Domestic Violence--what's the answer?
Tue, 2003-12-02 12:07
#1
Domestic Violence--what's the answer?
Tue, 2003-12-02 12:07
#2
[url=http://thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Artic... don't bark when men kill mates[/url]
quote:
What is striking about the substantial domestic death toll — what's most telling of all — is the dog that didn't bark.Let murderers do their lethal work in the streets against strangers, or members of rival gangs, or those with whom they've had a falling out, and the city's police chief, along with all the usual mouthpieces from the law-and-order brigade, are out in force to demand more money, more resources, more manpower, more firepower to combat it.
Let the bodies — almost always women — fall on the living room carpet or the kitchen linoleum, let the perpetrator be someone once near and dear to them, and the zero-tolerance zealots tend to preserve a loud silence.
If it were police officers who were dying at the rate women do at the hands of former partners, or if it were politicians, or construction workers, or strikers, or demonstrators, the demand for investigation, action and resources would be deafening.
But even though domestic murders account for such a large proportion of our homicide totals, and consume such a large part of police time and budgets, we rarely hear the chief and his fans speaking out about the urgency of providing the services, supports and safeguards to women and children in the wake of relationship breakdown.
After however many inquests, surely we know as a society what needs to be done. So why isn't it getting done? And how can we change that?
Tue, 2003-12-02 13:47
#3
Not enough of society knows. I'm always amazed at how many people are ignorant of domestic violence figures, or facts.
People think it doesn't happen in their neighbourhood, culture, class, religion etc. And since it doesn't affect them, why should they care. The fact of the matter is, that unless one is living in a bubble, someone in their lives is being affected by violence against women.
More outreach needs to be done, more money is needed for outreach. More money is needed for shelters, for women's centres, for rape crisis centres.
Affordable housing, affordable childcare, more education in schools, workplaces, hell, everywhere.
Trying to get funding for even just doing outreach is nuts because the topic is "too political" it's viewed differently than giving money to the local children's hospital or cancer research.
The issue needs to be looked at more widely. Immigrant women need to have alternatives to living with their abusive sponsor. The necessary documentation so that woman can get a job needs to take less than a year to obtain.
Shelters need to be more accessible. Support programs such as job finding, clothing banks, pet support (lots of women will not leave abusive relationships because they have to leave their pets to a horrible fate).
All of this requires money though. It requires a government who is going to take the issue seriously. It requires people to take off the rose coloured glasses. Ideally our elected leaders can facilitate that...However reality says it's still for a large part going to be women yelling into the wind.
There is no one answer unfortunately, we need all of the above, and then some. And what of the abusers? More jail time? Well most of us know the jail system does little to help. More counselling programs like counterpoint? It takes a long time to rehab an abuser, but I'm all for it. More outreach for girls and boys while they're young. I think this is a great need and one of our best hopes. It's just again a matter of money.
That is, unless a lot of people start getting a clue and decide to start volunteering a lot more. Which would also be nice too. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
Fri, 2003-12-05 18:00
#4
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Shenanigans:
All of this requires money though. It requires a government who is going to take the issue seriously. It requires people to take off the rose coloured glasses. Ideally our elected leaders can facilitate that...However reality says it's still for a large part going to be women yelling into the wind.
I find it interesting that here in Alberta of all places, some changes are in the works. I don't know how other provinces work, but in Alberta no provincial government funding goes toward sexual assault centres. Even though funding is provided for shelters (never enough), including programs, sexual assualt centre funding has always been a no-go. The past few months, the province is investigating the possibility of putting some much needed funds into these vital agencies. I'm no fan of this government, and I'll believe it only when I see it, but maybe Hades is chilling out.
Sun, 2003-12-07 11:10
#5
quote:
If it were police officers who were dying at the rate women do at the hands of former partners, or if it were politicians, or construction workers, or strikers, or demonstrators, the demand for investigation, action and resources would be deafening.
In fact more people were killed in industrial accidents (ie. construction workers) last year than were murdered by their husbands. 95% of workplace fatalities are men. And it's not the demand for action that is deafening it's the SILENCE. Men die - who cares? In 2001 domestic violence dropped 25% in 2002 it dropped another 3% (StatsCan figures - go check em). Two thirds of murder victims were men in 2002.
20% of spousal murders were commited by women. The majority of children killed by a parent were killed by women. Violence is a societal issue, not a gender one. By addressing only half the problem we will never reach a solution.
