male victims of domestic violence, how many?

144 posts / 0 new
Last post
Internet Devil


Originally posted by jeff house:
[b]In Toronto, we have a court for domestic assault, called "K" Court. 96.4% of the complainants are women, as per last statistics I know of (from about two years ago).[/b]

Interesting. According to
[url=]F... Violence in Canada[/url], 12% of complaints are filed by men and police DO charge most batterers regardless of their gender.


[b]I believe women are somewhat more likely to report a domestic assault than men are; but police do often take photos, and I can assure Babblers that I have seen nine injured women for every injured male.[/b]

Maybe. Had I a chance to work as a lawyer I would of known more.

But verbal abuse can also cause tremendous damage. Many man and women actually kill themsaelves because of it. Yet it is not even illegal.


[b]I think some posters are just very angry people.[/b]

Mental pain leads to anger in any human.

Internet Devil


Originally posted by windymustang:
[b]Mush, I am agreeing with almost everything the feminists are saying on this thread, but I find it disturbing what you said about if you had a dollar...I know who I'd give it to...

How can we be asked to choose between our sons and daughters, our sisters and brothers? There is no choice here for me. I agree with you that the problem of women suffering from domestic violence is more prevalant than men suffering from domestic violence, but I cannot choose one over the other.

We can not compaire one person's pain over another's. Who are we to say that one suffers more than another? Unless we are in their shoes we can not know. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]

I agree. Most people who are abused become abusers. Women generally become child abusers. Men generally become felons.

90% of murderers were abused as children. A boy who is very severly abused has a 40% chance of becoming a murderer, a girl has a 10% chance.



Originally posted by Internet Devil:

I agree. Most people who are abused become abusers. [/b]

Let's say in 1700 there were only one thousand mean, nasty child abusers in the American colonies. (Of course this all neglects the point of why there weren't tons more since each previous generation should have turned out exponentially more abusers, but OK, 1000.) Let's say each married and had two children, considerably less than most families in those days. The children grow up to be abusers, married, etc. By 1980 we would have had 330 million abusers, more than double the adult population of the US and Canada at that time.

You can play with those and use various definitions of "most" but even on its face it's ridiculous. Then again if you ask questions in a poll the right way, you can come up with a child abuse rate of 100 percent. Hell Gelles and Strauss (who I referenced before) came up with 97 percent of people abusing their children, because they call spanking abuse.'s anyone's game right? Most people who suffer don't wreak vengeance on the world; many people who have never suffered or been hurt on purpose do cause harm to others. In any case the one or two empirical studies that have been done with your claim have shown the opposite. Most abused children don't want to hurt their kids; those who were raised very permissively were the most likely to lash out in anger, since they had poor impulse control and hadn't been disciplined well. The in between group - neither abused nor raised too permissively - was the most effective as parents.

None of this explains why out of 100 reports to child services, the vast majority (about 86) are unfounded; of the founded reports, most are minor abuses and only one involves serious abuse. Not to mention if you separate natural parents from foster families and state care, you come up with a much higher statistical likelihood of being severely abused or killed with non-natural families (fosters, stepparents, etc). Unfortunately when they report the statistics they don't separate those two things and merely lump child abuse into one category so that it appears from the outside that it's mostly parents who do it.


[ 14 October 2003: Message edited by: Anniee ]

Internet Devil


Originally posted by Madame X:
[b]Mush, excellently put, particularly that it's men's attitudes towards female on male domestic violence that also must be dealt with.[/b]

I agree. Many men think they can handle more difficulty or risk then they can. With violence or otherwise.

Internet Devil


Originally posted by Anniee:
Let's say in 1700 there were only one thousand mean, nasty child abusers in the American colonies.[/b]

Actually, in 1700-s physical child abuse was the norm. But at least in a society where most children are abused, abused children have less problems growing up. Today, when only 1.5% of children are severly abused, when they grow up they can not fit into the society. That, along with anger causes them to commit crimes. Many of them can fit only in a penitentery, so they become habitual criminals.


[b]Let's say each married and had two children, considerably less than most families in those days. The children grow up to be abusers, married, etc. [/b]

Since that time each following generation engaged in less child abuse then the previous one. In USA today not all child abuse victims abuse their children. Some commit other crimes, and a few abuse no one.


[b]Most people who suffer don't wreak vengeance on the world;[/b]

Most of thost who suffer and do not hurt others end up hurting themselves. Like 28,000 suicides in US every year. Or those who die from drugs.


"Actually, in 1700-s physical child abuse was the norm."

You mean they all spanked? Yeah they did. So do 97% of parents today.

"Since that time each following generation engaged in less child abuse then the previous one."

Which is the exact opposite of what you said before and what you go on to say.

"In USA today not all child abuse victims abuse their children. Some commit other crimes, and a few abuse no one."

Well you said "most", not all. My mathematical analysis can be messed with to make it most and not all. I guarantee you a lot more than a FEW abuse no one.

I really don't know where you're going or what your point is; my reply was really a side note. Just because "most abused people grow up to be abusers" has become accepted as a catchphrase doesn't make it true; and evidence doesn't bear it out. At least I see you recognize that most children aren't abused. Despite the fact that most children are spanked...even though you seem to consider spanking abuse, but maybe you're talking about using a paddle to administer said spanking.

By the way, 1.5% of children are abused, you you mean severely? Also, how many children are in the country today?

