Violent men, victimized women
Fri, 2008-04-04 05:23
#1
Violent men, victimized women
Fri, 2008-04-04 05:23
#2
Walter S. De Keseredy corrects National Post's Barbara Kay's disinformation about domestic violence, in a strong Opinion piece published this morning:
[url=http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=357742]Violent men, victimized women[/url]
quote:
(...)How many men do you know who have been raped by their spouses, ex-spouses or girlfriends? How often do we read newspaper stories about women stalking ex-husbands and then killing them and their children?Sadly, in Canada, the risk of women being killed increases sixfold during the process of separation, which partially explains why so many women are afraid to leave abusive or controlling men. (...)
Ms. Kay quotes Erin Pizzey, who stated that for gender politics "Canada is the scariest country on the planet." Indeed, many Canadian women live in fear on a daily basis -- but not for the reason Ms. Pizzey suggests. As my friend and colleague Dr. Meda Chesney-Lind once stated, given the alarming amount of violence women suffer at male hands, the incredible story is that the number of female murderers is so low.
Fri, 2008-04-04 05:56
#3
Maysie
Martin, I hadn't read the original article by Ms Kay and feel fine to live out the rest of my days having never read it. I don't need to be aggravated that way on a lovely rainy April morning. Or ever.
I should also tell everyone that Walter S. DeKeseredy has been a prolific, respected writer on the issue of violence against women for decades.
That said, here comes my critiques. I really don't like the use of the word "victim" in the headline of the article, especially since he didn't use the word at all, or very much in the text. Although I get why it's used in the mainstream context (to denote power relations) the anti-violence against women (VAW) movement has moved away from using the term victim.
Most shelters and rape crisis lines use client-centered approaches these days, which includes allowing women to name their own experiences, including if they want to think of themselves as victims, survivors, or even no label at all. Jane Doe's book "The Story of Jane Doe" talks about her own issue with not using the term "victim" much more eloquently.
From the article:
quote:
Why do men hit, rape or kill the women they love? Ms. Kay, psychologist Donald Dutton and many others claim that they are "sick." Large-scale surveys of the general population suggest that if violence is a function of mental illness, then close to a third (if not more) of the men in our society are sick.
This is one of the main reasons I don't like terms like "monster" or "he was just evil" to describe men who commit acts of physical and sexual violence. Such men are not "sick" and if some turn out to be, in fact, mentally ill, it doesn't mean that their mental illness diagnosis has anything to do with the violent behaviour. [I could do a whole thread drift on mental illness and diagnoses but I'll restrain myself]
Male violence against women and against other men, is normal, using normal in the statistical sense. All of us are taught this, and men are encouraged a lot to be physically aggressive, physically assertive, and yes, violent by parents, schools, sport coaches, the media, every-frikkin-where. I have always asserted that it's the kind, sweet men who have never been physically violent who are the minority. What made [b]them[/b] different (in the service of having more of them around) is the direction to ask questions, not why do the majority of men find violence, in theory or practice or both, viable options.
quote:
Of course, some abusive men have clinical pathologies, but most do not. If violent husbands, cohabiting and estranged partners and boyfriends are in fact mentally ill, [b]then why do they beat, rape or kill only female partners and not their bosses, friends or neighbours?[/b] If we are dealing with men who have terrible problems with self-control, how do they manage to keep from hitting people until they are at home alone with their loved ones?
(My emphasis)
Well, this is where good old feminist analysis comes to the rescue (trumpet: ta ta-ta taaaa!), and the lack of value and importance of women in general, and violence against women specifically, in our society. I always love this train of thought because it is a reminder that these men are not, in fact, "out of control" but perfectly in control. Any assaults on male bosses, male friends, etc, will likely result in the abusers themselves getting a beat-down, or criminal charges being laid against them, and they know this.
Abusers are, at their core, cowardly chickenshit bullies.
[ 04 April 2008: Message edited by: bigcitygal ]
Fri, 2008-04-04 06:23
#4
Thanks BCG, I completely echo your analysis... but I think that so does De Keseredy. Isn't it significant that he didn't use the word "victim" once in his essay?
As for the heading - if indeed it is his - newspapers retain the licence to choose "punchy" titles, even on Op-Eds - , the verb to "victimize" seems to me quite different than the label "victim". It depicts not womnen's lot but abusive men's policy. Some men do attempt to make women into victims, through a host of behaviours you seem knowledgeable about.
As for "sickness", I read De Kesery's piece as denying that male abusers are sick. Isn't it an important point to make to the great unwashed who "drink the Kool-Aid" when it comes to letting wife batterers off the hook as unrepresentative of the male power system?...
I must admit that I equivocate about one point you raise i.e. that we need to focus, instead, on the men who [b]don't[/b] try to victimize women:
quote:
What made them different (in the service of having more of them around) is the direction to ask questions...
First, it seems a natural tendency to try and correct a situation by working on the problem sector not on the one where everything seems fine.
Also, I have often seen - and read about - men whom one would have never thought they would exert violence, do just that when their sense of entitlement as men - as GOOD men, paradoxically - was challenged.
So I sometimes have doubts that one can find universal solutions among such [i]mensches[/i], although yes, I very much want to feature and model their principles, choices, care for their loved ones, so that it can be seen that men can exemplify human values and not just "virility"TM.
To provide a sad example, Don Dutton was once perceived as just that, as one of the first men to challenge male violence and side with women in his research. Then he rallied to patriarchy's side and was harmful to the exact extent that he had been perceived as "good".
So I don't see the exceptions to male privilege disproving the rule, although I work to foster them. They/we may not use that privilege, but they/we do have it.