Peace
H Vincent
Sun, 2003-12-07 12:51
#6
Comparing industrial accidents to murders is, of course, a red herring. Not providing links to stats is also suggestive. There's a credibility issue here.
Sun, 2003-12-07 13:31
#7
Go to statcan to get the stats. I didn't make them up. I responded to the assertation that if construction workers were dying like that there would be outrage. Construction workers ARE dying like that and there is no outrage. No red herring there.
Men account for two thirds of murder victims in Canada. There is no credibility issue unless the government is producing bogus stats. Go to statcan.ca. look it up. Call your local police detachment I'm sure they will give you the statistics. I noticed that you didn't call on the first poster to produce solid stats or figures.
Twice as many men as women are murdered in Canada each year. Does that mean we should ignore female murder victims because they are in the minority and concentrate on all the male-directed violence? No! We have to work towards ending violence for all. Victimology, which makes women prisoners of unnecessary fear and divissive programs, which only offer help to some will not get us where we want to go. People have to be educated to the reality of violence, not terrified by hysteria generated by the media. Canada is a very safe place to live. The statcan 2002 violence report is available online. It shows that violence has been more or less steadily declining since the sixties. In fact, more people were killied by stabbing than by firearms last year. You would never know this by reading a newspaper. Everyone is screaming for guns to be removed from the public when in reality stabbings are way more numerous. What will we do now? Register all the knives? My point is that education is the way to go instead of relying on the kind "common knowledge" misconceptions and errors that pit "us" against "them".
[img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
Sun, 2003-12-07 13:56
#8
quote:
Comparing industrial accidents to murders is, of course, a red herring.
I agree. But it was Jim Coyle's article that first made that comparison.
Sun, 2003-12-07 13:57
#9
quote:
Originally posted by H Vincent:
[b] Construction workers ARE dying like that and there is no outrage.
[/b]
There should be, but that's a different topic. Perhaps you could post something to the Labour forum on workplace deaths? In fact I'll start one. [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=12&t=000349]c... here to go to that discussion[/url] and further comments from me on the matter.
Most of your other comments are off-topic too. This is a thread about [b]domestic[/b] violence.
Looking at the stats for domestic violence you provided I'm struck by the big decline in 2001 and the much smaller one in 2002. Was the data collected or categorized differently in 2001 than in 2000? It seems like a statistical anomaly.
[ 07 December 2003: Message edited by: Mick ]
Sun, 2003-12-07 14:39
#10
Unless contruction workers are dying because of interpersonal violence (rather than, say, hazardous workplace conditions), then comparing that situation to domestic assault is irrelevant. In fact, even if construction workers were dying because of interpersonal violence, there would still not be a connection to domestic male-female violence.
As for how society treats male victims, athena dreaming's post was about just that. The quote she supplied asserted that the overwhelming amount of funds and police time are directed toward dealing with the situation of "twice as many men as women...murdered in Canada each year." There is nothing to "call on" because the "stats and figures" regarding domestic violence have been provided on a recent thread. Furthermore, you don't reject the notion yourself, because as you say, StatsCan and "my local police department" will confirm that the emphasis on prevention of violence in society is in fact being directed at male-male situations.
You want "to work towards ending violence for all", and you don't want to "ignore female murder victims because they are in the minority and concentrate on all the male-directed violence", yet in the same breath you condemn educating society about violence perpetrated against women as "Victimology" caused by "hysteria generated by the media." This argument follows from your choice to lump all violence together, as if domestic violence is not distinguishable from other kinds. You note a decline in this general violence "since the sixties", and add the irrelevance that knives are more common weapons than guns. You draw a conclusion based on these false and irrelevant premises by calling for a specific kind of education in which no distinction is made between kinds of violence in order to avoid pitting "us against them"--i.e., to avoid describing domestic violence as a gender-related issue.
