Flipping the script on male-female violence
Men As Victims of Intimate Violence
Marc Dubin responds to a series of articles addressing the alleged failure to recognize men as victims of intimate violence.
There have been a series of articles published recently in major American newspapers addressing the question of the degree to which men are victims of intimate violence. (Cathy Young , “In abuse, men are victims, tooâ€, published in the Boston Globe, June 16, 2003, and Karen S. Peterson, “Studies shatter myth about abuseâ€, published in USA TODAY, June 24, 2003).
As a man who has prosecuted domestic violence, served as Special Counsel to the Violence Against Women Office at the Justice Department, and serves as Executive Director of CAVNET (Communities Against Violence Network (www.cavnet.org), a nonprofit that networks experts and advocates and provides a comprehensive online database on the subject, I want to try to respond to some of the issues raised in these articles:
Karen Peterson reports that “(T)he newest findings challenge the feminist belief that “it is men only who cause violence,†says psychologist Deborah Capaldi of the Oregon Social Learning Center. “That is a myth.â€
Feminists make no such claim, and I challenge anyone to find any feminist who has said that. Rather, feminist scholars ask merely that we get the facts right - women far outnumber men as victims of intimate partner violence, and intimate partner violence is deadlier for women. What do I base this on? Try reading the Justice Department’s studies, which are conducted impartially, and which are based on police reports, FBI reports, and the National Crime Victimization Survey.What does the Justice Department say about intimate partner violence? That women are victims of violence by intimate partners far more often than are men.
How much more often? Well, according to the Justice Department, which oughta know, 85% of intimate violence is committed against women. Only 5-15% of intimate violence is committed against men. And, please be sure to notice that that figure includes same sex violence. The real myth? That feminists (or anyone else with any credibility) claim that “it is only men who cause violenceâ€. Perhaps Karen and Deborah should read the Justice Department’s study, and perhaps they can give us a source for their mistaken assertion.
Karen Peterson reports that: “The number of women who hit first or hit back is “much greater than has been generally assumed,†Capaldi says. She says she is surprised by the frequency of aggressive acts by women and by the number of men who are afraid of partners who assault them.
It is essential that before we debate the question of the importance of the “number of women who hit first or hit back†that we understand this question in the context of intimate partner violence.
Intimate partner violence, also often referred to as “domestic violenceâ€, is more than merely a question of hitting or aggression. Intimate partner violence is about a pattern of conduct, over time, in which one individual exercises power and control over another, characterized by isolation from friends and family, control over money, belittling, diminishing of self esteem, and physical violence. It is distinguishable from situational violence which may occur episodically in the course of a relationship, such as someone throwing a plate in anger or frustration during an argument. One needs to examine the motivation and purpose of the abuser’s activity - is it a pattern of conduct, over time, designed to exercise power and control?
We also need to distinguish intimate partner violence from self defense (the women who hit back). Self defense is not intimate partner violence - it is a legal response to criminal behavior. Perhaps Ms. Capaldi is surprised by what she refers to as “aggressive acts by womenâ€, but she needs to understand that aggressive acts are not the same thing as intimate partner violence. Aggressive acts can be used in intimate partner violence, but there are many ways that batterers engage in intimate partner violence without being aggressive, and plenty of acts of aggression and self defense that are not intimate partner violence.
Karen Peterson reports that: “Capaldi and two other female researchers call for a re-evaluation of treatment programs nationwide. Such programs focus on men and ignore women….â€
Focusing on men in treatment programs makes sense, since 85% of intimate partner violence is engaged in by men, including gay men.
According to the Justice Department, 588,490 victimizations by intimate partners in 2001 were against women. In contrast, in 1993 men were victims of 162,870 violent crimes by an intimate partner. By 2001 that total had fallen to an estimated 103,220 victimizations. Before we debate this though, let’s recognize that there is no consensus that treatment programs for male batterers actually work. Far too many courts make the mistake of ordering perpetrators into “anger management†classes, in the mistaken belief that intimate partner violence is about anger, a mistake that is similar to equating “aggression†with intimate partner violence. Classes that ignore the issues of power and control present in intimate violence do not work, and far too many perpetrators learn how to appear to be in control of their anger while simultaneously engaging in power and control and revictimizing their partners. Treatment programs which address the issues of power and control have a better likelihood of success, but unfortunately there is no hard evidence that these programs work either. Jail, not treatment, is sometimes the appropriate response – this is criminal behavior, after all.
By all means, let’s increase funding to programs that address intimate partner violence by women - this will mean more money for research into lesbian battering, an understudied and underserved population.
While we are on the subject of programs addressing intimate partner violence, let’s all commend the police, prosecutors, judges, and victim service agencies that have been addressing this problem - their work is having profound success. The most recent Department of Justice reveals that intimate partner violence is decreasing, for men and women. The Department of Justice reports that:
The rate of intimate violence against females declined significantly between 1993 and 2001, dropping by nearly half (49%). The rate of intimate violence against males fell 42% between 1993 and 2001.
