NationStates Jolt Archive

The stats for domestic abuse towards women are staggering, and vastly outnumber the stats of woman on man abuse in relationships. It's still a big problem in every nation on earth...but the second you bring it up, some men get angry about the topic and try to say that it's overblown, is total bullshit, or shouldn't be such an issue...

...any insights into why this is?

The stats for domestic abuse towards women are staggering, and vastly outnumber the stats of woman on man abuse in relationships. It's still a big problem in every nation on earth...but the second you bring it up, some men get angry about the topic and try to say that it's overblown, is total bullshit, or shouldn't be such an issue...

...any insights into why this is?

None that I would prefer to mention. I think it's silly to diminish a problem like that. The only reason to hit a woman (or anyone for that matter) is in self-defense or maybe to prevent her from hurting herself. That's just my opinion.

...any insights into why this is?

It's the standard display of male, heterosexual orthodoxy.

...Because they're among the men more prone to hauling off and punching their mates?

I dunno.

The stats for domestic abuse towards women are staggering, and vastly outnumber the stats of woman on man abuse in relationships. It's still a big problem in every nation on earth...but the second you bring it up, some men get angry about the topic and try to say that it's overblown, is total bullshit, or shouldn't be such an issue...

...any insights into why this is?

the reason why stats are so far off between domestic abuse towards women v. men is that men rarely report it because cops trivialize the matter and the man may feel belittled by it. so they're too scared to report it :P

but i agree, it is a problem. But like all problems, larger ones come to the fore and things like this get put on the backburner.

Hmm... because I guess they think the topic often generalizes all men often as being wife-beaters?

It's the standard display of male, heterosexual orthodoxy.

:confused: Heterosexual?

Psychosexual, possibly. Need to display dominance perhaps. Generally abusive, maybe. The heterosexual bit I don't quite understand. Sure, the relationship being described in this case is heterosexual, but the only place I see the heterosexual orthodoxy is in the fact that Sinuhue didn't mention abuse in homosexual relationships and left y'all out.

Ahhh she was asking for it.





























Before you get pissed, know that my wife is Sicilian. :p

...Because they're among the men more prone to hauling off and punching their mates?

I dunno.

I was about to say that. For me, there's few things worse than abusing your family, and if I ever saw a guy do that to his wife, I guarantee you, I'd deck him, right then and then. It's an issue that pisses me off, because it happens, and, in my opinion, not enough is done about it.

I think in the States, 1 out of every 6 women is sexually or physically abused in their lifetime.

the reason why stats are so far off between domestic abuse towards women v. men is that men rarely report it because cops trivialize the matter and the man may feel belittled by it. so they're too scared to report it :P
No doubt the stats are not entirely accurate, but I detest the insinuation often made that somehow the stats are so skewed that one could assume the rates of abuse are 50/50.

but i agree, it is a problem. But like all problems, larger ones come to the fore and things like this get put on the backburner.
Larger ones? Like what, pray tell?

Ahhh she was asking for it.





























Before you get pissed, know that my wife is Sicilian. :p

Under those circumstances, you are excused.

I am myself-my wife is German and Irish. We are capable of some pretty heated disputes.

Hmm... because I guess they think the topic often generalizes all men often as being wife-beaters?
Perhaps they shouldn't be so sensitive...talking about domestic abuse is not the same as accusing people of it.

50,000 battered women, and I've been eating mine plain!




J/k of course.

but the only place I see the heterosexual orthodoxy is in the fact that Sinuhue didn't mention abuse in homosexual relationships and left y'all out.
I did indeed. I referred specifically to men on women violence, which implies heterosexuality:).

50,000 battered women, and I've been eating mine plain!




J/k of course.
Don't joke if it's not funny.

http://www.letswrap.com/dvinfo/stats.htm

:confused: Heterosexual?

Psychosexual, possibly. Need to display dominance perhaps. Generally abusive, maybe. The heterosexual bit I don't quite understand. Sure, the relationship being described in this case is heterosexual, but the only place I see the heterosexual orthodoxy is in the fact that Sinuhue didn't mention abuse in homosexual relationships and left y'all out.

My popculture reference was obviously lost on you.

I can see abuse being perpetrated by either side-physical, emotional, verbal. In my opinion, all are unacceptable.
I would never abuse or neglect my wife in any way, under any circumstances. We have our differences, but we are usually pretty quick to work them out or put them aside.


The ritual of the make-up, now, could be considered violent by some.

I did indeed. I referred specifically to men on women violence, which implies heterosexuality:).

You bad, bad girl. ;)

(Not meant to trivialize the existence of a heterosexual orthodoxy.)

Don't joke if it's not funny.
Ah come on. Granted, it's not an issue to take lightly...but some posters actually say stuff like that an mean it. Don't jump down his throat.

My popculture reference was obviously lost on you.

Yeah. That happens when you're from Scandinavia and I'm from North America. When's that global village thing really gonna kick in so we can always know what each other are talking about? :D

Ah come on. Granted, it's not an issue to take lightly...but some posters actually say stuff like that an mean it. Don't jump down his throat.


Thanks.

Don't joke if it's not funny.

It's called humor. Have you never laughed at a funeral?

Ah come on. Granted, it's not an issue to take lightly...but some posters actually say stuff like that an mean it. Don't jump down his throat.
I'm just a little pissy about that kinda stuff. :p

I can see abuse being perpetrated by either side-physical, emotional, verbal. In my opinion, all are unacceptable.

Yes, I should mention that when I talk about abuse, I don't just mean physical. However, stats for emotional and social abuse are harder to come by, so we usually end up just discussing the physical aspect of it.

It's the standard display of male, heterosexual orthodoxy.
I'd bet money that percentage-wise, gay relationships are just as abusive as hetero relationships...possibly even moreso. I saw TONS of "boyfriend beaters" where I came from...about the same, by percentage, as wifebeaters.

Personally, I get violent when I see (or even hear about) a guy beating up/pushing around his GF/wife. I've bounced guys out of clubs on their heads for pulling that shit when I was working. :mad:

I'm just a little pissy about that kinda stuff. :p
Yeah, I get like that too. A lot. Don't worry about it:).

Yeah. That happens when you're from Scandinavia and I'm from North America. When's that global village thing really gonna kick in so we can always know what each other are talking about? :D

It's taken from the original British "Queer as Folk" series where the just recently out of the closet teenager Nathan bitches to his best friend about how she can never understand his situation because she's part of the "heterosexual orthodoxy," upon which she replies "I'm black, and I'm a girl. Try that for a week".

It's taken from the original British "Queer as Folk" series where the just recently out of the closet teenager Nathan bitches to his best friend about how she can never understand his situation because she's part of the "heterosexual orthodoxy," upon which she replies "I'm black, and I'm a girl. Try that for a week".
Lol!

I'm just a little pissy about that kinda stuff. :p

I do infact help operate an emergency shelter for battered women here in sunny California. As a Minister it is my obligation to help those who are abused, neglected, and lost. I find humor in everyday life, and humor is very good for your overall health. If you can't make a funny every now and again when life gets you down, you'll be miserable.

I've recently heard someone say that wife-battery is also child abuse (where there are children). (and husband-battery, of course) Do people agree? It may not be physically directed towards the children, but would you not consider it abusive to have one parent abusing the other in front of the children? Should wife/husband battery also include a charge of child-abuse if there are children?

50,000 battered women, and I've been eating mine plain! J/k of course.
SNerk!

My 2p.

In my neighborhood there are no battered women and at least 3 battered/emotionally-verbally abused/henpecked males. You can hear the harridans from down the block. These guys slink around like kicked puppies yet when I call the police when I see the woman being loud & abusive, the most I can ever get to happen is a "disturbing the peace" warning.

Contrast that with an ex-employee whose husband slapped her once and ended up in jail that night. (Not condoning spousal abuse, but I wanted to slap her more than once... that's why she's an EX employee...)

Simply, men don't report. Women have been trained to report before the violence happens (often appropriate, but also leads to "vidictive bi***" unjustified "reporting"...).

So, all in all, while the problem of relationship violence is nothing to be sniffed at, I think the STATISTICS are a little more than suspect.

It's taken from the original British "Queer as Folk" series where the just recently out of the closet teenager Nathan bitches to his best friend about how she can never understand his situation because she's part of the "heterosexual orthodoxy," upon which she replies "I'm black, and I'm a girl. Try that for a week".

:D I would have laughed my ass off at that.

*sigh* It's too bad I can't get a satellite system and see these things for myself, but thanks for telling me about it. :)

I've recently heard someone say that wife-battery is also child abuse (where there are children). (and husband-battery, of course) Do people agree? It may not be physically directed towards the children, but would you not consider it abusive to have one parent abusing the other in front of the children? Should wife/husband battery also include a charge of child-abuse if there are children?


It is child abuse. Sure they might not get beat, but they carry those emotional scars for the rest of their lives. As it is, too many children who witness abuse of a parent turn out like the abusers.

There is more men v women violence because the women are ALWAYS victims, that is jsut the culture, whether they really are the victim or not. we live i na culture where women are the "weaker sex" and therefore are always the victim. Granted men on women violence is alot, if some woman smacked her husband upside the head a few times everyone would giggle.

:D I would have laughed my ass off at that.

*sigh* It's too bad I can't get a satellite system and see these things for myself, but thanks for telling me about it. :)

Bittorrent is your friend.

Yes, I should mention that when I talk about abuse, I don't just mean physical. However, stats for emotional and social abuse are harder to come by, so we usually end up just discussing the physical aspect of it.

Yes-people dont often call the police when their spouse is yelling at them, cursing them-or just totally ignoring or neglecting them.
To some, this can be a worse existance that being hit,kicked or choked.

And what does it teach children? They take it all in,wether people are aware or not. Will they grow up to be abusive because they saw their parents at it, or will they grow up to hate men or women because they witnessed them being abusive?

Its sad. I can say on a few occassions where I was so mad I was clenching my teeth or balling a fist, I found it good to just take a walk-get out really quick. My anger subsides really quickly.There is no reason to stick around and see what will happen if it escalates.

And I havent had anything of significance to disagree with my wife in a long time. We are pretty good together. Aside from the little life problems here and there, we deal with everything together.

In my neighborhood there are no battered women
And you know this for sure? You are that aware of what goes on behind closed doors in your neighbourhood?



and at least 3 battered/emotionally-verbally abused/henpecked males. You can hear the harridans from down the block. These guys slink around like kicked puppies yet when I call the police when I see the woman being loud & abusive, the most I can ever get to happen is a "disturbing the peace" warning. Which is essentially what you'll get if the man is doing the same thing, and not getting physical. Point?


Contrast that with an ex-employee whose husband slapped her once and ended up in jail that night. (Not condoning spousal abuse, but I wanted to slap her more than once... that's why she's an EX employee...) Physical violence compared to verbal abuse, and you are trying to make what point?

Simply, men don't report. Women have been trained to report before the violence happens (often appropriate, but also leads to "vidictive bi***" unjustified "reporting"...).

So, all in all, while the problem of relationship violence is nothing to be sniffed at, I think the STATISTICS are a little more than suspect. All statistics are. But what exactly are you trying to say? I'm assuming there is a message in these anecdotes... so the statistics are suspect, to what extent, do you think?

I've recently heard someone say that wife-battery is also child abuse (where there are children). (and husband-battery, of course) Do people agree? It may not be physically directed towards the children, but would you not consider it abusive to have one parent abusing the other in front of the children? Should wife/husband battery also include a charge of child-abuse if there are children?
I absolutely agree that it is child abuse. The children of one particular Kicked Puppy Husband in my neighborhood are so screwed up it's unbelievable. They all treat "dad" just like "mom" does... "Mom" is wildly inconsistant with the children, treating the boys worse and worse as they get older.

It's a very sick situation. My wife & I have tried to sort of become the "Mr. & Mrs Wilson" tho the youngest boy - but, despite what little intervention we can do, IMO he's on a one-way trainride to long-term sociopathy &/or Jail. :(

No doubt the stats are not entirely accurate, but I detest the insinuation often made that somehow the stats are so skewed that one could assume the rates of abuse are 50/50.


Larger ones? Like what, pray tell?

I wasn't attempting to insinuate that it's 50/50, and i apologize if that's what you perceived, but the stats are skewed.

Larger ones? o, say the aids epidemic, iraqi war, detainee wellbeing. The problem is in the eye of the beholder, i may not agree with these problems being larger, but overall the news media and gov't do, otherwise you would hear more about sally gettin' beat up by harry.

It is child abuse. Sure they might not get beat, but they carry those emotional scars for the rest of their lives. As it is, too many children who witness abuse of a parent turn out like the abusers.
Probably. My older (half) brother witnessed his father abuse my mother a lot but he turned out fine. He's a pretty successful accountant living in London. Although I think it may have contributed to his incredible quietness (if that's a word) around family members.

I think in the States, 1 out of every 6 women is sexually or physically abused in their lifetime.

I've read even higher percentages.

I can tell you honestly that, at least in my personal experience and those I have spoken to, the number is 3 out of 4 abused before they even reach adulthood.

The stats for domestic abuse towards women are staggering, and vastly outnumber the stats of woman on man abuse in relationships. It's still a big problem in every nation on earth...but the second you bring it up, some men get angry about the topic and try to say that it's overblown, is total bullshit, or shouldn't be such an issue...

...any insights into why this is?

I have never seen what you report - men being angry about the topic. I presume you mean more than questioning the statistics.

Not to belittle the problem - but I have never seen much violence against women. I know that it happens, but it is so unusual in my small town (or so unreported) that it is not a significant problem.

But I don't understand why men would be angry about the topic.

I've read even higher percentages.

I can tell you honestly that, at least in my personal experience and those I have spoken to, the number is 3 out of 4 abused before they even reach adulthood.
Yeah well 1 out of 6 is what's been reported. Who knows how many more are unreported cases.

I've read even higher percentages.

I can tell you honestly that, at least in my personal experience and those I have spoken to, the number is 3 out of 4 abused before they even reach adulthood.


I seriously doubt 75% of women in the US are abused before adulthood.

Q: What do you do when the dishwasher stops working?

A: Kick her in the butt.

:p

I AM ONLY KIDDING!

Seriously, though. Like I said before, I get pretty violent when I see a guy assaulting a woman. Just ask my father. He ended up bleeding all over the living room after I saw him push my mother once.

Ihatevacations']There is more men v women violence because the women are ALWAYS victims, that is jsut the culture, whether they really are the victim or not.
Ah. Here we go. Thank you for providing an example of what this thread is about.

When you say things like this, that 'women are always the victims (even when they aren't)"you are dismissing the abuse as not as serious as it is. You are in essence saying that it is a cultural lie, perpetuated by political correctness to make it seem that men are all abusers and women are all abused.


Ihatevacations']we live i na culture where women are the "weaker sex" and therefore are always the victim.
And of course, women are at fault for being considered the weaker sex, right? They capitalise on their 'weakness' to get men to do things for them, and manipulate the system in their favour?

I'm taking you out of context, yes, I admit. But I really want to look at what is under your argument here, and this is what I'm interpreting. Feel free to correct my assumptions.


Ihatevacations']Granted men on women violence is alot, if some woman smacked her husband upside the head a few times everyone would giggle. Really? Because I wouldn't.
But the number of women killing husbands who leave them, compared to the other way around, the number of hospital visits of men beaten by their wives, compared to the other way around, and the traditional stereotypes that still label verbally abusive men as 'strong' and verbally abusive women as 'harridans' suggests that men on women abuse is more of a problem than women on men abuse. Yet whenever men on women abuse is brought up, it is suggested that no one cares about the men, and life is so unfair and women have it so good...

...like the whole women getting beaten by men thing is one big lie perpetuated by the matriarchy to 'put men in their place'.

Again...I'm not accusing you of all of this...but I would like you to flesh out your post a bit more to clarify.

The stats for domestic abuse towards women are staggering, and vastly outnumber the stats of woman on man abuse in relationships. It's still a big problem in every nation on earth...but the second you bring it up, some men get angry about the topic and try to say that it's overblown, is total bullshit, or shouldn't be such an issue...

...any insights into why this is?

Because... you.just.don't.listen!!

(ducks!)

And you know this for sure? You are that aware of what goes on behind closed doors in your neighbourhood? Pretty much. I sort of started our neighborhood association. The people I see who look beat up for no apparant reason tend to be the Men, not the women.
Which is essentially what you'll get if the man is doing the same thing, and not getting physical. Point? Physical violence compared to verbal abuse, and you are trying to make what point? Point is, I AM talking about physical abuse (in my neighborhood). If it's hard to get "stockholm syndrome" women to file charges, consider how much more men are reluctant to report even obvious abuse.
All statistics are. But what exactly are you trying to say? I'm assuming there is a message in these anecdotes... so the statistics are suspect, to what extent, do you think? I couldn't tell you how off base the statistics are, but I think it goes a long way to explaining WHY some men get indignant about the topic... because they are pigeonholed by the premise that this can only happen to women, that all men are potential abusers, and that men are always in the wrong... whether or not he personally would ever hit a woman.

I've recently heard someone say that wife-battery is also child abuse (where there are children). (and husband-battery, of course) Do people agree? It may not be physically directed towards the children, but would you not consider it abusive to have one parent abusing the other in front of the children? Should wife/husband battery also include a charge of child-abuse if there are children?

Yes.

I can add a personal note to this. My father was (well, is, but not sober) an alcoholic. My mother did everything she could to hide a lot of his problems from us, and succeeded for the most part. But there is one memory that will forever stand out in my mind.

We had been to a softball game - some sort of work-related picnic thing for my mother. My father had quite a bit to drink (no surprise there), but as usual insisted on driving. The plan was to go home, change, and then go out to dinner. On the way home, my mother noticed how drunk my father was and suggested that she drive. He adamantly refused. She then suggested that we just eat at home. This set off an argument in the car which didn't end when we got out of the car at home. My parents were nearest the door, so my brother and I were standing there staring as my parents argued. My mother tried to move the dispute aside several times and kept saying that we should go inside. I remember she was crying and mascara was running down her face. My father hit her so hard that when she fell, I actually saw her feet fly up over head when she hit the ground. She told my brother and I to go into the house and I ran in and hid between my bed and the wall. I was absolutely terrified. Before I could get into the house, an off-duty cop who lived down the street started into the yard. My mother told him not to get involved, please, as he might just get hurt. (He ended up calling for backup).

I couldn't have been older than seven or eight years old when this happened. My brother was maybe four. However, the images are burned into my brain.

I wasn't attempting to insinuate that it's 50/50, and i apologize if that's what you perceived, but the stats are skewed.
I know, and I apologise for not making it clear that I was generalising about a particular argument I hear quite often.