Sun, 2003-12-07 15:13
#11
I'm sorry if you misunderstood my idea. I'm not the best at expressing myself. My point is that the media makes things seem much more worse than they are. Violence keeps dropping but the media coverage of the violence that remains keeps increasing. So in reality society is becoming safer but the picture painted by TV is that it is more and more dangerous. This is not good. Why is scaring women so much that they are afraid to go out a good thing? That's my point. Teach them to avoid men who exhibit traits which are common to controlling, violent individuals instead of spending all our resources dealing with the aftermath. Teach them how to defend themselves and avoid dangerous situations. What you don't do (like happened where I live this Friday) is have groups go into schools and tell all the girls they will probably be beaten and raped sometime in their life and not give them any tools to avoid it. This does no good. It terrifies them without giving them any power to prevent it. This group which spoke to the students presented it as women=victim and men=abuser. This is not a positive message to inflice on teenage boys either. Making them feel shame for being a man leads to resentment and ignores the real fact that ANYONE can be a victim of domestic abuse. Your boyfriend shoves you - abuse. Your girlfriend slaps you - abuse.
It's the same thing. There was even infighing amoung the women present. A black woman was upset that there weren't as she put it " enough people of color present" and that "exclusion is a form of abuse." This did nothing to help the presentation. Violence is violence whatever your color or gender. 20% of the victims of spousal homicides in Canada in 2002 were men. That is a significant amount. But the attitude is that it's a male on female thing and there are no services available to men and their children. Even if you don't care about men being hurt consider that they have children and it would be good if there was a place they could go if they or their father was being abused. We all pay taxes in this country and we should all receive the same services. Imagine if a woman went to a hospital suffering a heart attack and was told that since the majority of heart attack victims are male they could not serve her. End all violence. A good website is [url=http://save4all.org]safe4all.org[/url] they are committed to helping everyone.
Thanks for reading my post.
Sun, 2003-12-07 18:00
#12
I agree to the extent that I think that no one has a monopoly on our attention when it comes to wrongful deaths or other suffering.
But people concerned about one type in particular should not be told to lessen their efforts with respect to that type of violence.
Since none of us can solve everything, the best we can do is to try and affect some problem, somewhere.
I do not care more about construction workers than about women, but perhaps for autobiographical reasons, workplace deaths hit me particularly hard. For others, it may be automobile safety, or military issues, or whatever.
I am just glad that someone has taken up the issue of violence against women. I was very proud of Jack Layton when he began to work with the White Ribbon Committee on domestic violence some years ago; I doubt that means he doesn't care about the working class.
Sun, 2003-12-07 22:17
#13
Can we not end up letting this discussion be derailed into the legitimacy of the notion of violence against women?
I assumed in my initial post that those posting in the feminist forum would not need to have demonstrated to them the special character of domestic violence; my understanding is that all but one of the recent posters would agree. And there's been dozens of inquests into the causes and preventions of such violence, with precious little resulting from them, even though the recommendations usually end up being substantially in agreement about what's requried.
So why is that? And how do we fix it? What is the magic key (or keys) into making our government(s) actually do any of the things contained in the outcomes of such inquests?
Mon, 2003-12-08 12:30
#14
I've been out to lunch...well a wee bit busy this weekend and didn't notice the thread.
I work with abused women particularly because I do believe there are different types of violence. Male violence against women being one of them. I have no plans on stopping or lessening my efforts. Nor am I going to suddenly change my path because there is plenty of work for me to do here.
I believe sexual violence is a very specific form and in my experience, I've worked with two people who have been sexually assaulted by women. One was a man, the other was woman in a SS relationship. The rest, which has been hundreds if not thousands by now have been male violence against women.
Men account for 2/3's of the murder victims in Canada for the large part, men are killed by men. Gang violence, police violence, bar violence. A man killed by some idiot in the bar is a lot different than gang violence, and any police officer will tell you that those two cases have to be handled in different ways.
There are programs in place to work with young women to teach them how to avoid abusive men, there are programs in place to teach them how to defend oneself, how to prevent bad situations from becoming worse. However there needs to be a heck of a lot more programs (and kudos to the White Ribbon Campaign) that work with men to stop thinking they are entitled to abusing women. Personally I support them.
The services for abused women, most of them were started grassroots by women with little or no funding, but just to address the need. Any and everytime someone tries to change the focus of violence against women towards men lamenting about how there are no such services for men, I welcome them to take the same hard path they did/we do to establish what little we have. Fact of the matter is, that VERY little our of tax money goes to shelters. Most shelters scramble for funding from agencies such as the United Way or Canadian Women's Foundation and unfortunately the supply is not large.
I'm always amazed at people who are so quick to criticise women for working with a very specific type of violence, which is violence against women. If the subject of violence against men is so near and dear to their hearts, why spend time criticising people who are working on something near and dear to their hearts, why not just get out there and work on their causes.