ETA: Never mind, I looked up the numbers. 1.5% would come out to a million per year...over half being cases of "neglect" which can actually mean "poverty" or a host of other things. I don't think this is the place for it actually; that's a year's worth of discussion right there.

[ 14 October 2003: Message edited by: Anniee ]

Internet Devil


Originally posted by Anniee:
[b] I guarantee you a lot more than a FEW abuse no one.[/b]

Among those severly abused most carry tremendous anger. And those who do not hurt others hurt themselves.


[b]By the way, 1.5% of children are abused, you you mean severely? Also, how many children are in the country today?

Yes. Many children are beaten regularly, and some are even sexually abused. Mental abuse of children and even teenagers or young adults by their parents can be DEVASTATING.


How about we agree to disagree, or talk about it somewhere else maybe. Heh unless the regulars are done with me on this thread [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]


Nevermind [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

[ 15 October 2003: Message edited by: Anniee ]


Anniee, I most certainly am not "done with" you. Unfortunately I haven't been able to get back to this thread until now, so missed a lot of what was said after I left. After reading your ranting, and yes you were ranting and sounding very angry, now I'm really PO'd.

If this subject is too painful, as someone else said, then maybe you shouldn't be discussing it on this forum. I find your comments to be so aggressive, inflamitory and inaccurate that I am actually angry even after trying to cool off. I must say that I don't anger easily, so you've done a really good job.

I just don't know where to start...the wage differences between men and women being a fallacy; your saying that women "choose" to care for their children and "choose" to have them and if they don't want that choice they shouldn't have them; that so many men are actually participating more in child care; that almost no men report domenstic violence so the numbers are scewed. I could go on for pages. Some of your facts and figures and opinions are so convuluted and distorted that they don't even bear arguing.

I think that this thread need to be brought up again so that people can challenge each and every one of your opinions. Your attitude of "you made your bed now lie in it" is offensive to women as a whole and mothers inparticular. How would you react to being alone, on the street, caring for your children, uneducated, penniless and cold? Where is your empathy?

I just can't imagine what your life has been like or hasn't been like to think that women choose all these catastrophic situations. Yes, we make choices that influence how our lives turn out, but most uneducated women don't choose to be uneducated. Most poor women don't choose to be poor. Most abused women don't choose to be abused. and on and on and on.

These situations leave many women with the need of asylum and assistance...hence the shelters. They are not there because of choice. They are not able to support themselves properly because they choose to be in that situation. They are not looking at minimum wage jobs as a choice. These are their realities and was at one time my reality.

Getting a proper education in this country is almost impossible for someone who is brought up in poverty. Take off the rose coloured glasses and tell me how someone is going to learn, work, and cope with career choices if they don't even have enough food in their bellies or a warm place to shelter? How many highly educated people from impoverished backgrounds do you know?

dianal who aske...

aaargh..... here's MY theory about violence in relationships.. first... don't take it. Some do....mostly women...because they have children and /or gave up careers for the home and brood or husband wanted to be the provider, etc. etc.

How many of these 'abused' men are dependent financially upon the women they say are abusing them? How many of these abused men are househusbands raising the children and maintaining the home while she is the primary source of income and he is the dependent?

Men leave their wives, sometimes because the wife is abusive. They pick up and walk. Some pay $$ for doing so .. but they had the option to leave and set up home elsewhere.


No kids.

Some even pay the child support and spousal support as recognition that the marriage didn't work and they need out and they have financial responsibilities to tend to and emotional and physical responsibilities to their children, who are in no way at fault for the abuse or even the dissolution of the marriage.

How many woman can or would do that...leave the kids and set up home with another man. How many men would take a woman and her children in and support them?

This 'men get abused, too and need supports and shelters' just really truly rings hollow to me.

Women's shelters were started BY women FOR women. I will post later about all the details of that.

We didn't see MEN starting shelters for abused women.. did we? nope.

That dang old 'male privilege' rearing it's ugly head again.. and I'm seeing a lot of postings about this crap on here lately..and it's starting to bug me.

If these men think they are so hard done by, then they can do what the women did... talk to each other and set up their own support systems.

Personally, I think the abuser needs to be removed and their option is a shelter. The woman and her children stay in their own home because they weren't the cause of the trouble.

I'd offer that suggestion to men, too... when the hockey stick practice of cross charging 'she hit me after I abused her' ends.

Men who feel they are under-respresented or what women have had to do.. take care of yourselves and work for change. Oh, and while you're at it... see if you can't change the systemic white male hierarchy we live under...'cause whatever 'oppression' you feel is worthy of change and challenge...and you can't blame the women for it. We aren't running the show here.