Larger ones? o, say the aids epidemic, iraqi war, detainee wellbeing. The problem is in the eye of the beholder, i may not agree with these problems being larger, but overall the news media and gov't do, otherwise you would hear more about sally gettin' beat up by harry.
I agree there are other issues that need our attention, but humans are excellent at multi-tasking:) We can handle more than one thing at once. I think that there is more to the silence about domestic abuse than just "there are other things to worry about". While in the West, we have more laws to protect those being abused, and more information about it, there is still an uncomfortable silence around it that suggests people just don't want to deal with it. And yet, how many of us have never met anyone, either friends or family, that was not abused in a relationship? Don't we want our kids to be aware of these things so they can tell when a relationship is abusive, and know how to stay away from those sorts of situations? How can we do that if we don't talke openly about it, and act on abuse?

It's the standard display of male, heterosexual orthodoxy.
Unfortunately it is not that cut and dry. I just came back from a Domestic Abuse conference and can state categorically that it affects same sex couples as well. It is a control issue and envelopes all strata. There is however a heavy bias in the male against female violence.

I seriously doubt 75% of women in the US are abused before adulthood.
Really? Are you just counting physical abuse? Because with all the other forms of abuse and physcial abuse combined together, I would assume that most teenage girls have been in a 'bad' relationship.

But the number of women killing husbands who leave them, compared to the other way around
From media influences, people would think that women would kill their cheating husbands more than men would kill their cheating wives. I would think men would rather kill the man she's cheating with.

Because... you.just.don't.listen!!

(ducks!)
*groans* :p

That reminds me of the worst one I heard.

Q: What do you tell a woman with 2 black eyes?

A: Nothing. You already told her twice.

*waits for the gong and the hook* :headbang:

I seriously doubt 75% of women in the US are abused before adulthood.

I wish I could say I share your doubt, but I don't. I've seen and heard way too much, and I know that the vast majority of those I do know of went completely unreported. Sometimes, not even the parents knew. Other times, it was the parents doing it.

Look, I'm against abuse of women. It makes me angry. But the reported numbers seem high. 75%? What counts as abuse? Do they count a swat on the backside of a small child?

*groans* :p

That reminds me of the worst one I heard.

Q: What do you tell a woman with 2 black eyes?

A: Nothing. You already told her twice.

*waits for the gong and the hook* :headbang:


*L* This is one of the few jokes I can remember.

I was flipping around the TV this weekend, and "The Burning Bed" was on...

Pretty much. I sort of started our neighborhood association. The people I see who look beat up for no apparant reason tend to be the Men, not the women.
Again, don't discount the emotional abuse that doesn't leave bruises...on both sides.


Point is, I AM talking about physical abuse (in my neighborhood). If it's hard to get "stockholm syndrome" women to file charges, consider how much more men are reluctant to report even obvious abuse.

Yes, I agree. Men will be less likely to file charges, or admit to being abused. This is something that has to be changed (and recently a men's shelter opened up in a city in Alberta...it's a start!)


I couldn't tell you how off base the statistics are, but I think it goes a long way to explaining WHY some men get indignant about the topic... because they are pigeonholed by the premise that this can only happen to women, that all men are potential abusers, and that men are always in the wrong... whether or not he personally would ever hit a woman. And that is what I can't stand...these assumptions...that talking about abuse automatically means an accusation. Almost everytime I bring up domestic abuse in RL, any man around will suddenly say exactly what you have, and then dismiss the whole topic, as though it's all a lie, and because men are ignored, they aren't even going to discuss it anymore. I just don't get that. Sure, we can talk about the abuse men suffer as well, but the amount of abuse is not equal...so why should the focus be?

Regular caveat: I'm not accusing you, Syniks, I'm just trying to explain how this discussion has been dealt with in RL in my experience.

There is however a heavy bias in the male against female violence.
What do you mean by bias? That there is a bias towards looking at this kind of violence over others?

Also for anyone who might want more information a quick web site that comes to mind is endabuse.org.

From media influences, people would think that women would kill their cheating husbands more than men would kill their cheating wives. I would think men would rather kill the man she's cheating with.
We're not talking about cheating here. That's another issue, though it can be linked. We're talking about killing a spouse who is trying to leave the abusive relationship. Women are at a great deal of risk when they leave an abusive relationship and are (as some stats say) about 75% more likely to be harmed seriously after they leave than if they stayed.

Look, I'm against abuse of women. It makes me angry. But the reported numbers seem high. 75%? What counts as abuse? Do they count a swat on the backside of a small child?
I think we're talking about abuse within a relationship...though Dem I believe has brought in general domestic abuse, which could also include parents abusing children.

What do you mean by bias? That there is a bias towards looking at this kind of violence over others?
No I mean bias in the context that statistics bear out that there is a greater percentage of male against femaile violence versus the opposite.

A question. If these statistics are correct, what is a man to do with them?

It appears that one shouldn't question them or be judged as uncaring.

I have never physically abused a woman. I would defend a woman from her attacker. Other than that I can't do much about these alarming statistics.

Nor can anybody else here. We're responsible for our own actions.

http://endabuse.org/newsflash/index.php3?Search=Article&NewsFlashID=627
This article says that domestic violence rates are dropping, but are still quite large in proportion to other violent crimes. Here is a recent stat on abuse within relationships:
Women are 84 percent of spouse abuse victims, and 86 percent of victims of abuse at the hands of a boyfriend or girlfriend.

Males are 83 percent of spouse murderers, and 75 percent of murderers who kill a boyfriend or girlfriend.

And some about abuse within families:


Family violence accounted for 11 to 33 percent of all violent crime from 1998 to 2002, depending on whether you examine victimization surveys or police data, respectively.

Half (49 percent) of family violence is a crime against a spouse, eleven percent is a parent attacking a child, and 41 percent is an offense against another family member.

Nearly three in four family violence victims are female (73 percent).

Seventy-six percent of family violence perpetrators are male.

Now, the definition of abuse varies, but in this case, I believe they are referring mostly to violent abuse, meaning physical. This alone is scary enough, without even trying to factor in the very real problem of emotional and mental abuse.

I think in the States, 1 out of every 6 women is sexually or physically abused in their lifetime.
1 in 3, last I heard.
The War on Women is an angry feminist book, but it quotes tons of stats from respected sources. Taken together, it's pretty scary. I recommend it, for men and women.

Again, don't discount the emotional abuse that doesn't leave bruises...on both sides. Oh, I agree... but it was you who discounted the abuse of the men in the neighborhood by assuming it was verbal and not on the same level as the slapped ex employee... can't have it both ways. :p

Yes, I agree. Men will be less likely to file charges, or admit to being abused. This is something that has to be changed (and recently a men's shelter opened up in a city in Alberta...it's a start!) Thus the skewed statistics.

And that is what I can't stand...these assumptions...that talking about abuse automatically means an accusation. Almost everytime I bring up domestic abuse in RL, any man around will suddenly say exactly what you have, and then dismiss the whole topic, as though it's all a lie, and because men are ignored, they aren't even going to discuss it anymore. I just don't get that. Sure, we can talk about the abuse men suffer as well, but the amount of abuse is not equal...so why should the focus be?
Well, let's observe the issue from a slightly different angle... WHy should a male have to spend an entire semester defending himself (and his sex) from a class whose main goal seemed to be one of upholding/validating the Uber Feminist position that "All Sex Is Rape - and All Men are Rapists". It's really the same discussion. Of course men will get defensive when the issue is presented in those terms.

Intimate Partner Abuse (as it was called in Washington State) is a serious issue, but so long as the discussion is charged in sociopolitical terms (as "wife abuse" has become) it makes the disscussion difficult because it creates defensiveness. Just like it's hard to talk about Racisim when the discussion begins with the assumption that all people of X "race" are bigots.

Regular caveat: I'm not accusing you, Syniks, I'm just trying to explain how this discussion has been dealt with in RL in my experience.Oh, I know that. But I DO get defensive about the topic too...

Look, I'm against abuse of women. It makes me angry. But the reported numbers seem high. 75%? What counts as abuse? Do they count a swat on the backside of a small child?

75% was my personal anecdote. And no, I was not counting a swat on the backside. I was counting either sexual assault or gross physical violence (resulting in hospital visits).

A question. If these statistics are correct, what is a man to do with them?

It appears that one shouldn't question them or be judged as uncaring. It depends. What is your reason for questioning them? Are you looking for greater accuracy, or some sort of proof that it isn't really a problem?


I have never physically abused a woman. I would defend a woman from her attacker. Other than that I can't do much about these alarming statistics.

Nor can anybody else here. We're responsible for our own actions. You're wrong about that. While we are all responsible for our own actions, that does not make us powerless to enact change. Even if all you do is teach your children to neither abuse, nor accept abuse, you've done something. It can go further though. Would you remain friends with someone you knew was abusing his or her children? Why would you keep a friend who abused their spouse? Yet so many people do...so many people KNOW that these things are going on, but are either afraid to get involved, or feel that they don't want to interfere in something private. Abuse shouldn't be private. Agreed...getting involved in a domestic dispute is arguably the most dangerous situation you can be in, and I wouldn't advise it. But if you know that a man has been beating his wife, and keeps getting away with it because of the wording of the law...perhaps you should be petitioning your representatives to change that law. We can help, but only if we take it seriously, rather than being offended by the topic itself (not saying you are...making general statements again).

I think we're talking about abuse within a relationship...though Dem I believe has brought in general domestic abuse, which could also include parents abusing children.

Sorry if I threw things off-topic - I was just replying to things as they came.

Just some more interesting stats.

Domestic Homicides

* On average, more than three women are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends in this country every day. In 2000, 1,247 women were killed by an intimate partner. The same year, 440 men were killed by an intimate partner.16
* Women are much more likely than men to be killed by an intimate partner. In 2000, intimate partner homicides accounted for 33.5 percent of the murders of women and less than four percent of the murders of men.17
* Pregnant and recently pregnant women are more likely to be victims of homicide than to die of any other cause18 , and evidence exists that a significant proportion of all female homicide victims are killed by their intimate partners.19
* Research suggests that injury related deaths, including homicide and suicide, account for approximately one-third of all maternal mortality cases, while medical reasons make up the rest. But, homicide is the leading cause of death overall for pregnant women, followed by cancer, acute and chronic respiratory conditions, motor vehicle collisions and drug overdose, peripartum and postpartum cardiomyopthy, and suicide.20

From endabuse.org.

in my opinion women should listen to man but man should not molest them if they decline but talk about it and after that women should listen to man again. :) ! it is mostly a cultural thing-what u can and what u cannot do .it depends on society in reallife and in online states of the nation.heh

Oh, I agree... but it was you who discounted the abuse of the men in the neighborhood by assuming it was verbal and not on the same level as the slapped ex employee... can't have it both ways. :p I was just going with what you said...you talked about screaming harridan women in your neighbourhood, and a woman who got physical in a location I wasn't sure was the same...?


Well, let's observe the issue from a slightly different angle... WHy should a male have to spend an entire semester defending himself (and his sex) from a class whose main goal seemed to be one of upholding/validating the Uber Feminist position that "All Sex Is Rape - and All Men are Rapists". It's really the same discussion. Of course men will get defensive when the issue is presented in those terms. What the heck class was this? And why would anyone enroll in it? And if a male did...you'd think they'd be LOOKING for a fight?

Intimate Partner Abuse (as it was called in Washington State) is a serious issue, but so long as the discussion is charged in sociopolitical terms (as "wife abuse" has become) it makes the disscussion difficult because it creates defensiveness. Just like it's hard to talk about Racisim when the discussion begins with the assumption that all people of X "race" are bigots.

You're right, and I think this is the biggest answer to my question. But I'd like men to examine their feelings if they do get defensive. They aren't always accused of being abusers themselves...but they do have to realise that with such high percentages of abusers being male, there is clearly something wrong with the way men are being 'raised'. Not all of them. Not by far...but be aware of this, and try to pass on good teachings to boys instead of jokes about kicking the dishwasher in the ass:). Men need to be a part of the solution too.

I'm just a little pissy about that kinda stuff. :p

Then you wouldn't think this is funny-

What do you say to a woman with two black eyes?
Nothing. She obviously didn't listen the first two times.

<snip> You're wrong about that. While we are all responsible for our own actions, that does not make us powerless to enact change. Even if all you do is teach your children to neither abuse, nor accept abuse, you've done something. It can go father though. Would you remain friends with someone you knew was abusing his or her children? Why would you keep a friend who abused their spouse? Yet so many people do...so many people KNOW that these things are going on, but are either afraid to get involved, or feel that they don't want to interfere in something private. Abuse shouldn't be private. Agreed...getting involved in a domestic dispute is arguably the most dangerous situation you can be in, and I wouldn't advise it.I have, and I do... but back to my neighborhood, the Kicked Puppies won't file charges, so there's nothing I can do short of physical violence myself.
But if you know that a man has been beating his wife, and keeps getting away with it because of the wording of the law...perhaps you should be petitioning your representatives to change that law.
In Washington, they changed the law so that if there is a "domestic" call, SOMEONE goes to jail. Period. The Officer on the scene has the right to "file charges" based on the evidence observed. Usually, the one with the least injuries gets charges unless the reporting party has indicated a specific order of combat. (i.e. he calls the police when she is hitting him or someone sees her throw the first punch/frying-pan...)

They don't mess around with this "i don't want to file charges" crap with Domestic cases there.

They don't mess around with this "i don't want to file charges" crap with Domestic cases there.
They shouldn't.

Little anecdote...my husband's uncle in Chile has this terrible ex...she's really abusive and vindictive and sneaky and just plain horrible. Anyway, one day she started ramming her car into his, and he called the cops. They pulled him aside, and you know what they recommended instead of charges? That he beat the shit out of her to teach her a lesson.

Christ. Just charge the bitch and be done...they were essentially telling him that she was his fault because he didn't 'handle' her.

<snip>What the heck class was this? And why would anyone enroll in it? And if a male did...you'd think they'd be LOOKING for a fight? <snip>
It was a class in "women's studies" required by the diversity police if you wanted to get your degree... :(

It was a class in "women's studies" required by the diversity police if you wanted to get your degree... :(
I wish I'd taken some women's studies courses...I can't imagine anyone, male or female sitting meekly and accepting an extremist point of view...we sure didn't when our history prof was a communist-hating conservative...

...but you should have seen the ruffled feathers in the native studies course I did take...you'd think that the whole thing was an attack on white men. Instead of a historical look at what actually happened...

"I never put small pox on a blanket! Hmph." :rolleyes:

Look, I'm against abuse of women. It makes me angry. But the reported numbers seem high. 75%? What counts as abuse? Do they count a swat on the backside of a small child?

Yup, in some states.

I wish I'd taken some women's studies courses...I can't imagine anyone, male or female sitting meekly and accepting an extremist point of view...we sure didn't when our history prof was a communist-hating conservative...I got out of the "public" Uni system because of it. I was not allowed to argue on pain of a Failing Grade or Expulsion for "creating a hostile learning enviornment". :headbang: Ended up going into hock to go to a Jesuit school where I could argue with the profs...

...but you should have seen the ruffled feathers in the native studies course I did take...you'd think that the whole thing was an attack on white men. Instead of a historical look at what actually happened...

"I never put small pox on a blanket! Hmph." :rolleyes:
Heh. I don't mind History (HIS101, "Everybody's Ancestors did Bad Shit")
I just take issue with demagoguing history to suit a political agenda (HIS201, "Everybody's Ancestors did Bad Shit because they were Capitalists"/Male) :rolleyes:

I was just going with what you said...you talked about screaming harridan women in your neighbourhood, and a woman who got physical in a location I wasn't sure was the same...?


What the heck class was this? And why would anyone enroll in it? And if a male did...you'd think they'd be LOOKING for a fight?



You're right, and I think this is the biggest answer to my question. But I'd like men to examine their feelings if they do get defensive. They aren't always accused of being abusers themselves...but they do have to realise that with such high percentages of abusers being male, there is clearly something wrong with the way men are being 'raised'. Not all of them. Not by far...but be aware of this, and try to pass on good teachings to boys instead of jokes about kicking the dishwasher in the ass:). Men need to be a part of the solution too.

Whoops. Just for the record, I think my family gets a very clear message that if I caught anyone of them abusing the other they can expect a very swift and harsh reaction. Though I'm the youngest boy in my family (not including nephews) I tend to be the one everyone comes to in order to settle disputes. Even if I joke, I think crossing the line (saying or doing things that are intended to hurt because you're angry) is completely unacceptable a loving relationship. Sometimes people get hurt but it should not be the intent of the action. If my wife (I have no wife) had a drinking problem it would certainly hurt her to tell her so, but it would still be a loving act. However, if I'm angry calling her a bitch, serves no one but my anger.

50,000 battered women, and I've been eating mine plain!




J/k of course.


That really made me smile while reading this topic.

The stats for domestic abuse towards women are staggering, and vastly outnumber the stats of woman on man abuse in relationships. It's still a big problem in every nation on earth...but the second you bring it up, some men get angry about the topic and try to say that it's overblown, is total bullshit, or shouldn't be such an issue...

...any insights into why this is?


Here you go;
http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2005/0525roberts.html

"Definitional deception: Define "violence" so broadly that it includes any unpleasant interaction a woman might have with a male.

Ideological idiocy: Claim that men cling to their power by gleefully abusing women. And since women don't have any power, it's impossible for them to be violent.

Data deluge: Repeat absurd claims like "women represent 95% of DV victims" so often as to drown out the truth.

Hypothesis hi-jinks: Don't consider the possibility of female-initiated violence, and that way you don't bother to survey the effects of domestic violence on men.

Medical mumbo-jumbo: Conjure up a pseudo-scientific diagnosis like "battered woman's syndrome" to justify the most egregious acts of female violence.

Statistical shenanigans: Always present your statistics in nice round numbers like 75%. That way if you are challenged, you can always fall back and say the number is an "estimate."

Shaming and vilification: If all else fails, malign anyone who doesn't agree with your claims is a "woman-hater" or "sub-consciously sexist."

Any more questions?

Some because they think you're labelling them as wife-beaters, Others because they ARE wife beaters, and are being defensive. Men who hit women make me sick, and ashamed that they claim to be men. They're not men, they're little boys who have to prove they have the virility and strength they are really insecure about.

Here you go;
http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2005/0525roberts.html

"Definitional deception: Define "violence" so broadly that it includes any unpleasant interaction a woman might have with a male.

Ideological idiocy: Claim that men cling to their power by gleefully abusing women. And since women don't have any power, it's impossible for them to be violent.

Data deluge: Repeat absurd claims like "women represent 95% of DV victims" so often as to drown out the truth.

Hypothesis hi-jinks: Don't consider the possibility of female-initiated violence, and that way you don't bother to survey the effects of domestic violence on men.

Medical mumbo-jumbo: Conjure up a pseudo-scientific diagnosis like "battered woman's syndrome" to justify the most egregious acts of female violence.

Statistical shenanigans: Always present your statistics in nice round numbers like 75%. That way if you are challenged, you can always fall back and say the number is an "estimate."

Shaming and vilification: If all else fails, malign anyone who doesn't agree with your claims is a "woman-hater" or "sub-consciously sexist."

Any more questions?


If all that is true thats really something to think about.