The very fact that they prefer to complain about shelter, community and sexual assault workers working with women leads me to believe that it is less of an issue of them really being concerned about violence against men, but more of an issue that they have a problem with women actually getting *gasp* a little helping hand.
Thu, 2003-12-18 10:02
#15
Thanks for that, shenanigans. Very insightful and thoughtful.
I wonder what we could do to work on getting anti-violence education into public school curricula. On another thread I mentioned this, and that was the first time I'd really thought of it. Surely this isn't a new idea, but I don't think I've heard of any such programs so far--except maybe in extremely violent neighborhoods, where the school staff and faculty have taken it upon themselves?
We have sex-ed, we have (or are supposed to have) a mandate on multiculturalism and anti-racism, why can't we educate young boys and girls on the subject of violence? They could discuss all the forms of violence (or as many as is feasible), and talk about how and why they happen, what can be done to avoid or prevent it, what to do about it when it does happen. They could discuss the various feelings that go along with it, and particularly with the shame and fear associated with domestic violence and how to deal with it.
I guess, though, if we want to see something like this in our lifetimes, we should start lobbying right now, hey?
Any thoughts?
Thu, 2003-12-18 10:11
#16
quote:
My point is that the media makes things seem much more worse than they are.
Preposterous. There is no way the media could accurately depict the horrible, traumatic life experiences of violence survivors, much less make them seem worse than they are.
Thu, 2003-12-18 10:33
#17
I remember seeing an interesting show on DV and stalkers on tv a few years back wherein they profiled a guy who had been stalking and terrorizing an ex-girlfriend and who repeatedly violated his restraining orders. Finally, they fitted him with an ankle collar that would sound an alarm in her house if he came within a certain geographic perimeter.
What he discovered he could do is to just ever so slightly enter the perimeter... just enough for her alarm to go off and frighten the hell out of her. Then he'd drive home. It became his new way of making sure that he could terrify her whenever he wished, only now he could practically do it by remote control.
What I wondered is why we'd tolerate that? Why was he not told that if her alarm goes off — ever — it's 20 years, with no ifs, ands or buts? And for that matter, why do we take such a tolerant view of violence in general? Sure, if you attack someone you might get some probation, or even a short jail term, but why do we not simply inform violent idiots that their chances are limited, and that at a certain point we'll no longer keep handing them opportunities?
Violence isn't an addiction or a disease: people [b]can[/b] make the choice to be or to not be violent. But when they continually make the choice to be violent, we keep applying punishment that's obviously not working (or, as in above, we don't even bother doing that) and then we wonder why violence is still a problem.
We haven't given violent people much of a compelling reason to not be violent.
Thu, 2003-12-18 10:36
#18
quote:
Finally, they fitted him with an ankle collar that would sound an alarm in her house if he came within a certain geographic perimeter.What he discovered he could do is to just ever so slightly enter the perimeter... just enough for her alarm to go off and frighten the hell out of her
The collar should be modified to give him a stungun charge before it trips the alarm.
Thu, 2003-12-18 10:42
#19
quote:
Violence isn't an addiction or a disease: people can make the choice to be or to not be violent.
Not quite. There are rare circumstances where violence is a consequence of an untreated mental illness. It's hard to believe that one can credibly say that a severly affected paranoid schizophrenic off medication is really making choices in the same way that unafflicted people do.
Thu, 2003-12-18 10:53
#20
Pardon the double post....
It also depends on what you mean by "addiction." Yes, it's not an addiction in the sense that alcoholism or narcotics addition is.
However, if you look at work in system dynamics on archetypical patterns of behaviour, you'll see that domestic violence fits it's pattern of addiction.
In that archetype a non-systemic or maladaptive choice (the violence) is chosen in response to a presenting issue, instead of more systemic or less maladaptive options (effective communication, walking away when starting to feel angry, and the rest of the stuff of anger management). Unfortunately, as the maladaptive behaviour *seems* to address the problem, it tends to reduce interest in try more systemic ones.
I'd also note that many addicts and alcoholics are in homes where domestic violence occurs. Many of the tools they learn in places like AA are intended to help stop the insanity at home.
Thu, 2003-12-18 10:54
#21
quote:
It's hard to believe that one can credibly say that a severly affected paranoid schizophrenic off medication is really making choices in the same way that unafflicted people do.