[ 04 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Fri, 2008-04-04 06:47
#5
Maysie
quote:
martin: Also, I have often seen - and read about - men whom one would have never thought they would exert violence, do just that when their sense of entitlement as men - as GOOD men, paradoxically - was challenged.
Yes, I have also fallen for the "he's a good progressive guy, so I will assume that he's cool with regards to his relationships with women" in the past. No longer.
I've known personally, and heard of, many abusive men on the left, active in union stuff, anti-war, yes, even men in anti-VAW activism communities. Sadly, progressives aren't more evolved than the centrists and right-wingers, as much as I wanted to believe it.
I would say that for those men, if we were to ask the women who are involved with them what they think of their capacity for violence we'd get a different answer.
Fri, 2008-04-04 07:55
#6
Wife slashes husband's penis, buttocks with knife
Published: Thursday, April 03, 2008
CALGARY - In the midst of an amorous fling with her husband, Abigail London-Fife pulled out a knife she had hidden under the bed and slashed him in several places, including his penis and buttocks.
Court heard Thursday London-Fife suspected her husband of cheating on her and meant to make him pay.
[url=http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=fe3aec24-cfd2-4... page[/url]
Fri, 2008-04-04 08:04
#7
remind
quote:
Originally posted by pk34th45:
[b]Wife slashes husband's penis, buttocks with knifePublished: Thursday, April 03, 2008
CALGARY - In the midst of an amorous fling with her husband, Abigail London-Fife pulled out a knife she had hidden under the bed and slashed him in several places, including his penis and buttocks.
Court heard Thursday London-Fife suspected her husband of cheating on her and meant to make him pay.
[url=http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=fe3aec24-cfd2-4... page[/url][/b]
And just why do you think this is appropriate here pk34?
Fri, 2008-04-04 08:17
#8
Pwhatever, you will now stay out of the feminism forum for good or you will be banned from the entire board permanently.
Fri, 2008-04-04 20:26
#9
Report of a major international study in this week's edition of [url=http://tinyurl.com/3ttdou]The Lancet[/url] 2008; 371:1165-1172
Intimate partner violence and women's physical and mental health in the WHO multi-country study on women's health and domestic violence: an observational study
Mary Ellsberg PhD, Henrica AFM Jansen PhD, Lori Heise BA, Prof Charlotte H Watts PhD and Dr Claudia Garcia-Moreno MD, on behalf of the WHO Multi-country Study on Women's Health and Domestic Violence against Women Study Team
Background
This article summarises findings from ten countries from the WHO multi-country study on women's health and domestic violence against women.
Methods
Standardised population-based surveys were done between 2000 and 2003. Women aged 15–49 years were interviewed about their experiences of physically and sexually violent acts by a current or former intimate male partner, and about selected symptoms associated with physical and mental health. The women reporting physical violence by a partner were asked about injuries that resulted from this type of violence.
Findings
24 097 women completed interviews. Pooled analysis of all sites found significant associations between lifetime experiences of partner violence and self-reported poor health (odds ratio 1·6 [95% CI 1·5–1·8]), and with specific health problems in the previous 4 weeks: difficulty walking (1·6 [1·5–1·8]), difficulty with daily activities (1·6 [1·5–1·8]), pain (1·6 [1·5–1·7]), memory loss (1·8 [1·6–2·0]), dizziness (1·7 [1·6–1·8]), and vaginal discharge (1·8 [1·7–2·0]). For all settings combined, women who reported partner violence at least once in their life reported significantly more emotional distress, suicidal thoughts (2·9 [2·7–3·2]), and suicidal attempts (3·8 [3·3–4·5]), than non-abused women. These significant associations were maintained in almost all of the sites. Between 19% and 55% of women who had ever been physically abused by their partner were ever injured.
Interpretation
In addition to being a breach of human rights, intimate partner violence is associated with serious public-health consequences that should be addressed in national and global health policies and programmes.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Comment: [b]Will[/b] it be addressed? No way. Why? Because intimate partner violence is men's way of feeling BIG.
Tue, 2008-04-08 09:41
#10
[url=http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=a41532d6-d4...'s Article[/url]
Quite the article. I can see why it's unpopular, though De Keseredy's knee-jerk response to it only serves to illustrate exactly the point she's trying to make.
I found this line from his article interesting:
"The bulk of violence in intimate, heterosexual relationships is committed by men."
A popular notion, but exactly what Kay argues against and he provides no substantiation of that statement.
Legitimate studies with sample sizes of 2000 or more conducted on randomly selected samples, for example, would have been a good choice.
I notice Kay made an effort to use legitimate research... strange that De Keseredy didn't...
Tue, 2008-04-08 10:21
#11
remind
quote:
Originally posted by Harumph:
[b]Quite the article. I can see why it's unpopular, though De Keseredy's knee-jerk response to it only serves to illustrate exactly the point she's trying to make.I found this line from his article interesting:
"The bulk of violence in intimate, heterosexual relationships is committed by men."
A popular notion, but exactly what Kay argues against and he provides no substantiation of that statement.
Legitimate studies with sample sizes of 2000 or more conducted on randomly selected samples, for example, would have been a good choice.
I notice Kay made an effort to use legitimate research... strange that De Keseredy didn't...[/b]
How nice of you to drop in and give us your opinion that violence against women is just a "popular notion", and to tell us that Ms Kay "made an effort to use legitimate research" while DeKeserdy did not provide any substantiation and in fact say it is strange that he did not...thereby inferring that he left it out because he does not have any.
That is really treading a fine libel line, eh? Considering his credentials and area of expertise as professor of Criminology, Justice and Policy Studies at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology.