Some because they think you're labelling them as wife-beaters, Others because they ARE wife beaters, and are being defensive. Men who hit women make me sick, and ashamed that they claim to be men. They're not men, they're little boys who have to prove they have the virility and strength they are really insecure about.


Only time I have ever in my life hit a female was when I was a young child. My sister and I got into a fight when we were 8 years old, and she hit me with a hockey stick so I slugged her. My parents sat me down and lectured me about hitting a girl. Haven't even thought about it ever again.

1 in 3, last I heard.
The War on Women is an angry feminist book, but it quotes tons of stats from respected sources. Taken together, it's pretty scary. I recommend it, for men and women.The stats I read said 1 in 3 women and 1 in 6 men are sexually abused at sometime in their life.
That's a lot more of either sex than one would imagine.
The people on NS who are familiar with me know I did a couple of stints in the wacky ward. In group therapy, every woman there admitted to being sexually abused.

It depends. What is your reason for questioning them? Are you looking for greater accuracy, or some sort of proof that it isn't really a problem?


You're wrong about that. While we are all responsible for our own actions, that does not make us powerless to enact change. Even if all you do is teach your children to neither abuse, nor accept abuse, you've done something. It can go further though. Would you remain friends with someone you knew was abusing his or her children? Why would you keep a friend who abused their spouse? Yet so many people do...so many people KNOW that these things are going on, but are either afraid to get involved, or feel that they don't want to interfere in something private. Abuse shouldn't be private. Agreed...getting involved in a domestic dispute is arguably the most dangerous situation you can be in, and I wouldn't advise it. But if you know that a man has been beating his wife, and keeps getting away with it because of the wording of the law...perhaps you should be petitioning your representatives to change that law. We can help, but only if we take it seriously, rather than being offended by the topic itself (not saying you are...making general statements again).

I guess I'm picking up on a general tone in the thread that men aren't responding to the issue of abuse satisfactorily.

I mean, I'm hearing large and alarming numbers of physical abuse toward women. They aren't relevant to me or my community, as I mentioned earlier. So this is something that happens elsewhere. Something I have no control over.

As to your questions, I have raised my children properly - they would not participate in this kind of violence not accept it.

I have no friends who do this, but I expect that if I did I would have 0 respect for them and that alone makes friendship impossible.

I'm saying what else can a guy do? What am I to do about this beyond what I already do? It's somebody elses's problem, I guess. I'm not sure I want to feel any collective guilt because some guys routinely beat women.

The stats I read said 1 in 3 women and 1 in 6 men are sexually abused at sometime in their life.
That's a lot more of either sex than one would imagine.
The people on NS who are familiar with me know I did a couple of stints in the wacky ward. In group therapy, every woman there admitted to being sexually abused.


Wow I'm sorry to hear that.

As for the woman who admitted to being sexually abused that is almost impossible to imagine them all admiting something like that. Makes me want to cry.

Here you go;
http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2005/0525roberts.html

"Definitional deception: Define "violence" so broadly that it includes any unpleasant interaction a woman might have with a male.

Ideological idiocy: Claim that men cling to their power by gleefully abusing women. And since women don't have any power, it's impossible for them to be violent.

Data deluge: Repeat absurd claims like "women represent 95% of DV victims" so often as to drown out the truth.

Hypothesis hi-jinks: Don't consider the possibility of female-initiated violence, and that way you don't bother to survey the effects of domestic violence on men.

Medical mumbo-jumbo: Conjure up a pseudo-scientific diagnosis like "battered woman's syndrome" to justify the most egregious acts of female violence.

Statistical shenanigans: Always present your statistics in nice round numbers like 75%. That way if you are challenged, you can always fall back and say the number is an "estimate."

Shaming and vilification: If all else fails, malign anyone who doesn't agree with your claims is a "woman-hater" or "sub-consciously sexist."

Any more questions?

I think it's like accidents involving drinking. If you count all accidents where someone had a drink (even if alcohol had nothing to do with the accident itself) then the numbers end up very skewed. When drunk driving statistics are given they should only include accidents caused by alcohol.

I think it's the same with domestic violence. If you count every incidence of battery (technically, I have battered you if I poke you in the chest with my finger. Seriously, I was in court once with a guy who was charged with battery for, according to the police report read by the court "poking his wife repeatedly in the chest with his index finger") then you will have numbers that might look like the incidence of abuse is spread among both genders. But let's face it, in the cases where the individuals are in danger of injury or death these are overwhelmingly men abusing women. Is it okay to poke your husband in the chest with a finger? Not in my opinion. Nor is it okay to call your wife a bitch. Either way, though, i don't want the goverment to make laws to prevent it. I am only concerned with the cases where it puts one or more family members in danger.

<snip> Seriously, I was in court once with a guy who was charged with battery for, according to the police report read by the court "poking his wife repeatedly in the chest with his index finger") <snip>Heh. I had a guy do that to me once when I was a security guard. I didn't have the heart to have him arrested/charged after he shattered his index finger on the trauma plate of my ballistic vest. :eek: :D

"Boy, that looks like it hurts. You can leave now. Please don't get in my face again."

*snip*
http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2005/0525roberts.html

After culling the findings from five surveys on domestic violence, Steinmetz reached an unexpected conclusion: wives were just as likely as their husbands to kick, punch, stab, and otherwise physically aggress against their spouses.
*snip*
So the Sisterhood turned from intimidation to propaganda -- the old-fashioned, in-your-face type. Here are just a few of their neo-Leninist tactics:
This site is rather amusing...it calls itself iFeminist, but is about as anti-feminist as you can get. It's also incredibly biased as evidenced by the words they use when speaking about 'feminists'. I love that this article is trying to say that women are just as abusive as men, and the whole men abusing women thing is just a feminist lie.

In any case, you present this as though it answers my question, but really what you have answered is this:

"Do you believe men are abusing women, and if so, are they doing it more than visa versa?"

Bozzy, "No."

There's a good reason for this spate of Ms.-information. The rad-fems want to hoodwink the public and politicians that there's an epidemic of violence against women out there, and it's spiraling out of control. Predictably, the cure for that epidemic is a new federal program that carries a hefty price tag.
This is even funnier...Ms Information...hahaha! The radical feminazis are out to steal our tax dollars by pretending there is violence against women! Watch out! :D

If all that is true thats really something to think about.
Don't believe everything someone posts here. Look into it and make your own decisions.

I have, and I do... but back to my neighborhood, the Kicked Puppies won't file charges, so there's nothing I can do short of physical violence myself.

In Washington, they changed the law so that if there is a "domestic" call, SOMEONE goes to jail. Period. The Officer on the scene has the right to "file charges" based on the evidence observed. Usually, the one with the least injuries gets charges unless the reporting party has indicated a specific order of combat. (i.e. he calls the police when she is hitting him or someone sees her throw the first punch/frying-pan...)

They don't mess around with this "i don't want to file charges" crap with Domestic cases there.Texas also has a law were the police file charges regardless of the complainents wishes. Thank you Governor Ann Richards. Up until that time (this was in the early 90's- 1990's, not 1890's) a woman could not file rape charges against her husband unless he caused serious injuries.
Now in Texas the police file the charges. If both parties are injured, they both go to jail. They can do the "He said, she said" in court.

I'm saying what else can a guy do? What am I to do about this beyond what I already do? It's somebody elses's problem, I guess. I'm not sure I want to feel any collective guilt because some guys routinely beat women.
That's fine. As long as you aren't one who goes around proclaiming it to be a 'feminist lie':) So it doesn't impact you. I'm glad, and I hope things stay that way. At least you are aware of it. More than that? *shrugs* I'm not asking for more.

Don't believe everything someone posts here. Look into it and make your own decisions.


Thats why I used the words IF ITS TRUE. I read the whole article and it is slanted so much it made me sick, but some of it does make sense while some of it does not.

I do know that statistics can be padded but when I start to think about the women I know, and who say that they have been abused. It makes one think that the numbers could be correct. I mean let's face it. Men are more likely in general to go off.

That's fine. I'm glad, and I hope things stay that way. At least you are aware of it. More than that? *shrugs* I'm not asking for more.

You can count on it staying that way. Just wanted to make sure that collective feelings of guilt are'nt required.

Hmm... because I guess they think the topic often generalizes all men often as being wife-beaters?
I think this is it, the tendency to take a statistical trend and feel that it a general edict. A lot of men abuse women does not mean all men abuse women, but they still take it as an accusation. As if they are supposed to answer for those other men. (I'm a dude...I just realized I was writing this too vague).

I see that a lot, taking a statistical observation to be paint the individual. I should have something to follow this up, make a nice little conclusion-but I got nothin'.

Hmm... because I guess they think the topic often generalizes all men often as being wife-beaters?
I think this is it, the tendency to take a statistical trend and feel that it a general edict. A lot of men abuse women does not mean all men abuse women, but they still take it as an accusation. As if they are supposed to answer for those other men. (I'm a dude...I just realized I was writing this too vague).

I see that a lot, taking a statistical observation to paint the individual. I should have something to follow this up, make a nice little conclusion-but I got nothin'.

Thats why I used the words IF ITS TRUE. I read the whole article and it is slanted so much it made me sick, but some of it does make sense while some of it does not.


Ok, good...had me worried for a moment you were just going to take it at face value..sorry I underestimated you:).

I think this is it, the tendency to take a statistical trend and feel that it a general edict. A lot of men abuse women does not mean all men abuse women, but they still take it as an accusation. As if they are supposed to answer for those other men. (I'm a dude...I just realized I was writing this too vague).

I see that a lot, taking a statistical observation to be paint the individual. I should have something to follow this up, make a nice little conclusion-but I got nothin'.

Men getting upset about this...a statistical trend as though it were an accusation...is as silly as me getting offended by people talking about the real problem of natives and alcoholism. I don't take it to mean people are saying all natives are alcoholics is they talk about it...

Point being, getting defensive and then dismissing the problem does no good.

And with that...good night all!

This is even funnier...Ms Information...hahaha! The radical feminazis are out to steal our tax dollars by pretending there is violence against women! Watch out! :D

You know the one point they made that I agreed with is that there is no reason why this bill can't be applied universally to address abuse instead of just one kind of abuse. Anger management courses for both genders is an excellent suggestion. Other types of counseling for both genders is also appropriate. It doesn't treat the problems like they occur with equal frequency but it does send the message that violence is unacceptable regardless of what the perpetrator or victim have between their legs.

Ok, good...had me worried for a moment you were just going to take it at face value..sorry I underestimated you:).


Not a problem. B0zzy started a whole new topic about feminists.

Not a problem. B0zzy started a whole new topic about feminists.
I know...I haven't been so amused in weeks!

Men getting upset about this...a statistical trend as though it were an accusation...is as silly as me getting offended by people talking about the real problem of natives and alcoholism. I don't take it to mean people are saying all natives are alcoholics is they talk about it...

Point being, getting defensive and then dismissing the problem does no good.

And with that...good night all!

Well, I think there is something in how it's asked. I don't go up to black people and ask why there is so many black people in jail and expect them to have the answer anymore than you or I do, unless they themselves have been involved with jail (gone to jail, put someone in jail, etc.) I'm a man and I don't abuse women so I don't specifically know why men abuse women. I don't generally get upset when people try to explore the issue. However, if someone comes up to me and says, "Hey, there, Man, why do you men abuse women so?" Well, then I might get a little defensive. Perhaps it has to do with how you ask the question.

Men getting upset about this...a statistical trend as though it were an accusation...is as silly as me getting offended by people talking about the real problem of natives and alcoholism. I don't take it to mean people are saying all natives are alcoholics is they talk about it...

Point being, getting defensive and then dismissing the problem does no good.

And with that...good night all!
Yeah, that would have been the gist of my conclusion thingy. It's silly to take it as a personal accusation. That.

I know...I haven't been so amused in weeks!


It's been a good day for laughs on NationStates today.

I'll try to take an honest stab at the topic ... I get defensive whenever this subject is brought up because neither I nor anyone I know advocates hitting women under any circumstances (well ... if she hit first, she deserves one back). We resent the insinuation, which is perhaps unintended, that accuses huge swaths of the male population of being active or wanna-be wife-beaters.

Also, I just don't see what good yelling and screaming about this topic will do. In high school, we used to be subjected to the Walk Against Male Violence and all its attendant propaganda. Leaving aside my resentment that it singles out "male violence," when they could have just called it the Walk Against Domestic Abuse, let me explain what I thought of it. My reaction is usually, so what? I don't hit women, and I doubt a bunch of people walking is going to persuade the abusers to quit their evil ways. This Walk seemed like nothing so much as an awareness-raiser in disguise for various radical feminist groups. It was totally irrelevant to me and to most of my schoolmates.

I think it's the same with domestic violence. If you count every incidence of battery (technically, I have battered you if I poke you in the chest with my finger. Seriously, I was in court once with a guy who was charged with battery for, according to the police report read by the court "poking his wife repeatedly in the chest with his index finger") then you will have numbers that might look like the incidence of abuse is spread among both genders. The only physical confrontation I ever got in with a boyfriend was because he did that.
He repeated jabbed me in the chest with his finger. After about the fourth time I slugged him in the jaw. He started screaming about me being abusive. I told him he got physical first, and if he did it again he'd get slugged again.
While it did hurt a little, the main thing going on in my mind was "How dare he lay a hand on me in anger!"
Was it an over reaction? Not in my book. The very idea of a man even subconsciously trying to intimidate me with his superior size and strength pisses me off to no end. It scares me, and I get really aggressive when frightened.

BTW, he later apologized for getting physical and we never fought physically again.

As for the woman who admitted to being sexually abused that is almost impossible to imagine them all admiting something like that. Makes me want to cry.

It probably only took one admitting it to help the others open up. In my experience, especially when a group of women are talking, one person telling about their experience makes everyone feel comfortable talking about theirs as well.

This may be equally true in a group of men, of course, but I'm never in a group of all men. =)

The only physical confrontation I ever got in with a boyfriend was because he did that.
He repeated jabbed me in the chest with his finger. After about the fourth time I slugged him in the jaw. He started screaming about me being abusive. I told him he got physical first, and if he did it again he'd get slugged again.
While it did hurt a little, the main thing going on in my mind was "How dare he lay a hand on me in anger!"
Was it an over reaction? Not in my book. The very idea of a man even subconsciously trying to intimidate me with his superior size and strength pisses me off to no end. It scares me, and I get really aggressive when frightened.

BTW, he later apologized for getting physical and we never fought physically again.


You were more than right to strike him.

It probably only took one admitting it to help the others open up. In my experience, especially when a group of women are talking, one person telling about their experience makes everyone feel comfortable talking about theirs as well.

This may be equally true in a group of men, of course, but I'm never in a group of all men. =)


I know I wouldn't feel comfortable talking to other guys about being abused. We just don't like to talk about certain issues. I mean in general we pretty much just bull shit with each other.

The only physical confrontation I ever got in with a boyfriend was because he did that.
He repeated jabbed me in the chest with his finger. After about the fourth time I slugged him in the jaw. He started screaming about me being abusive. I told him he got physical first, and if he did it again he'd get slugged again.
While it did hurt a little, the main thing going on in my mind was "How dare he lay a hand on me in anger!"
Was it an over reaction? Not in my book. The very idea of a man even subconsciously trying to intimidate me with his superior size and strength pisses me off to no end. It scares me, and I get really aggressive when frightened.

BTW, he later apologized for getting physical and we never fought physically again.

Does that sound like an overreaction to anyone else?

Does that sound like an overreaction to anyone else?

It would, if it weren't for what my aunt once told me.

She said: "If a man ever hits you, don't worry about hitting him back. Shoot him in the face."

Of course, she was joking, but it makes most escalation in violence pale by comparison, eh?

Does that sound like an overreaction to anyone else?

I don't think so. My ex said that if I ever hit her she'd kill me so he got off lucky.

I don't think so. My ex said that if I ever hit her she'd kill me so he got off lucky.

You call that luck, eh? I call that women with hair triggers. Besides, a poke in the chest doesn't count as hitting.

You call that luck, eh? I call that women with hair triggers. Besides, a poke in the chest doesn't count as hitting.


Well I guess it would also depend on how hard he poked her.

It probably only took one admitting it to help the others open up. In my experience, especially when a group of women are talking, one person telling about their experience makes everyone feel comfortable talking about theirs as well.

This may be equally true in a group of men, of course, but I'm never in a group of all men. =)

You would be amazed about how many men will open up in mixed company if the right situation presents itself.

Let's not forget that we're talking about a woman who decked her boyfriend because he poked her. Is that kind of escalation justified?

You would be amazed about how many men will open up in mixed company if the right situation presents itself.

I just know that myself I couldn't do it unless I was drunk for the first time in my life.

Since you didn't answer me in the other thread:

Sorry if 20 minutes is not prompt enough for you. There are occasions when I actually leave the PC to tend to something called 'my life'.

http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2005/0525roberts.html


This site is rather amusing...it calls itself iFeminist, but is about as anti-feminist as you can get. It's also incredibly biased as evidenced by the words they use when speaking about 'feminists'. I love that this article is trying to say that women are just as abusive as men, and the whole men abusing women thing is just a feminist lie.
Just because it does not view gender equality through the same biased lense you do does not make it anti-feminist. grow up. Different people have differet opinions. Lableing them anti- something just because you cannot grasp their point is not constructive and small-minded.

In any case, you present this as though it answers my question [which was, why do some men get so indignant about the topic of wife abuse], but really what you have answered is this:

"Do you believe men are abusing women, and if so, are they doing it more than visa versa?"

Bozzy, "No."

Um, no. I provided (and even bolded for the comprehension challenged) exactly why some men become indignant at the mention of gender abuse. If you are so indignant as to not be able to see that then I suggest you need to take a break for a while and come back later when you feel more rational.

This is even funnier...Ms Information...hahaha! The radical feminazis are out to steal our tax dollars by pretending there is violence against women! Watch out! :D
'Ms. Information' is funny. Sadly it is funny because there is just enough truth in it to sting. Not about violence, but by the radical feminist attempt to make it into a gender problem rather than a social problem which victimizes both sexes. I suppose only someone who does not care what happens to men could miss that.

(see - I can cut and paste from one thread to another too!)

Don't believe everything someone posts here. Look into it and make your own decisions.

In other words, don't qustion the radical feminist dogma.

Let's not forget that we're talking about a woman who decked her boyfriend because he poked her. Is that kind of escalation justified?


Like I said a post back. It all depends on how hard he poked her. I've been poked in the chest by my older brother before and he left bruises all over.

I know I wouldn't feel comfortable talking to other guys about being abused. We just don't like to talk about certain issues. I mean in general we pretty much just bull shit with each other.
I've had several men confide in me about being sexually abused. I think it's easier for them to tell a woman than another man. Especially if their abuser was a man, they might fear being labeled as a homosexual.

Plus too many people think a guy lucked out if he was molested over the age of twelve by a woman.

You would be amazed about how many men will open up in mixed company if the right situation presents itself.