Well, other than having made the choice to go off the meds, I guess. If he/she repeatedly decides to go off them and become violent I guess I'd advocate an indefinite stay at a Psych hospital rather than imprisonment.
At any rate, I think that these cases are a minority, and that the majority are still people of sound mind who make the choice to be violent.
Thu, 2003-12-18 10:59
#22
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
[b]Well, other than having made the choice to go off the meds, I guess. If he/she repeatedly decides to go off them and become violent I guess I'd advocate an indefinite stay at a Psych hospital rather than imprisonment.At any rate, I think that these cases are a minority, and that the majority are still people of sound mind who make the choice to be violent.[/b]
Agreed. They are a minority of cases. I simply point it out because "choice" isn't always simple.
I believe the justice system has some capacity for longer-term incarceration in mental health facilities.
Thu, 2003-12-18 11:58
#23
Firstly, I'll preface my post by stating that my childhood was marked by domestic violence, and I grew up to be a survivor of the same, so as hard as I may try to maintain an emotional distance from the topic, I do not always succeed. Please keep that in mind.
As much as we need to build a better support network for women and their children who need to escape from escallating domestic abuse and violence, we really need to focus more on men who are violent. We also need to focus more attention on children who are the product of violent households, because they stand a much greater chance of becoming adult victims and perpetrators than anyone else.
Now here's the thing that irks me beyond belief when people trot out the "men are murdered more often than women" statement. Those who would use this as a means of stifling effort to address violence against women, I ask you this: how often are men murdered because they're men?
Think about it. Are men, generally speaking, beaten, raped, abused and murdered because they are men, not women? I'd hazard a guess that, again generally speaking, they are not. Are women beaten, raped, abused and murdered because they are women, and not men? Generally speaking, yes. Yes they are.
I would not dream of trivilizing violence against men, but when you have violent crime - assault, sexual assault and murder - that can be said to be largely gender-specific, you have a whole new set of reasons why this particular kind of violence needs particular attention. It points to an underlying inequity that has not seen the kind of resolution in the past few decades that the general public is given to believe. You have a kind of violence that particulary effects the children of battered and murdered women, who grow up to become the next generation of statistics.
Really, those of you who would take away the minimal focus violence against women and their children has now, please fuck off. Those who would continue to avoid the more difficult solution of dealing with male violence, please, we are tired of building shelters for ourselves, we are tired of devoting years of our lives to healing ourselves and our children. It is time for men to stop blathering on about it all, and way way past the time to start ACTIVELY DOING SOMETHING ABOUT MALE VIOLENCE. If for no other reason, because it effects you too.
Thu, 2003-12-18 12:03
#24
quote:
Really, those of you who would take away the minimal focus violence against women and their children has now, please fuck off.
That about sums it up for me, too. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
Thu, 2003-12-18 12:58
#25
Fine, you won me over. All men have the capability to abuse women, so lets avoid them and find female partners.
Thu, 2003-12-18 13:03
#26
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:
[b]Fine, you won me over. All men have the capability to abuse women, so lets avoid them and find female partners.[/b]
[b]**PLONK**[/b]
Thu, 2003-12-18 13:22
#27
quote:
Originally posted by paxamillion:
[b][b]**PLONK**[/b][/b]
Ditto
Thu, 2003-12-18 13:59
#28
quote:
Fine, you won me over. All men have the capability to abuse women, so lets avoid them and find female partners.
I think this kind of response is fairly predictable. Part of the reason people resist the facts, or try to divert the conversation is that they know somehow instinctively that DV is a HUGE and endemic problem that will be and is very difficult to address in any meaningful, effective way. It reveals a hopelessness and feeling of powerlessness that morphs into sarcasm, irony, spite, or simple denial. It's natural, I suppose, but not the least bit productive or useful.
Thu, 2003-12-18 14:03
#29
Possibly. It might also be denial and ignorance at work.
Thu, 2003-12-18 14:11
#30
Oh, clearly. But, in light of the prevalence of DV in regular everyday life, and on TV and in the movies, I think it's probably willfull ignorance and conscious denial.
Which is why people work so hard to just change the topic. Their pat rebuttals to the stats and realities only take them so far, and then they have to start talking about something else before someone forces them to acknowledge what they'd rather not think about.
Thu, 2003-12-18 15:43
#31
I'm not trying to be funny but what does **PLONK** mean?