Tue, 2008-04-08 10:24
#12
Demands that the most established of empirical and statistical realities be constantly reiterated in exacting detail to some people's current pseudonym's satisfaction are part of the problem, not the solution - be it on race or gender issues.
Denial is not a river in Egypt... although it does run deep.
Tue, 2008-04-08 10:49
#13
remind
This denial of male violence and calling it a "popular notion" really pisses me off at the moment, as we here in the Nicola, Kamloops North Thompson constituency are floundering in shock, while a man hunt continues for the father of 3 murdered children 3 days ago.
The mother had separated from the children's father because of physical and substance abuse, and the father had been at the children's school very recently uttering threats even!
quote:
Allan Dwayne Schoenborn, 40, has been identified by police as a suspect in the triple homicide and allegedly fled the area prior to the children being found by their distraught mother around 2 p.m. Sunday.
[url=http://www.canada.com/globaltv/national/story.html?id=c32efaba-0959-400a... should not be approached, as he may be dangerous [/url]
Tue, 2008-04-08 10:53
#14
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]How nice of you to drop in and give us your opinion that violence against women is just a "popular notion", and to tell us that Ms Kay "made an effort to use legitimate research" while DeKeserdy did not provide any substantiation and in fact say it is strange that he did not...thereby inferring that he left it out because he does not have any.
That is really treading a fine libel line, eh? Considering his credentials and area of expertise as professor of Criminology, Justice and Policy Studies at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology.[/b]
Where did I say VAW is a popular notion? I said that the attribution of "the bulk of" intimate violence (heterosexual) to men is a popular notion. My statement was very clear - you're intentionally misrepresenting my words and it's a pretty lame retort. Lets just get down to the "I know you are but what am I" while we're at it.
And it's nowhere near libel as he provided no substantiation in his article and I stated as much. His credentials are irrelevant (as prestigious and distinguished as the UOIT is....). One does not make "statistical" generalisations without providing some empirical substantiation, regardless of one's credentials.
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]Demands that the most established of empirical and statistical realities be constantly reiterated in exacting detail to some people's current pseudonym's satisfaction are part of the problem, not the solution - be it on race or gender issues.
Denial is not a river in Egypt... although it does run deep.[/b]
So the "most established of empirical and statistical realities" can't be established? I believe that's where Kay's use of the term "myth" originated in reference to the subject as the studies cited to back the party line are generally derived from clinical samples or sample sizes too small to be statistically significant.
Clinical samples are not legitimate samples for the purpose of extrapolating generalisations about the populous. Everyone reads studies and ignores the methodology employed therein because they're desperate to believe what the study finds. If I interview 2000 tax evasion convicts and ask them about their opinions/experiences in relation to Canadian tax law, it's a little ridiculous to generalise about Canadian taxpayers based on their input.
Edited to add:
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]This denial of male violence and calling it a "popular notion" really pisses me off at the moment, as we here in the Nicola, Kamloops North Thompson constituency are floundering in shock, while a man hunt continues for the father of 3 murdered children 3 days ago.The mother had separated from the children's father because of physical and substance abuse, and the father had been at the children's school very recently uttering threats even!
[url=http://www.canada.com/globaltv/national/story.html?id=c32efaba-0959-400a... should not be approached, as he may be dangerous [/url][/b]
Who's denying "male violence"? The assertion is that the statistical reality of intimate violence is not reflected in the popular perception thereof or in the policies implemented against it.
If anyone's denying anything, it would be a denial of "female violence", a topic everyone seems very uncomfortable with - which is exactly what Kay argues. This entire discussion, thus far, has legitimized her arguments so unbelievably well that it's a shame she's not here to read it.
[ 08 April 2008: Message edited by: Harumph ]
Tue, 2008-04-08 11:03
#15
remind
Okay, I am so done with this, we do not have to tolerate a man, in the feminist forum stating, as if it were true, that there is no evidence to support the fact that men do the main bulk of violence in society.
Tue, 2008-04-08 11:22
#16
Harumph, you too can now stay out of the feminism forum.
Tue, 2008-04-08 11:22
#17
I am surprised that the canada.com network makes no mention of the fact that Allan Shoenborn - suspect on the run in the Merritt triple slaying of his children - had been harassing school officials and students days before the triple murder, and that he had even been arrested and then turned loose by a justice of the peace against the advice of the police, given his extensive criminal record, including assaults. This was reported on CTV News on the very evening of the familicide.
From the BC.RCMP.CA website:
quote:
We have learned that Allan SHOENBORN did have more than one contact with the Merritt RCMP last week. He was arrested at one point during the week on an outstanding warrant, however the details are not available. SHOENBORN was then arrested on April 3rd in relation to an incident at a local Elementary School. SHOENBORN allegedly attended the school and his actions led to his arrest on two counts of "uttering threats to cause bodily harm". SHOENBORN was released from custody following a JJP Hearing with conditions not to have contact with the school Principal or the students. He was also released on a surety.
No one apparently dared to stand in the way of this father's "rights".
Meanwhile...
quote:
[url=http://tinyurl.com/6gev3q]Fewer batterers put into programs[/url]
Victims' advocates fault plea bargains
By Maria Cramer, Boston Globe, April 8, 2008As domestic homicides more than doubled in Massachusetts, judges across the state sent only about half as many batterers to abuse intervention programs last year as they did in 2003, according to public health officials.
The plunging numbers are raising concerns among victims' advocates that judges are too readily accepting plea bargains that allow offenders to attend shorter anger management classes instead of the more rigorous batterer-intervention programs.
Beyond that, state officials and advocates worry that fewer victims are taking their cases to court, for a variety of reasons. Among them: victims afraid of retaliation, illegal immigrants who are afraid to become involved in the criminal justice system, and a key Supreme Judicial Court ruling that puts more pressure on victims to provide often difficult testimony in their cases.