In recent postings by a woman, I am sadly reminded of something I once read (can't remember who wrote it).... a lumberjack with an axe walks into the forest..the trees get scared...then one tree says to the others... 'don't be scared.. the handle is one of us'

[ 19 October 2003: Message edited by: dianal ]

[ 19 October 2003: Message edited by: dianal ]


This is my first time posting here. Hello all. I see I picked a thread with a lot of ... ummm .. enthusiasm. Ok, but the topic is relevant to me and interests me.
I think the whole: "go and start your own shelter" answer is pretty counterproductive and dismissive. I hear from DV sites that "every victim matters" and "only once is wrong". I accept that. This whole numbers thing, well, it's just divisive. Point is that PEOPLE are abused. If every victim matters, and we as a society recognize DV as a relevant issue ... it does follow that there should be men's shelters. If the "go and start your own" crowd can't see that... well, can men stop paying that part of the tax? I don't mean to push a button, but I find that asking logical and disecting quesionts helps out. The side stepping of "male - patriarchy" isn't relevant. It's just not. By that standard there will NEVER be enough "compensation" or "recognition" of gender problems. It's just a side step. It's like having an argument with a buddy and when you ask how come he isn't pay for the rent he reminds you that you forgot to pick him up from appointment. I know the analogy isn't perfect, but I hope y'all get the point.
It's like this. People get hit in relationships. Not condoning (<--sp?) it, just stating it. Now, we know that if an abuser is enabled by the police, the abused, or society that the abuse will get worse and worse. I think men feel that they are in that situation. Women HAVE made serious strides in getting the recognition of DV. It's about freaking time. We need to help the victim/survivors no matter their gender. Screw the numbers.

April Follies

Steven: I'm going to directly discuss only female-on-male DV for a moment here.

Judging from the women's struggle, awareness is necessary before shelters can be built. That is, the extent of the problem has to be recognized, preferably tied down to some solid numbers. Otherwise, people will say: "With so few cases, a shelter would be underused," or something. This is not a denigration of men so much as the reluctance of governments and communities to spend money on a problem until it's screaming in their ear. [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]

In order to get some decently representative numbers, however, and more widespread recognition of the problem, a cultural shift is going to have to take place. Heading the list of things involved in that shift is convincing men that it's all right, not un-manly to report it if your spouse grabs things to hit you with every so often. "Real men get help" needs to be the message, not the current societal assumption that a real man should be able to handle anything a mere woman can do. Likewise, one needs to cultivate awareness on the part of the cops that a man who reports abuse needs to be taken very seriously.

In a sense, I do see this as a feminist issue. It's rooted in the same cultural stereotypes that give so many women grief. Just as female DV victims were ignored because, "well, men are like that, and it's a woman's responsibility not to cause offense to her husband," male DV victims were ignored - and even mocked - because "what kind of man would let his wife do that to him?" Note the unspoken assumption that it's impossible that he should be the weaker of the two.

Certainly one doesn't want to place men's issues ahead of women's issues, in any sense; that's not the point of feminism, I agree. However, I'd argue that feminism serves both women and men by breaking down these artificial stereotypes; and conversely, some attention to how these issues affect men does not hurt, but rather advances, the cause of women.

To argue that "women got no help from men" in fighting DV is a fallacy. There have been many male feminists over the years who have been of great assistance and support to women. Yes, it was largely a "we, ourselves" sort of movement, and yes, that's as it should be; it's about the empowerment of women. Great. But let's not run down the contributions of those who helped along the way, eh? No movement exists in a vacuum.

How would your average feminist feel if certain lesbian women declared that they got no help at all from straight women? There is, after all, a bitter streak of truth to that, as quite a cadre of feminists didn't want to "dilute the message" even by the inclusion of lesbian women. But "no help at all" is going too far. Lesbian women benefitted a good deal from the quiet support of straight women who felt that everyone should have a chance to make their own choices, even in the ever-controversial area of sexuality. Similarly, among all the opposition and well-meaning patronizing obstructionism and institutionalized indifference... has been a solid core of men who have supported women without trying to take over their movement; who have defended feminist choices and provided help when it was needed. There's a volunteer carpenter in Texas who might be quietly hurt to know that men had no hand in building shelters for women; he donated hundreds of hours of his time to the effort.

One needs to have a balance. I'm not saying that feminists should have to put up with antifeminist invasions like we've seen too much of in this thread. I'm not saying that feminists should spend great chunks of their time dealing with male issues when more extensive wrongs are still being suffered by women. What I am saying is that one can't be too quick to say "these are my issues, these are your issues; tend your own house." Often, the issues are the very same issues, just seen from a different perspective. Attacking such issues helps everyone.

So to those men concerned about male DV victims, I'd say: if you're just using these poor guys as an excuse to attack feminists and feminism, [i]shame[/i] on you. You're using their suffering to advance your own prejudice - how unutterably petty. If you honestly think feminists should be helping you, you'd be doing what I'm doing here: saying that this really is related to the feminist struggle, and explaining why you think so. (Hint: one reason's because the stereotype of "male strength" works against a man when he's in the position of a victim. Sorry, but flattering though it is to some men, we're going to have to expose that old canard if we're going to be able to help the men in need.)

It is not feminists who are standing in the way of shelters for men. If not for feminist struggles, there wouldn't be shelters for anybody. Feminists have brought up the whole Domestic Violence issue in the first place, and put it in the public eye. If you feel feminists have left out men, by all means argue for their inclusion - but don't you dare blame feminists for standing in the way of male victims. The abuse has been going on since ling before feminism was ever dreamed of, and no one did anything about it then, either. What's standing against male victims is largely the same thing that stands against female victims - the unthinking assumptions about where people stand in society according to gender, and the occasional vicious abuser who (often unintentionally) exploits those assumptions to continue the abuse.

In fact, though the men's rights movement has an occasional point about some feminists stressing the woes of women to the point that they won't admit men have woes at all - there's another side to it. By concentrating so much fury on attacking women and/or feminists, rather than on helping men, some men's movement folks have actually doen more harm to men and the men's movement than any number of women. They take some perfectly legitimate problems and, in using them as a bludgeon to attack feminism, make those problems seem (to the average person on the street) like just the exaggerations of a few men afraid of losing priveledge. Ye gods, talk about self-defeating.