Thu, 2003-12-18 15:46
#32
I'm not trying to be funny but what does **PLONK** mean?
Thu, 2003-12-18 15:47
#33
To me it means "Based on what I observe of you, I see no further reason to continue engaging you on this topic."
Sun, 2003-12-21 20:20
#34
I suspect the problem here is what many charities and causes (political or otherwise) face, which is drawing people into your group in support. An example of this is OCAP. For every supproter they gain, they loose a hundred in the mainstream because they 'seem' or are portrayed ad violent anarchists who wish to overthrow everything you hold dear. Suddenly bamn you tune them out and their support is marginal at best. This also happens in the domestic violence problem. Men feel that they cannot ever gain respect from anti-domestic violence groups and therefore shy away from them. The groups that dismiss female vs male violence, or flatly state that male vs female, lesbian vs lesbian, son/daughter violence vs parents ever happens, simply relegate their efforts down the drain. Were the groups to rally around domestic violence is wrong regardless of gender and stick to that, they would get more support from men and probably more of a ability for debate and soul searching. Saying all men are potential abusers, or its all the fault of men merely makes the ones who are non-violent, dismiss the cause and go away. Drinking and driving crosses all genders and ages but Im sure there the majority of them are men (prob a specific age bracket too) but the campaign against it targets no particular gender/age and encourages all to fight against it. This approach would be the best, I fell, applied here. Men have to be part of the solution, not just the problem
Fri, 2004-01-09 18:16
#35
"Can we not end up letting this discussion be derailed into the legitimacy of the notion of violence against women?"
Athena_Dreaming. Great question and thanks for asking it.
One thing that has always plagued activists who are interested in ending domestic violence is that critics will say that to focus any attention on issues that pertain to women is tantamount to being anti-male and that violence against women by men PALES in comparison to violence against men(mostly by other men)
I'm not saying that violence against male construction workers(and apparently women in this profession don't count)is not important but to bring that issue up on a thread on domestic violence on a feminist forum is only done to derail discussing feminist issues.
Maybe there's this attitude too that violence against women is just not a bad thing. Maybe that's why the silence as if it's still within a husband/boyfriend's right to act violently towards their female partner. That's one thing that remains frustrating when attempts are made to deal with it. Too often women are socialized to put aside all their concerns about dying and being killed or abused b/c they're supposed to be supporting men and nothing else and that's called equality. [img]mad.gif" border="0[/img]
[ 09 January 2004: Message edited by: Madame X ]
Mon, 2004-01-12 14:55
#36
Its not really questioning the legitimacy of violence against women, its a question of how to engage the greatest amount of people into it, and make it so society is conditioned and accepting that violence is unacceptable. People in the African-american community are told to co-operate with police at the same time they are constantly seen as 'criminals' therefore they dont help the police in criminal invesitgations. The same analogy applies here. Get everyone on board ( like drinking and driving, no group or largest stat picked out) and then society begins to accept the dictum
Mon, 2004-01-12 16:15
#37
I think your method of engaging the largest amount of people into the cause of violence against women, would render it into a general anti-violence campaign.
Violence against women is a VERY specific type of violence, it has been from the beginning of time and requires specific attention.
Admitting that men benefit from sexism isn't easy, I had to admit to myself that I as a Canadian (even though one of colour) still benefit from racism and I felt sick to my stomach. Yet I continued on my anti-oppression work.
This isn't very possible to the mainstream, however there are men who are secure enough to admit this, and actually work busily in anti-violence against women jobs. Many men work with abusive men in programs that are starting to come in across the country. The White Ribbon Campaign appeals to men with sport celebrities and family events while getting their message across. There are men out there who are interested, and since the movement is only 30 years old give or take, it will take some more time to get more men, but I'm fairly confident that if these organisations continue (and hopefully get more resources to do so on a bigger scale) that many more men will be involved without having to sacrifice the cause.
Mon, 2004-01-12 16:47
#38
Whats wrong with a general campaign against violence? Its all-inclusive and the reality is that it would still mainly benefit those who are affected my domestice violence the most (kids and women) without prejudicing anyone and allowing for whatever male victims of spousal abuse.
Mon, 2004-01-12 19:22
#39
I think it will swallow up the very specific type gender violence, that women suffer from their partners. I think violence against women is different than a gang shooting or a bar fight. It contains a great deal of psychological damage, which women are deal with for ages. Childhood violence again is very specific. I'm doing the crisis line tonight and all but one woman who has called is still dealing with the fallout from their abuse as a child. Learning about just these two types of violence and how to work with people who have suffered from them, is a heck of a lot of work.