Oh, I am sure that many would. It just seems like the groups of guys I hang out with never get into conversations that serious. And I have only shared my own story with a select few guys who I trusted completely - and always in a one-on-one conversation.

I've had several men confide in me about being sexually abused. I think it's easier for them to tell a woman than another man. Especially if their abuser was a man, they might fear being labeled as a homosexual.

Plus too many people think a guy lucked out if he was molested over the age of twelve by a woman.


Interesting.

Just because it does not view gender equality through the same biased lense you do does not make it anti-feminist. grow up. Different people have differet opinions. Lableing them anti- something just because you cannot grasp their point is not constructive and small-minded.

Pot, meet kettle.

'Ms. Information' is funny. Sadly it is funny because there is just enough truth in it to sting. Not about violence, but by the radical feminist attempt to make it into a gender problem rather than a social problem which victimizes both sexes. I suppose only someone who does not care what happens to men could miss that.

Do you intentionally make up crazy things to accuse people of? If any of us had actually seen evidence of these things, we would be ranting against them. The problem is, I have yet to see anyone suggest that I ignore violence against men, or any of the other claims in that article.

Meanwhile, the article, much like you, attempted to paint all feminists with the same radical brush. That automatically discounts it, in my book.

In other words, don't qustion the radical feminist dogma.

Pot, meet kettle again!

How exactly does "Don't take anything you read to be absolute truth. Instead, look at it for yourself and make your own decisions" equate to "OH MY GOD YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE EVERYTHING I DO DON'T QUESTION ANYTHING AT ALL!!!!!!!"

You were more than right to strike him.

Play it in role reverse and tell me if you'd say the same to him.

Double standard.

The only physical confrontation I ever got in with a boyfriend was because he did that.
He repeated jabbed me in the chest with his finger. After about the fourth time I slugged him in the jaw. He started screaming about me being abusive. I told him he got physical first, and if he did it again he'd get slugged again.
While it did hurt a little, the main thing going on in my mind was "How dare he lay a hand on me in anger!"
Was it an over reaction? Not in my book. The very idea of a man even subconsciously trying to intimidate me with his superior size and strength pisses me off to no end. It scares me, and I get really aggressive when frightened.

BTW, he later apologized for getting physical and we never fought physically again.

I don't agree with what he did, but I don't agree with what you did either. Violence should be avoided unless it is required to protect life, liberty or property.

You call that luck, eh? I call that women with hair triggers. Besides, a poke in the chest doesn't count as hitting.

He was 6'4" and 190 pounds. At that time I was 122 pounds, and I'm 5'7".
He was being a bully. It was meant to intimidate. It pissed me off as much as it frightened me.

Yes, I do have a hair-trigger. Men who are violent freak me out. Even though my father was rarely physically violent, he would loom over you and scream and snarl in your face. I will never let a man intimidate me like that again.

My rule is if you slap me, shove me, yank me to the side or poke me in a fight, you are a violent man. And I will deal with you in whatever manner works. The gloves are off.

Play it in reverse and tell me if you'd say the same to him.

Double standard.


It is a double standard but one we as men have to live with. Sure you can get away with hitting a female when your under the age of 10 but after that no way in hell.

I believe that they get indignant because of the survey. When a woman sees something like this she tells her friends about it which in turn they tell their friends. etc etc. they (the men) get defensive and indignant because they assume (whether rightfully or wrongfully is irrelevant) that the women will conclude that ALL men are abusive. Which isn't true of course but some men being control freaks who want control will assume that assumption which makes him all the more prevalent to violence against women.

(They want control and they will get it by any means necessary including abuse. It's a control issue and possibly psychological in nature. It's a sad state of affairs not only for the women who are abused and yes killed by their spouses, But for single men(and women. abuse happens to both sexes but not as prevalent and as common as wife/girlfriend abuse) as well. (They're afraid of this particular survey because they may think that the women he may want to court think he may be an abuser. WHich makes it harder for a single guy who isn't abusive to find a mate.)

There's my two cents on the issue.

I dunno what do i know, I'm just a SWM!! :D

You call that luck, eh? I call that women with hair triggers. Besides, a poke in the chest doesn't count as hitting.

A poke in the chest is assault. It does in fact COUNT as hitting.

I just know that myself I couldn't do it unless I was drunk for the first time in my life.

I understand that it can be very difficult.

You all have a great night and or day depending on where you live. Try to keep things civil. :D

(snip)

Do you intentionally make up crazy things to accuse people of? If any of us had actually seen evidence of these things, we would be ranting against them. The problem is, I have yet to see anyone suggest that I ignore violence against men, or any of the other claims in that article.

Meanwhile, the article, much like you, attempted to paint all feminists with the same radical brush. That automatically discounts it, in my book.

(snip)"

The evicence you seek is clearly illustrated in the sources of each article. I hear no ranting on your part.

The articles and sites do not paid all feminists with the same brush. If you took the time to review them (which I sincerely doubt since it has barely been thirty minutes since I posted this) then you would see that. Instead you react to it as though someone challenged your religion. Insiste that I've 'broken the faith'. You seem nearly ready to call Jihad.

These sites simply suggest that the gendercentric approach to gender equality has resulted in comsiderable imbalance in the treatment of men and women. Judging by your reaction I would say that you consider the equal treatment of men a threat too frightening to even deserve consideration. - which is one fo the many things which differentiate a radical 'gender' feminist from an individualist feminist.

sometimes you have to put the smackdown on a hoe

.you better know that I'm kidding!!!!!!!!.

A long time ago i was in a hotel coming back to the room from the pool. i didn't have my glasses and got off at the wrong floor. i was trying to figure out where i was and i heard this guy yelling at his wife and daughers. it was one of the worse thing i've ever heard. and, i think the reason the statistics are so high is because its always been accepted as a fact. some wemon get abused by their husbands. its always been that way. and in a way i think we've become jaded to that fact. if it were a new thing i think the response would be completly different.

Oh, I am sure that many would. It just seems like the groups of guys I hang out with never get into conversations that serious. And I have only shared my own story with a select few guys who I trusted completely - and always in a one-on-one conversation.

It is good to know who to trust as well. Many people have admitted to being abused to the wrong person and than were met with recriminations. When you do find a person you can confide in it makes a huge difference.

He was 6'4" and 190 pounds. At that time I was 122 pounds, and I'm 5'7".
He was being a bully. It was meant to intimidate. It pissed me off as much as it frightened me.

Yes, I do have a hair-trigger. Men who are violent freak me out. Even though my father was rarely physically violent, he would loom over you and scream and snarl in your face. I will never let a man intimidate me like that again.

My rule is if you slap me, shove me, yank me to the side or poke me in a fight, you are a violent man. And I will deal with you in whatever manner works. The gloves are off.

You can only be intimidated if you let yourself be intimidated. He didn't hit you, and he wasn't going to hit you or harm you in any way. You could have just ignored his efforts, or turned away. Instead, you threw the first punch and turned an argument into a fight.

You say that because you hit him, he hasn't tried anything like that since then, and you're happy because of that. Well, what if he'd hit you? That could have been "beneficial," by your standards. If you'd known he was going to pay you back one-for-one, maybe you'd learn to not resort to violence so easily.

It is a double standard but one we as men have to live with. (snip).

Says who? Why should men tolerate abuse?

Says who? Why should men tolerate abuse?

Also germane to the subject: so men abuse women. Women abuse men. What can be done to stop it? Nothing.

He was 6'4" and 190 pounds. At that time I was 122 pounds, and I'm 5'7".
He was being a bully. It was meant to intimidate. It pissed me off as much as it frightened me.

Yes, I do have a hair-trigger. Men who are violent freak me out. Even though my father was rarely physically violent, he would loom over you and scream and snarl in your face. I will never let a man intimidate me like that again.

My rule is if you slap me, shove me, yank me to the side or poke me in a fight, you are a violent man. And I will deal with you in whatever manner works. The gloves are off.

Okay and the time when someone pokes you and you hit them back and they kick the living crap don't be surprised. The goal in any confrontation should be to end it with as little violence as possible. People who escalate confrontations almost always find that themselves on the losing end of that battle eventually.

A long time ago i was in a hotel coming back to the room from the pool. i didn't have my glasses and got off at the wrong floor. i was trying to figure out where i was and i heard this guy yelling at his wife and daughers. it was one of the worse thing i've ever heard. and, i think the reason the statistics are so high is because its always been accepted as a fact. some wemon get abused by their husbands. its always been that way. and in a way i think we've become jaded to that fact. if it were a new thing i think the response would be completly different.

Yes, and we've also become jaded to women cold-cocking their boyfriends in the jaw.

The point is, violence and abuse is not the province of only one gender.

The evicence you seek is clearly illustrated in the sources of each article. I hear no ranting on your part.

Each article? You only posted one in this thread darling.

The articles and sites do not paid all feminists with the same brush.

The site you linked to stated that the feminist movement was all a sham and was actually about oppressing men. It doesn't say "The radical side of feminism wants these things."

Instead you react to it as though someone challenged your religion. Insiste that I've 'broken the faith'. You seem nearly ready to call Jihad.

Considering that this is a favorite act with you, I don't have to do much research here. You constantly bring up articles that are clearly biased, rather than linking to actual statistics. You consistently stereotype all feminists as their more radical counterparts, despite examples to the contrary being evident on these very boards. What exactly do you expect?

These sites simply suggest that the gendercentric approach to gender equality has resulted in comsiderable imbalance in the treatment of men and women. Judging by your reaction I would say that you consider the equal treatment of men a threat too frightening to even deserve consideration. - which is one fo the many things which differentiate a radical 'gender' feminist from an individualist feminist.

Incorrect. That is not all they claim. If it was all they claimed, there would be no problem at all.

In truth, I have been accused of being too concerned with the plight of men by more than one person around here. I have also consistently argued against a discussion of gender equality that focuses only on one gender. But you have fun with your little generalization.

Meanwhile, what the sites say is that the entire feminist movement equates to these things, which it does not. Even most organizations that started out mostly focused on women have moved away from that.

He was 6'4" and 190 pounds. At that time I was 122 pounds, and I'm 5'7".
He was being a bully. It was meant to intimidate. It pissed me off as much as it frightened me.

Yes, I do have a hair-trigger. Men who are violent freak me out. Even though my father was rarely physically violent, he would loom over you and scream and snarl in your face. I will never let a man intimidate me like that again.

My rule is if you slap me, shove me, yank me to the side or poke me in a fight, you are a violent man. And I will deal with you in whatever manner works. The gloves are off.

I'll agree to that BUT my rule is if a woman plays headgames, leeches from me or kicks me in the balls then you are kicked to the curb!! (figuratively speaking not literally!! :D)

You can only be intimidated if you let yourself be intimidated. He didn't hit you, and he wasn't going to hit you or harm you in any way. You could have just ignored his efforts, or turned away. Instead, you threw the first punch and turned an argument into a fight.

You say that because you hit him, he hasn't tried anything like that since then, and you're happy because of that. Well, what if he'd hit you? That could have been "beneficial," by your standards. If you'd known he was going to pay you back one-for-one, maybe you'd learn to not resort to violence so easily.

He assaulted her first and this fact cannot be ignored. You don't have the right to lay hands on anyone and you should expect that if you do, you may find your end on the business end of a fist. I'm not supporting escalating violence but you make it sound like the man was just yelling at her. Poking is a violently aggressive act.

Also germane to the subject: so men abuse women. Women abuse men. What can be done to stop it? Nothing.
I would disagree. already considerable strides have been made addressing male to female violence. If only half the effort were made addressing the couterpart considerable progress could be made - particularly if it were to focus on verbal and emotional abuse as much as physical abuse.

Poking is a violently aggressive act.

Holy shit! I'd hate to think what your opinion of shaking hands would be... or tickling.

It depends how hard poking is... you really cant make a blanket statement like that, its ridiculous. I mean just re-read it...

He assaulted her first and this fact cannot be ignored. You don't have the right to lay hands on anyone and you should expect that if you do, you may find your end on the business end of a fist. I'm not supporting escalating violence but you make it sound like the man was just yelling at her. Poking is a violently aggressive act.

Bah, it's a childish schoolyard tactic, not something that ought to qualify as battery. The law has become too sensitive, to the point where you can't touch anyone, ever, without it techically being assault.

sometimes you have to put the smackdown on a hoe

.you better know that I'm kidding!!!!!!!!.

I see someone is feeling humorous. Besides you must be of such excellent quality that you would only associate with ladies. :)

I would disagree. already considerable strides have been made addressing male to female violence. If only half the effort were made addressing the couterpart considerable progress could be made - particularly if it were to focus on verbal and emotional abuse as much as physical abuse.

I haven't seen many positive efforts to address either side of the issue. They're usually in the vein of the "Walks Against Male Violence" that I mentioned earlier.

I know this may sound mundane or even stupid. but....

CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?! :D

If this keeps up all this violence against eachother and the human race will surely perish!!

I see someone is feeling humorous. Besides you must be of such excellent quality that you would only associate with ladies. :)


hehehe - I just heard a song the other day with that saying in it: "I know it's not P.C. but sometimes you have to put the smackdown on a hoe". My fiancee and I had a good chuckle, especially because she is the one who does all the hitting. Not hard or even to hurt me, but jokingly and I dont mind because I know she would never intentionally hurt me. I've made her mad enough to know that if she wanted to hit me and hurt me she would have.

A few years ago, I pulled into a 7-11 to get a can of suff, I'am from Texas and a big cowboy to boot, but this car pulls up next to my truck and this guy is beating the shit out of this woman. He was slamming her face into the dashboard and her nose was bloody. I went inside the store got my snuff and asked the clerk to call the police, because I saw a guy beating this woman in their parking lot. She didn't want to get envoloved and I should mind my own business. I said, ok I'll take care of it my self. I pulled that bastard half way out the window of his car and I beat the crap out of him and kicked him with my boots a couple of times, just so I'd know he was feeling it and I drove off. I'am sure the clerk called the cops after I kicked the punk's butt, but they never found me.

No man has ever got the right to hit a woman or abuse a child and I wish those who do a painful death and rot in hell!

hehehe - I just heard a song the other day with that saying in it: "I know it's not P.C. but sometimes you have to put the smackdown on a hoe". My fiancee and I had a good chuckle, especially because she is the one who does all the hitting. Not hard or even to hurt me, but jokingly and I dont mind because I know she would never intentionally hurt me. I've made her mad enough to know that if she wanted to hit me and hurt me she would have.

Was that Incubus, from one of their earlier albums? I remember the first time I heard that song, I burst out laughing and played it for all of my friends.

No man has ever got the right to hit a woman or abuse a child and I wish those who do a painful death and rot in hell!

Mightn't it be better to say that no one has the right to hit anyone else, except in self-defense, and no one at all has the right to abuse a child?

Mightn't it be better to say that no one has the right to hit anyone else, except in self-defense, and no one at all has the right to abuse a child?

Better? Yes. Not more honest. Tex here thinks women are weaker and thus it is even more of a crime to hit women than to hit men.

(snip)

The site you linked to stated that the feminist movement was all a sham and was actually about oppressing men. (snip)

Really? I missed that line. Care to link/quote it?


Considering that this is a favorite act with you,
Yes, I love posting factual content contrary to conventional beliefs.

I don't have to do much research here. You constantly bring up articles that are clearly biased, rather than linking to actual statistics.
Actual statistics tend to be a bit dry, so I link to articles which are well backed by them and widely circulated. It is not a unique practice. You'll have to try harder to bury the facts which each article contains. Just calling them 'biased' does you no service - and it certainly does little to enlighten yourself. I still have doubts you've even read the articles I linked - Had I linked the actual research backing each it is doubtful that you'd have gotten past the innitial abstract.

You consistently stereotype all feminists as their more radical counterparts, despite examples to the contrary being evident on these very boards. What exactly do you expect?
(snip)

Meanwhile, what the sites say is that the entire feminist movement equates to these things, which it does not. Even most organizations that started out mostly focused on women have moved away from that.



If feminists were truly interested in gender equity then the issues I've discussed would be addressed by the primary feminist groups. Try doing a search on the National Organization of Women for anything I've related here and tell me how much you really think they care about gender equality. Yet they are considered the feminist standard-bearer by many.


In truth, I have been accused of being too concerned with the plight of men by more than one person around here. I have also consistently argued against a discussion of gender equality that focuses only on one gender. But you have fun with your little generalization.
demonstrate. Link such a post. BTW - it is not the size of your generalization that matters, but how you use it.

You can only be intimidated if you let yourself be intimidated. He didn't hit you, and he wasn't going to hit you or harm you in any way. You could have just ignored his efforts, or turned away. Instead, you threw the first punch and turned an argument into a fight.

You say that because you hit him, he hasn't tried anything like that since then, and you're happy because of that. Well, what if he'd hit you? That could have been "beneficial," by your standards. If you'd known he was going to pay you back one-for-one, maybe you'd learn to not resort to violence so easily.By your standards it's apparently alright if no real damage is done. Perhaps you liked the old Texas spousal rape law?
Since this assualt didn't "harm" me, it was okay. Well, he didn't have a mark on him, so hitting him must be peachy. Though it wasn't my intention, it was just a glancing blow. He intended to imtimidate me, but intentions don't count. So I suppose the fact that I intended to knock his teeth out doesn't either.

@ Jocabia- If you let a man get away with violence once, he thinks it's okay. It escalates. Many a friend shrugged it off when he just blocked her exit with his body, held wrists in a vise-grip or sat on her to keep her put. When he wrapped his arms around her and clamped his hand over her mouth to keep her silent. Only to cal me six months or a year down the line to help them move out while he was at work because it was now to the punching stage.

I made it clear to Tony that I considered that kind of physical contact during a fight violence. And that I would respond in like. True, I trusted him not to escalate the violence. You may not approve of the way I got my message through, but it worked.

What if he was the type that would escalate? Well, I find it hard to believe I'd be in a relationship with him in the first place. I was shocked at his actions in the first place. But I could get fooled, people do.

Yes, I have gotten the shit kicked out of me for standing up to the wrong person. It may happen again. But I'd rather have that happen than to ever be bullied again.

He assaulted her first and this fact cannot be ignored. You don't have the right to lay hands on anyone and you should expect that if you do, you may find your end on the business end of a fist. I'm not supporting escalating violence but you make it sound like the man was just yelling at her. Poking is a violently aggressive act.

You ignore the point - were their roles reversed would you consider him just in striking her?

Was that Incubus, from one of their earlier albums? I remember the first time I heard that song, I burst out laughing and played it for all of my friends.


Actually it was on a Drum and Bass CD that I don't know the name of. On Point or something like that I think.

Better? Yes. Not more honest. Tex here thinks women are weaker and thus it is even more of a crime to hit women than to hit men.In case you haven't noticed, generally women are physically weaker. I would disagree with someone hitting a much smaller man too. It's one of the reasons you don't hit small children.