"If there are fewer prosecutions and fewer people being ordered to batterer intervention, it all starts to look like a pattern of lack of accountability for perpetrators," said Mary Lauby, executive director of Jane Doe Inc. "It should then be no surprise that there are more homicides."
[ 08 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Tue, 2008-04-08 11:25
#18
Maysie
This is all very interesting. I just did some research pulling stats on this exact topic, both locally and globally.
quote:
Violence Against Women (Canada)• 76% of women who sought refuge in a shelter on April 14, 2004 were escaping abuse. Almost 7 out of 10 reported physical abuse, 50% threats, 46% financial abuse, 31% harassment and 27% sexual abuse. About one in three abused women in shelters on April 14, 2004 had reported their most recent abusive incident to police. Of the women who had stayed in shelters previously, 40% had been there once in the previous year, 38% had been there two to four times and about 1 in 10 had been to a facility five times or more during the previous year.
• 7% is the estimated percentage of women in a current or previous spousal relationship who reported experiencing spousal violence during the five years up to and including 2004. Rates of spousal abuse were highest among certain segments of the population: those aged 15 to 24; those in relationships of three years or less; those who had separated; and those in common-law unions.
• 24% is the percentage of Aboriginal women who reported that they had suffered violence from a current or previous partner in the five-year period up to 2004.
• Health Canada defines violence against women as: Acts that result, or are likely to result, in physical, sexual and psychological harm or suffering to a woman, including threats of such an act, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty whether occurring in public or private life.
• The Impact of Violence on Women's Health (Health Canada): Violence is a major factor in women's health and well-being. The measurable health-related costs of violence against women in Canada exceed $1.5 billion a year. These costs include short-term medical and dental treatment for injuries, long-term physical and psychological care, lost time at work, and use of transition homes and crisis centres
• 11% of women aged 15 and older stated that they were stalked in a way that caused them to fear for their safety or the safety of someone close to them. This was the equivalent of 1.4 million women in Canada. Among victims of stalking, 9% of women reported that they had been stalked by either a current or previous spouse, or a common-law partner.Violence Against Women (Global)
• Based on several surveys from around the world, half of the women who are homicide victims are killed by their current or former husbands or partners.
• In Cambodia, 16% of women are physically abused by their husbands, in the UK 30% are physically abused by partners or ex-partners, in the West Bank the figure is 52%, Nicaragua 21%, Canada 29%, the US 22%
• Specific groups of women are more vulnerable to violence such as indigenous women, migrant women, women refugees, women in armed conflict, women with disabilities, women in detention and institutions, female children, young women and the elderly
• From the UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women:
o Article 1
For the purposes of this Declaration, the term "violence against women" means any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life.
o Article 2
Violence against women shall be understood to encompass, but not be limited to, the following:
( a ) Physical, sexual and psychological violence occurring in the family, including battering, sexual abuse of female children in the household, dowry-related violence, marital rape, female genital mutilation and other traditional practices harmful to women, non-spousal violence and violence related to exploitation;
( b ) Physical, sexual and psychological violence occurring within the general community, including rape, sexual abuse, sexual harassment and intimidation at work, in educational institutions and elsewhere, trafficking in women and forced prostitution;
( c ) Physical, sexual and psychological violence perpetrated or condoned by the State, wherever it occurs.
Information from [url=http://www.equalityrights.org] equalityrights.org[/url], METRAC, Sistering, TRCC/MWAR, Stats Canada, Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action: [url=http://www.fafia-afai.org/en/about] fafia-afai.org[/url], the UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women [url=http://www.unhchr.ch] unhchr.ch[/url]
Wed, 2008-04-09 09:47
#19
[url=http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/1048599.html]This[/url] story has been really bothering me ever since it broke, as it clearly shows how incapable the justice is at protecting women from violent men. This woman was doing everything she could legally and physically to protect herself and her children. Why was this man not held in jail?? Why are sentences for violence against women so light?? Why are restraining orders not enforced? The woman ended up moving with her children as she was in fear and obviously knew that a restraining order would be of little real value in protecting her:
quote:
The woman whose children were killed in a grisly triple homicide moved to the quiet British Columbia town where the slaying took place to flee the children’s father, says a friend."The whole point is she moved away to get away from him — she left him," the woman told The Canadian Press. "A big part of it was to start a better life."
Darcie Clarke’s three children — 10-year-old Kaitlynne, eight-year-old Max and five-year-old Cordon — were found dead in a trailer home in the small community of Merritt on Sunday.
A manhunt is now on for their father, Allan Schoenborn
The restraining order issued last year was among several encounters Schoenborn had with police.The RCMP arrested him three times last week, including an arrest last Thursday when he was accused of uttering threats at a local elementary school. He was released that evening over the Crown’s objections.
A neighbour of Clarke’s in Merritt said provincial social workers spoke to her months ago about Schoenborn.
The woman, who didn’t want to be named, said she was warned about him by government workers, though she didn’t want to give details of that conversation. "Let’s put it this way, he was very dangerous," she said in an interview.
This just makes me so angry and also makes me feel unsafe as a woman! I know of similar situations here of young mothers with abusive exes threatening them etc. If they are lucky enough to have the justice system even give the creep some jail time, he isn't released after very long. One friend got a call from a cop warning her of the guy's release as he was worried the guy would go after her. What is she to do? Continually move herself and children because violence against women isn't taken seriously??
ps Thank you for those stats bcg. It would be much appreciated is anyone maintaining that violence against women isn't prevalent or is on equal par with the few cases of violence committed by women would keep their mouths (or typing fingers) quiet.