Other types of violence, such a bullying, I wouldn't feel comfortable doing, because I haven't spent my time learning about it. The problem of violence is broad and diverse and different groups are exposed differently and I believe need different types of attention and methods of healing.
Much of the work being done by counsellors, advocates and workers are being done because they too are survivors, myself included, which I feel to a degree gives us an insight to the problem when working one on one with survivors.
I personally think that if you or men are feeling threatened by women and men working to end violence against women, then there are attitudes within oneself that needs to be examined. Why is it so bothersome or concerning that there is a movement to end violence against women. Most of this movement has been started and worked on by grassroots women, bringing attention to a really big issue. If there is such a big problem with violence against men in the home, quit complaining about women's movements, and do something.
[ 12 January 2004: Message edited by: Shenanigans ]
Mon, 2004-01-12 21:12
#40
Well, after saying that stats show that men do the killing of their mates mainly by using guns-and women mainly use knives, I'll have to say I believe after reading some of the items here-from the impression I get-that the main concern is about the women's defense side of things...okay by me-they're supposedly the 'weaker sex'...?
And, after saying that the best preventative defense would be pepper spray or a gun-both of which seem to be unpopular here, (this discussion board) and illegal for the most part-in Canada-I'll make different 'suggestions(s)'
To lead to one, I'll bring this up-my grandmother brought me up, as my dad left and mom died-and was constantly reminding me that [b]any[/b] man who beat on a woman was a [b]coward[/b]!
I never hit a girl, or woman, even up to this day-and I think the [b]only[/b] time a man should/would be allowed-in my humble estimation-to do that would be when she's trying to cave in his cranium with a rolling pin or a frying pan! Then it would be self-defense...(on the man's part)
Since the man is [b]usually[/b]physically stronger,it would probably be better to do as a guy I once knew did....when his gal attacked him (physically) he just wrestled her to the ground, and sat on her until she cooled down...
When my grandfather threatyened to hit me-my grandmother [b]always[/b] got 'in between' and told him; "If you hit that boy-I'm leaving!"
He never touched me-he was afraid she would-and I believe she would've...
A friend and myself stopped a guy from beating a woman inside a store she worked at-she was his 'room-mate'...
She was on the floor-he was strangling her...and we 'caved his cranium in'....(basically, my friend did, I was urged by the onlookers to stop my friend-who is 6' 10" from killing the guy-which meant I had to turn my back towards the guy-and deal with my friend...)
Unfortunately, while we were distracted by the bleeding (from the throat) girl, the guy ran to his car and escaped (not before I got his license plate # tho')
Now, this cop told us, that the witnessess were all on our side...and the girl said she'd been beaten before by him. However, as the cop told us, the girl needed a hospital, and wouldn't go-wouldn't even accept a ride home from the police-as she wanted to 'clean up' the blood-it was her new job, and she didn't want to lose it...!
I asked the cop; "What if the guy comes back?" His reply was that he'd drive around the place for a while-until she caught her bus home-and that he couldn't MAKE her go to the hospital...
He also said that, if he'd had his partner, he'd probably have to take US to the police station-reports, etc....but, as witnesses were 'on our side', he was 'letting us go'....
He says the problem WE would have-is that, quite often, these guys come back-apologize,and make up with these women the next day-and then, after the guy realizes how much his head aches-they BOTH come after US to charge US!!!
The officer said they wouldn't get our names from him...
He said he'd "Love to be able to do what we did to the guy", that he knows women that go through this as many as forty times, before they finally leave the guy(s) (if they're able to)and doesn't know why they "put themselves through that?"
So, I guess the [b]only[/b] 'advice' I can give here is-in the case of when male children are little-try to [b]impress[/b] upon them that;"ANY man who beats a woman is a [b] coward [/b]!" (works for me)to 'head them off early'! Even if you are 'only' a sister...or female companion...it might help to 'plant that seed'-EARLY!
Try to prevent them from seeing such in your family-if possible...or even hearing such!
The other suggestion? Leave as soon as that 'beating trouble' rears it's ugly head-if you can...!(I know that, in a family with children-it's even harder for many females to do....but, think about it-what would be best...??
