I’m Tired, or Some People Are Spiritually Bankrupt

Different people link to some of my articles, and sometimes, well…it just makes me tired. Reading the hate and self-righteousness, wanting to respond, and realizing I won’t be heard at all, is really discouraging and frustrating. It feels like a literal slap in the face.

And the thing is, their biggest argument is that they are abused, they are oppressed, they are disadvantaged. It reminds me of Marie Antoinette. When told that the peasants were starving and had no bread to eat, she reportedly said, “Let them eat cake”. No clue. Completely out of touch with reality.

Here’s to spitting in the wind.

Warning: The following is extremely sexist, disturbing, and offensive. Read at your own risk.

http://dirtyrottenfeminist.wordpress.com/2008/05/08/are-men-oppressed-when-it-comes-to-domestic-violence/

May 8, 2008, 8:47 pm
Filed under: Dumbshits, Violence

A troll, whose comments I will not be approving, tried to tell me that “MEN are the oppressed class in the great majority of “domestic violence” cases.”

Let that sink in for a moment. Laugh, if it will make you feel at least a bit better that there are people who actually think this out there. I know it did me.

I was not going to address his whole diatribe of hatred, but after a long talk with a good friend of mine last night who works with Project SAFE and is involved with domestic violence cases, oh, every day, I felt that this could not go ignored. I mean, said friend has new horror story every day–a woman set on fire by her ex, a man chasing his girlfriend around with a knife, women dying at the hands of their so-called loved ones.

First off, I would like to know what is meant by “oppression” in this sense. Now, I have understood the word, from which I have had done numerous readings in both race and gender studies contexts, the most helpful being Marilyn Frye’s “Oppression”, to mean the systematic denial of rights of the less-powered class to the powerful class. This would mean along the lines of sex, race, class, religion, etc etc. Dictionary.com (hey! I packed my Webster’s up a while ago and sent it home since I’m moving out!) offers a more broad definition:

1.	the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner.

2.	an act or instance of oppressing.

3.	the state of being oppressed.

4.	the feeling of being heavily burdened, mentally or physically, by troubles, adverse conditions, anxiety, etc.

So, if we take this definition, how can it be applied to men in domestic violence cases? The troll directed me to an article by Cathy Young about how men are punished unfairly by the court systems in domestic violence cases. Since we live in a sexist society, men cannot be oppressed based on their gender. But they can be treated unfairly or otherwise abused…so I won’t discount that when examining this issue. Now, first of all, to understand this, we have to look at the No Tolerance policy when it comes to domestic violence. Obviously, there is a reason why it has come to this–could it be that in 1998, the same time this article was written, 31% of American women “report[ed] being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives”? That probably had something to do with it…yeah. So, to recap, so all the trolls can keep up: yes, some men have been caught up wrongfully in the justice system when it comes to domestic violence, but that is because of an overall trend in domestic violence that needs to be addressed. I will agree with the trolls that this system DOES NOT WORK. But not because a few men fell through the cracks and had to attend a $400 anti-battering class…though that’s not really fair exactly, either…. My main beef with the current handling of domestic violence cases is IT DOES NOT WORK. I guess while they are busy punishing all those “innocent” menz (ya know, I just smacked her around, it wasn’t like I beat he senseless or anything!) they aren’t actually addressing the problem.  I mean, 54% of women killed by a stalker (which is usually an ex-lover) actually had reported their stalkers’ actions to the police and 25% had restraining orders. THAT IS OVER HALF. So, I guess, the police aren’t doing a bang-up job, now, huh?

Next, we have to look more closely at the pattern of marriage and heterosexual relationships to fully understand the implications of domestic abuse. Young’s article mentions a 1996 case involving “…Seattle City Councilman John Manning, who came home one day and was shocked to find his wife loading her things into a truck, was charged with assault for grabbing her shoulders and sitting her down on the tailgate (causing no injuries)….” So while there were no physical injuries, this issue of control really upsets me. He didn’t want her to leave him, so he physically forced her into a seated position. But there were no injuries, so it was ok!!!!