Wed, 2008-04-09 11:10
#20
remind
Ghislaine, the murder of the 3 children infuriates me, that a justice of the peace would let him walk, after him being at the kid's school levelling threats is beyond comprehension. It goes to show just how little store is put into violence against women by the patriarchial system, and I am sure it is going to keep on getting worse..long before it is going to get better. The BC Liberals have made sure everything favours the men in the province during break ups IMV. From this type of recurring action of ignoring violence against women, to changing laws concerning the dispersal of assets, after a relationship breakdown, of course favouring the man.
For example, a woman, very close to my family just lost custody and unsupervised access to her daughter. Why you ask? Because she freaked out when she found her partner, and daughter's father, in bed with said 4 year old daughter and attacked him.
He called the RCMP on her, and as she was under the influence of alcohol, they believed him, not her, and this was even after the RCMP had had to attend the family home upon several occasions for domestic disputes and after he had broken her leg by throwing her down the stairs, plus much more...He got custody too.
Why you ask? He is from a wealthy and prominent family, which was why she did not leave him, as she knew he would get custody, as he has the money to do so.
This violence and abuse played out on the back drop of her looking after her father while he was dying from cancer, her working full time as an accountant, and her being the primary care giver of the daughter and maintaining the family home, as he works for weeks out of town. She had been out at her friends a few days after her dad died, and had a bit too much to drink, given her emotional state, only to walk into the house after the taxi dropped her off to find...within 3 days he had her in Supreme Court to seek full custody. The Justice granted it to him and indeed ordered supervised visitation because she had anger issues.
Wed, 2008-04-09 13:24
#21
That makes no sense (which is why Im not a judge I guess). I could see anger management mandated from her attack on the ex which is never wise. But if she has never exhibited anger/violence to the child, why supervised visits?
Wed, 2008-04-09 13:37
#22
remind
Judge ruled that she became violent under the influence of alcohol, and could not be trusted to abstain from alcohol in the child's presence, and thus could be considered to be a danger to the child. Though such a thing has never happened in the 4 years that the child has been alive.
The father came armed with a few letters from [b]his[/b] parents and friends stating they were concerned about her actions, while she did not believe that this could happen based upon the 1 incident, brought no letters from her extended family and friends that would have detailed his abuse of her.
Of course, had she ever charged him or made a report about his abuse instead of making up stories to the Drs in emergancy, her interests would have been better served. However, as stats show it takes a lot for a woman who is abused to come forward, and in her case she knew she would go broke trying to fight him for custody should she have left him anyway, so she had determined she would stay while her child was growing up.
Thu, 2008-04-10 06:30
#23
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]Harumph, you too can now stay out of the feminism forum.[/b]
Is that a ban? I'd just like to be clear.
If so, that's a pretty sad way to deal with dissent but hey, it's your site.
Thu, 2008-04-10 06:35
#24
N.Beltov
Since you lost, the correct reply is ... [url=http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=harumph]harumph.[/url]
Thu, 2008-04-10 06:35
#25
Harumph seemed to be asking for some statistics a reading of his/her comments seems to be nothing more and nothing less. I must admit I don't like her/his tone. What is the purpose of "banning" people from specific fora?
Thu, 2008-04-10 06:36
#26
Yes it is, at least on this forum. It's a good idea to familiarise yourself with the rules, traditions and culture of a place before you start posting. The policy statement is a good place to start. Meanwhile, if there's something further you really feel you need to say, take it to rabble reactions.
Mon, 2008-04-14 09:27
#27
Women and Children at Risk for Their Lives in Family Law Disputes
Law Reform Must Address the Reality of Women's experience of Family Violence
(Vancouver, April 11) - West Coast Women's Legal Education Action Fund (LEAF) is deeply concerned about how our family law system is dealing with family violence.
"Family violence is not experienced equally by men and women," says Family Law Project Director Zara Suleman. "Family violence is almost always violence by men against women."
"Section 15 of the Charter expressly says that women are entitled to the 'equal protection of the law'," points out Alison Brewin, Executive Director of West Coast LEAF. "This lack of gendered analysis to violence against women and children allows the violence to continue."
West Coast LEAF is saddened to see yet another horrific example of this in the recent tragedy of the three children murdered in Merritt. Darcie Clark, the mother of the children had moved to Merritt to get away from her ex-husband after he had threatened her life.
This is not an isolated incident. It was in this same week in April 1996 in the Vernon Massacre that Rajwar Gakhal and nine members of her
family were shot and murdered by her estranged husband. But the Vernon Massacre and the resulting Inquest did not see an end to such terrifying incidents of violence and murder of women and children in B.C. In fact we have continued to experience such tragedies. Some
examples are:
September 4th, 2007, in Victoria, B.C., Yong Sun Park, her son and her parents were all stabbed to death by her husband, Peter Lee.
October 19th, 2006, in Port Coquitlam, B.C., Gurjeet Ghuman was shot twice point blank in the head by her estranged husband as she dropped off her daughter. Gurjeet survived but is now blind.
In 2003, Sherry Heron and her mother, Anna Adams were murdered at Mission Memorial Hospital by Sherry's estranged husband. Sherry had a restraining order in place while she was in the hospital.
In 2003, in Nanaimo B.C. Denise Purdy was stabbed to death by her estranged husband.
In 2002, in Quatsino, B.C. Sonya Handel's 6 children were drugged, strangled and shot and left to die in their burning home by their father Jay Handel. Crown identified that Mr. Handel was unable to deal with his wife's demands for a divorce.
