abused women go on to choose another abusive partner.

No, dv will never be completely eradicated; it wasn't absent even when the country was much more conservative. Individuals will always choose their own courses, and some choose violence. I am not advocating getting rid of women's shelters. Nor do I believe that it is probable that this country will return to Victorian values. I am simply trying to illustrate that radical feminism has likely increased the occurrence of dv rather than lessened it.

 

[ErikViking]

...But claiming that female liberation increases domestic violence is absolutely absurd and illogical...

I find it quite logical. Violence often originates from fear. And with the fear of not being in charge, neither by law or the surrounding society, comes violence. I think it actually shows how bad things was before, when changes to the status between men and women escalates in to violence.

No, dv will never be completely eradicated; it wasn't absent even when the country was much more conservative.

Isn't this the essence of it? You didn't even have to type "even when". The violence against women comes from the lack of respect planted well before any political party came up with the idea of calling themselves conservative.

As for your little paragraph about men and women not beeing equal; These are the things radical feminists exploit to an extent. They totally neglect the fact that it is the mutual respect for the diversity between men and women that keeps us together and it is not to be used as arguments. The man who didn't help you is running all those radicals errend. You should have called him a radical feminist.

I think the real solution (As close as it can get) is somwhere by the choosen path right now. A public awerness, resources for victims and stronger legislation against the criminals. I think domestic violence will decrease well below any prior standard in a generation or two. The next step that I would like to see is that it is the criminal who should have to move/get his personal liberty reduced instead of the abused.

 

[Nienna]

Isn't this the essence of it? You didn't even have to type "even when". The violence against women comes from the lack of respect planted well before any political party came up with the idea of calling themselves conservative.

Very true.

As for your little paragraph about men and women not beeing equal; These are the things radical feminists exploit to an extent. They totally neglect the fact that it is the mutual respect for the diversity between men and women that keeps us together and it is not to be used as arguments. The man who didn't help you is running all those radicals errend. You should have called him a radical feminist.

I agree. Whether consciously or unconsciously, my mother's neighbor has imbibed the essence of radical feminism: lack of respect between the sexes.

I think the real solution (As close as it can get) is somwhere by the choosen path right now. A public awerness, resources for victims and stronger legislation against the criminals. I think domestic violence will decrease well below any prior standard in a generation or two. The next step that I would like to see is that it is the criminal who should have to move/get his personal liberty reduced instead of the abused.

Solution? Perhaps not. But your plan seems to be a sound remedy.

 

[ErikViking]

Solution? Perhaps not. But your plan seems to be a sound remedy.

Yes... I guess "solution" is a bit... what you call it? A "too big word".

Added line: I have said 101 things here now!

 

[liberalogic]

I disagree that domestic abuse was not in the public eye. Certainly, it's true that it may not be as noticeable as divorce, which would have been very obvious. But I don't think it could have been so covered-up as you think. 100 years ago, the culture was much more rural or small-town. In a society like that, everyone knows everyone else's business. Without the distraction of tv, computers, etc, the most common form of entertainment was gossip. I'm not saying it wasn't possible to cover up dv, but probably not so much as one would think.


Again, I have to disagree. It is precisely the attitudes that accompany female "liberation" that would lead to an increase in dv. Males and females are NOT "equal," in the sense of being the same. Men are physically stronger than women, and tend to be more assertive/aggressive. Female "liberation" has led to LOSS of respect for women, even though women have gained opportunities for employment/ voting rights. 100 years ago, speaking a curse word in the presence of a lady was simply socially unacceptable, shocking. Striking a lady was such an action to put other men in mind to beat the guy up. Then, it was openly acknowledged that women are weaker, an accepted social value that men must use their greater strength to protect women. Women were treated with much greater respect and gentleness in the general culture. Now that women are thought to be "equal,"
men have less consideration for them. Just this week, I witnesses grown men plowing over teenage girls in a soccer match. What's the big deal? Women are "equal," right? If they can't take it, they should get off the field. Christmas before last, I got my car stuck in the snow at my mother's house. Mom & I were trying to push my minivan out by ourselves. Mom's neighbor rode up on his ATV--- to help? Oh no! To sit and laugh at us.

See, this is the big lie of radical feminism. I'm certainly not arguing against job opportunities or voting rights for women, but the idea that men and women are completely the same is just a lie.

I also do not believe that women were as much second class citizens in Christianized nations. Their plight is not to be compared to that of women in Islamic countries. They were not treated as chattel, in society in general.

But, the liberal way of dealing with dv doesn't prevent its occurence. Women may have resources to get away from a violent relationship, but it doesn't stop the violence. The abuser is likely to go to pick another victim, and many abused women go on to choose another abusive partner.

No, dv will never be completely eradicated; it wasn't absent even when the country was much more conservative. Individuals will always choose their own courses, and some choose violence. I am not advocating getting rid of women's shelters. Nor do I believe that it is probable that this country will return to Victorian values. I am simply trying to illustrate that radical feminism has likely increased the occurrence of dv rather than lessened it.