The best thing that both men and women can do for their respective struggles for the right to be complete human beings is: forget the thought that this is some sort of zero-sum game. Not every advance for women comes at the expense of men, and vice versa. As often - perhaps more often - an advance for women turns into a triumph for men. "Family leave" is a direct outgrowth of "working women" - yet as a result men, also, gain the benefit of more time to spend with their families, when stereotyped roles would have relegated them to the position of distant provider and occasional disciplinarian.

And, fellow feminists, it may well be that "shelters for men" has in it the seeds of some advances for women. Human rights, after all, tend to tie into one another in subtle and intricate ways, and the trick is to raise the standard for all. So while it should not be alowed to dominate the agenda, it sure wouldn't hurt to tack a little note on here and there. Many feminist groups do just that already. If one falls into the trap of nay-saying everything to do with men's issues, aren't you letting men define the agenda still, just in the negative?

I'm damned if I'm gonna let twits like "Dan" define for me what I am and what I believe. And for me, "feminist" means "concerned with all the injustices created by gender stereotypes". So I figure I'll take the opportunity of their little forum invasion to do a very feminist thing - challenge the underlying assumptions concerning gender roles and the effects they have on us all.

For those who seriously want to help male DV victims, I refer to the SAFE link above. Support for that group, with its inclusive ideals, seems to me one of the more productive avenues. We're also going to have to make a concerted effort to show the where and how of the problem, and that means getting victims to speak up. Remember that the truly victimized are the most reluctant to speak, so especially at first, one must be very careful to filter out those who're e.g. using false accusations to win custody cases. Each "model case" later proven false is a blow to the movement. Therefore, working out some careful standards of evidence is crucial. One of the best routes I've seen involves medical records - it's hard to argue with photos of the injuries. A campaign to get doctors to document cases of possible abuse is already well underway. One could, I think, best serve male victims at this point by stressing as part of that campaign that men should also be looked at as potential victims, and the same 'document everything' policy should be employed regardless of the sex of the possible abuse victim. A few clear-cut cases can make all the difference in the world, later down the line. Don't waste time arguing about who's been hurt more; this is not some sort of macabre contest. Just get those victims out there with the really simple message: "We exist. We are hurt. Please help us."

Everyone can now throw peanuts at me for being preachy, patronizing, and thinking I know better than anyone. [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]

dianal who aske...

no peanuts.. just applause [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] You aren't doing a bait and switch like some of these folks who post anti-woman stuff on pro feminist threads [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

You make some valid arguments and points. I for one appreciate that far more than ' all you 'feminists'.. how many men get abused? huh? huh? take that' kinda junk.

Start a thread about men getting abused..don't jump on the backs of the feminists and bash them with the progress they've made for women. Do the same for your own and elicit support. Feminists will give it. We've learned to challenge our own and as we are not anti men and challenge systems and practices and not sex (gender is cultural-masculine or feminine, sex is physical characteristics of male or female, which is also open to challenge [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] ) but that's another thread [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

[ 19 October 2003: Message edited by: dianal ]


I am glad I got a repsonse to my post. I am hoping tht "dianal" is not referring to me in her post. Whatever was being posted before is not "on me". So, I know it's not to me whom she was addressing her message. No harm done. I do appreciate the first response I got. DV is an issue that affects both men and women. THIS THREAD has what name again. Ok, so that's settled.
I think I have re read many of the posts and see a problem. The term "feminist" has become so loaded. What I mean is, what it means to me may not be what it means to you. If we asked to people for a definition we would probably get 10 different answers. So when you get some posters here who believe that "feminism"(their version of the word) has caused x,y, and z and another person who holds a completely different view of the word feminism you get an automatic clash. In simple terms, if I date a woman who goes to, say, Wellesley College. She and I have a nice time, and upon entering her dorm I see a group of women having a discussion. I enter the discussion and hear it's about women's issues and put my opinion on the table. I am received rather less than enthusiastically. After this I may have a negative connotation of the word "feminism". On the other hand maybe I have had some kind of bad gender-based experience. I meet with a therapist or support group that is led by a woman. After the session I come to find out that she is a "feminist". I find a supportive and helpful person who is a "feminist". Point is, the word has become so loaded with so many meanings that even women disagree. I really think that when people make blanket statements about "feminism" that it's counter productive and inflamitory. Now, I also have MY views. YOU have yours. WE may both think we are fair minded and "feminist" oriented. Lol, THEN we pick a topic and start a discussion. We as PEOPLE may end up not agreeing. And so on and so forth.
I enjoyed the post I got in reply. Let's stop the violence.


The word feminism is defined in the Webster Dictionary as: 1.the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes 2.organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests.

I interpret this as meaning that if you are a feminist, you believe in equal rights between males and females. A practicing feminist is someone who is an activist on behalf of women's rights and interests.

I am a feminist, and wanting equality between the sexes means including men in my concerns because as April Follies indicated, the benefits of equal treatment of men in a given situation ultimately helps to enable the equal treatment of women. To me, being a feminist is part of exressing my humanity. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

dianal who aske...