"Women facing violence in their relationships who seek safety for themselves and their children by leaving their abusive partners arethen still required in family law to ensure the children's access with the abusive ex-partner," says Angela MacDougall of Battered Women's Support Services. "In addition, the gap between criminal restraining orders and orders for joint or shared parenting arrangements conflict increasing women and children's vulnerability to violence."
"We need concrete changes to the criminal justice and family law systems that coordinate services to protect women and children in B.C." demands Suleman, "Police, legal and court systems need to understand that safety issues for women facing violence in their relationships and the protection of their children are not separate issues but are fundamentally interconnected. We cannot address one without the other."
Research indicates that women and children are most at risk when women are in the process of separating from their spouses. Furthermore facilitating custody and access places women and children at more risk for harm where the father has been abusive or violent to his spouse.
Every week in Canada at least one woman is murdered by her ex-partner.
[Statistics: [url=http://www.endingviolence.org/files/uploads/VAWIRFactSheet.pdf]www.endin... ]
Family law reform in B.C. has currently been engaging the issue of family violence in the recent Review of the Family Relations Act.
West Coast LEAF is encouraged that such initiatives are being taken but worries that without an analysis that recognizes the inequality of women, the gaps between criminal and family law procedures, policies and protocols and the disproportionate impact of violence for women leaving abusive relationships and the invariably connected threat to their children, that tragedies such as those in Merritt will happen again and again.
For more information please contact:
Zara Suleman
Family Law Director
West Coast LEAF
(604) 684-8772
[email protected]
[ 14 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Mon, 2008-04-14 09:59
#28
remind
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]...."Family violence is not experienced equally by men and women," says Family Law Project Director Zara Suleman. "Family violence is almost always violence by men against women."...Every week in Canada at least one woman is murdered by her ex-partner.[/b]
Yet some would have us believe otherwise!
That is a significant list of violent murderous actions by men in just BC, and I know of 3-4 other BC women's murders that they missed exampling since 2002.
Mon, 2008-04-14 10:02
#29
Did anyone see the article in the Globe this weekend that discussed and compared violence in hetrosexual relationships and gay and lesbian relationships? I only caught the headline and didn't have a chance to read it yet.
Mon, 2008-04-14 10:07
#30
I just read it. Total BS.
The headlines claim same sex partners are more prone to be in domestic violence situations but after reading the *reporting* they lay out their methodology. Turns out it in no way can be inferred the headline was correct. Really really bad methodology.
Of course, that won't stop people from spreading this BS far and wide as a "fact".
Mon, 2008-04-14 10:26
#31
here's a link to the [url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080412.CENTRE12/TPSto....
quote:
The statistics themselves cause controversy: The national survey conducted by Statistics Canada found that 15 per cent of people who identified as gay or lesbian said they'd been abused by a partner in the last five years. Among heterosexuals, the figure was 7 per cent. (One issue with the statistics is that the participants were not asked if the abuse was within a same-sex relationship; another, the sample size was too small to divide by gender.) Other research has suggested the rate of abuse between straight and gay couples is relatively even, or higher among gay men, and lower between lesbian women.In many ways, whatever you make of the numbers, the pattern of abuse is the same, gay or straight. Victims describe their mixed feelings about leaving the relationship, the hope that things will get better, the fear of being alone, the sense of being trapped because of money or housing or kids. The nature of the threats and the physical violence, the role of alcohol and drug abuse in making the situation worse is tellingly similar. The abused spouse worries about being believed and getting the right help.
Mon, 2008-04-14 23:09
#32
At the end of the year, I took a look at the newspaper pages to see who had been murdered that year (2007). 80% of the victims were men, mostly young men of colour. Violence against women is unacceptable, but so is the loss of so many young men, who, it is obvious, are more in danger statistically than their sisters. But we never hear that.
Tue, 2008-04-15 02:14
#33
Catchfire
quote:
[b]Originally posted by Stargazer:[/b]
[QB]I just read it. Total BS.The headlines claim same sex partners are more prone to be in domestic violence situations but after reading the *reporting* they lay out their methodology. Turns out it in no way can be inferred the headline was correct. Really really bad methodology.
With respect, Stargazer, I'm not sure that's true. I think that bringing the story up in the context of a discussion where male violence against women has already been questioned naturally raises hackles, I don't think it is invested in that debate at all. Same-sex domestic violence is a real, tragic issue that is often ignored. From what I read, the article was just trying to foreground this fact.
I agree that the headline "Domestic violence is more widespread among same-sex couples than straights" is misleading and possibly incendiary, but the journalist doesn't pick the headline. The article is strong.
quote:
But this news makes many people in the gay community doubly uneasy. After decades of fighting for the right to marry, adopt children and access spousal benefits, there is real concern that talking publicly about troubled relationships will only feed homophobia.As one gay man puts it, same-sex couples want full rights, and "there's this idea that we are trying to be just like straight couples.
"But we need to be like a [i]good[/i] straight couple. We can't let them know about the bad parts."
The article doesn't try to argue that same-sex violence should overtake popular focus on domestic violence in general, which is emphatically male violence, but simply trying to make a gay rights argument: there is no infrastructure in place to deal with this problem what no one believes exists: same-sex couples are like all couples, and that means abuse. Where can an abused gay man go for support?
quote:
Although gay-support lines and therapists who specialize in same-sex relationships are growing in number, there are still no shelters in Canada specifically for gay men. Lesbian women can access some women's shelters, though even that can be complicated. Social workers describe cases in which the police, unable to distinguish victim from abuser, have charged both women, and shelter staff misled about what really happened have been known to admit the aggressor and turn the victim away.Still, the situation for men is far worse. In cities like Toronto and Vancouver, where the gay community is largest, they have few options, aside from a few programs that provide short-term hotel rooms, or places to stay with volunteers. One facility known to offer assistance specifically to gay men is the Wheatland, a women's shelter in Strathmore, outside Calgary. Since opening in 1993, it has set aside a downstairs room for abused men with nowhere else to go.