If a ten year old hits you, even on purpose, do you hit him as hard as you can to teach him a lesson? I hope not. The damage you can do to him is disproportionate to what he can do to you. If I'm considerably larger than anyone, using full force on him is a no-no.

You ignore the point - were their roles reversed would you consider him just in striking her?Perhaps you missed his admonition to me. He thinks both actions unjustified.

Bah, it's a childish schoolyard tactic, not something that ought to qualify as battery. The law has become too sensitive, to the point where you can't touch anyone, ever, without it techically being assault.

There's a reason for that. It is. My person is sacred and you have no right to lay hands on it. Now the "law" knows that if you lay hands on me it is likely that I will do the same to you and the situation can and often does escalate to extreme violence. The law is designed to encourage a person to walk away. Otherwise, where is the line? If you poke and it's not assault but it hurts, do I have a right to prevent you from poking me? Perhaps by grabbing your finger and twisting it until you are thoroughly discouraged from trying something like that again? Again, escalation. Should they try to find a way to settle it without the law? Yes, of course. But it is illegal so the 'law' has the option of addressing it if it becomes a problem. Much like barfights rarely need charges to be filed, but they are illegal giving the 'law' the option of addressing it if it becomes a problem.

The stats for domestic abuse towards women are staggering, and vastly outnumber the stats of woman on man abuse in relationships. It's still a big problem in every nation on earth...but the second you bring it up, some men get angry about the topic and try to say that it's overblown, is total bullshit, or shouldn't be such an issue...

...any insights into why this is?
Probably much the same reason why white people get defensive when racism is brought up. The subject of domestic violence is often broached in a way that makes ALL men feel like they are being targetted. People say things like, "Men will abuse their wives if..." or "X number of women are beaten by men each year..." or "Men have X trait that makes them more likely to be violent..." This lumps all men together under the umbrella of 'potential woman-beater and otherwise nasty character.' Lots of men don't like that, and I can understand why.

I don't think there is any GOOD reason why any man (or woman) would try to downplay the seriousness of domestic abuse. But I do think there are reasons why men might get upset or defensive about the subject, and I think it is unfair to assume that all these reasons center on "they are big jerks" or "they are cavemen with no clue."

Holy shit! I'd hate to think what your opinion of shaking hands would be... or tickling.

It depends how hard poking is... you really cant make a blanket statement like that, its ridiculous. I mean just re-read it...

How about you look up the word context? Yes, poking can be friendly. Much like hiting can be friendly. Here it was a violently aggressive act done in anger. How about you read the actual statements in context so we can have a conversation instead a bunch of ridiculous statements like you made above?

In case you haven't noticed, generally women are physically weaker. I would disagree with someone hitting a much smaller man too. It's one of the reasons you don't hit small children.

If a ten year old hits you, even on purpose, do you hit him as hard as you can to teach him a lesson? I hope not. The damage you can do to him is disproportionate to what he can do to you. If I'm considerably larger than anyone, using full force on him is a no-no.

Size isn't everything. It's silly to assume that the scale of criminality coincides with the difference in sheer size of the victim and abuser. Children are not fully developed and are usually not mentally capable (to say nothing of physicality) of engaging in combat with an adult anyway. Women have no such excuse these days, not when there are so many women who can - and love to claim they can - kick just as much ass as males, regardless of size.

How about you look up the word context? Yes, poking can be friendly. Much like hiting can be friendly. Here it was a violently aggressive act done in anger. How about you read the actual statements in context so we can have a conversation instead a bunch of ridiculous statements like you made above?


It was your statement that was ridiculous. "Poking is a violently aggressive act." If there was some other context you meant, you should have clarified it yourself. "In anger" does not mean "violently aggressive" either.

Perhaps you missed his admonition to me. He thinks both actions unjustified.
On that we can agree.

Were someone unwise enough to do that to me I'd simply grab their index finger and, well, a lesson would be learned which does not produce bruising.

He was 6'4" and 190 pounds. At that time I was 122 pounds, and I'm 5'7".
He was being a bully. It was meant to intimidate. It pissed me off as much as it frightened me.

Yes, I do have a hair-trigger. Men who are violent freak me out. Even though my father was rarely physically violent, he would loom over you and scream and snarl in your face. I will never let a man intimidate me like that again.

My rule is if you slap me, shove me, yank me to the side or poke me in a fight, you are a violent man. And I will deal with you in whatever manner works. The gloves are off.
I'm with you, but I extend that to any person (male or female). I give plenty of warning, by clearly and directly informing somebody that they are not to touch me, and if they choose to do so again I do whatever the hell I feel is appropriate to get my point across. My body is mine, and if anybody wants to fuck with it against my wishes then they are welcome to come try :).

A fellow in a pub once thought it was cute to grab my bottom when I walked past. I told him that if he touched me inappropriately again then I would touch him inappropriately. My tone made it clear that this was a warning, not an invitation, yet he decided to grab me a second time. His testicles made an interesting noise when my knee drove into them.

The stats for domestic abuse towards women are staggering, and vastly outnumber the stats of woman on man abuse in relationships. It's still a big problem in every nation on earth...but the second you bring it up, some men get angry about the topic and try to say that it's overblown, is total bullshit, or shouldn't be such an issue...

...any insights into why this is?

Its used alot to punish men. A women will hit herself with something then say there husband has done it to them. Therefore in the states. The husband goes to jail because of some bitch of a wife. I have seen it happen twice to friends of mine. One time I witnessed such an act. The police didnt believe him and me for that matter. Off to jail my buddy went. Led to a divorce btw. But this kind of thing doesnt do justice to the real women that get beat. Which i dont condone one bit. Neither should a women be hitting on her husband or boyfriend.

Size isn't everything. It's silly to assume that the scale of criminality coincides with the difference in sheer size of the victim and abuser. Children are not fully developed and are usually not mentally capable (to say nothing of physicality) of engaging in combat with an adult anyway. Women have no such excuse these days, not when there are so many women who can - and love to claim they can - kick just as much ass as males, regardless of size.
I generally think it's wrong to use more force than necessary to fight someone who is not a threat to you.
If you can hold someone down to prevent them from hitting you, do it. If a petite 98 pound woman slaps her 250 pound boyfriend, she's wrong. But he's doubley so if he slugs her full force and breaks every bone in her face.

While my knee jerk reaction is you should knock the crap out of someone who hits you, things should be proportionate. Perhaps me hitting him was not the perfect response, but no one has the right to lay hands on me like that without a badge and just cause.

And trying to physically intimidate your significant other like that is abusive.

@ Jocabia- If you let a man get away with violence once, he thinks it's okay. It escalates. Many a friend shrugged it off when he just blocked her exit with his body, held wrists in a vise-grip or sat on her to keep her put. When he wrapped his arms around her and clamped his hand over her mouth to keep her silent. Only to cal me six months or a year down the line to help them move out while he was at work because it was now to the punching stage.

I made it clear to Tony that I considered that kind of physical contact during a fight violence. And that I would respond in like. True, I trusted him not to escalate the violence. You may not approve of the way I got my message through, but it worked.

What if he was the type that would escalate? Well, I find it hard to believe I'd be in a relationship with him in the first place. I was shocked at his actions in the first place. But I could get fooled, people do.

Yes, I have gotten the shit kicked out of me for standing up to the wrong person. It may happen again. But I'd rather have that happen than to ever be bullied again.

Your anecdotes about your friends would not have worked out differently had your friends hit back. I wasn't suggesting you ignore it. Personally, I've left women for hitting me even if they didn't hurt me. My anecdote - I had a woman hit me when she got mad and I walked away. Then I talked to her later and made it clear to her that the next hit would be the end of our relationship and if it resulted in injury I would involve the law. She never laid hands on me again. That your situation did not escalate and he never did it again does not excuse the violence. However, had he made it impossible to walk away, I would view it differently. The circumstances are very important, but the way you tell the story you were both wrong and you were both lucky it worked it out okay. You are just as likely not to be bullied if you don't associate with bullies.

I generally think it's wrong to use more force than necessary to fight someone who is not a threat to you.
If you can hold someone down to prevent them from hitting you, do it. If a petite 98 pound woman slaps her 250 pound boyfriend, she's wrong. But he's doubley so if he slugs her full force and breaks every bone in her face.

While my knee jerk reaction is you should knock the crap out of someone who hits you, things should be proportionate. Perhaps me hitting him was not the perfect response, but no one has the right to lay hands on me like that without a badge and just cause.

And trying to physically intimidate your significant other like that is abusive.

It is but intimidation period is psychological abuse as well. if u felt that your life was in danger then sure hit the bastard. it's perfectly legit self-defense. But i'm sure the line has to be drawn somewhere. You can go TOO far. Not in the sense of defending yourself. but if you hit someone, whether you are male or feamle just to show how much of a tough ass you are then you are either gonna get arrested or you are going to get beaten or even killed. All over how big of a tough ass you are!! Now tell me is that really worth it in the end??

Really? I missed that line. Care to link/quote it?

Actually, I apologize. This particular article occasionally remembers to talk about radical feminists, rather than all. It does make some generalizations, but isn't nearly as bad as what I usually ssee you posting.

Actual statistics tend to be a bit dry, so I link to articles which are well backed by them and widely circulated.

There were no statistics actually linked in this article, at least not that I saw. It simply referred to some nefarious plot to cover up evidence, ignoring the fact that the statistics they assume everyone is just lying about came out of a study that was well-cited itself.

Just calling them 'biased' does you no service - and it certainly does little to enlighten yourself.

I tend to prefer actual studies to ranting. Sorry if you are more swayed by the sensationalization.

I still have doubts you've even read the articles I linked - Had I linked the actual research backing each it is doubtful that you'd have gotten past the innitial abstract.

Darling, as I pointed out before, you linked a single article. And it was more of a rant. It had a few good points. For instance, any attempt at gender equality must address things from both sides. While the violence against women may be statistically more significant, battered men and women need equal attention on an individual level. However, it made them in a rant style that will turn most people off.

Meanwhile, I read scientific articles all the time. If you'd like to cite one, by all means, feel free. Peer-reviewed please.

If feminists were truly interested in gender equity then the issues I've discussed would be addressed by the primary feminist groups.

So the most vocal group always represents the majority?

Try doing a search on the National Organization of Women for anything I've related here and tell me how much you really think they care about gender equality. Yet they are considered the feminist standard-bearer by many.

I don't care for most of what NOW says any more than you do. In the threads that you have ranted about them, I have said as much.

demonstrate. Link such a post.

Go back and look at your own threads on these topics. You'll find me there. I'm not going to dig back through thousands of posts just because you want to fit me into a neat little stereotype.

You ignore the point - were their roles reversed would you consider him just in striking her?

No, I didn't ignore the point. I said clearly that both were wrong. You didn't read the thread. Reading all of the posts are generally good practice to prevent ignorant statements. I don't think either should have laid hands on the other. I don't agree with escalating violence, however, he started the violence.

It was your statement that was ridiculous. "Poking is a violently aggressive act." If there was some other context you meant, you should have clarified it yourself. "In anger" does not mean "violently aggressive" either.

Your statement is intentionally ignorant. The context is available to you and it is clear I am talking about poking in anger. I assumed you could read the thread. Since you clearly can't I won't bother to admonish you. I will just continue to have reasonable discussions with those who can.

On that we can agree.

Were someone unwise enough to do that to me I'd simply grab their index finger and, well, a lesson would be learned which does not produce bruising.

And you would be escalating the violence and you would be wrong as well.

I generally think it's wrong to use more force than necessary to fight someone who is not a threat to you.
If you can hold someone down to prevent them from hitting you, do it. If a petite 98 pound woman slaps her 250 pound boyfriend, she's wrong. But he's doubley so if he slugs her full force and breaks every bone in her face.

While my knee jerk reaction is you should knock the crap out of someone who hits you, things should be proportionate. Perhaps me hitting him was not the perfect response, but no one has the right to lay hands on me like that without a badge and just cause.

And trying to physically intimidate your significant other like that is abusive.

I agree with everything you said here.

Though I have nothing against the topic in discussion, I do have something against zealots (of either sex) who take examples of such abuse and use it to unfairly label men in general.

Theres nothing like a good stereotypical argument to destroy ones credibility. Furthermore, it makes it very hard for men (in general) not to stand up to said arguments when the verbal beratings are given in a way condemning all men and not just those who been involved in such attrocities. When you condemn innocent people, and try to make them feel ashamed for something they have no control over - you alienate them and lose potential supporters of your cause.

(note: this is not in reference to any particular poster here, just a reference to another side of the issue that most times seems largely ignored.)

Your anecdotes about your friends would not have worked out differently had your friends hit back. I wasn't suggesting you ignore it. Personally, I've left women for hitting me even if they didn't hurt me. My anecdote - I had a woman hit me when she got mad and I walked away. Then I talked to her later and made it clear to her that the next hit would be the end of our relationship and if it resulted in injury I would involve the law. She never laid hands on me again. That your situation did not escalate and he never did it again does not excuse the violence. However, had he made it impossible to walk away, I would view it differently. The circumstances are very important, but the way you tell the story you were both wrong and you were both lucky it worked it out okay. You are just as likely not to be bullied if you don't associate with bullies.

I can see where your coming from, and part of me agrees. Perhaps taking the moral high ground would have worked. I'm just not the type of person to let something like that pass.
I absolutely will not tolerate being bullied. Maybe it's just because knocking the crap out of bullies in the schoolyard always worked better than telling the teacher.

BTW, the law doesn't always work so well.
When I called the cops on a roommate that shoved me over the coffee table during an altercation, they asked me to prove he had done it on purpose. He didn't get arrested, but he was mighty cold sleeping in the car in January.

When helping one of the aforementioned friends leave, her boyfriend grabbed me by the shoulders and slammed me against the wall a few times. When I called the cops, his friends lied and swore I hit him first. I had to drop charges or go to jail too. I still wish I'd gone to jail.

It's also the reason others got moved out while the boyfriend was out.

...any insights into why this is?

Self esteem issues.

If you're part of a group, especially if you're part of a group that you cannot help being a part of that group, some folks get a little put off when they hear over and over again how so many statistics point to their group being generally horrible people.

Just one of those things. It's sort of like telling a group of men that all men are potential rapists. Doesn't sit well with most men.

I can see where your coming from, and part of me agrees. Perhaps taking the moral high ground would have worked. I'm just not the type of person to let something like that pass.
I absolutely will not tolerate being bullied. Maybe it's just because knocking the crap out of bullies in the schoolyard always worked better than telling the teacher.

BTW, the law doesn't always work so well.
When I called the cops on a roommate that shoved me over the coffee table during an altercation, they asked me to prove he had done it on purpose. He didn't get arrested, but he was mighty cold sleeping in the car in January.

When helping one of the aforementioned friends leave, her boyfriend grabbed me by the shoulders and slammed me against the wall a few times. When I called the cops, his friends lied and swore I hit him first. I had to drop charges or go to jail too. I still wish I'd gone to jail.

It's also the reason others got moved out while the boyfriend was out.

Yes, I agree that those issues occur. I've been involved in my share of altercations. Many happened very similarly to what you're describing, but I've discovered that altercations are much easier to avoid by just avoiding the people who resort to physical violence or intimidation. I'm 6'1, 200 lbs, have less than 10% body fat, and very well trained in self-defense. I'm not easy to intimidate or to put in a situation where I would be hurt, but I would still rather leave or avoid a situation than have it escalate to violence. Mostly because I don't want to have any more injuries on my hands. I abhor violence and I think very highly of anyone who goes out of their way to avoid it.

Self esteem issues.

If you're part of a group, especially if you're part of a group that you cannot help being a part of that group, some folks get a little put off when they hear over and over again how so many statistics point to their group being generally horrible people.

Just one of those things. It's sort of like telling a group of men that all men are potential rapists. Doesn't sit well with most men.
Perhaps because stereotypes of any kind are reprehensible at best. Its no different than people constantly berating Americans for the actions of certain politicians and people in the States, or of certain Islamic fundamentalists whos actions have caused unrest and projection of stereotypes against an entire region of the world.

Its not self esteem, its an oversight and a not so subtle hypocracy to make statements condemning (even if only 'potentially') entire sexes, races, ethnicities, religious factions, groups or epochs of any kind.

Perhaps because stereotypes of any kind are reprehensible at best. Its no different than people constantly berating Americans for the actions of certain politicians and people in the States, or of certain Islamic fundamentalists whos actions have caused unrest and projection of stereotypes against an entire region of the world.

Its not self esteem, its an oversight and a not so subtle hypocracy to make statements condemning (even if only 'potentially') entire sexes, races, ethnicities, religious factions, groups or epochs of any kind.

Oh I dunno ... some of it is self esteem. I know I've never done anything to cause physical harm to anyone my entire life, nor have I ever committed an act of terrorism in any capacity. With that knowledge, I can easily chuckle and walk away if someone says "All Muslims are murderous terrorists!".

No problems.

Same with the statement "all men are potential rapists" or "all Jews are scheming thieves who drink the blood of Christian babies". I laugh it off. It's too retarded not to.

The ones who become indignant and defensive about such blatant idiocy should re-examine themselves a little.

Oh I dunno ... some of it is self esteem. I know I've never done anything to cause physical harm to anyone my entire life, nor have I ever committed an act of terrorism in any capacity. With that knowledge, I can easily chuckle and walk away if someone says "All Muslims are murderous terrorists!".

No problems.

Same with the statement "all men are potential rapists" or "all Jews are scheming thieves who drink the blood of Christian babies". I laugh it off. It's too retarded not to.

The ones who become indignant and defensive about such blatant idiocy should re-examine themselves a little.

AMEN TO THAT!!!

Oh I dunno ... some of it is self esteem. I know I've never done anything to cause physical harm to anyone my entire life, nor have I ever committed an act of terrorism in any capacity. With that knowledge, I can easily chuckle and walk away if someone says "All Muslims are murderous terrorists!".

No problems.

Same with the statement "all men are potential rapists" or "all Jews are scheming thieves who drink the blood of Christian babies". I laugh it off. It's too retarded not to.

The ones who become indignant and defensive about such blatant idiocy should re-examine themselves a little.
Its not that Im not agreeing with you, and I too can say that I have never physically harmed someone, nor commited an act of terrorism. That said, Its ok to laugh it off when people say these things... but when the numbers of said people combine, and form predjudiced zealot organizations that can cause a lot of civil unrest. No one likes to be made to feel less a person, and they should not have to be, particularly by the hands of many.

Its only natural to take offense if you are constantly made to feel under the scrutiny and public inspection of people who feel that some form of public injustice has been wrought against them, even if in no way it has (a good example recently would be Oprah playing the race card for being declined service).

No one wants to have to walk on political eggshells, or live under a microscope... constantly having to worry about whether or not some zealot will take them to arms over some misconstrued statement or maligned action. Its all fine and good to laugh it off... but you cant empower people to make you feel like that either.

*ahem*
Men and Women are different.

There! I said it! Phew, glad I got that off my chest.
We don't and can't treat them the same as each other. This isn't always such a bad thing.