I believe men can be pro-feminist but not 'feminists' *ducks*

And once again and yet again a man is putting onto the feminist movement the burden of doing 'for' men, of including them in a women's focussed movement because gosh darn it women can't ignore men's issues... or can we *wink*


Wendy? In reference to your first post to me? GROW UP. You sound like a bratty five year old. Did you actually think your rant deserved a reply? [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] Get over the histrionics so maybe we could talk [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

Heh...I must say it's sort of amusing; I know an antifeminist who gets just as irrationally emotional/hysterical at the drop of a hat too. Then again I suppose I know people who have little opinion on feminism who are just that uber-emotional too. I'd repeat "hysterical" except it actually is an anti-woman term and despite your rantings I will assure you I'm not anti-woman. You see, I'm a woman; it doesn't often work that way [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

[ 20 October 2003: Message edited by: Anniee ]


Dianal, is *ducks* supposed to be a put down? I don't believe you have the right to refer to me in such an endearing way when you don't know me not to mention kissed me!

Where's your facts to back up your opinion. Condescension is not a substitute for hard evidence. I know of many men who proudly call themselves feminists and without their help things would get done a lot slower around here. The more people working towards a common goal the better.

dianal who aske...

*ducks* wasn't a term of endearment.. it was meant as a euphemism for 'cover my head'...

In my opinion, it's very slave like thinking that we need the men on our side to change that they oppress us.. that we need them 'on our side' to effect change. We don't. Yes many men throughout history have supported women's emancipation, etc. In fact, my great great et al uncle was John Stuart Mill... who wrote and spoke to parliament his document 'the subjection of women'. Yet, we live in a patriarchal, white male dominated culture and some feel we can't move forward for ourselves without everyone's consent and support.

Harumph I say [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

[ 20 October 2003: Message edited by: dianal ]

April Follies

At the same time, saying "we can change society" while ignoring half of it is, in my view, wishful thinking. We don't need men's permission, but for a working society, we damn well need men's participation.

It is not "slave-like thinking" on the part of the African National Congress that began their mandate: "We, the people of South Africa, black and white together..." Nor do the ANC scorn the white anti-apartheid fighters. The ANC is not bowing to colonial pressures in this, just recognizign that peoples contributions, not their race, are what matters. To me, people's contributions to feminism, not their actual sex, is what matters. So I have no trouble in the world with the term 'male feminist'.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: it's true that women need to do things for themselves, not ask others to do things for them. But that doesn't mean it's right to reject someone from 'our' movement because they're the wrong gender. I mean, what kind of message would that be? "It's not OK when you do it to me, but it's OK when I do it to you?" C'mon, now. Safe spaces are great, but 'feminism' is not a safe space, it's a movement to change society. Movements that change society need to take every member of society into account.

To say men can't be feminist is like saying whites can't be civil rights activists. I'd argue that a movement should embody the values it seeks to bring to society, and that means upholding equality inside the movement as well.

If you feel that these male feminists are trying to 'take over', well fer heaven's sake, we're feminists. We just don't let ourselves go along with such a thing! We're not going to faint the first time a guy starts shouting 'THIS is the WAY.' We're perfectly capable of shouting back.

What really bothers me is the feeling that some feminists are trying to make things into a matter of 'choose your side'. It's easy to divide the world into Good Gals and Bad Guys, but it's also a vast oversimplification. The struggle is not, and never has been, about men versus women, or even about women versus patriarchy. It's about the ideals of some women and men - concerning equality - against the traditions upheld by other women and men.

And by the way, HAH! We have now successfully hijacked this thread back from the antifeminists, and onto matters of substance. Go us! [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]

dianal who aske...

seems we are in different feminist movements [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

I base my actions and participation in women's emancipation in large part on this, taken from 'the subjection of women' from 1869 by John Stuart Mill and read in Parliament:

"Again, in practical matters, the burden of proof is supposed to be with those who are against liberty; who contend for any restriction or prohibition either any limitation of the general freedom of human action or any disqualification or disparity of privilege affecting one person or kind of persons, as compared with others. "

Far too much time is wasted in having 'educating the oppressor' the primary goal or the focal point.

With issues of racism as well... there is far too much time spent on explaining to white folks why they are racist. If they care about being non-racist and truly want the balance of power to shift or be equal, they will figure it out for themselves. They aren't sheep or brain dead...they can learn just as the ones being oppressed learned about their oppression.

Oppressors saying 'we don't get it? tell us what we are doing wrong' is yet another method of oppression. If they don't 'get it' in the first explanation, they aren't going to. Because, I think they damn well DO get it and are enjoying all the privilege of that oppression and truly don't want to give it up.

In a nutshell [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

[ 20 October 2003: Message edited by: dianal ]

Madame X

[img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]


Well said AprilFollies, I totally agreee that if we want to change something in society, it is unfair or even ridiculous to expect to do it with the exclusion of half the population. The examples of past emancipations in other areas are excellent.

Dianal you still haven't justified your arguement that to be a feminist, you must be female. If someone is fighting for the equal rights of women in society, by definition, they are feminists. Where is it said that a feminist must be female?

As far as educating the oppressor being a waste of time, I disagree. Through education, society's opinion has changed on numerous topics; race, religion and sex discrimination being just a few. In my grandmother's day b.1895 in New York, she just naturally called black's "niggers" until she was educated that it was a cruel thing to say. It took a while, but eventually she changed how she spoke. If we don't beat society about the head with repetition of what is right, society will never change.