No. It’s not ok. It is not ok to manhandle another human, ESPECIALLY one you are supposed to be in a loving relationship with. But somehow excusing it since there were no injuries is complete bullshit if you ask me. Like I said, we have to look at the whole big picture of romantic relationships between men and women and the power structure within them. And for the trolls: that is not to say EVERY MAN TRIES TO CONTROL HIS LOVER OR A WOMAN NEVER TRIES TO CONTROL HIS. But, from what I hear from my friends and such, this is subtle problem that seems to be more perpetuated by stereotypes about masculinity.

84% of domestic abuse victims are female… Male victims are usually no the victims of Intimacy Terrorism–rather, they fall victim to the kind of situational violence where both parties are involved. (This is still a problem…but it still does not really fall into the “men are oppressed” argument.) Women who are abused, however, are victims of Intimacy Terrorism, where their husband or boyfriend is controlling, abusive both emotionally and physically, and then withholds resources so the woman really has no way to leave. Women and children are the main victims of Intimacy Terrorism, and men are the perpetrators. Again, for the trolls: NOT EVERY MAN IS AN INTIMACY TERRORIST!!! If you want to read more about it, check it out here. And there is even a link for info on abuse against men! Again, it happens, but the trend is mostly against women. And since women are the oppressed gender, we are the ones whose victimization in domestic violence cases is more assuredly caused by culture-wide issues in gender.

Women are five-to-eight times more likely than men to be the victims of domestic abuse.

How can anyone try to argue that men are more oppressed in this situation? Yes, there are problems IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM which is run predominantly by (gasp!) men. So women are not oppressing men in this case. Rather, the system is flawed. It is failing the women it is meant to protect, it has been punishing the wrong people, and since Americans like to rely on it to solve problems like this, it doesn’t allow for the actual causes of the problems to be addressed–problems in our sex and gender roles, institutional problems with marriage, and the social equality of women.

Domestic Violations by Cathy Young

 This is a loooong article, but well worth your time to read. Cathy Young has written a number of article about subjects that are important to me, like domestic violence, and I’ll probably be posting some from time to time. This one is from February 1998, but it’s just as true today as it was then, maybe even more so.

This article resonated with me because I’ve been hearing a lot lately from feminists who see domestic violence as only being from a man to a woman. When you try to point out the data that shows they’re wrong, they just quote their own data that says they’re right.

What’s ironic is, their data is from the same period their leaders made such profoundly misandric statements, and when you try to call them on it, they say, “that was soooo long ago!”

 Whatever…

Domestic Violations

Cathy Young | February 1998 Print Edition

 In the fall of 1996, Susan Finkelstein’s live-in boyfriend was arrested and charged with abusing her. Today, Susan, a 31-year-old free-lance editor in a small Midwestern town, feels that she was abused by the justice system. “I felt so helpless,” she says. “I had no rights. Nobody listened to me, nobody wanted to hear my story.”

The tale sounds familiar enough–except that what angers Susan is not that her boyfriend was treated too leniently but that he was prosecuted at all.

It all started when Susan and her boyfriend, a 44-year-old college administrator whom I’ll call Jim, were having a heated argument on the way home from a party. Both of them, Susan explains, were under a great deal of stress. The quarrel escalated, and Jim decided it would be best to pull over. He wanted to get out of the car and walk, and Susan tried to stop him. “I lost my temper, he lost his temper, and we got into a mutual scuffle,” she says. “I may have scratched him, he may have pushed me. It got physical, but there certainly wasn’t any beating.”

Finally, they cooled down and got back on the road–only to be stopped by a police car. Susan remembers thinking that Jim might have been driving erratically during the fight and might have looked like a drunk driver. But it was something very different. A passing motorist had seen their altercation, written down their license plate number, and called the police.

Despite Susan’s assurances that Jim hadn’t hurt her and she wasn’t afraid of him, he was handcuffed and taken away. Under department policy, an officer told her, they had to make an arrest in a domestic dispute. Says Susan, “I was very upset that they wouldn’t listen when I said that I was fine. They said, `Well, we know that women who are abused often lie out of fear.’”