I get defensive when people mention wife abuse? I hate the idea that wife abuse happens, I hate the fact that it's a hidden, unreported crime a lot of the time. I hate the fact that it happens between two people who potentially care about each other. I hate the fact that it happens to guys, too.
But I still get defensive. I get annoyed when someone brings up the topic. I point out that the statistics are skewed. I don't diminish the problem, but I don't want to discuss it.

and, despite this, I am NOT a bad person. I do NOT contribute to the problem. I do NOT condone wife abuse.

I've been told that I'm sexist because I accept the fact that males and females are different, with different natural inclinations and abilities. I've been lumped in the same categories as wife beaters and rapists by students (and by teachers, although in a more implied way) at my university. I've had discussions about this topic, where I tried to have a reasonable, logical argument (and, really, I'm on the "no guy should hit a woman" side. So it's not hard for feminists to agree with me). I've hit my head against a brick wall when discussing these topics with feminists. (I assume feminists, since that seems to be the social group the individuals in question identified with. I don't want to assume all feminists are like this, or that they didn't have these opinions because of other, non-feminist issues.)
So, yeah, I get defensive. I get defensive when a topic that will potentially vilify a group I identify with is brought up *without my consent*. I get defensive when I feel the need to defend MYSELF from something I have never done.
Now, I know you will say "that's just the rabid feminists". And it is. But they're also the ones bringing it up the most, and so thats the argument I'll assume is bring brought up. (argument, not discussion).

You can also say "they don't specifically mention you, don't take it so personally".
Hmm, let's think about some arguments I've heard. "Men are naturally more violent". Men? I'm a man. Am I naturally more violent? Perhaps. That's an argument against men for being wife beaters? Eeek! That directly applies to me. I'm not a wife beater. I can counter with "Men have had more practice channeling their violence" or "men are taught that violence against women is not appropriate". I'm feeling the need to defend myself, and counter this point.
How about "In a domestic situation, where the individual is getting physical, a man is more likely to get more physical than a woman". Aha! That doesn't lump me in the category, since I'm not in a domestic situation, and I don't get physical. And it instantly leaves out all the non-violent men. No need to get defensive.

And that's one of the more *reasonable* arguments I've heard.

I've asked someone who I was in a similar discussion whether she thought I was more likely than her to hit someone, just because I'm a man. She claimed that she did. I asked whether it's reasonable to assume that she'll be more likely to have an uneven temper because of hormonal changes throughout the month. She was insulted. Sure, I did mean to give an example that would shake her up. But, let's be fair. Say men are more likely to hit people, I'll accept that (and indeed believe it). But be fair, accept that there are other things that women are more or less likely to do too. Both genders have issues.


That's why I get defensive. When a (non-man-hating) friend (male or female) wishes to discuss this, I'm more than happy to. I'm not defensive, and more often than not, we end up agreeing on most points.

Bah, it's a childish schoolyard tactic, not something that ought to qualify as battery. The law has become too sensitive, to the point where you can't touch anyone, ever, without it techically being assault.

why do u think in kindergarten children are taught to keep their hands to themselves?

Your statement is intentionally ignorant. The context is available to you and it is clear I am talking about poking in anger. I assumed you could read the thread. Since you clearly can't I won't bother to admonish you. I will just continue to have reasonable discussions with those who can.

Calling me unable to read, unable to have reasonable discussion might be a reasonable argument for you here, if you yourself displayed behavior significantly different from what you are labelling mine as.

Poking, even in anger, is not "aggressively violent." That you think so shows a laughable ignorance of the nature of violence. Laughable, if it weren't so insulting to actual victims of real violence and aggression.

Come back when you can field a real response other than half-assed implied ad hominems.

I read poking in anger and was in danger of keeling over, what the hell is poking in anger?

Calling me unable to read, unable to have reasonable discussion might be a reasonable argument for you here, if you yourself displayed behavior significantly different from what you are labelling mine as.

Poking, even in anger, is not "aggressively violent." That you think so shows a laughable ignorance of the nature of violence. Laughable, if it weren't so insulting to actual victims of real violence and aggression.

Come back when you can field a real response other than half-assed implied ad hominems.

Amusing. Violating someone's person is both aggressive and violent and to suggest otherwise is to have a complete lack of understanding of the nature of escalating violence. Most victims of violence, myself included, would educate you that they find any unwelcome touching to be aggressive and touching with the intent to cause pain (as described by BitchKitten) is clearly violent. I'm sorry if you can't deal in degrees. Because there are worse forms of aggression and violence does not mean this doesn't qualify. Just because some men set women on fire doesn't mean that a woman who only gets smacked around on occasion isn't physically abused and to say otherwise is insulting to those actual victims of violence and aggression. Oddly, somehow the law and Webster's dictionary agree with me. How's that for a real response? By the way, when you choose to ignore the available context and I point it out, it's not an ad hominem; it's an assessment of the nature of your reply.

Violence -
1 a : exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse

Aggression -
1 : a forceful action or procedure (as an unprovoked attack) especially when intended to dominate or master
3 : hostile, injurious, or destructive behavior or outlook especially when caused by frustration

Why does it matter if more women are beaten than men?
It's still a problem, for both genders. Let's forget about the proportions.

The statistics we were looking at, for hospital visits. Hmm, let's think about this for a moment. Assuming domestic abuse is equal (which I'm not saying is true!) wouldn't we still expect to see more women in hospital for men? Men are larger and stronger, and therefore more capable of putting a woman into hospital. That's assuming that they are both equally willing to beat the other to that point.
Now, take into account that even a potentially abusive woman is less likely to hit a man for fear of being hit back, wheras a stronger male has less fear of this.
I'd expect more women in hospital. Of course, this means that we need more care for women, as they are more at risk.
But, yeah, this is all beside the point. They both need care.

So, what's the solution? What's the cause of the problem?
I can tell you that none of my close friends are obviously abused. I couldn't say about my neighbours, I just don't know what's going on in their lives. I'm told that there is very little domestic abuse in cypriot villiages, because everyone knows each other, and your wife will be some other villiage members daughter or sister. When domestic abuse happens, everyone knows, and someone has a quiet word. If it continues, there is a less quiet word, and maybe some pain. This is NOT a good, legal solution, and relies on the culture believing that domestic abuse is not acceptable. So, to me, this tells me that one of the problems is that people really just don't know each other. I see a man and woman screaming in the street, I walk on past. I don't know what it's about or if they're the sort of person to get physical. I don't want to embarass either of them. I see a friend getting violently upset, and I do something.

The other problem is social, we need to all believe that this is just not acceptable. Womens rights, feminist groups etc. have done a WONDERFUL job of this. That's not so true for men, who still have a lot of social stigma and are seen as "weak". I think we're definately going in the right way, there are adverts about helplines you can call to talk about domestic abuse, it's widely promoted that there is nothing wrong with leaving an abusive partner. Women are taught to not even accept the possibility of violence. It's great. We still need more change, but we're doing a great job so far.

This hasn't happened so much for men (although it's starting). There was a woman who was pushing her boyfriend around at a pub my friends were at, and verbally abusing him. Nobody did anything, a lot of people were amusedly watching or making jokes about being hen-pecked. She slapped him a few times. They left, and he was obviously very embarassed. That is just NOT acceptable, but what do you do in that situation? People are *laughing*. That would not happen if it was a women being abused. At the very least the bouncers, who were there the whole time, would have done something.
It's seen as *funny* for girls to boss around guys. Guys are "henpecked" and get teased about it from other guys. At best the solution is to "take charge" and stop doing what you're told so much.

I applaud my friend who, at a party, got slapped, and without thinking slapped the girl back. Sure, he deserved (deserved is the wrong word?) the original slap, but she could have verbally insulted him, or something. If it's alright for a woman to slap a guy, it's alright for a guy to slap a woman. It wasn't full-force, neither slaps did injury to the other. I'm glad my group of friends (including the women) all supported him.

How many movies have I seen where it's portrayed as funny for a girl to pour a drink over the guy, or to slap him for making a lewd comment. No wonder society finds it amusing when it happens. Crazy!

And the problem? Guys are seen as "strong". It's our role, our macho-ism. But we get looked down on for being too macho, and not sensitive. And we get locked down on for not being the strong breadwinner. And we get looked down on for not wanting women to earn just as much and be the breadwinner. And we get looked down on for always thinking about sex. And we get told we're not a real man if we're not always chasing and in the mood for sex. And...oh, it's just stupid!
I'm lucky, I love my girlfriend, and when she falls prey to these assumptions (we all do!) I just point it out to her, and she always thinks about it, usually apologizes, and gives her real, considered opinion on the topic. I do realize how extremely lucky I am.

So, I spent most of this ranting about the raw deal men get. Take this as me being 'defensive' if you will. My intentions are actually more along the lines of "I agree it's a problem. I'm glad things are being done for the women, and don't have any further useful input on that front. Here's another aspect of the issue that isn't being addressed nearly as well, and needs more attention."

Amusing. Violating someone's person is both aggressive and violent and to suggest otherwise is to have a complete lack of understanding of the nature of escalating violence. Most victims of violence, myself included, would educate you that they find any unwelcome touching to be aggressive and touching with the intent to cause pain (as described by BitchKitten) is clearly violent. I'm sorry if you can't deal in degrees. Because there are worse forms of aggression and violence does not mean this doesn't qualify. Just because some men set women on fire doesn't mean that a woman who only gets smacked around on occasion isn't physically abused and to say otherwise is insulting to those actual victims of violence and aggression. Oddly, somehow the law and Webster's dictionary agree with me. How's that for a real response? By the way, when you choose to ignore the available context and I point it out, it's not an ad hominem; it's an assessment of the nature of your reply.

Violence -
1 a : exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse

Aggression -
1 : a forceful action or procedure (as an unprovoked attack) especially when intended to dominate or master
3 : hostile, injurious, or destructive behavior or outlook especially when caused by frustration

Well, yes, poking can be agressive. And violent poking in anger is NOT acceptable.
But it's still a matter of scale. Poking someone is NOT the same as throwing a punch.

And, since we're discussing matter of scale, a fully grown man punching a woman with full force is NOT the same as a woman who feels dominated and threated by a larger man agressively poking her lashing out to try to avoid being bullied when she sees no other option.

I don't think it was acceptable to poke in the first place.
I don't think it was acceptable to strike back, when other options like stepping back and coldly saying "don't touch me while you are angry" could have achieved the same effect. If that doesn't work, THEN striking may be acceptable.

I DO think that bitchkitten hitting her boyfriend, while not acceptable, was understandable, and I wouldn't hold it against her, as long as she knows that it's not an acceptable action if she has other options.
I Do think that, potentially, her boyfriend poking her, while not acceptable, MAY have been understandable. I don't know the situation. I do know that, while I've never poked someone, I've loomed, and I've pointed in a threatening way. I was extremely extremely angry, and needed some way of expressing that WITHOUT hurting anyone. I know this was not acceptable behaviour, and after the fact I've apologized for it. I do think it was understandable, though.

Amusing. Violating someone's person is both aggressive and violent and to suggest otherwise is to have a complete lack of understanding of the nature of escalating violence.

Violating someone's person? So... touching someone without asking first, is both aggressive and violent? Sitting down next to someone and thereby bursting their personal bubble is aggressive and violent?


Most victims of violence, myself included, would educate you that they find any unwelcome touching to be aggressive

Most victims of violence are oversensitive as a result... and biased.


and touching with the intent to cause pain (as described by BitchKitten) is clearly violent.

Intent is not evident from behavior. At least not as self-evident as you seem to think it is...

Just because some men set women on fire doesn't mean that a woman who only gets smacked around on occasion isn't physically abused and to say otherwise is insulting to those actual victims of violence and aggression.

Strawman. Next?

Oddly, somehow the law and Webster's dictionary agree with me. How's that for a real response?

Appeal to authority. Next?

I can't even find "Jocabia" in the dictionary so as much as you seem to think the dictionary supports your point, it doesn't "agree" with you.

By the way, when you choose to ignore the available context and I point it out, it's not an ad hominem; it's an assessment of the nature of your reply.

Saying I'm incapable of reasonable discourse is an ad hominem, nice try though.

Violence -
1 a : exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse

Do you really think people try to injure other people by poking them?

"Abuse" is such a hot-key term that it can mean practically anything, legally, morally, socially; as usual dictionary definitions ask more questions than they give answers.

Aggression -
1 : a forceful action or procedure (as an unprovoked attack) especially when intended to dominate or master
3 : hostile, injurious, or destructive behavior or outlook especially when caused by frustration

If poking is an "attack" then a gun is a chemical weapon. (Hey it's based on chemical explosives yes?)

And as usual the matter is still so open to interpretation and you've not gone very far in being convincing that poking is amount to violence and aggression.

Violating someone's person? So... touching someone without asking first, is both aggressive and violent? Sitting down next to someone and thereby bursting their personal bubble is aggressive and violent?
...
If poking is an "attack" then a gun is a chemical weapon. (Hey it's based on chemical explosives yes?)

I think you're both using different ideas of what you consider to be violence, or an attack.

Would you consider throwing a vase at the wall near someone violence?
Or punching the wall?

Violating someone's person? So... touching someone without asking first, is both aggressive and violent? Sitting down next to someone and thereby bursting their personal bubble is aggressive and violent?

Actually, the definition of aggression and violence is posted above. You can try your strawmen all you like, but again you are trying to removing context. Touching someone in a way that you know is undesired is aggressive and possibly violent. In this case, it was both.

Most victims of violence are oversensitive as a result... and biased.

You invoked the victims of violence as if their position on the matter was important. If you don't want to use their position then don't.

Laughable, if it weren't so insulting to actual victims of real violence and aggression.

So are they insulted or oversensitive?

Intent is not evident from behavior. At least not as self-evident as you seem to think it is...

It did cause pain in this scenario so your point is moot. It's clear you've never had someone poke you in the way she is talking about here. As many have pointed out here, poking can often leave bruises.

Strawman. Next?

I see, so me comparing slapping to setting on fire is a strawman but you comparing poking to hand-shaking is totally reasonable. Good to know what you're made up rules are. I think the word you were looking for was analogy.

Analogy -
2 a : resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike : SIMILARITY b : comparison based on such resemblance

Appeal to authority. Next?

Yes, I'm crazy like that. I like to use the dictionary to find the definition of words. You should try it. It's fun.

I can't even find "Jocabia" in the dictionary so as much as you seem to think the dictionary supports your point, it doesn't "agree" with you.

Amusing.

Saying I'm incapable of reasonable discourse is an ad hominem, nice try though.

I said you were incapable of using context. As you've done it again above. The evidence seems to support my point.

Do you really think people try to injure other people by poking them?

Um, yes. In fact I know it. I've done it. Again, read the whole thread and you find several people here who have been bruised by poking, including myself. My father usually started poking just before he started punching. Oddly, the poking left more bruises than the punches. I suppose that has something to do with force per square inch.

"Abuse" is such a hot-key term that it can mean practically anything, legally, morally, socially; as usual dictionary definitions ask more questions than they give answers.

I figured by your misuse of terms you didn't like dictionaries. Thank you for comfirming it.

If poking is an "attack" then a gun is a chemical weapon. (Hey it's based on chemical explosives yes?)

Yup, it's an attack. I know you don't like the dictionary, but here you go.
Attack -
3 : to begin to affect or to act on injuriously

Chemical weapons are not all weapons involving chemicals but nice strawman.
Chemical Weapon -
a weapon used in chemical warfare

And as usual the matter is still so open to interpretation and you've not gone very far in being convincing that poking is amount to violence and aggression.

I suppose if you don't choose to accept definitions as proper use of words then I can see how you would consider this still open to interpretation.

Well, yes, poking can be agressive. And violent poking in anger is NOT acceptable.
But it's still a matter of scale. Poking someone is NOT the same as throwing a punch.

And, since we're discussing matter of scale, a fully grown man punching a woman with full force is NOT the same as a woman who feels dominated and threated by a larger man agressively poking her lashing out to try to avoid being bullied when she sees no other option.

I don't think it was acceptable to poke in the first place.
I don't think it was acceptable to strike back, when other options like stepping back and coldly saying "don't touch me while you are angry" could have achieved the same effect. If that doesn't work, THEN striking may be acceptable.

I DO think that bitchkitten hitting her boyfriend, while not acceptable, was understandable, and I wouldn't hold it against her, as long as she knows that it's not an acceptable action if she has other options.
I Do think that, potentially, her boyfriend poking her, while not acceptable, MAY have been understandable. I don't know the situation. I do know that, while I've never poked someone, I've loomed, and I've pointed in a threatening way. I was extremely extremely angry, and needed some way of expressing that WITHOUT hurting anyone. I know this was not acceptable behaviour, and after the fact I've apologized for it. I do think it was understandable, though.
I agree with everything you said here. However, I think it was likely your reason for poking was that you know it hurts without leaving an injury (sometimes). The act you are describing is generally specifically about 'hurting' while not doing any real damage.

You call that luck, eh? I call that women with hair triggers. Besides, a poke in the chest doesn't count as hitting.
Oh, it most absolutely does. Remember the guy who broke his finger on my trauma plate? That was sufficient impact to rock me slightly (and I was ready for it). It was an obvious and well-practiced attempt at physical violence and intimidation. As he had hit me in the solar-plexus, I most certainly would have been temporarily incapacitated had I not been armoured (the only reason I let him go that far in the first place... I was seriously considering performing irimi on him to take him down when he finally stabbed too hard).

Someone who gets into the finger-poke-jab thing is right on the edge of serious violence. They are doing what they are doing as a calculated way of doing "non-violent violence" ("Honest your Honor, it was an accident when I poked him in the solar plexus"). It is totally unacceptable.

I agree with everything you said here. However, I think it was likely your reason for poking was that you know it hurts without leaving an injury (sometimes). The act you are describing is generally specifically about 'hurting' while not doing any real damage.

Yes, I agree. I haven't actually laid a finger on my partner in anger, ever. Waved my finger, sure, but not touched. It's still threatening and intimidating, but, to my mind, an entirely different action to throwing a punch in the schoolyard.
One is the intetion of expressing strong emotions WITHOUT physically hurting someone.
The other is the intention of physically hurting someone, perhaps to express strong emotions.

I'd just like to point out that we don't actually know the intentions of bitchkitten's poker. We only know that SHE felt intimidated, and responded accordingly.
Bitchkitten, perhaps rightly, sent a very clear message that what he was doing was not acceptable. From what we've heard in this discussion, however, it's not so clear as to what Tony's message, or intentions were.

Most victims of violence are oversensitive as a result... and biased.


Or many non-victims are under sensitive.

Though I'm sure you will tell me I'm wrong, and I quite possibly am, I have some ugly suspicions about the way you could get in a heated arguement.
Do you loom over a smaller person? Do you use your superior size to intimidate them? Do you scream three inches from their face? Do you clench your fist or shake it in their face?
Sorry, these things would really set me off.
Maybe you think I'm a pathological freak. You can do that. But I think the people who argue like that are about two heartbeats from being a total brute. If you do those things it's a very small step.

