Hiya James,

Finally, re: your post on Page 6. Thanks for that very interesting link.

The report on which that article is based gives a comprehensive account of US deaths including suicide and homicide.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5703a1.htm#tab9

You say, "So basically men are much more likely to commit suicide that are precipitated by domestic problems between partners.." - but that summation is not quite correct; here's why:

The report states: "Intimate partner problems were cited as a precipitating factor in 33% of male suicides and in 26.1% of female suicides ..."

In crude numbers, there are more men than women dying of suicide. However, as a proportion of all suicides for each sex, the rates are not very different. Also, on every measure and for every reason more men die from suicide (and die from and commit homicide) than do females.

The report also points out that females attempt suicide more often (for all reasons) but men complete the act more often.

I don't think that report states it, but I have seen that attributed to the use of more violent means - men are more likely to own and use firearms; women are more likely to take an overdose. Where passive means are employed, intervention is more likely to occur to retrieve the situation. Where weapons are used, well, the act is more certain to be final.

Note too the use of alcohol and drugs (for both sexes).

Note too the mental health status of people who resort to suicide; many of whom were receiving MH care at the time of the attempt.

The picture is not uncomplicated. Those stats of course are for the US and I can't say much about how their health system operates. However, in Australia, men have every access to MH resources and many are in treatment for MH or drug and alcohol issues irrespective of what their domestic relationships situation or legal status may be.

cont'd

Cont'd:

The last time I looked, men were still dying at a higher rate than females, in every category, from birth until the grave. You might be interested in looking at accident and injury stats too. Greater risk taking behaviour accounts for some of those results.

re: Glenn Sacks. Yes Steele you have mentioned him before; but I was already aware of his activity.

Although I think on the whole that it's good that men have a means of advocacy and mutual support; I don't see him achieving anything useful towards helping any victim of violence. He does, however, incite a lot of hatred. For example, just read the comments of some of the people attracted to his and his associates' sites - they are vulgar and hateful.

He opposes funding for shelters and support services and restraining orders but doesn't suggest any way that victims can protect themselves or obtain help. That being the case, if men *are being victimized at the rates he claims, wouldn't he want them to have some means of protection?

I'm sure you'll all groan, but please watch this video to the end, and tell me what you think she should have done. Note that the man doesn't even raise his voice:

http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/09/18/video-on-domestic-violence/

Just FYI:

http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/08/6148/#more-6148

http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/victimdefendant/victimdefendant.html

I don't see how stopping legal and support services to *any victim of violence helps men; other than the men who want to keep the option of resorting to it. Aren't we all just opposed to violence?

Pynchme a disturbing video but it also demonstrates some of what I and others are concerned about.

It shows a very extreme form of controlling behaviour.
It mentions that one in four american women experience DV - I doubt very much that many experience DV at anything near that level.
It also says something like every 15 seconds a woman in america experiences DV just like that. Possibly true but I think that combined with the 1 in 4 message it's misleading. Without clarification it appears from those comments that one in four american men is as abusive as the man in the videa.

It's also worth noting that the abuse was verbal for years before it became physical, the victim was ground down emotionally before the physical abuse started. Thats something anybody with an abusive spouse can face.

Aren't we all just opposed to violence? I hope so but from the efforts that some go to in rejecting campaigns against all intimate partner violence I'm not sure. I think it would be relatively easy to change the message about intimate partner violence. Just get the public campaigns to start saying that all such violence and controlling behaviour is wrong, not just when it's done by men.

I'm not sure how we address the broader acceptance of violence. We need to change the stuff where being a tough guy is valued both by men and women. A lot of men seem to look up to the tough guys, I've mentioned calls for bringing back the biff before. I'm forever hearing comments by women about the appeal of the bad boy image. Gordon Ramsey seems to have a lot of appeal with women despite his public persona being very abusive. Nice guys don't seem to have the same appeal to a lot of women as the bad guys and that in itself will improve the status of the tough guys.

R0bert

pynchme,

So much bias...

'All the women in the study admitted to having physically assaulted their partners, but none of them expressed a motivation to terrorize or subjugate men.'

As if they would. As if the men would express such a motive either if asked.

'where survivors were arrested as a result of an exaggerated or false complaint filed by an abuser, usually in retaliation for measures that the survivor took to protect herself or her children.'

herself? Typical language of abuser=male, survivor=female.

'men tend to describe their own use of violence by focusing on what the woman did to "cause it." They minimize, shift blame, and deflect responsibility for the violence. '

Then it goes on to say all the reasons why women's violence isn't as bad, and that it's 'proactive' or retaliation. proactive! Laughable. Turn that around. Imagine a man saying his violence was proactive.

The whole study is an exercise in giving women the benefit of the doubt and not men. With mandatory arrest, when women started getting arrested for violence, police were getting the 'context' wrong. The 'context' being that only men are violent, or only men's violence is wrong, and women only use violence when they are 'survivors' of male violence.

Just to finish...

'batterers use a variety of non-criminal forms of abuse against their victimized partners, '

including social isolation (How many women manipulate and nag guys to stop them seeing friends? How much time do couples spend with the womans relatives compared with the males?)
control of family finances (Women do the majority of the spending in families)
constant criticism (What's nagging? Enough said.)
degradation, humiliation (I'd say women are more likely to tell intimate and/or embarassing details about their partner to friends)
threats to take custody of the children (I'd say this is the No.1 bargaining chip for women in unhappy marriages!)

All these behaviours that are just as common in women, are forms of control or abuse when done by men, but somehow not when done by women?

Robert,

I have never heard anyone rejecting campaigns against all intimate partner violence. In fact I'd love to even see such a campaign.

What I hear is men objecting to is the portrayal that any relationship that has violence by the man and the woman is all the mans fault. Just look at the study of pynchmes that looks to excuse all female violence and then critisizes male perpetrators for making excuses. How hypoctitical.

I object to the attitude that violent women need help and support and are really just victims but violent men need punishment. Of the use of words like 'insidious' and 'under-reported' and 'epidemic', to deliberately cast all men under suspicion. Of expanding the definition of violence to label a man who raises his voice as the same as a man who bashes his wife.

Every time I see domestic violence campaigns I feel guilty. And I have done nothing to be guilty for but protect myself. In fact I really ought to have protected myself better but for the attitude I was brought up with to protect women. I feel that because I have been with a violent partner, and hence in a violent relationship, and I am male, all suspicion rests with me.

I get further reinforcement when my wife goes to the early childhood centre and is asked as a matter of routine whether she is scared of me. It IS a witch hunt. What if a women is just scared of all men due to past relationships, or for cultural reasons thinks she should be? What happens if she answers yes to that question? One womans fear is every mans guilt it seems. My guilt is probably the fear I experienced when my partner was abusing me.

The way that study reads, any violence by women is justified out of fear. I'm probably a wuss, but I was pretty scared when I had an emotionally unstable partner weilding a knife at me, or when she came home drunk and having to worry whether she may turn nasty and start attacking me.

The situation for women will get worse as we import more immigrants who have slightly lower views of women. Also with our economy falling and other social problems also needing funding I imagine there will be less resources available to police domestic violence.