Source: Intimate Partner Violence, 1993-2001, U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, February 2003. NCJ 197838 www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/ipv01.htm
Victim blaming is an old tactic of those guilty of wrong-doing - let’s try to focus on why so many men engage in intimate partner violence, rather than placing the blame on the ones they choose to victimize.
Let’s also recognize that for women, intimate partner violence is deadlier than for men. Women are at far greater risk of fatal victimizations by an intimate than are men. The Department of Justice reports that:
In recent years, about 1/3 (33%) of female murder victims were killed by an intimate. In contrast, 4% of males were killed by an intimate. The number of men murdered by intimates dropped 68% between 1976 and 2000, the year of the most recently available data. In 1976, an intimate murdered 1,357 men; in 2000, 440. The number of women killed by an intimate was stable for two decades but declined after 1993. Between 1976 and 2000 the number of women murdered by intimates fell 22% from 1,600 to 1,247. These statistics include same sex relationships.
Source: Intimate Partner Violence, 1993-2001, U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, February 2003. NCJ 197838 www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/ipv01.htm
The article by Cathy Young contains similar errors. She writes:
But the underlying approach is still one that assumes the perpetrators are men and the victims are women, ignoring the complex picture of family violence that emerges from nearly three decades of research.
I do not assume that the perpetrators are men - I simply recognize that the Justice Department has shown that in the vast majority of cases of intimate partner violence, the perpetrator is male (and that this includes gay men). She writes, without citing any studies at all, and ignoring entirely the Department of Justice’s work, that: (S)tudy after study shows that anywhere from one-third to half of spousal or partner assaults are female-on-male. Wrong. Asking men in a bar does not a study make.
She also writes:
Earlier this month, a New York woman was charged with beating her former boyfriend to death with her high-heeled shoe.
She fails to note that the Grand Jury did not indict her, found that she had been abused and acted in self defense, and that the woman was released.
Shoddy reporting does not a true reality make either.
Perhaps the editors should review the research before allowing this type of reporting to pass as helpful.
For more information on intimate partner violence, visit http://www.cavnet.org.
Please feel free to republish this, with attribution to CAVNET.
Marc Dubin is the Executive Director of CAVNET, the Communities Against Violence Network in the US. Website: www.cavnet.org. E-mail: mdubin[at]cavnet.org. This piece was posted on the CAVNET website on June 29, 2003.
Trudy W. Schuett:
“Karen Peterson reports that “(T)he newest findings challenge the feminist belief that “it is men only who cause violence,†says psychologist Deborah Capaldi of the Oregon Social Learning Center. “That is a myth.â€
Feminists make no such claim, and I challenge anyone to find any feminist who has said that. ”
Feminists say that every day, and in fact the entire network of state coalitions “against” domestic violence is based on that premise. Here is a statememt from the AZ Coalition:
As long as we as a culture accept the principle and privilege of male dominance, men will continue to be abusive. As long as we as a culture accept and tolerate violence against women, men will continue to be abusive.
According to Barbara Hart in Safety for Women: Monitoring Batterers’ Programs:
All men benefit from the violence of batterers. There is no man who has not enjoyed the male privilege resulting from male domination reinforced by the use of physical violence . . . All women suffer as a consequence of men’s violence. Battering by individual men keeps all women in line. While not every woman has experienced violence, there is no woman in this society who has not feared it, restricting her activities and her freedom to avoid it. Women are always watchful knowing that they may be the arbitrary victims of male violence. Only the elimination of sexism, the end of cultural supports for violence, and the adoption of a system of beliefs and values embracing equality and mutuality in intimate relationships will end men’s violence against women.
Domestic violence is about power and control. A feminist analysis of woman battering rejects theories that attribute the causes of violence to family dysfunction, inadequate communications skills, women’s provocation, stress, chemical dependency, lack of spiritual relationship to a deity, economic hardship, class practices, racial/ethnic tolerance, or other factors. These issues may be associated with battering of women, but they do not cause it. Removing these factors will not end men’s violence against women…
http://www.azcadv.org/HTML/usingmaleprivelege.html
16 May 2005, 5:25 amGlenn Goldman:
Well, Trudy has just provided us with an example of how a myth gets perpetuated. She provides us with quotes that allegedly prove the point that feminists instist that “it is men only who cause violence.” But the quotes she provides say no such thing. When will conservatives learn a little intellectual honesty?
When observing social phenomena, it is necessary to look at broad trends and tendencies. If it is true that 85% of the acts of domestic violence are directed toward women (I have not researched the statistic myself), then one needs to develop a theory that explains the highly significant discrepancy between the number of acts of violence perpetrated against women and those perpetrated against men. Just because there are a minority of heterosexual relationships in which it is the woman who violently asserts control over the man does not negate the theory that, speaking in broader social terms, it is “maleness” that violently asserts control over femaleness in patriarchal cultures.
Personally, I have some broad critiques of the kind of identity politics that are often reflected in the writings of feminist sociologists, but I’ll save that for another time.