After spending the night in jail, Jim was arraigned on a misdemeanor charge of domestic violence and prohibited from having any contact with Susan, who had to stay with a friend. Her efforts to convince the judge and the prosecutor that nothing had happened were fruitless.

On a lawyer’s advice, Jim pleaded no contest. He had to write a letter of apology to Susan (which he wrote in her presence and mailed to the district attorney’s office, which forwarded it to her) and attend 10 weekly counseling sessions for batterers, a three-hour drive away, at a cost of $400. He is acutely aware that his record puts him at risk: “If Susan and I have a loud argument and a neighbor calls the police, I’ll be arrested immediately,” he says.

What happened to Jim and Susan–who are still together as a couple–is not an aberration. It’s just another story from the trenches of what might be called the War on Domestic Violence. Born partly in response to an earlier tendency to treat wife-beating as nothing more than a marital sport, this campaign treats all relationship conflict as a crime. The zero-tolerance mentality of current domestic violence policy means that no offense is too trivial, not only for arrest but for prosecution. Consider these recent examples:

In 1996, Seattle City Councilman John Manning, who came home one day and was shocked to find his wife loading her things into a truck, was charged with assault for grabbing her shoulders and sitting her down on the tailgate (causing no injuries). He pleaded guilty to misdemeanor domestic violence, received a deferred prison sentence, and agreed to complete a treatment program for batterers. (The Seattle Times editorialized that the case gave “a public face” to the tragedy of domestic violence.)

The same year, Michigan Judge Joel Gehrke made headlines when he gave convicted spouse abuser Stewart Marshall a literal slap on the wrist, citing the wife’s adultery with her husband’s brother as a mitigating factor. This episode, which provoked cries about judges who go easy on wife beaters, should have raised questions instead about frivolous prosecutions. Aside from the fact that many of the jurors believed Chris Marshall had set up the incident as a leverage-gaining divorce tactic, Stewart’s assault consisted of grabbing her by the sweatshirt and pushing her; she did not suffer a single scrape. A woman juror who backed Judge Gehrke’s decision explained that the jury “had to say guilty” because “if you touch, it’s battery.”

In those cases, at least, the alleged victims wanted a prosecution. But increasingly, women who don’t–like Susan Finkelstein–find their wishes ignored. This issue was brought into the spotlight by the 1996 Texas trial of football star Warren Moon, whose wife Felicia was forced to take the stand against him. In a less famous case in St. Paul, Minnesota, two years earlier, Jeanne Chacon, an attorney, tried not only to drop battery charges against her fiancé, Peter Erlinder, but to serve as his lawyer. Though Chacon herself had called the police and accused Erlinder of “slamming” her to the ground, she quickly changed her story: Abused as a child, she explained that she was prone to violent outbursts, and that Erlinder had merely restrained her with a “basket-
hold” technique recommended by her own therapists. Her therapists corroborated her story, and Chacon had several violent episodes while the case was pending. Still, prosecutors insisted on going to trial–which, like the Moon case, ended in acquittal.

Like many crusades to stamp out social evils, the War on Domestic Violence is a mix of good intentions (who could be against stopping spousal abuse?), bad information, and worse theories. The result has been a host of unintended consequences that do little to empower victims while sanctioning state interference in personal relationships.

The battered women’s advocacy movement, which has led the campaign against domestic abuse, is heavily influenced by radical feminist politics and tends to frame the issue in terms of a male “war against women.” The mission statement of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence links “violence against women and children” to “sexism, racism, classism, anti-semitism, able-bodyism, ageism and other oppressions.” Booklets funded by government and by charities such as United Way assert that “battering is the extreme expression of the belief in male dominance over women.”

Such thinking is responsible for such widely circulated factoids as “domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to American women,” “battering causes more injuries to women than car accidents, rapes, and muggings combined,” or “25 to 35 percent of women in emergency rooms are there for injuries from domestic violence.” These patently false numbers (data from the Justice Department and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggest that less than 1 percent of women’s emergency-room visits are due to assaults by male partners, and that about 10 times as many women are injured in auto accidents) are complemented by increasingly expansive definitions of abuse.