Am I over reactive out of fear and anger? Maybe. But nobody gets away with manhandling me. Or woman handling. Not if I can help it.

Oh, it most absolutely does. Remember the guy who broke his finger on my trauma plate? That was sufficient impact to rock me slightly (and I was ready for it). It was an obvious and well-practiced attempt at physical violence and intimidation. As he had hit me in the solar-plexus, I most certainly would have been temporarily incapacitated had I not been armoured (the only reason I let him go that far in the first place... I was seriously considering performing irimi on him to take him down when he finally stabbed too hard).

Someone who gets into the finger-poke-jab thing is right on the edge of serious violence. They are doing what they are doing as a calculated way of doing "non-violent violence" ("Honest your Honor, it was an accident when I poked him in the solar plexus"). It is totally unacceptable.

Agreed. And in an escalating violent situation you can't just leave things to get worse and worse. If he is potentially escalating towards serious violence, then you can't let him get away with poking as an acceptable action.

And if this is the case with Bitchkitty, I think she is entirely justified in her action.

But you describe a very serious, forceful poke to the solar plexus. Even just saying "poking me hard enough to leave bruises" is different to the more ambiguous "poking me". And bitchkitty described feeling bullied, not necessarily feeling physically injured.

Again, we're talking about scale here, the poking you describe is of a different scale to what most people consider "poking"

you can field a real response other than half-assed implied ad hominems.

You are funny. You really like that phrase.

You are funny. You really like that phrase.

The amusing part is he refused to incorporate context into my point and I said I would prefer to have reasonable discussion with people who can incorporate context. Somehow he made this into an ad hominem. It's hilarious.

Yes, I agree. I haven't actually laid a finger on my partner in anger, ever. Waved my finger, sure, but not touched. It's still threatening and intimidating, but, to my mind, an entirely different action to throwing a punch in the schoolyard.
One is the intetion of expressing strong emotions WITHOUT physically hurting someone.
The other is the intention of physically hurting someone, perhaps to express strong emotions.

I'd just like to point out that we don't actually know the intentions of bitchkitten's poker. We only know that SHE felt intimidated, and responded accordingly.
Bitchkitten, perhaps rightly, sent a very clear message that what he was doing was not acceptable. From what we've heard in this discussion, however, it's not so clear as to what Tony's message, or intentions were.Hell, I don't even remember what the arguement was about. We both had tempers, strong opinions and wouldn't back down for a bulldozer. We argued a lot. Oddly, it was one of my most satisfying relationships. I tend to dominate, something he never let me do. But I wasn't willing to be dominated either.

All I know is the SOB did something that really set me off. I take it as unacceptable aggression if I am grabbed, shoved, pushed or poked in the heat of anger.

(not that Tony was really an SOB, but at that moment, my rage was so high, I'd have called him anything)

Women have no such excuse these days, not when there are so many women who can - and love to claim they can - kick just as much ass as males, regardless of size.

Oh my goodness. So many women these days? As in what? 10000 out of how many in the US?

You have a really strange value system.

You can only be intimidated if you let yourself be intimidated. He didn't hit you, and he wasn't going to hit you or harm you in any way. You could have just ignored his efforts, or turned away. Instead, you threw the first punch and turned an argument into a fight.

You say that because you hit him, he hasn't tried anything like that since then, and you're happy because of that. Well, what if he'd hit you? That could have been "beneficial," by your standards. If you'd known he was going to pay you back one-for-one, maybe you'd learn to not resort to violence so easily.
You have a lot to learn about being a MAN. (sorry ladies - I have to be totally neanderthal here...)

Unless I have ABSOLUTELY NO ALTERNATIVE TO PRESERVE MY LIFE I will not hit/shoot/whatever-violence a woman.

MY wife is BiPolar-I... i.e. Psychotically Manic Depressive. She has attacked me with a kitchen knife. At no time have I ever hit her - though I have had to use physical restraint on her (immediately preceeding yet another hospitalization... :( ). She is not combat trained with a knife and only a minor threat to me when weilding one. There is no call for me to engage her in any sort of blunt-force trauma. PERIOD.

Things might be different if I was up against a psychotic Vasquez, but MOST women are not "fight trained"... even to the extent of the average post-high school USian male.

I have no fear of a woman who is trained to fight because I am not the kind of person a trained fighter would have to fight. I'm not going to attack her - and unless she's psychotic she's not going to attack me.

A man who gets physically violent with a woman who is not an imminent threat to himself or others is a Cad and a Fiend. Period.

[/chivalrous neanderthal]

You are funny. You really like that phrase.

He read a page about logical fallacies and he tries to suggest they exist everywhere because he thinks it somehow debunks arguments. In one post he invoked ad hominem, strawman and appeal to authority and only used one of them correctly. It's very amusing.

Or many non-victims are under sensitive.

Though I'm sure you will tell me I'm wrong, and I quite possibly am, I have some ugly suspicions about the way you could get in a heated arguement.
Do you loom over a smaller person? Do you use your superior size to intimidate them? Do you scream three inches from their face? Do you clench your fist or shake it in their face?
Sorry, these things would really set me off.
Maybe you think I'm a pathological freak. You can do that. But I think the people who argue like that are about two heartbeats from being a total brute. If you do those things it's a very small step.

Am I over reactive out of fear and anger? Maybe. But nobody gets away with manhandling me. Or woman handling. Not if I can help it.

Aha! Exactly the point I was trying to make.

I think non-victims of violence ARE under-sensitive. They don't realize how much of an effect it can have on people.
I know this wasn't addressed at me, but may I respond to your questions?

I do loom over a smaller person. I do use my superior size to intimidate them. I do scream three inches from their face. I don't clench my fist and shake it in their face, no.
I don't do that in MOST arguments, and usually I do that when I feel that my opinion is not being listened to, or I feel that I'm being (verbally) attacked and have no chance to verbally defend myself. I have wanted to hit the person I was arguing with. Yes, even my girlfriend, who I love dearly.

I do NOT believe I am two heartbeats away from being a total brute. In actual fact I am an extremely non-violent person. I got into very few fights at school, and even in those I pulled my punches, and did more circling than hitting. (It's a guy thing, another sexism in our world that should be addressed. There are times when, socially, a guy does need to "stand up for themselves" using their fists. Usually only a few times, to prove they are willing.)
When I loom, or yell, or intimidate, I'm doing that because I *don't want* to hit them. I have these agressive, angry feelings, and I need some way of expressing those. I need an outlet. My ideal solution is to walk away from the argument, vent a little, and then come back when I'm calmer. That isn't always possible. Sometimes I do it just to make the other person shut up and stop arguing. I know that I can use my larger size to physically intimidate someone into not continuing to argue. I know this isn't good, but I also know that if we do continue arguing I'll get even more angry, and I do NOT want to resort to violence. I have better control over myself than that, but I still see no need to test that control.
I do NOT have particularly good control over my emotions, and my ability to control my expression of them. While I can assuredly say that I won't hit someone because I'm angry, I can NOT assuredly say that I won't try to intimidate them, or point angrily at them, or yell in their face.

I do not consider these behaviours of mine to be acceptable, and I do my best not to engage in them. I'm also aware that they happen. This does NOT make me a violent person, or more likely to engage in violence.

Having said all this, the people who know me (hopefully) know I would never actually do physical violence if it can be avoided. If I was acting that way towards a stranger, then I wouldn't blame them for assuming that I was two heartbeats away from serious violence, and responding accordingly.

A few years ago, I pulled into a 7-11 to get a can of suff, I'am from Texas and a big cowboy to boot, but this car pulls up next to my truck and this guy is beating the shit out of this woman. He was slamming her face into the dashboard and her nose was bloody. I went inside the store got my snuff and asked the clerk to call the police, because I saw a guy beating this woman in their parking lot. She didn't want to get envoloved and I should mind my own business. I said, ok I'll take care of it my self. I pulled that bastard half way out the window of his car and I beat the crap out of him and kicked him with my boots a couple of times, just so I'd know he was feeling it and I drove off. I'am sure the clerk called the cops after I kicked the punk's butt, but they never found me.

No man has ever got the right to hit a woman or abuse a child and I wish those who do a painful death and rot in hell!
Rock on! :D But that's why I carry (A) a cell phone, (B) a sidearm and (C) nylon restraints. It's always better to give them to the cops pre-hog-tied.

You have a lot to learn about being a MAN. (sorry ladies - I have to be totally neanderthal here...)

Unless I have ABSOLUTELY NO ALTERNATIVE TO PRESERVE MY LIFE I will not hit/shoot/whatever-violence a woman.

MY wife is BiPolar-I... i.e. Psychotically Manic Depressive. She has attacked me with a kitchen knife. At no time have I ever hit her - though I have had to use physical restraint on her (immediately preceeding yet another hospitalization... :( ). She is not combat trained with a knife and only a minor threat to me when weilding one. There is no call for me to engage her in any sort of blunt-force trauma. PERIOD.

Things might be different if I was up against a psychotic Vasquez, but MOST women are not "fight trained"... even to the extent of the average post-high school USian male.

I have no fear of a woman who is trained to fight because I am not the kind of person a trained fighter would have to fight. I'm not going to attack her - and unless she's psychotic she's not going to attack me.

A man who gets physically violent with a woman who is not an imminent threat to himself or others is a Cad and a Fiend. Period.

[/chivalrous neanderthal]

Lets not forget criminal as well.

Better? Yes. Not more honest. Tex here thinks women are weaker and thus it is even more of a crime to hit women than to hit men.
Frankly, given the description of the assault, I'd have done the same whether the smashee was a Man, Woman or Lawyer. ( :p Hi Cat....)

Agreed. And in an escalating violent situation you can't just leave things to get worse and worse. If he is potentially escalating towards serious violence, then you can't let him get away with poking as an acceptable action.

And if this is the case with Bitchkitty, I think she is entirely justified in her action.

But you describe a very serious, forceful poke to the solar plexus. Even just saying "poking me hard enough to leave bruises" is different to the more ambiguous "poking me". And bitchkitty described feeling bullied, not necessarily feeling physically injured.

Again, we're talking about scale here, the poking you describe is of a different scale to what most people consider "poking"

It hurt, yes. Not a lot. It felt like it should bruise, though it didn't.
But mostly I was incredibly pissed. I felt momentarily frightened, then it changed to rage. Perhaps I was more angry at him for causing me to feel intimidated and afraid than anything.

I can say I've never been in a genuinely abusive relationship with a boyfriend. I did tell my husband that if he ever hit me he wouldn't live long enough to get a divorce. Of course we both knew I wasn't serious about killing him. But he also knew that it would not be taken lightly.

I've known plenty of women who were in genuinely abusive relationships. Even one who was killed. Though intellectually I know all the reasons they stay, it still doesn't make sense to me emotionally. I just can't imagine not making someone pay for treating me that way. At the very least leaving.

Rock on! :D But that's why I carry (A) a cell phone, (B) a sidearm and (C) nylon restraints. It's always better to give them to the cops pre-hog-tied.

Fess up! That's how you find dates! :p :eek:

Really I am kidding.

I don't become defensive about wife-abuse. I'm not afraid to either discuss it or condemn it. In fact, if I ever found out that someone I knew abused his wife, I would be hard pressed not to either seriously injure them or kill them. It makes me furios to even consider it.

Unless I have ABSOLUTELY NO ALTERNATIVE TO PRESERVE MY LIFE I will not hit/shoot/whatever-violence a woman.
Agreed, but the same should hold true for women. It is equally unacceptable for a woman to hit/shoot/whatever-violence a man.
Which, from your previous points, I know you agree with.

MY wife is BiPolar-I... i.e. Psychotically Manic Depressive. She has attacked me with a kitchen knife. At no time have I ever hit her - though I have had to use physical restraint on her (immediately preceeding yet another hospitalization... :( ). She is not combat trained with a knife and only a minor threat to me when weilding one. There is no call for me to engage her in any sort of blunt-force trauma. PERIOD.
Yes, but you know her, and her situation. Trust me, if either of the girls in my house had a knife, I'd be worried. They know enough to be a danger, and both have studied european short-sword and rapier fencing as a hobby.

What you're talking about is someone in a specific situation that you are capable of dealing with. Is it equally unacceptable to hit a girl with a knife who you don't know, could be psychotic, could be combat-trained? I would. Only as much as necessary to be secure in my safety and the safety of those around me, of course.

Things might be different if I was up against a psychotic Vasquez, but MOST women are not "fight trained"... even to the extent of the average post-high school USian male.
Most. True. And it's usually pretty obvious.
Also, why does this apply to women? Isn't it equally valid to apply it to non-combat-trained men who are weaker than you?

A man who gets physically violent with a woman who is not an imminent threat to himself or others is a Cad and a Fiend. Period.

[/chivalrous neanderthal]
No.

I think it's also important, while talking about how a REAL MAN should act, to also mention that a REAL WOMAN would never hit a man, either. Otherwise you're just taking unfair advantage of chivalry.

And, while I agree that a man who gets violent with a woman who is not an imminent threat to himself is a cad, if a woman slaps me, I'll feel justified slapping her back. I guess I'm a cad, but I'm an equal-opportunity cad. I would NOT provide an imminent threat to any woman that wasn't an imminent threat to me. I would NEVER hit a woman unprovoked, or escalate a situation with a woman to violence.

<snip> Darling, as I pointed out before, you linked a single article. And it was more of a rant. It had a few good points. For instance, any attempt at gender equality must address things from both sides. While the violence against women may be statistically more significant, battered men and women need equal attention on an individual level. However, it made them in a rant style that will turn most people off.<snip>
Dem, maybe it's just me, but when given a link to a particular "advocacy" site, I spend a little time drilling down from the Home Page into some of the rest of the stuff. IMO that's just basic research necessary for a good debate. The homepage of the site is clearly of Libertarian/Individualist bent - if somewhat anti-socialist. It seems to be more along the lines of "anti-Political-feminisim" than anti-feminisim.

My 2p anyway...

It hurt, yes. Not a lot. It felt like it should bruise, though it didn't.
But mostly I was incredibly pissed. I felt momentarily frightened, then it changed to rage. Perhaps I was more angry at him for causing me to feel intimidated and afraid than anything.

I can say I've never been in a genuinely abusive relationship with a boyfriend. I did tell my husband that if he ever hit me he wouldn't live long enough to get a divorce. Of course we both knew I wasn't serious about killing him. But he also knew that it would not be taken lightly.

I've known plenty of women who were in genuinely abusive relationships. Even one who was killed. Though intellectually I know all the reasons they stay, it still doesn't make sense to me emotionally. I just can't imagine not making someone pay for treating me that way. At the very least leaving.

No it doesn't make sense and unfortunately some women die from it or get seriously hurt..even disfigured. Know of a husband who threw acid into his wife's face because she looked at another guy(!?) she lost one eye, has limited sight in the other and no peripheral vison or depth perception, not to mention the deep scarring (both physically and emotionally) The whole abuse situation is frustrating, tragic and makes no sense (to me anyways.) I've also been witness to domestic abuse and what it can do and frankly I feel compelled to physically harm said abuser. but then my logical side of my brain would tell me 'wouldn't that create a "circle of violence"?' and I'd calm down. Although that doesn't stop me from being absolutely fucking PISSED!!

And I could care less if people flame me here or not..I'm WAY beyond flame wars. I'm just voicing my opinion if you agree or disagree well that's your perogative, I may not like what you say but i'lll have the common decency to RESPECT the comments no matter how much I may disagree with said comments.

So much for putting in my 2 cents. (more like a loonie's worth!!! :D)

You have a lot to learn about being a MAN. (sorry ladies - I have to be totally neanderthal here...)

Unless I have ABSOLUTELY NO ALTERNATIVE TO PRESERVE MY LIFE I will not hit/shoot/whatever-violence a woman.

MY wife is BiPolar-I... i.e. Psychotically Manic Depressive. She has attacked me with a kitchen knife. At no time have I ever hit her - though I have had to use physical restraint on her (immediately preceeding yet another hospitalization... :( ). She is not combat trained with a knife and only a minor threat to me when weilding one. There is no call for me to engage her in any sort of blunt-force trauma. PERIOD.

Things might be different if I was up against a psychotic Vasquez, but MOST women are not "fight trained"... even to the extent of the average post-high school USian male.

I have no fear of a woman who is trained to fight because I am not the kind of person a trained fighter would have to fight. I'm not going to attack her - and unless she's psychotic she's not going to attack me.

A man who gets physically violent with a woman who is not an imminent threat to himself or others is a Cad and a Fiend. Period.

[/chivalrous neanderthal]I'm bi-polar also. I also pulled a kitchen knife in a fight with Tony. But I used it on myself. He was able to wrestle it out of my hands without getting hurt because I would never have dreamed of hurting him with it.
Not that I fault your wife for her lapse during an episode. I just tend to take things out on myself.
As for being able to fight, I'm hardly an expert. But I have taken some Karate, Tae Kwon Do and boxing. (my father was a boxer)
Plus I fought everything that moved, male or female, when I was growing up. So I'm not exactly a push-over.

It hurt, yes. Not a lot. It felt like it should bruise, though it didn't.
But mostly I was incredibly pissed. I felt momentarily frightened, then it changed to rage. Perhaps I was more angry at him for causing me to feel intimidated and afraid than anything.

I can say I've never been in a genuinely abusive relationship with a boyfriend. I did tell my husband that if he ever hit me he wouldn't live long enough to get a divorce. Of course we both knew I wasn't serious about killing him. But he also knew that it would not be taken lightly.

I've known plenty of women who were in genuinely abusive relationships. Even one who was killed. Though intellectually I know all the reasons they stay, it still doesn't make sense to me emotionally. I just can't imagine not making someone pay for treating me that way. At the very least leaving.
I'm sorry that it hurt you, and I'm sorry that you know people who have been in such bad relationships.

Thank you for admitting that, despite the pain, your emotion was mostly anger. More than anything else, I understand anger at being made to feel intimidated or scared. I also understand lashing out from anger, to make the anger/intimidation/fear stop.
While I don't think it was acceptable to escalate the situation (ASSUMING that there were other options available to you), I do respect you for standing up for yourself, and for helping the other women in abusive relationships. And I do recognize that, if he was hurting you, he was the original violent instigator.

Edit: thinking about this, I stand by what I said about escalating the situation, but want to recognize that if he was larger than you, and physically hurting you, throwing a punch probably *wasn't* escalating the situation, it was you responding in an equal way, considering the size and muscle differences. So I apologize.