16 May 2005, 11:51 amStan:
If anyone wants to see the more totalized nature of Trudy Schuett’s politics, to give this rfesponse some context, go to http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/schuett where you casn see the affinity for right-wing columnists and the bizarre Free Republic people, self-described as “Freepers.” Her own page at http://cybermancreative.homestead.com/ is more specific. She specializes in anti-feminism, and further specializes in propagating the line that men are equal victims in domestic violence. Here is the link for he campaign to stop a law strengthening sanctions against domestic violence perpetrators,,, http://desertlightjournal.blog-city.com/ .
More to THE point, and as Glenn points out, her proof does anything but prove HER point.
16 May 2005, 1:33 pmMike:
Father’s rights activists are right and justified. It has taken me many years of inner conflict and reasoning to come to the conclusion that there is a corrupt force dismantling our families and propogating hatred between the sexes. I am overwhelmingly positive that we will end this powerful force of greed and hatred. It is of the uppermost importance that we all join together in love and hope to separate ourselves from the opposing hatred. Hate mongers beware!
16 May 2005, 4:01 pmStan:
I am very tentative about posting the last. Explain your position, Mike, or stay off the blog. Your “beware” remarks sound vaguely threatening, and such grandiose posturing has no place here. Beware, indeed! What is this “corrupt force” you allude to? I suggest you read the exceprt from Kintz’s book posted earlier. I believe some of the cosmology reflected in your post — particularly that it brings up something called “father’s rights” in the context of a post on domestic battering — is explained by Kintz.
Resistance to men’s domination and exploitation of women in almost any social arena you care to examine is not “propogating hatred” between some abstractly equal sexes. The backlash against feminism — like the backlash against any struggle in opposition to unequal social power — is at some point inevitably portrayed as the weaker bullying the stronger. It’s interesting how the victimizer transforms himself into the victim… kind of like batterers do.
16 May 2005, 4:31 pmm.c.:
(Hypothetical: not proven & open to dabate)
Perhaps some women can be particularly proficient at emotional violence in comparison with the general male population. Saying this does not give men license to commit physical violence against women.
William Burroughs, the writer, is famous for his quote, “cult of southern American womanhood.” He lived in St. Louis, Missouri, and Lawrence, Kansas for many years. I have lived in the south, as well as elsewhere, and once asked a female friend of mine her views of southern gender relations. Her opinion at the time was that men tended to treat women either better, i.e. put them on a pedestal; or worse, i.e. not quite as equals.
But the social and cultural patriarchy can make victims of men too. Men should be at least somewhat masculine or be seen as “sissys” or worse. Are organized religion and small town mores partly to blame? Who know, maybe?
Why did I bring up southern gender politics in particular? Masculinity and feminist-backlash exist everywhere. Am I guilty of holding anti-Politically Correct views for saying this? Perhaps PC doctine is part of the problem if it dampens healthy dialogue.
16 May 2005, 7:42 pmJessica:
My main reason for commenting is just to say that despite all my dissagreements with you Stan, this is an excellent article and so are your comments… Especially this one:
“The backlash against feminism – like the backlash against any struggle in opposition to unequal social power – is at some point inevitably portrayed as the weaker bullying the stronger. It’s interesting how the victimizer transforms himself into the victim… kind of like batterers do.”
The other thing I wanted to say is in regard to the comment “Perhaps some women can be particularly proficient at emotional violence in comparison with the general male population.” The idea of the manipulative and controlling woman is a reccurent theme in our culture… Stan sort of touched on a related issue in this article http://feralscholar.org/blog/index.php?p=31 It is a mysoginist idea and it is about blaming women - implying that strong women supress men’s masculinity (that’s a generalisation but it is what’s at the heart of it).
Domestic violence is not just about keeping women in line, but also men. So long as men blame and take out “family dysfunction, inadequate communications skills, women’s provocation, stress, chemical dependency, lack of spiritual relationship to a deity, economic hardship, class practices, racial/ethnic tolerance, or other factors” on women they are less inclined to actually do anything about the real causes. It keeps whole communities in line. This is really obvious from seeing the little power structures that develope within opressed communities (often centred around violence, particularly against women and children).
Everybody says “yes domestic violence is bad… blah blah” but it is amazing how they trivialise it when it it actually an immediate issue. Even lefties and supposed supporters of women’s right will still trot out all kinds of qliched shit to downplay it or blame the victim.
And yes, it is usually about controll - not anger or frustration etc - and physical violence is not necessarily central. The most damageing parts are usually (unless the woman is murdered or crippled) psychological because of the destruction of personality and defenses that is an essential part of gaining controll.
This stuff about men being victims.. They have also been pulling out stats lately to show that boys need extra help in school because they are not doing as well as girls at math and science - so they now fund special programs for boys. Nobody says anything about the fact that despite high-school girls doing better in math hardly any go on to study it at uni (except when they want to imply that girls are biologically incapable of calculus or some shit).
With that… I apologise for what I said to you before.