I'm sorry, I just can't disagree more with the premise of female liberation and an increase in dv. You're making a generalization as to how women were treated in society (curse word example, etc.), but that changes once marriage occurs. Marriage was thought to be a hierarchal union with the man above the woman, he had control and authority while she didn't Bullies tend to pick on those who are not just weaker, but who they deem as unworthy and below them. The jock punches the geek because he's stronger AND because he sees him as inferior ("uncool" if you will). If we have less respect for someone as a person, the imbalance of strength is only COMPUNDED, not reduced.


And, just my personal view, women should be exposed to profanity and all of the other classless acts within society. The guy who drove past you and laughed shouldn't have helped you because you're a woman, but because you're a human being. Respect, in my mind, is derived from character, not genitalia.

 

[Nienna]

Marriage was thought to be a hierarchal union with the man above the woman, he had control and authority while she didn't

Marriage still IS a hierarchical union (although some treat it differently). Although legally equal in this day and age, a man still has a certain authority over his household that a woman can never have.

Bullies tend to pick on those who are not just weaker, but who they deem as unworthy and below them. The jock punches the geek because he's stronger AND because he sees him as inferior ("uncool" if you will). If we have less respect for someone as a person, the imbalance of strength is only COMPUNDED, not reduced.

Very true. BULLIES do act in this way. But, I have a much higher opinion of men in general than to consider them all as "potential bullies." SOME men will even go out of their way to protect those weaker than they are, to give EXTRA consideration to those who are not as strong. SOME people, if put in positions of authority will take the responsibility and not abuse the power. Back in the day, this attitude was taught regularly to the majority of young boys; I see no reason why it should not have followed them into marriage.

And, just my personal view, women should be exposed to profanity and all of the other classless acts within society.

My personal view is that EVERYONE should avoid classless acts, not seek to expose themselves to them. What good can it do? One only becomes numbed to the perversion after a time. I see no virtue in it.

The guy who drove past you and laughed shouldn't have helped you because you're a woman, but because you're a human being. Respect, in my mind, is derived from character, not genitalia.

You're right; he should have helped me because I was a human being, but being two women should have given him extra incentive.

Suppose you were in the dairy aisle of the grocery store, and you saw two people lifting gallons of milk from the shelf. One was a grown woman; the other was a six-year-old child. Whom would you be more inclined to help? Milk isn't light, but the woman could surely handle it. The child would have more trouble. He is weaker. He may be able to successfully carry the milk to his mother's cart, but he is more likely to require assistance.

 

[ErikViking]

Marriage still IS a hierarchical union (although some treat it differently). Although legally equal in this day and age, a man still has a certain authority over his household that a woman can never have.

Actually, this I don't recognize at all. But I am going to discuss it with my wife tonight. If I am not here tomorrow you might guess why...

 

[Nienna]

Actually, this I don't recognize at all. But I am going to discuss it with my wife tonight. If I am not here tomorrow you might guess why...

 

[dmp]

GOOD LORD people...you guys over-complicate things.

While in Germany my battalion was preparing for its FIRST Female soldier. The other 500 of us were subject to weeks of sensativity training.

During one briefing the Lady giving the presentation stopped and said "Men. Tell me. Why on EARTH would your wife EVER deserve to be SMACKED across the face!"

Silence...

Then, just before she continued a VERY southern man's voice yelled from the back, "...CUZ SHE NAGS TOO MUCH!!!"

The place erupted in laughter! After things calmed down until several minutes later when the presenting lady asked "So yes, seriously, Would a woman EVER deserve THAT? (pointing to a picture/cartoon of a man with his hands on a woman's throat)

Same voice from the back "YES! SHE WON'T STOP NAGGING ME!!!!!"

 

[Diuretic]

In 1974 I was called to our local hospital to view the body of a woman beaten to death by her husband. I took note of the bruises on her body. They went from her toes to her scalp. They included her genitals and her breasts. I then went from the room to an outer room and told him he had killed her.

For some reason light-hearted one-liners didn't enter my mind.

 

[dmp]

In 1974 I was called to our local hospital to view the body of a woman beaten to death by her husband. I took note of the bruises on her body. They went from her toes to her scalp. They included her genitals and her breasts. I then went from the room to an outer room and told him he had killed her.

For some reason light-hearted one-liners didn't enter my mind.

Good story!

 

[Said1]

In 1974 I was called to our local hospital to view the body of a woman beaten to death by her husband. I took note of the bruises on her body. They went from her toes to her scalp. They included her genitals and her breasts. I then went from the room to an outer room and told him he had killed her.

For some reason light-hearted one-liners didn't enter my mind.

How old are you?

Something similar happened to my step-mother, but she lived. I've never seen anyone with their body literally black and blue from head to toe, not a nice sight.