This is not to say that women's shelter should accept gay men--of course they shouldn't. But society should put some resources into this very real threat to social welfare.
quote:
Gay men grow up in the same male culture that suggests men don't share their feelings, or that it's macho to settle a dispute with fists.But even now, with the success of the gay-rights movements, society's idea of masculinity is far harder for gay men to navigate, Mr. Miekle contends. They are more likely to have difficult relationships with their fathers - his own dad mocked him for being like a girl - and they suffer through beatings and taunts at school. Is it any surprise, he asks, that they sometimes have difficulty maintaining a healthy relationship?
Tue, 2008-04-15 02:40
#34
I agree that shelters for abused gay men (or any men) should exist. I also think it's up to gay men to do what women did - create and lobby for those spaces. It looks like, from the article, that is already starting, which is good since, as you say, Catchfire, they can't go to women's shelters.
Tue, 2008-04-15 03:48
#35
quote:
With respect, Stargazer, I'm not sure that's true. I think that bringing the story up in the context of a discussion where male violence against women has already been questioned naturally raises hackles, I don't think it is invested in that debate at all. Same-sex domestic violence is a real, tragic issue that is often ignored. From what I read, the article was just trying to foreground this fact.
It doesn't raise my hackles, and I don't think it detracts from violence against women. What the Globe article did was to use a few stories and some flawed methodology to "prove" there is more same sex violence than there is straight violence (amongst couples).
In no way am I attempting to minimize the fact there clearly is and can be violence amongst same sex couples.
I think Michelle is right though. The gay community has to support and create safe places for gay men. It should be an issue for everyone, but let's face it, just like violence against women is not an issue for everyone, violence between SSC will also not be an issue. People are uncomfortable speaking of Violence against women, they certainly are not going to be open to discussing Same sex violence.
BTW, I think you inferred all sorts of things from my post that I didn't say, or mean. I simply pointed out flawed methodology. I am waiting for the anti-SSM crowd to chime in somewhere and say, "see, those gays can't marry. Look at how they treat each other".
That was my concern.
[ 15 April 2008: Message edited by: Stargazer ]
Tue, 2008-04-15 05:06
#36
quote:
Outragin': At the end of the year, I took a look at the newspaper pages to see who had been murdered that year (2007). 80% of the victims were men, mostly young men of colour. Violence against women is unacceptable, but so is the loss of so many young men, who, it is obvious, are more in danger statistically than their sisters. But we never hear that.
Actually we do, from the men's rights movement.
But your point is far from "obvious" and more akin to comparing apples and oranges. Because almost none of these male victims are killed by an intimate partner, i.e. generally locked into a situation where they are threatened, stripped of self-esteem, trying to save their children and/or relationship, guilted all around, etc. Males who fall to their peers in turf and drug wars - the main killer of young men - cannot be adequately compared to women (and to the very occasional man) murdered by an intimate male partner by simply looking at numbers.
We will never be able to wind down the killing if we do not insist on such distinctions - against antifeminist ideologues - and apply the appropriate remedies to these entirely different situations.
[ 15 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Tue, 2008-04-15 07:53
#37
I am not an anti-feminist ideologue, but I guess that's real easy to write as a reaction. I just think we've lost all perspective because anything about women seems to provoke an emotional and guilty response that doesn't help anyone. Most people think breast cancer is the number one killer of women, when it is lung cancer. The coverage skews our idea of where the problem lies. That's my point.
As far as the drug comment goes, wow. Blame the victim, or what, and talk about racial stereotyping! I guess women in short skirts late at night have it coming to them too? Those women wouldn't die if they weren't with men, who usually have drinking and anger management problems in the first place, right?That bullet feels the same if it's coming from a partner or a drug dealer. You're just as dead.
It is too easy to call me an anti-feminist ideologue. We're all ideologues - no one is without ideology, especially those who claim neutrality. I'd just like to get an answer to why young black men appear expendable because they might be involved in the drug trade - probably as buyers. Hell, I've been "involved in the drug trade" at some level since I was fourteen. Or is this a closed shop for newspeak only?
Tue, 2008-04-15 08:02
#38
Feel free to talk about victimized men outside of the FF.
Tue, 2008-04-15 08:47
#39
Outragin', what Scout said...Take it to another forum.
Tue, 2008-04-15 12:39
#40
What I'm talking about is a problem as I perceive it within feminism - the sometime tendency to exclude the inconvenient. I'm sorry, is this group-think? Every other forum on this page allows disagreement. Just not the one with feminists in it. Do I have that correct? Have I made offensive statements, or have I just said something you disagree with? Please be specific. Is this a discussion forum, or a support group for the like-minded? I'd appreciate an answer, including from the moderator.
Tue, 2008-04-15 12:53
#41
Possibly the description of the Feminism Forum may help you out:
quote:
Feminists discussing feminist issues from a feminist point of view.
Please understand that you are a new member of this community and may need to adjust your contribution according to the rules and norms of this community.
Tue, 2008-04-15 12:53
#42
Maysie
quote:
Originally posted by Outragin':
[b]At the end of the year, I took a look at the newspaper pages to see who had been murdered that year (2007). 80% of the victims were men, mostly young men of colour. Violence against women is unacceptable, but so is the loss of so many young men, who, it is obvious, are more in danger statistically than their sisters. But we never hear that.[/b]
Outragin', taking this post at it's literal meaning, and I'm making a leap of faith that you aren't trying to troll, yes, violence against men of colour, perpetuated by other men of colour and the police, is a huge problem.