16 May 2005, 11:28 pmIguana:
Hey, while you’re spreading around “the more totalized nature of Trudy Schuett’s politics,” let’s start my comments with a reference my blog: http://www.sillyseattle.blogspot.com
It is interesting that you would point out Trudy’s politics as if that somehow dismantles her presentation of the facts. Your politics clearly color your own presentation of distorted reality. What you are presenting here is an ideology, not a concern for female victims of domestic violence.
It would be almost laughable if it weren’t so sad. Somehow, feminism has turned into a pathological victim cult that is suffering from a delusional paranoia about a bogeyman called “The Patriarchy.”
Try backing up, take a deep breath, and assess what you are saying. If reason does not set it, perhaps you should go for an extending period psychological evaluation.
Oh, and while you are at, perhaps you should practice being a little less holier-than-thou. You are getting a little too upset about comments from people like Mike who are simply providing a warning to you that we are onto your game, we are organized, and we are pushing back.
Yeeee Haaa! This is fun!
16 May 2005, 11:29 pmStan:
No, Iguana, Trudy’s own presentation demolished her arguments far more effectively than I ever could. I simply wanted to alert readers to her political vocation, which is anti-feminism. People should read what she has written in order to more fully understand the misogynist playbook.
Yeee Haaa, you are out of here… for your other post, not this one.
17 May 2005, 7:33 amGlenn Goldman:
<>
Iguana, I’m curious who the “we” is and who is pushing back? Reactionary political movements resort to threats and violence all the time. The pro-birth movement is responsible for the murder of several doctors in the U.S. The anti-immigration movement and the white pride movement is responsible for the assault and murder of countless people of color. It’s not unreasonable to read a threatening posture into Mike’s comments. The moderator has every right to call him on his tone.
Now, if you take away the reactionary anti-feminism, it is possible to have legitimate critiques of specific feminist writers. I tend to not even pay attention to the underdeveloped arguments of crusaders who have an emotionally charged reactionary agenda, but that does not mean that I fully embrace all of what passes as feminism. Feminism is a complex social movement and there are many strains and tendencies. While I personally tend to embrace a radical feminist critique of society, there is no doubt in my mind that some academic feminists are rigid and dogmatic in their thinking. I’ve had direct experience of it. Those who question the party line can expect to be attacked by these authoritarians. When people are intimidated against expressing ideas that fall outside orthodoxy of any kind, this has a chilling effect on the ability to arrive at the truth. In other words, imo the right-wing does have a point when it comes to the accusation of political correctness as ideological oppression. Of course, to maintain perspective, this is coming from a reactionary movement that is involved in the most brazen acts of censorship this country has seen in half a centruy.
17 May 2005, 10:19 pmanonymous:
from a post above:
> “…The idea of the manipulative and controlling
> woman is a reccurent theme in our culture… Stan
> sort of touched on a related issue in this article
> http://feralscholar.org/blog/index.php?p=31
> It is a mysoginist idea and it is about blaming
> women - implying that strong women supress men’s
> masculinity (that’s a generalisation but it is
> what’s at the heart of it).”
and
> “…Domestic violence is about power and control.
> A feminist analysis of woman battering rejects
> theories that attribute the causes of violence
> to family dysfunction, inadequate communications
> skills, women’s provocation, stress, chemical
> dependency, lack of spiritual relationship to
> a deity, economic hardship, class practices,
> racial/ethnic tolerance, or other factors. These
> issues may be associated with battering of women,
> but they do not cause it. Removing these factors
> will not end men’s violence against women…”
somehow i find all this theorizing “entertaining” to call it that way when i compare that to my own experience.
i’ve just managed to finish an unwanted relationship with a woman against her wish. i never touched her in a violent way and i did not rape her, which are the things which count to me. what i did was to shout at her because there was simply no way to make her understand anything in simple words and phrases, there was just no basis for communication between me and her - so much for the discounted “theory” of “inadequate communication skills” peddled by the feminists.
as a result of throwing her out, i stand accused of “depriving her of liberty” which can bring me into jail for up to 3 years, and the police told me they’d check whether i’d transgressed against her on “sexual related stuff”, so i can probably expect to be accused of something along the lines rape or forced intercourse, what can give me a whole lot more of jailtime.
as a result of the relation with this woman, i am broken financially because the depressions the interaction with her caused me stood in the way of me either doing the job i had, or looking for a job when i hadn’t one. i’ve either lost all my personal and professional contacts or broken them off because of the shame this woman would expose me to in front of them, i was an elected district council member but dropped that mandate as well in part because of massive pressure from her to stop dealing with “those cheating assholes”. i’ve had my mail and email filched thru by her, as a result (and this is one example of the kind of shit that used to happen on a regular basis) she wrote some angry emails to a school friend who i had not seen for 20 years and who had sent me an email with pictures of herself and her children. needless to say, my friend stopped the contact. when i tried to somehow get her to the insight that i did neither want a relationship with her nor did i want her to live in my apartment, she’d go into fits of crying for days, and/or she’d say that she would kill herself, go work as a prostitute, or assorted other distressing things to make me step back from throwing her out.