To you this might be a waste of time because you have more important feminist issues to tackle. That's OK, fight the good fight. In my mind though, education is never a waste of time.

[img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

April Follies

The question of "educating the oppressors" is somewhat aside from the point I'm making, however. I'm saying: some men are not oppressors, but rather co-revolutionaries against the oppression of women. Some whites are not racists, but participants in the struggle against racism. Etc. These people are not "oppressors" simply by identification with the race or sex or anything else of their birth. They are the exact opposite, as defined by their actions - assistants to empowerment. As such, it is insulting in the extreme to identify them with the oppressors, or to reject them from the ranks of the revolutionaries, simply because of their biological features. That [i]is[/i] racism and sexism, the very last thing you want in a movement that exists to oppose these things.

Some women are afraid of men. They've got ample reaosn, within the context of their own experience. They want "safe spaces" to grow and develop without the pressures of male behavior - or their own expectations of male behavior, just as much. This is something I sympathize with, and think they should be granted as much as possible.

But eventually we must come out of the safe spaces to rejoin the world at large, that most unsafe of places. To make the world at large safer for women (among others) is an admirable goal, but in the process we must consider that men are a part of that equation. That includes recognizing, and respecting, those men who have given much (and a heckufa lot more than e.g. Phyllis Shclafley) to help empower women. That includes, among other things, those fathers reading this right now who've done their level best to help their daughters empower themselves, as well as their sons. Shout-out, guys. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

Men are risking their lives to go out to places where women don't have decent medical care, in order to see that they have access to it. Men are spending their lives to found schools for women who would otherwise grow up illiterate. Men are fighting in legislatures around the world to get pro-feminist legislation passed. And most of 'em don't present that as a lordly gift from men to women (after all, they have many women right next to them doing just the same), but as a simple matter of human rights, the things every human being ought to grant to one another. They see an imbalance, they address it. And you're telling me somehow that, walk the walk how they may, they don't deserve to be called 'feminist'?

I'd be very, very careful with the answer to that. There are anti-feminists already who are all too eager to paint feminism as 'sexism in reverse', and this plays right into those hands. We might not care about the anti-feminists themselves, but we should care about the generation of young women (and men) growing up right now with those messages dinning in their ears. If we lend credence to the idea that feminism is an exclusionary, rather than inclusionary, movement - we'll have a lot fewere feminists, that's the bottom line.

A study of the "black nationalism" movement and where it's ended up - on the fringe of black thought, rather than in the center of the post-civil-rights black activism - may provide a salutary lesson on taking 'we, all by ourselves' too far.

dianal who aske...


You must be male for suggesting I need to 'justify' my position.

[ 21 October 2003: Message edited by: dianal ]

April Follies


Originally posted by dianal:
You must be male for suggesting I need to 'justify' my position.[/b]

Dianal, I find that quite offensive.

When we ask others to accept our reasoning, it is therefore perfectly reasonable for them to ask us to justify our base position.

Thus, I too say that you need to justify your position that there cannot be a 'male feminist', and state that I do not believe you have done so. And I'm not male.

dianal who aske...

I posted as part of a message board discussion. I did not ask that anyone 'accept' my reasoning, I stated what I believe.

If you would like to explore the topic of men being called or self identifying as feminists, then perhaps inquiring about it further would be the route to take? Doesn't mean I will be bound by any laws or rules to elaborate myself, but perhaps others would, if they so choose.

April Follies

Well, then, let's leave it that a couple of us "stated an opinion" that you hadn't justified your opinion. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] I don't want to get this into more confrontational stages, I just found it necessary to point out that it's not nice to make generalizations about people by gender.

As for the question of the elusive 'male feminist', I should think I'v already given rather a lot of chapter and verse on that, so I will agree, it's time to hear from men who self-identify as feminists, or from anyone else who wants to chime in with a pro-feminist viewpoint. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

dianal who aske...

It's not too profeminist to adopt yours and wendymustang's postings that focus on getting combatitive with another poster who just happens to be a crone and a feminist.

Value for what you think or posted just went right out the window. I'm going to another thread. enjoy.

April Follies

I'm sorry that you feel that way, but - as a twenty-year feminist activist myself - I must decline to allow you to define for me whether or not I'm a "real" feminist. If I react strongly to anti-male sexism, even when expressed on a feminist board, it's because I value feminism, its goals and gains, too highly to want to see it become yet another old Us versus Them argument. I chose to use this thread to air such feelings, since the anti-feminists had already soiled the air, and I figured a little more smoke in a good cause wouldn't hurt.

I feel strongly that the unexamined life is not worth living, and the unexamined movement is not worth fighting for. It is, to my mind, one of the most important things in the world to be self-critical. Yes, it can be taken too far, I grant. But only a self-critical movement is self-correcting. When we become unable to criticize our own tendencies, or to discuss those criticisms rationally, we too often go off into the realm of dogma, which helps no one.