<snip>If poking is an "attack" then a gun is a chemical weapon. (Hey it's based on chemical explosives yes?) And as usual the matter is still so open to interpretation and you've not gone very far in being convincing that poking is amount to violence and aggression.
Maybe Jacobia hasn't, but I certainly have. Anyone who "pokes" with an index finger sufficiently hard to break said finger on a steel/ceramic ClassIII trauma plate is comitting violent assault. I just didn't have the heart to arrest the babbling, shocky bastard at the time. (Self-inflicted pain is a great tool... That's why I love Aikido...) :D

Maybe Jacobia hasn't, but I certainly have. Anyone who "pokes" with an index finger sufficiently hard to break said finger on a steel/ceramic ClassIII trauma plate is comitting violent assault. I just didn't have the heart to arrest the babbling, shocky bastard at the time. (Self-inflicted pain is a great tool... That's why I love Aikido...) :D

Damn straight. I've never even strained my finger when poking something/someone to make a point during a non-violent discussion.
I don't think there is any way you can possibly interpret his actions as non-violent, unless you claim he tripped and fell forward onto his finger.

I'm sorry that it hurt you, and I'm sorry that you know people who have been in such bad relationships.

Thank you for admitting that, despite the pain, your emotion was mostly anger. More than anything else, I understand anger at being made to feel intimidated or scared. I also understand lashing out from anger, to make the anger/intimidation/fear stop.
While I don't think it was acceptable to escalate the situation (ASSUMING that there were other options available to you), I do respect you for standing up for yourself, and for helping the other women in abusive relationships. And I do recognize that, if he was hurting you, he was the original violent instigator.I could have probably just walked off. He would have probably felt guilty later. But not a lot of thought went into it. And while it might not have been the perfect adult way to handle it, I can't say I feel a lot of regret.
I guess as much of an attention slut as I am, I'm really beginning to feel bad about hijacking this thread on a personal issue.

Maybe Jacobia hasn't, but I certainly have. Anyone who "pokes" with an index finger sufficiently hard to break said finger on a steel/ceramic ClassIII trauma plate is comitting violent assault. I just didn't have the heart to arrest the babbling, shocky bastard at the time. (Self-inflicted pain is a great tool... That's why I love Aikido...) :D

Lets not forget location of said "poke" if you poked someone in the eye hard enough rest assured the eye would have to be removed. or how about the throat? what would happen Syniks if you poked someone in the throat with sufficient force? Would said person have trouble breathing?

Maybe Jacobia hasn't, but I certainly have. Anyone who "pokes" with an index finger sufficiently hard to break said finger on a steel/ceramic ClassIII trauma plate is comitting violent assault. I just didn't have the heart to arrest the babbling, shocky bastard at the time. (Self-inflicted pain is a great tool... That's why I love Aikido...) :D

It doesn't matter what you say. He took a statement out of context and tried to turn it into something else. Now he won't stop trying to defend the idea that a poke cannot be considered violence or aggressive. Bruising. Not enough. Broken fingers. Not enough. The fact that some people here have poked people in the chest in a violent and aggressive way. Not enough. Are we having fun yet?

Agreed, but the same should hold true for women. It is equally unacceptable for a woman to hit/shoot/whatever-violence a man.
Which, from your previous points, I know you agree with.Yep!
Yes, but you know her, and her situation. Trust me, if either of the girls in my house had a knife, I'd be worried. They know enough to be a danger, and both have studied european short-sword and rapier fencing as a hobby.Unless they are adept at HIDING that they are adept, I'd know that I needed to change my tactics.
What you're talking about is someone in a specific situation that you are capable of dealing with. Is it equally unacceptable to hit a girl with a knife who you don't know, could be psychotic, could be combat-trained? I would. Only as much as necessary to be secure in my safety and the safety of those around me, of course.Yep, and see above.
Most. True. And it's usually pretty obvious. Also, why does this apply to women? Isn't it equally valid to apply it to non-combat-trained men who are weaker than you? I think it's also important, while talking about how a REAL MAN should act, to also mention that a REAL WOMAN would never hit a man, either. Otherwise you're just taking unfair advantage of chivalry. Context of the argument. I agree totally.

And, while I agree that a man who gets violent with a woman who is not an imminent threat to himself is a cad, if a woman slaps me, I'll feel justified slapping her back. I guess I'm a cad, but I'm an equal-opportunity cad. I would NOT provide an imminent threat to any woman that wasn't an imminent threat to me. I would NEVER hit a woman unprovoked, or escalate a situation with a woman to violence. I still wouldn't hit her back. Basic Instinct/training I guess.

Actually, I apologize. This particular article occasionally remembers to talk about radical feminists, rather than all. It does make some generalizations, but isn't nearly as bad as what I usually ssee you posting.
understood. thanks. That's not as bad as the replies I usually see you post.


There were no statistics actually linked in this article, at least not that I saw. It simply referred to some nefarious plot to cover up evidence, ignoring the fact that the statistics they assume everyone is just lying about came out of a study that was well-cited itself.

maybe you missed this part - You had to read to the second sentence.

"University of Delaware professor Suzanne Steinmetz published an article called the "The Battered Husband Syndrome." After culling the findings from five surveys on domestic violence, Steinmetz reached an unexpected conclusion: wives were just as likely as their husbands to kick, punch, stab, and otherwise physically aggress against their spouses. "

If you want to discuss her article or the five surveys she used, be my guest. I'm certain we could source ourselves to oblivion. The point is clearly made however that the evidence is there and has been named for you own discretionary review.

I tend to prefer actual studies to ranting. Sorry if you are more swayed by the sensationalization.
Gee, right when I was starting to think you were a rational being and not some petty insult sniper. Sorry for overestimating you.


Darling, as I pointed out before, you linked a single article. And it was more of a rant. It had a few good points. For instance, any attempt at gender equality must address things from both sides. While the violence against women may be statistically more significant, battered men and women need equal attention on an individual level. However, it made them in a rant style that will turn most people off.
Sugar, Youve participated in both threads simultaniously, there is no reason for me to seperate the discussion at this point. I missed the part that says violence against women is statistically more significant. AFIK it seems to be saying that the flaw of the whole point is that it is NOT. As for the rest, I agree, however violence against men has been institutionalized and accepted much too far. For one easy example, take a look at most video games, TV shows, cartoons and movies. Violence against men is depicted far more often than women with considerable less regard.


Meanwhile, I read scientific articles all the time. If you'd like to cite one, by all means, feel free. Peer-reviewed please.
Hooray for you! you can read a scientific article! Now, if only you knoew the difference between a Scheffé Test and a Tukey Test you might actually be able to understand scientific method.


So the most vocal group always represents the majority?
NOW is not only the most vocal group (however you measure 'vocal') but also the largest, most polotically active and recognized. Thought I do agree with you about....


I don't care for most of what NOW says any more than you do. In the threads that you have ranted about them, I have said as much.
I suspect you to be in the minority there, though I would like very much for you to expand on this subject. What in particular? Why? How does your view differ from them? How is it different from mine? Who is it most similar to?

Thant would be a fun conversation.


Go back and look at your own threads on these topics. You'll find me there. I'm not going to dig back through thousands of posts just because you want to fit me into a neat little stereotype.
Sorry, you were the one who brought it up. Besides, I might just spontaniously combust wating for my pathetic (and temporary) narrow band connection to download all of your rants.... :)

I could have probably just walked off. He would have probably felt guilty later. But not a lot of thought went into it. And while it might not have been the perfect adult way to handle it, I can't say I feel a lot of regret.
I guess as much of an attention slut as I am, I'm really beginning to feel bad about hijacking this thread on a personal issue.

I must apologize, I later edited my previous post to say that what you did was, in my eyes, acceptable. Sorry my edit was only after you responded.

It's not the ideal adult way, but it's understandable. I previously applauded my friend who slapped a girl who slapped him. If he was physically hurting you, while the "best" solution may be to back off, responding in-kind is understandable. It's what us humans do when angry/upset/afraid.

I previously wasn't really recognizing that, for you, punching him is probably about in-line with him poking you painfully, due to the size differences. I was assuming you'd done a significantly more violent action than he was doing.

As for the hijacking, does anyone really mind? I think the original topic was pretty thouroughly discussed, and wasn't elicting any more comment. Your example is interesting to me as it gives a very concrete example to work with, and very clearly illustrates the problem of "well, it's abuse, but not very BAD, so why don't we just ignore it" as well as the potential double standards.

Lets not forget location of said "poke" if you poked someone in the eye hard enough rest assured the eye would have to be removed. or how about the throat? what would happen Syniks if you poked someone in the throat with sufficient force? Would said person have trouble breathing?
I really hate having to do tracheotomies....

I must apologize, I later edited my previous post to say that what you did was, in my eyes, acceptable. Sorry my edit was only after you responded.

It's not the ideal adult way, but it's understandable. I previously applauded my friend who slapped a girl who slapped him. If he was physically hurting you, while the "best" solution may be to back off, responding in-kind is understandable. It's what us humans do when angry/upset/afraid.

I previously wasn't really recognizing that, for you, punching him is probably about in-line with him poking you painfully, due to the size differences. I was assuming you'd done a significantly more violent action than he was doing.

As for the hijacking, does anyone really mind? I think the original topic was pretty thouroughly discussed, and wasn't elicting any more comment. Your example is interesting to me as it gives a very concrete example to work with, and very clearly illustrates the problem of "well, it's abuse, but not very BAD, so why don't we just ignore it" as well as the potential double standards.

See, I think this is exactly the point. There are men out there that are going, "I don't abuse my wife. I only poked her in the chest. What do you mean I'm not allowed to lay hands on her? I didn't hurt her really." This is why there is such a problem with abuse. Because there are so many out there that think physically violating someone is somehow acceptable if they don't need to go to the hospital.

Erm, I dunno.

I'm deffinetly not. Of course, I'm just 13, so I don't think I count...

I really hate having to do tracheotomies....

lol but then you'd be able to use a pen as a breathing tube if his trachea was obstructed and not totally blocked!! But I hear ya they can be really messy procedures to implement!! :D

I still wouldn't hit her back. Basic Instinct/training I guess.

I probably wouldn't, either. But I accept that it's a double standard I have. I recognize that, ideally, I wouldn't treat a woman any different to how I'd treat a man with the same physical ability.

And, I think having the "I would never hit a woman. Ever." attitude really does disservice, as it's not stating, but does imply to some people that it's more acceptable for a woman to hit a man than it is for a man to hit a woman. After all, we tell women (rightly so!) that they should defend themselves and not tolerate abuse.
But we then tell men "Don't you ever go hitting a woman. Ever."

I probably wouldn't, either. But I accept that it's a double standard I have. I recognize that, ideally, I wouldn't treat a woman any different to how I'd treat a man with the same physical ability.

And, I think having the "I would never hit a woman. Ever." attitude really does disservice, as it's not stating, but does imply to some people that it's more acceptable for a woman to hit a man than it is for a man to hit a woman. After all, we tell women (rightly so!) that they should defend themselves and not tolerate abuse.
But we then tell men "Don't you ever go hitting a woman. Ever."

Lets not forget instincts also. when someone hits you. instinctively you hit them back without a second thought. it's purely a reflexive action. you don't think about it you just react. you don't realize you hit someone (whether male or female) until after you've done it. It's difficult to stop reflexes. I know some people will say that it can be done yes i agree but it's difficult to do.

See, I think this is exactly the point. There are men out there that are going, "I don't abuse my wife. I only poked her in the chest. What do you mean I'm not allowed to lay hands on her? I didn't hurt her really." This is why there is such a problem with abuse. Because there are so many out there that think physically violating someone is somehow acceptable if they don't need to go to the hospital.Plus the ones who just use their size advantage, but don't get "violent."
An ex-roommate of mine moved in with her super buff body builder boyfriend.
She's Asian, so it's not surprising she's 5'2" and 105. He would block her way, filling the whole doorway, if she wanted to leave. If she tried to shove past him, he would claim she got physical first and hold her down, one time dragging her by her ankle. But her never hit her, so it was alright. :rolleyes:
(this was the dickhead that slammed me against the wall.)
My brother, an electrician, went and "fixed" his AC. :D After our friend moved out.

Plus the ones who just use their size advantage, but don't get "violent."
An ex-roommate of mine moved in with her super buff body builder boyfriend.
She's Asian, so it's not surprising she's 5'2" and 105. He would block her way, filling the whole doorway, if she wanted to leave. If she tried to shove past him, he would claim she got physical first and hold her down, one time dragging her by her ankle. But her never hit her, so it was alright. :rolleyes:
(this was the dickhead that slammed me against the wall.)
My brother, an electrician, went and "fixed" his AC. :D After our friend moved out.

Even being dragged by the ankle.. I would consider that abusive. you are demeaning someone and hence that's emotional and mental abuse.

Plus the ones who just use their size advantage, but don't get "violent."
An ex-roommate of mine moved in with her super buff body builder boyfriend.
She's Asian, so it's not surprising she's 5'2" and 105. He would block her way, filling the whole doorway, if she wanted to leave. If she tried to shove past him, he would claim she got physical first and hold her down, one time dragging her by her ankle. But her never hit her, so it was alright. :rolleyes:
(this was the dickhead that slammed me against the wall.)
My brother, an electrician, went and "fixed" his AC. :D After our friend moved out.
That's entirely unacceptable!
Again, it's a matter of scale. If it was the other way around, with her blocking the doorway, it's much more acceptable, because he isn't physically stopped from leaving.

It's just hard to describe this when comparing who did the wrong thing. "she hit me" vs "he stood in the doorway".
Fortunately we have other things we can compare. He stopped her leaving and physically restrained her. That's not acceptable, despite his claim that there was no violence. He's right, there was no voilence, and she started it first. He's wrong that he did nothing wrong first.

Plus the ones who just use their size advantage, but don't get "violent."
An ex-roommate of mine moved in with her super buff body builder boyfriend.
She's Asian, so it's not surprising she's 5'2" and 105. He would block her way, filling the whole doorway, if she wanted to leave. If she tried to shove past him, he would claim she got physical first and hold her down, one time dragging her by her ankle. But her never hit her, so it was alright. :rolleyes:
(this was the dickhead that slammed me against the wall.)
My brother, an electrician, went and "fixed" his AC. :D After our friend moved out.

You have broken the law if you unlawfully restrain someone. This means that if someone tries to leave a room and I refuse to allow them to leave, I have committed a crime. The reason they made it so is specifically for the type of incident you describe.

Lets not forget instincts also. when someone hits you. instinctively you hit them back without a second thought. it's purely a reflexive action. you don't think about it you just react. you don't realize you hit someone (whether male or female) until after you've done it. It's difficult to stop reflexes. I know some people will say that it can be done yes i agree but it's difficult to do.

Ah, I hadn't even considered that. Uh oh, I've gotta admit to being an abusive girlfriend-beater. My girlfriend was hiding in a cupboard, and as I walked past she jumped out and went "Rahr!" at me. I axe-handed at her throat, as a pure reflex (combat training does work!). Fortunately I realized and pulled the blow before hitting her (I did hit her wrists, as she was holding her arms up in front of her face, like claws.)
I've accidentally punched my girlfriend in the face while asleep and rolling over in bed. I don't think that counts either.

But I don't think this is what we're talking about. When I say "I've never hit a girl" I mean "I've never intentionally hit a girl to cause pain". If a girl hits me, and I hit back without even thinking, I don't think that counts. If a girl hits me, and I use an agressive block to stop her punch, which results in her being in pain (which I've done), I don't think that counts.

If a girl hits me and I either block it with the intention of causing pain, or conciously decide to hit her back, then I think that DOES count. That's what we're talking about when we say "hit a girl".

I can't really form a balanced opinion here because although I have seen abuse (After the fact) I haven't personally been abused whether it's physical, emotional or psychological.(although i have been treated for mild depression) I haven't had a girlfriend so I can't really say what would happen. oh sure I can say I won't abuse her but that doesn't mean that something won't happen. (I pray that nothing ever does.This shit gives me the chills)

That's entirely unacceptable!
Again, it's a matter of scale. If it was the other way around, with her blocking the doorway, it's much more acceptable, because he isn't physically stopped from leaving.

It's just hard to describe this when comparing who did the wrong thing. "she hit me" vs "he stood in the doorway".
Fortunately we have other things we can compare. He stopped her leaving and physically restrained her. That's not acceptable, despite his claim that there was no violence. He's right, there was no voilence, and she started it first. He's wrong that he did nothing wrong first.She didn't actually hit him. She tried to force her way past him. Hell, I could have carried her under one arm without trouble, so it wasn't like she could hurt him.

He attacked my for making a derogatory comment on his assumed penis size, which I thought was demonstrated by his treatment of women in general.

I can't really form a balanced opinion here because although I have seen abuse (After the fact) I haven't personally been abused whether it's physical, emotional or psychological.(although i have been treated for mild depression) I haven't had a girlfriend so I can't really say what would happen. oh sure I can say I won't abuse her but that doesn't mean that something won't happen. (I pray that nothing ever does.This shit gives me the chills)

Of course you can. You might not have all the facts, but you are the only one who can choose what sort of man you will be.
Becoming abusive is not something that will "just happen" to you, barring severe brain damage. It's always a choice you make, and something you can change.
I've never been abusive, and I never will be. It's a choice I have made. I have bad tempers, I strike out, I'm not always in control of my emotions. But I will NOT be abusive. I just vent my emotions in non-abusive ways (such as yelling) and restrain myself when I have abusive urges (such as hitting).

You might not know what is going through the heads of the abusive people, but you can damn well know what is going through the heads of the non-abusive people. And, yes, I'm terrified that I'll be abusive towards someone I care about. That's why I know, so firmly, that I will never do that.

I've accidentally punched my girlfriend in the face while asleep and rolling over in bed. I don't think that counts either.



LOL
If that counted they'd never let me out of jail. I kick, punch and scream in my sleep. Fortunately my husband was a heavy sleeper, but this stuff really freaks some people out.

She didn't actually hit him. She tried to force her way past him. Hell, I could have carried her under one arm without trouble, so it wasn't like she could hurt him.

He attacked my for making a derogatory comment on his assumed penis size, which I thought was demonstrated by his treatment of women in general.

Ok so there is a direct correlation with penis size and violence. the smaller the penis the higher the violence? or is it the bigger the penis the higher the violence? :rolleyes: (this may be true after all testosterone has been tied to aggressive behaivour)

If so then this guy maybe in trouble!!! :(

She didn't actually hit him. She tried to force her way past him. Hell, I could have carried her under one arm without trouble, so it wasn't like she could hurt him.

He attacked my for making a derogatory comment on his assumed penis size, which I thought was demonstrated by his treatment of women in general.

Sorry, I didn't mean to assume that your friend did hit him. I was saying that *even if she did*, it's still not the same as if he hit her.

He sounds like a total jerk. I wish there were laws against people like this. Oh, wait, there are!
I'm sorry he didn't get the full punishment he deserved. At least the a/c must have been amusing.

Ok so there is a direct correlation with penis size and violence. the smaller the penis the higher the violence? or is it the bigger the penis the higher the violence? :rolleyes:

If so then this guy maybe in trouble!!! lol :D

ROFL
No, I told him he must a a really tiny dick if he had to make himself feel like a man by bullying and degrading women.

Edit- I think it really irked him because I said it in front of his friends. :p