all of this is bad enough, but when you try to explain such a situation to people, tell them that a) did not batter her, and b) she forced you by psychological abuse to keep the relation upright, most people will laugh you out of the room and tell you that you are either a pansy or crazy and why did you maintain a voluntary relationship with her, that you should accept that you are an asshole, and that you ought to be in jail for abusing the woman. my experience with the police and the court is exactly that: even before a formal deposition i see in my interaction with them that they take it for granted that i abused her, same goes for the men’s help association.
as somebody who has never before had any kind of involvement with police and courts, not to speak of any kind of abuse of women, i’m open mouthed, to say the least, that as a man in such a situation you simply have NO credibility, that is automatically assumed that whatever the woman tells authorities must be true and you are culprit.
as a child i’ve seen my parents beating and generally making each others life miserable, so i always went about women with a great deal of care to not repeat that kind of disgrace, but i guess that, as in driving, it’s not enough to go about women defensively.
as for all the theorizers on “domestic violence”, i deeply distrust feminists because i suspect, as somebody posted above, there are people who have an agenda of consolidating enmity between the genders. i do absolutely subscribe to the idea that women are far more battered than men in relationships and that they are at a considerable disadvantage in society compared to men, but then there is an observation about violence i’d like to share here: while women as a whole are far more prone to become the victims of individual or not organized violence, what is probably demonstrated in statistics, men as a whole are IMO far more likely to become victims of organized violence, mainly from government and criminal associations. jail statistics should support that.
and, as one of my estranged friends told me, every perpetrator was once the victim of another perpetrator.
18 May 2005, 8:37 amdasan:
It always amazes me to see any male with anti-feminist remarks. It shows both an ignorance to actually understanding feminism and the need for feminist politics and ideology in our society. Attacking the stance of feminism and not acknowledging the existence of Patriarchy and Male Privilege is actually humorous and distressing. Men do face violence, but there is not a culture change because of it. Unless you are talking about prison culture. Violence against women does cause a culture change. It creates scare and panic. It causes safety issues and reactive measures if it happens to be a “stranger from the shadows” crime. Mainly because it is covered in every news outlet in the area further putting women on watch. Men continue to feel safe and continue to want to brush the violence they have dealt with under the rug. Mainly because of Patriarchy and Male Privilege as well as stereotypical views of masculinity that fight against any honest realization. Why men never see that they benefit from this privilege even to attach feminism. What makes them think they have the right? As a man, I know that I can’t rattle off any critique without some real self criticism. Violence is a power struggle. The model of power that both genders follow has been set by men. Therefore the balance of control will always shift towards men. Let’s just be real about it and change that before we start comparing the gender of the perpetrators.
18 May 2005, 12:18 pmMasculiste:
Men are the ‘we’ Glenn. I won’t pretend to be as scholarly as you. I have more of a tendency to follow current news and sitting in on actual hearings rather than antiquated studies. I also tend not to write off men with actual first-hand experience of being repeatedly slapped, kicked, punched, stabbed or shot by the same women who later on accuse them of being the victimizer, as crusaders or reactionaries.
As a “man who has prosecuted domestic violence, served as Special Counsel to the Violence Against Women Office at the Justice Department, and serves as Executive Director of CAVNET (Communities Against Violence Network” you should know full well that the studies used or relied on here included restraining orders and Protection from Abuse orders that dissingeniously pump up the numbers, and that these same orders granted require no burdon of proof as opposed to a criminal domestic violence charge.
Do men brutalize women? Yes they do. And men don’t deny that this takes place. The problem with VAWA and feminism is that it writes off men who are abused or murdered as inconsequentual because the numbers supporting those claims are so nill. But the numbers AREN’T nill. The numbers simply don’t get reported.
18 May 2005, 2:29 pmStan:
I have deleted a couple of posts that amounted to little more than misogynist rants, but I want to include this one as an example, and as a grimly humorous example at that, of just how fearful and agitated men can become when their gendered power is questioned in the least. Here is the weird rant of “One Man” in which, readers may note, that the deepest insult “One Man” can muster is to call me a woman.
“I don’t think “Stan” is a man at all. If she presented anything even resembling logic or data I would think her a boy that failed to become a man. But as it stands she is completely ruled by emotion and her arguements are emotionally driven with no factual data. Just like a woman’s arguements. They are creatures of emotion and cannot be persuaded with even the simplest of logic. Why do you shy away from logic? Every time some one presents something you don’t like you “kick them out.” That in itself can be seen like the child holding there hands over thier ears and screming,” I CAN’T HEAR YOU, I CAN’T HEAR YOU!” If you want to open a REAL discusion forum that is not clearly prejudice against men, then you must be open to ALL discussion, not just the parts that fit into this work of fiction. Ah but wait, let me guess, I’M OUTTA HERE. BYE, BYE STAN or who ever you are.”
Bye, One Man.