I hope this helps even one of you here...man OR woman...!
Mon, 2004-01-12 22:15
#41
Geez Shenanigans, nice way to slip in a insult that I have 'mental issues' if I take issue with campaigns to end violence against women. Im not against it nor is there any quote where I say that. I was answering the question of why do men not rush to support such campaigns and I was pointing out a likely path. If you feel you must attack anyone who offers compromise or other viewpoints, I think its your head that needs examining
Mon, 2004-01-12 23:27
#42
Mental issues, where in the blazes did you get that?
I said ATTITUDES that need examining, which has nothing to do with mental issues or illness, I wouldn't make such a trite comment out of respect for people who do have mental illness. It has everything to do with your beliefs and thoughts, which I do believe need examining if men are threatened by the VAW movement. If you were unclear as to what I was saying, next time, before leaping to conclusions, just ask. Contrary to popular belief, not everyone on this site is out to insult.
That said, I still don't think there is a great need to derail the anti-violence against women movement to get men concerned. I think there just needs to be a lot more work in getting men involved. In this movement, men have only been involved on a larger scale for 10 years (and I'm being generous). Which is basically a second in a non-profit cause.
[ 12 January 2004: Message edited by: Shenanigans ]
Wed, 2004-01-14 11:20
#43
I come from Latin America where police and law enforcers turn a blind eye when men abuse women. It is actually consider "normal" for men to remind their women partners from time to time who is the boss.
I believe that abuse is planted in male minds in childhood either by them observing abuse. or by the values that are encouraged in the household. If a boy is raised believing that he has the right to be served by females and has the right to own them and that females are to obey then their actions will sooner or later follow suit. The other part of the equation is girls being taught to be submissive and accepting of their roles as followers or incapable of survival on their own.
So if we wanted to stop domestic violence against women we must start at home by teaching proper values.
[img]frown.gif" border="0[/img]
[ 14 January 2004: Message edited by: Loca ]
Wed, 2004-01-14 20:54
#44
Just an aside re the construction worker thing -
My sister works in the Workers' Comp and Occupational Health field. Addressing the issue of Occupational Health is a huge priority in every province in Canada. We see advertising campaigns. There are government agencies (WCB, Labor Standards, Labor Board, OH&S) DEDICATED to battling this horrible death toll.
Construction workers are not dying without notice. When a worker in Canada dies, it is thoroughly recorded, investigated, and compensated. Changes are made. People go to jail.
The amount of research done in this field is phenomenol. Of course, the occupational death toll also has a big toll on the pocket books of the nation.
Although the solution to ending occupational accidents and deaths has not been found, there are tons of resources going into researching it and stopping it.
I don't think the same can be said for domestic violence.
Sat, 2004-01-17 01:10
#45
Originally posted by Shenanigans:
quote:
It takes a long time to rehab an abuser, but I'm all for it. More outreach for girls and boys while they're young. I think this is a great need and one of our best hopes.
I agree with you completely, S. I was fortunately as a child of the 60's where I was taught self defence in school in MontrealWest and also by my father who was one of my abusers. This might have lead to my ability to recognize the abuse in my 30's and start to fight back.
Originally posted by H Vincent:
quote:
more people were killied by stabbing than by firearms last year.
...This group which spoke to the students presented it as women=victim and men=abuser.
Interesting fact about the guns, H, I am not in favour of gun control...another thread I think. I don't like the equation listed above either.
Originally Posted by LimaBean:
quote:
Surely this isn't a new idea, but I don't think I've heard of any such programs so far--
See above re my schooling in the 60's LB
Originally posted by Mr.Magoo:
quote:
We haven't given violent people much of a compelling reason to not be violent.
Any suggestions to deter violence that we haven't used? I believe that poverty is the main problem, educating the children and giving opportunities to all for a better way of life will go a long way towards eleminating violence. I certainly don't think that jail provides much of a solution.
...severly affected paranoid schizophrenic off meds
I hate when mentally ill people are lumped into one violent catagory. I was just hospitalized for 6 weeks for punching my sister in self defence who has been beating me for 43 years of my life. I couldn't deal with the anxiety caused by the guilt of actually harming someone in self defence, yet I'm the one with the mental illness. There are very few violent mentally ill people. Drug/alcohol abusers are much more likely to be violent than the mentally ill.
Fri, 2007-06-15 06:40
#46
writer
violence against women