Thus, in her landmark book, The Battered Woman (1979), psychologist Lenore Walker writes that “a battered woman is a woman who is repeatedly subjected to any forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man in order to coerce her to do something” (emphasis added). While Walker focuses primarily on women who have been physically assaulted, she also talks about men “battering” their wives by, for example, being inattentive. Pamphlets distributed by family violence programs stress that one doesn’t have to be hit to be abused and list such forms of abuse as “calling you names,” “criticizing you for small things,” or “making you feel bad about yourself.” A booklet published by the state of New Jersey, Domestic Violence: The Law and You, informs the reader that she is a victim of domestic violence if she has experienced “embarrassment or alarm because of lewd or shocking behavior” or “repeated verbal humiliation and attacks.”

These ideas have consequences. By 1982, largely due to lobbying by advocacy groups, a majority of states expanded police authority to make arrests in misdemeanor assaults which the officers had not actually witnessed–a move applauded by most law enforcement personnel and family violence researchers. But as the rate of arrest remained low, many states and jurisdictions began to go further and mandate arrests, a policy viewed with far more ambivalence. This trend has been boosted by the post-O.J. Simpson-trial attention to domestic abuse and by incentives for pro-arrest policies in the federal Violence Against Women Act of 1994.

Such policies have undeniably increased the number of arrests. It is far less clear, however, that they have had a significant impact on spousal abuse. Christopher Pagan, who was until recently a prosecutor in Hamilton County, Ohio, estimates that due to a 1994 state law requiring police on a domestic call either to make an arrest or to file a report explaining why no arrest was made, “domestics” went from 10 percent to 40 percent of his docket. But, he suggests, that doesn’t mean actual abusers were coming to his attention more often. “We started getting a lot of push-and-shoves,” says Pagan, “or even yelling matches. In the past, police officers would intervene and separate the parties to let them cool off. Now those cases end up in criminal courts. It’s exacerbating tensions between the parties, and it’s turning law-abiding middle-class citizens into criminals.”

Many police officers agree–though all of those who were willing to discuss their misgivings asked that their names not be used, given the charged nature of the subject and their criticism of official policy. “We need domestic violence law but we need common sense, too,” says a veteran small-town policeman in New Jersey. The officer stresses that he doesn’t miss the days when a woman could be bruised or bloodied and you couldn’t arrest the man unless she was willing to risk enraging him further by signing a complaint. But today, he says, the law has gone to the other extreme: “Sometimes the wife’s begging, `Don’t arrest him, the kids are here,’ and you have to arrest.”

It’s not just male officers who chafe at having their hands tied. A woman I’ll call Sally Gilmore, a sergeant on the nearly all-male police force of a working-class New Jersey town, feels that mandatory arrest rules often force cops to act against their better judgment. She recalls responding to a quarrel between a woman and her ex-boyfriend, who had come over to pick up his things. After being told that he couldn’t be arrested for shouting at her, the woman suddenly “remembered” that he had also hit her and pointed to a bruise on her leg. “I asked, `When did this happen?’ and she said, `Just now,’” says Gilmore. “Well, this bruise was days old. He said he didn’t hit her. I basically knew she was lying, but I had no choice.”

The effects of mandatory arrest are compounded by no-drop prosecutions. The assumption behind no-drop policies is that when women recant or refuse to press charges, it is out of fear or dependence. But reality is far more complex. The woman may feel, rightly or not, that she is not in danger and can handle the situation better without the complications of a legal case; or the lines between aggressor and victim may be blurred; or the charge may have been false, made in anger, and later regretted.

A counselor with a family violence intervention program in Florida who generally favors no-drop prosecutions saw this happen with her own daughter Angela–a troubled young woman with a severe drinking problem–and her live-in boyfriend. One evening, says the counselor, who also requested anonymity, an intoxicated Angela wanted to go out to buy more liquor: “Her boyfriend won’t give her the money. So she goes out to the corner and calls the police saying he has locked her out–which he probably had because he didn’t want trouble–and fills out a report saying he threatened her, she’s afraid of him, and so on.” The police took her home and arrested the young man. The next day, a now-sober Angela was appalled by what she had done and tried to back out–to no avail. With her mother’s help, she hired a lawyer, and her boyfriend was eventually allowed to plead no contest.