This thread, however, isn't the place to have this conversation, or to compare who is worse off.
If you wish, start a new thread on racist violence against men of colour, young or otherwise. I've done it, it's always good to examine stats and what can be done about it.
However, the comparing, as you've done above, is not going to result in many positive responses, no matter which forum that is posted in.
Tue, 2008-04-15 13:02
#43
remind
quote:
Originally posted by Outragin':
[b]What I'm talking about is a problem as I perceive it within feminism - [/b]
First off, you as a male, do not get to tell feminists the problems you perceive with feminism. You can see how that would be a big problem with feminists, having a man tell us what they think is wrong with feminism, can't you?
quote:
Member Status: recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler Number: 10885
Registered: 05 November 2005
Posts: 18
Location: Toronto
Occupation: Unemployed
Interests: "Crime" and Justice, Drug Policy, Environment, Toronto City Council Campaigns
[b]Gender: Male [/b]
Year of Birth: 1962
How did you hear about rabble?: Can't remember
quote:
[b]the sometime tendency to exclude the inconvenient. [/b]
That would be from your patriarchial viewpoint.
quote:
[b]I'm sorry, is this group-think? [/b]
No it is feminists and their supporters telling you, that you as a male do not have a right to try and impose a male viewpoint onto feminist perceptions and topics.
quote:
[b]Every other forum on this page allows disagreement. Just not the one with feminists in it. [/b]
It is a [b]pro[/b]-feminist forum. And that means men do not get to tell feminist where they think WE have got it wrong.
quote:
[b]Do I have that correct? [/b]
Nope.
quote:
[b]Have I made offensive statements,[/b]
yep
quote:
[b] or have I just said something you disagree with?[/b]
Both
quote:
[b] Please be specific.[/b]
Now here ya go, demanding that your sense of male privilege be complied with.
quote:
[b] Is this a discussion forum, or a support group for the like-minded? [/b]
And this is just a gratuitous slam.
quote:
[b]I'd appreciate an answer, including from the moderator.[/b]
Wow, you do have an over-blown sense of your own privilege don't you.
Tue, 2008-04-15 13:08
#44
Anyone who can imply that "feminists discussing things from a feminist point of view" means general agreement does not involve race or that we might end up in fairly heated disagreements, has NEVER been to a meeting of NAC. Who the heck are you to tell me what feminism is about, anyway. Systerly consensus? I think not. Don't worry you've got your wish - I'm done here, and with Rabble. That's all I can say, since this is obviously a forum for a very narrow range of views - rather like the Federal Conservative Party: no incorrect views allowed. And I absolutely ADORE the comment about new people needing to adjust to community norms. Wow - I nominate you for a position as an immigration officer. Good luck with that view there. That's not really the way we do things in Canada, is it? So much for diversity.
Tue, 2008-04-15 13:17
#45
Okay, I get it. Men can only come on here if they are willing to kowtow to a single, narrow point of view, which has not been articulated. That might be many things, but it is not a forum.
Tue, 2008-04-15 13:27
#46
rabble-rouser
Babbler Number: 6289
Registered: 25 June 2004
Posts: 9021
Location: "watching the tide roll away"
Occupation: ....
Gender: xx ?????
Now, a 17th century non-gendered asexual? That is convenient, isn't it!!!!!!! Harumph.
Tue, 2008-04-15 13:28
#47
remind
quote:
Originally posted by Outragin':
[b]Who the heck are you to tell me what feminism is about, anyway. [/b]
No, actually the question is, who do you think you are, as a man, to tell women, who are feminists, what feminism is about?
quote:
[b]Systerly consensus? I think not. [/b]
No, you are talking about brotherly consensus, you don't get to have a sisterly consenus, as a male.
quote:
[b]Don't worry you've got your wish - I'm done here, and with Rabble.[/b]
Great, as we all really wanted to see patriarchial expressions of thwarted control, embodied in the "threat" of withdrawing of self, here. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
quote:
[b] That's all I can say, since this is obviously a forum for a very narrow range of views - [/b]
No, it is not a place for MALE viewpoints, men already take up the majority of air space everywhere else.
quote:
[b]rather like the Federal ConservativeParty: no incorrect views allowed.[/b]
Now, the gratuitous slam, because the uppity women will not listen to what a man feels is wrong with feminism.
quote:
[b] And I absolutely ADORE the comment about new people needing to adjust to community norms. [/b]
You in someone else's home, it seems you do not realize that fact in your privileged male mind.
quote:
[b] That's not really the way we do things in Canada, is it? So much for diversity.[/b]
Actually you are not seeking diversity, you are seeking to try and impose continued inequality, by trying to force women to listen to a male viewpoint and to bend to your male demands upon them.
[ 15 April 2008: Message edited by: remind ]
Tue, 2008-04-15 13:31
#48
Outragin', you don't seem to be getting the hint, so I'm going to help you along. Bye.
Wed, 2008-04-16 21:59
#49
remind
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]a man hunt continues for the father of 3 murdered children 3 days ago.[/b]
He has been found:
quote:
massive search for a fugitive is over after a local hunter tracked down a father who is the prime suspect in the murders of his three children.Kim Robinson captured 40-year-old roofer Allan Dwayne Schoenborn on the outskirts of Merritt, B.C., not far from where the bodies of the three children were found by their mother more than a week ago.
[url=http://www.ctvedmonton.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20080416/BC_Merritt_A... didn't even think it was him at first," Robinson told CTV News on Wednesday. "He just looked like a piece of skin wrapped over bones." [/url]