18 May 2005, 2:40 pmStan:
I would again refer readers (especially “Masculiste”) who want to see look at methodology and stastistics on this issue to review the paper:
Male Victims of Domestic Violence: A Substantive and Methodological Research Review
A report to: The Equality Committee of the Department of Education and Science
Michael S. Kimmel Professor of Sociology SUNY at Stony Brook Stony Brook, NY 11794 USA 2001
Availale as a pdf at http://xyonline.net/malevictims.shtml
18 May 2005, 2:49 pmJessica:
Hey anonymous. I don’t know why you think I am theorising. I never denied that women can be abusive (emotionally or otherwise), I just think that the idea that they are somehow *better* at being emotionally abusive is bullshit.
Abusive men do all the things you mentioned and they *often* also have the physical advantage of being bigger and socialised for violence. I know this from experience. My point is that there is an idea promoted that men are physically violent while women are emotionally violent. In reality physical violence almost always starts off with emotional violence in order to gain controll. If he had just attacked me one day I would have left immediately, but there was a long cycle of emotional abuse, isolation and controll that took place first. He also now accuses me of being the bad one… Despite much public evidence to the contrary, many people (tho only those who don’t know me) think I am some kind of manipulative, lying, petty bitch who is ungratefull to him for “saving” me from being some kind of “homeless, junky, whore”. They say that *he* is “emotional” etc. You can’t say that there is not a lot of sexism and stereotypes reflected in those attitudes.
Men *usually* have the social advantage because we live in a sexist society where men *as a whole* have more social and ecconomic power. You have lost everything by the sounds of it… But imagine if you had been ecconomically and socially dependant on her to begin with and she was much bigger than you and physically agressive? You would probably still be with her now and in much physical and psychological pain. I am not trying to downplay your experience at all, btw, you have all my sympathy… I *know* what it is like. It was mostly luck and the support of a few people* that I am not in the above situation now. I am just pointing out that it is not actually contradicting what is being said here.
Of dozens of violent or abusive relationships I have witnessed, in only two did I suspect that the woman was the violent one. In both those cases I knew the men very well (actually I was sharing houses with them) and also knew that they were *not* in anything like the cycle that characterises most abusive relationships. They were still the ones in controll and could and would end it at any time. Again, I am not saying that there are not others where this is not the case… Just that there is a pattern which reflects real social relationships and power structures.
BTW, Stan… Can you please unblock Iguana and One Man? I was enjoying their contributions and you have to admit you do come across as a bit girly.
18 May 2005, 7:50 pmshaydo:
This blog has brought back some of the terrible feelings that I have been trying to forget. Two years ago my girlfriend became violent after drinking too much and letting her jealousy take control. I had received some pictures of an old girlfriend of over 24 years ago along with other pictures of myself and old friends from a mutual friend. The old GF was diagnosed with cancer and had begun to distribute items she had to whomever she felt might want them. My GF began to accuse me of trying to rekindle the relationship and soon she became almost obsessed with the idea. I had never even seen her. One evening she was drunk and through the pictures outside. I attempted to walk outside and get them. She grabbed a broom and blocked my way. She began hitting me with the handle. I grabbed the handle and she tryed to yank it away. I let go and the handle smacked her in the head leaving a small bump. She then became hysterical and attacked me slapping and throwing items. I was telling her to stop or I would call 911 and NEVER did I hit her, push her or commit any violence against her. I finally called 911. She flew after me and grabbed my hair trying to scream into the phone saying that I hit her with a baseball bat. She finally let go and I waited for the police outside as they told me. When they got there The male officer held me in the gagage while the female officer went to talk to my GF. The female officer never talked to me even though they were dispatched to a female attacking me as the 911 operator had heard. I was not allowed into the house to tell my story and was arrested for DV assualt with a deadly weapon! I had done nothing! My GF attended my arraingment and when she found out what she had told the police (she was too drunk to remember). She immediately called the procecutor and told her that I did not hit her with a bat and that my version of the night was the correct one. The procecutor told her that “all women lie” and that I had to be guilty. I had an evaluation and it said that I was not a violent person. I had personal statements from numerous people of both sexes saying that I was not a violent person. None of this did any good. The procecutor still took me to trial based on the statement of my GF that evening. I was slandered and attacked by the procecutor who used your same thoughts against me in front of the jury. I ended up being convicted of a crime I did not commit. During my forced “treatment” the treatment providers saw that I was the real “victim” and the judge ordered me to go through victim counseling and I was released early from my community correction. But I still have a felony conviction. I told you all of this because the things that you tell people about how women rarely commit DV are simply not true and this type of thought pattern caused my conviction.You have set up a system where women can easily commit DV and get away with it. I learned just how screwed up this is by listening to the many men I have met through this that have had a women lie and be believed.I can tell you personally that almost all the women I have been involved with have committed DV against me according to your definitions. I have also seen other women commit DV against their men far more times than I have seen a man commit DV. I’m sure you would say this is because most DV occurs at home but I know that that is true no matter what your gender. Women don’t stop committing DV just because they are at home.