I think one of the great strengths of feminism is its very diversity of views, all included under the general banner. The ecofeminists, for instance, have a very interesting take on the relationship between traditionally 'feminine' modes of thought, and the environmentalism which we know now is vital to society. So-called 'radical' feminism has made us re-examine the entire concept of gender from the ground up. Of course, the marxist feminists will probably have a significant following here, given the board. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

I'm most interested in that general line, myself, (the marxist, that is) as the intermingling of class, race, and gender structures - all artificial categorizations of human behavior - are the things that I think are in deepest need of re-examination and possible dismantling. The group to which I belonged, while it lasted, was called Women for Racial and Economic Equality, which should right about tell you what we were all about. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

Sadly, that group disintigrated when one member of the group claimed that a woman of the 'wrong' race should not be allowed to become an officer. The resulting ill-feeling was the beginning of the end for that organization. It is this that has so strongly informed my passion about the danger of exclusionary language.


I find it very sad that we have ended up arguing.
The thread was started by a troll. Joined later by another troll.

We end up arguing with each other. Jesus, we are feminists? Sheesh. Are buttons are being pressed and we react against each other...... [img]frown.gif" border="0[/img]

dianal who aske...

april.. you continually put words in my post that I did not type. How did my comment of 'I believe men can be pro-feminist but not 'feminists' become my being anti male?? You type a lot of words and unfortunately it is my opinion that you have half your head up your a**. I just 'felt it important to point out when someone uses superlatives and extremes to defend a precarious positioning'.

This is not a contest, it's not supposed to be anyway... feminists, the ones _I_ know.. respect and engage in intellectual discourse. Join my other thread. The one where I hope pro feminists will engage in discussion, not ditch dragging.

yes I'm angry at being insulted for speaking and choosing to share what I chose to share, then being called on the carpet for it and jided and chastised by you and one other poster.

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Ever read that anywhere? You did now. And ya.,.this posting and most of the thread is a problem and in this instance, I choose NOT to try for a solution. Not worth my time to salvage this thread. I'm going to another one.

[ 22 October 2003: Message edited by: dianal ]

[ 22 October 2003: Message edited by: dianal ]

April Follies

I imagine Audra's soon to close this thread off for being too long and increasingly counterproductive anyhow.

I hadn't previously joined the other thread, because I wanted to let others get a word in edgewise; and because I wanted to back off if you (dianal) were feeling pressured and threatened. That's not my intent, though I come on strong sometimes when I feel strongly, which is, well, quite a lot of the time. I'm thinking that backing up, deep breaths, and a little less passionate discourse from me on this thread might help the air clear a bit. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

Also, I note clersal's distress that this has turned into a slightly acrimonious argument, and I wouldn't want to keep that going in other forums.

Re-reading the thread, it looks like we parted company with polite discourse somewhere around the misunderstanding over what "ducks" meant. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] Still, although the tone was a little strained, thanks to the difference of viewpoints, I don't think anyone was calling anyone out on the carpet, so much as presenting a strongly-felt counter argument, up until the point of the "you must be male" jibe, at which point, yes, I did jump all over ya, I admit, because that hit some of my personal buttons.

Like I said, I'm willing (and I think it might be advisable, in fact) to back off, let the air clear, and even shut up for awhile, if that will help reduce the level of acrimony here. Conversely, if you feel that further discussion - on, as it were, a slightly higher level - would help clear the air, I'm willing to do that too. Having been "part of the problem" in raising tension levels, I wish to become "part of the solution" in lowering them again.

And remember the chemists' slogan: If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate! *ducks* [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

dianal who aske...

You are rather directorial to a supposed 'fellow' feminist. You jumped in on a post that was directed to someone else, and I have seen nothing short of your continued efforts to silence my posts and comments by passive aggressive tactics. Gotta tell ya.. NOT impressed here.

Double talk all you like.. it's all just blowing smoke up my ass. Enough. All I've seen is you getting into business/posts that aren't yours and you interpreting others words to suit an agenda that I don't even want to imagine.

Attribution, jumping to conclusions, etc etc. have not impressed me and you can type the world's longest post it won't change my now sullied opinion of you.

Feminists RESPECT other women, whether they are as 'feminist' as another, or not. To interpret my words and turn my comments into something I did not say, is total disrespect. Quote me exactly and respond with your own words and thoughts..would be respect.

if YOU want to stop posting, then stop. Do not tell others what to do. That is the crux of the trouble here as I see it.

April Follies

Apparently my attempt to dampen the fires had the opposite effect. Hadn't realized I was being passive-agressive. So I shall attempt to do as you ask: quote, and give my own reaction.


Originally posted by dianal:

You must be male for suggesting I need to 'justify' my position.

[ 21 October 2003: Message edited by: dianal ][/b]

My reaction to this was that it constituted a serious lapse in the discourse, that it did indeed take the conversation to 'confrontational' levels. I find that comments about the location of my head versus my a** are also not exactly what you'd call helpful, friendly, or non-combative.

Now, in all fairness, I've made a mistake myself, I believe, which was in over-personalizing the discussion over whether there can be a 'male feminist'. Instead of simply presenting my arguments that there can be such a critter, I also cast those arguments in such a way as they seemed to say, "YOU are WRONG to say this, and what have you got to say for yourself, huh?!?" While this was not intentional on my part, I can quite easily see the damage it caused. Bleah. Therefore - while I stand by those bits that concerned the arguments of the position itself ("there can be male feminists") I wholeheartedly and unreservedly apologize for casting them in a confrontational fashion.

Now, if your opinion of me is cast in stone as you say, there can, alas, be no further productive discourse. In that case, I will merely leave the apology to stand, and ask only that you refrain from lofting more insults my way (head up ass, etc.). We can always ignore each others' posts hereafter, if we can't converse without the sparks a'flyin'.