19 May 2005, 8:41 pmJessica:
Critical Resistance - Incite Statement
Gender Violence and the Prison Industrial Complex
We call social justice movements to develop strategies and analysis that address both state AND interpersonal violence, particularly violence against women. Currently, activists/movements that address state violence (such as anti-prison, anti-police brutality groups) often work in isolation from activists/movements that address domestic and sexual violence. The result is that women of color, who suffer disproportionately from both state and interpersonal violence, have become marginalized within these movements. It is critical that we develop responses to gender violence that do not depend on a sexist, racist, classist, and homophobic criminal justice system. It is also important that we develop strategies that challenge the criminal justice system and that also provide safety for survivors of sexual and domestic violence. To live violence free-lives, we must develop holistic strategies for addressing violence that speak to the intersection of all forms of oppression.
The anti-violence movement has been critically important in breaking the silence around violence against women and providing much-needed services to survivors. However, the mainstream anti-violence movement has increasingly relied on the criminal justice system as the front-line approach toward ending violence against women of color. It is important to assess the impact of this strategy.
1) Law enforcement approaches to violence against women MAY deter some acts of violence in the short term. However, as an overall strategy for ending violence, criminalization has not worked. In fact, the overall impact of mandatory arrests laws for domestic violence have led to decreases in the number of battered women who kill their partners in self-defense, but they have not led to a decrease in the number of batterers who kill their partners. Thus, the law protects batterers more than it protects survivors.
2) The criminalization approach has also brought many women into conflict with the law, particularly women of color, poor women, lesbians, sex workers, immigrant women, women with disabilities, and other marginalized women. For instance, under mandatory arrest laws, there have been numerous incidents where police officers called to domestic incidents have arrested the woman who is being battered. Many undocumented women have reported cases of sexual and domestic violence, only to find themselves deported. A tough law and order agenda also leads to long punitive sentences for women convicted of killing their batterers. Finally, when public funding is channeled into policing and prisons, budget cuts for social programs, including women’s shelters, welfare and public housing are the inevitable side effect. These cutbacks leave women less able to escape violent relationships.
3) Prisons don’t work. Despite an exponential increase in the number of men in prisons, women are not any safer, and the rates of sexual assault and domestic violence have not decreased. In calling for greater police responses to and harsher sentences for perpetrators of gender violence, the anti-violence movement has fueled the proliferation of prisons which now lock up more people per capita in the U.S. than any other country. During the past fifteen years, the numbers of women, especially women of color in prison has skyrocketed. Prisons also inflict violence on the growing numbers of women behind bars. Slashing, suicide, the proliferation of HIV, strip searches, medical neglect and rape of prisoners has largely been ignored by anti-violence activists. The criminal justice system, an institution of violence, domination, and control, has increased the level of violence in society.
4) The reliance on state funding to support anti-violence programs has increased the professionalization of the anti-violence movement and alienated it from its community-organizing, social justice roots. Such reliance has isolated the anti-violence movement from other social justice movements that seek to eradicate state violence, such that it acts in conflict rather than in collaboration with these movements.
5) The reliance on the criminal justice system has taken power away from women’s ability to organize collectively to stop violence and has invested this power within the state. The result is that women who seek redress in the criminal justice system feel disempowered and alienated. It has also promoted an individualistic approach toward ending violence such that the only way people think they can intervene in stopping violence is to call the police. This reliance has shifted our focus from developing ways communities can collectively respond to violence.
In recent years, the mainstream anti-prison movement has called important attention to the negative impact of criminalization and the build-up of the prison industrial complex. Because activists who seek to reverse the tide of mass incarceration and criminalization of poor communities and communities of color have not always centered gender and sexuality in their analysis or organizing, we have not always responded adequately to the needs of survivors of domestic and sexual violence.
1) Prison and police accountability activists have generally organized around and conceptualized men of color as the primary victims of state violence. Women prisoners and victims of police brutality have been made invisible by a focus on the war on our brothers and sons. It has failed to consider how women are affected as severely by state violence as men. The plight of women who are raped by INS officers or prison guards, for instance, has not received sufficient attention. In addition, women carry the burden of caring for extended family when family and community members are criminalized and wherehoused. Several organizations have been established to advocate for women prisoners; however, these groups have been frequently marginalized within the mainstream anti-prison movement..
2) The anti-prison movement has not addressed strategies for addressing the rampant forms of violence women face in their everyday lives, including street harassment, sexual harassment at work, rape, and intimate partner abuse. Until these strategies are developed, many women will feel shortchanged by the movement. In addition, by not seeking alliances with the anti-violence movement, the anti-prison movement has sent the message that it is possible to liberate communities without seeking the well-being and safety of women.
3) The anti-prison movement has failed to sufficiently organize around the forms of state violence faced by LGBTI communities. LGBTI street youth and trans people in general are particularly vulnerable to police brutality and criminalization. LGBTI prisoners are denied basic human rights such as family visits from same sex partners, and same sex consensual relationships in prison are policed and punished.