It's very tempting to go off on a long self-justification spiel here (e.g. I don't see bboard exchanges as 'private' conversations that one can 'intrude' into, as long as one is on-topic). However, once again that'd be counterproductive, I suspect. The one thing I think I have to apologize for, I have apologized for; the rest is for me to keep to my previous suggestion to myself, and shut up about shutting up. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]



If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Ever read that anywhere? You did now. And ya.,.this posting and most of the thread is a problem and in this instance, I choose NOT to try for a solution. Not worth my time to salvage this thread. I'm going to another one.

I can't figure out what the bloody problem is. I realized what you meant by 'ducks' too.
I keep reading through the thread and am making no headway. I'm sort of an objective observer. I am a lady. Not to worry. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

My last word on this subject: I am sure there are many male victims of domestic violence. Maybe a thread on 'masculism' would be appropriate. I presume the counterpart of feminism is masculism?

What ever....

dianal who aske...

The what you call 'confrontation' started with me being told I need to 'justify' my opinon. And you then jumped into a post that was not directd to you thus immersing yourself in something that wasn't yours. and. omg april at what point in time did you apologize?? I see none of that. Is your middle name Sanctimonious? gawd....

and yes.. I would, too, like to get back to the topic at hand altho the instigator seems to have left the board and that's all fine and well with me. I don't feel like expending energy explaining myself or 'justifying' my opinions to those who choose to poke at someone for their opinion that is not being imposed upon other's in any way other than respectful discussion and respect for other's opinions.

I crossed no lines and was participating in a thread until someone (april) decided I was worthy
of denigration. she's feminist? hah.

It's interesting to me that the one 'feminist' here, april, could easily go back to the original topic, so could clersal, and get the stats and get it back where they way they want it to go. I won't do the research 'cause my contribution was after the intial topic. I am now into so called feminists talking about what feminism is and for that... we need another thread to bring them 'up to speed' to use a 'male inspired' quote.

Look.... it's all fine and well to be pasionate about a 'cause'. Those people have moved mountains. It's not fine and well to attack the people participating. There can be nuances to positions aka 'men can be pro feminist but not feminists'. Break it down.. it's the same thing.. men can and have been supportive. Jumping on a woman for saying that only derails the original purpose. Is men being 'feminists' the issue? Or is it the advancement of women? What are we really trying to accomplish here. Infighting or support. This thread went from a troll to attacking a staunch feminist to this. Blech.

Now.,.. I can look up the stats and info for the original question .. or someone else can. I will if I don't see them posted in the morning.

Easy squeezy to do so. There was never any need to attack a woman stating her opinion and not attacking anyone. Geez.. no wonder we haven't made much headway...too many women jump on other women thinking they have to defend men.

On second thought.. I'm gonna look up all this stuff and source it and post it on the other thread.

Night [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

[ 22 October 2003: Message edited by: dianal ]

[ 22 October 2003: Message edited by: dianal ]



Oct. 21, 2003. 07:30 PM
Gest sues Minnelli for $10M, claims abuse

NEW YORK — Producer David Gest sued Liza Minnelli for $10 million U.S. today, accusing his estranged wife of alcohol-fuelled violence that caused neurological damage and headaches.

Gest, 50, alleges in court papers that Minnelli, 57, flew into drunken rages on several occasions on both sides of the Atlantic, insulting and striking him.

Liz Rosenberg, a spokeswoman for the singer, said Minnelli had not seen the lawsuit and could not comment. Minnelli's lawyer, Allen Arrow, did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

Minnelli and Gest separated in July, just 16 months after they wed at a celebrity-studded ceremony that featured best man Michael Jackson carrying the bride's train. Elizabeth Taylor served as maid of honour.

In papers filed in Manhattan Supreme Court, Gest alleges that Minnelli began battering him before the wedding.

Gest's lawyer, Raoul Felder, said his client suffered neurological damage and headaches from the alleged attacks, and is staying at a rehabilitation clinic in Honolulu.

In one incident last June in London, court papers allege Minnelli consumed a bottle of vodka before she threw a lamp at Gest in their hotel suite.

She later "began beating (Gest) about the head and face with her fists," the lawsuit said. When Gest asked a security guard to intervene, court papers say Minnelli punched him in the stomach.

When the couple married in March 2002, attendees said Minnelli danced in happiness at the altar. Hundreds of fans lined Fifth Avenue to watch guests including actors Michael Douglas, Anthony Hopkins and David Hasselhoff, rocker Elton John and TV news personality Barbara Walters arrive in limousines.

The wedding marked a personal comeback for Minnelli, the daughter of Judy Garland and director Vincente Minnelli. She has won an Academy Award, an Emmy, two Golden Globes and three Tony Awards but also battled substance abuse, weight gain, and a near-fatal bout with encephalitis.

Gest, an event and concert promoter, produced Jackson's 30th Anniversary tribute concert


Good idea dianal. Here is what I found.
[url=]cliquez[/url] [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] or maybe [img]frown.gif" border="0[/img]

Internet Devil

Interesting. But then radical feminists and masculists have something in common -- neither side believes a man can be a feminist.

writer writer's picture

request in the feminism forum for the feminst perspective on female violence against men

[ 15 June 2007: Message edited by: writer ]


Feel free to start another thread on this topic.


Topic locked