4) While prison abolitionists have correctly pointed out that rapists and serial murderers comprise a small number of the prison population, we have not answered the question of how these cases should be addressed. The inability to answer the question is interpreted by many anti-violence activists as a lack of concern for the safety of women
5) The various alternatives to incarceration that have been developed by anti-prison activists have generally failed to provide sufficient mechanism for safety and accountability for survivors of sexual and domestic violence. These alternatives often rely on a romanticized notion of communities, which have yet to demonstrate their commitment and ability to keep women and children safe or seriously address the sexism and homophobia that is deeply embedded within them.
We call on social justice movements concerned with ending violence in all its forms to:
1) Develop community-based responses to violence that do not rely on the criminal justice system AND which have mechanisms that ensure safety and accountability for survivors of sexual and domestic violence. Transformative practices emerging from local communities should be documented and disseminated to promote collective responses to violence..
2) Critically assess the impact of state funding on social justice organizations and develop alternative fundraising strategies to support these organizations. Develop collective fundraising and organizing strategies for anti-prison and anti-violence organizations. Develop strategies and analysis that specifically target state forms of sexual violence.
3) Make connections between interpersonal violence, the violence inflicted by domestic state institutions (such as prisons, detention centers, mental hospitals, and child protective services), and international violence (such as war, military base prostitution, and nuclear testing).
4) Develop an analysis and strategies to end violence that do not isolate individual acts of violence (either committed by the state or individuals) from their larger contexts. These strategies must address how entire communities of all genders are affected in multiple ways by both state violence and interpersonal gender violence. Battered women prisoners represent an intersection of state and interpersonal violence and as such provide and opportunity for both movements to build coalitions and joint struggles.
5) Put poor/working class women of color in the center of their analysis, organizing practices, and leadership development. Recognize the role of economic oppression, welfare “reform,” and attacks on women workers’ rights in increasing women’s vulnerability to all forms of violence and locate anti-violence and anti-prison activism alongside efforts to transform the capitalist economic system.
6) Center stories of state violence committed against women of color in our organizing efforts.
7) Oppose legislative change that promotes prison expansion, criminalization of poor communities and communities of color and thus state violence against women of color, even if these changes also incorporate measure to support victims of interpersonal gender violence.
9) Develop strategies for mobilizing against sexism and homophobia WITHIN our communities in order to keep women safe.
10) Challenge men of color and all men in social justice movements to take particular responsibility to address and organize around gender violence in their communities as a primary strategy for addressing violence and colonialism. We challenge men to address how their own histories of victimization have hindered their ability to establish gender justice in their communities.
11) Link struggles for personal transformation and healing with struggles for social justice.
We seek to build movements that not only end violence, but that create a society based on radical freedom, mutual accountability, and passionate reciprocity. In this society, safety and security will not be premised on violence or the threat of violence; it will be based on a collective commitment to guaranteeing the survival and care of all peoples.
http://www.incite-national.org/involve/statement.html
21 May 2005, 4:57 amstar:
If violence by women against men is truly “the most underreported crime” then the cited “reported” statistical comparisons in the article may be invalid and therefore scientifically unreliable/dubious.
Also women are much more likely than men to resort to covert (hidden) acts of extreme violence (such as poisoning) against their mates or children. Since poisoning is historically often difficult to prove in all but the most blatant cases, women may well prove to be “the most violent sex”.
Many low level medical workers etc are aware that a relatively mild poison inhaled by someone with a compromised liver metabolism can produce a synergistic (multiplicative) adverse reaction. In this way, a person with little training often is aware that it is a simple matter to subject a group of people simultaneously to a mild human toxin and have only the target individual with the previously compromised liver problem succumb. Such crimes are seldom understood or reported as a crime.
Recent advances in inexpensive chemical spectrum detection meters promises to increase every society’s awareness of the prevalence of the above poisoning phenomenon.
22 May 2005, 9:17 pmStan:
Star, if you make a claim like this you are really obliged to back it up with something. This is just pure unsubstatiated (and misogynist) speculation. You start out by implying that a statistical set is wrong based on an another unsupported premise. It is truly amazing how far people will go, and the concentration of reply-hits I am getting, an anything that challenges patriarchy or anything that exposes it as a system of unequal power.
23 May 2005, 6:18 amJessica:
These people are nuts. If you think that these comments you get here are bad you should see the hate rants that have been placed all over indymedia lately.
http://sydney.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=55384
http://sydney.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=55370
Seccondly dissagreeing with the approach that uses the state and criminalisation or of approaches that further stigmatise sex-workers is not the same these mysoginist rants implying that women are secretly manipulating, poisoning and murdering men all over the place.
That’s why I posted that statement from incite. IMO relying on the state and criminalisation has failed repeatedly and only helped to dissempower communities even more. There needs to be a more community and active approach to this and that discussion has not been had out by radical feminist enough. We even has an RTN a few years ago where the collective wanted a *cop* to speak on stage about domestic violence. Never mind all the violence commited against women by police…
23 May 2005, 8:36 pm