These policies apply not only to violence between spouses or cohabitants. Shortly after Wisconsin’s mandatory arrest law took effect, a Milwaukee mom was locked up for slapping her misbehaving teenage son. In 1996 in Missouri, a father was arrested and charged with assault because, after his 17-year-old son refused to get up early to mow the lawn, the father pushed the lawnmower into the teenager’s room and started it up.

Curiously, battered women’s advocates (and journalists who take their cue from the activists) continue to claim that police and the courts treat domestic abuse less seriously than non-family assaults. In fact, this may not have been true even prior to feminist-initiated reforms. In the 1992 book Policing Domestic Violence, University of Maryland criminologist Lawrence Sherman concludes that underenforcement of assault and battery laws was hardly unique to domestic violence. He cites data from the 1970s showing that police were reluctant to intervene in any violent personal dispute, be it a marital squabble, a neighborhood quarrel, or a bar brawl. All else (such as injury) being equal, the rates of arrest were similar for domestic and non-domestic cases. Certainly, more recent studies show no evidence of discrimination against battered women. Analyzing the handling of violent offenses in 1987-88 in Arizona, feminist criminologist Kathleen Ferraro found–to her own surprise–that while most attacks of any kind were either not prosecuted or were charged as misdemeanors, felony assaults were less likely to be dismissed if they involved spouses or partners (even though the victims in domestic cases were much more likely to request a dismissal). Nor did the victim-offender relationship affect the severity of the sentence.

Nowadays, however, some crusaders openly argue that domestic violence should be taken more seriously than other crimes. In 1996, the sponsor of a New York bill toughening penalties for misdemeanor assault on a family member (including ex-spouses and unwed partners) vowed to oppose a version extending the measure to all assaults: “The whole purpose of my bill is to single out domestic violence,” Assemblyman Joseph Lentol said. “I don’t want the world to think we’re treating stranger assaults the same way as domestic assaults.”

These arguments, however, are rooted in the paradigm of domestic violence promoted by the battered women’s movement: the woman, powerless and trapped by economic or psychological dependency, is victimized by the brutal, domineering man who uses force to impose control. Certainly, some cases fit this model; but many others do not.

For one, the feminist paradigm ignores mutual combat and female aggression. Surveys by pioneering family violence researchers Murray Straus of the University of New Hampshire and Richard Gelles of the University of Rhode Island have found that half of all spousal violence is reciprocal while the rest is evenly split between female-only and male-only violence (though men are more likely to inflict serious damage). Those findings are confirmed by a host of other studies. Nonetheless, materials distributed by advocacy groups and used in training for judges, prosecutors, and police assert that 95 percent of domestic violence is male-on-female and dismiss mutual brawling as a “myth.”

Because of this ideology, the War on Domestic Violence gets a bit schizophrenic when it comes to female aggression. Ironically, mandatory arrest laws have led to a rise in the number of women arrested for domestic assault, as sole perpetrators or together with their partners; in some states, women now account for about a quarter of all arrests. According to criminologist Lawrence Sherman, this “resulted in intensive lobbying [by battered women’s advocates] not to arrest women regardless of probable cause to do so.” In response, many jurisdictions have devised ways around formal gender neutrality.

In Michigan, for instance, when Susan Finkelstein told the arresting officer that she was at least as much the aggressor in their altercation as Jim, she was informed that the policy required arresting the larger of the two parties. More commonly, mandatory arrest laws are amended with a “primary aggressor” clause, which can be interpreted quite creatively: Sherman recalls an incident he saw in one of his field studies in which the man was arrested because he had yelled at his wife–even though she was the only one to actually strike a blow.

While battered women’s advocates have had a major impact on the ways in which charges of spousal assault are handled by criminal courts, the reach of the War on Domestic Violence is still somewhat limited by constitutional protections for defendants. Perhaps the worst excesses of this crusade are found in the use and abuse of civil orders of protection, also known as restraining orders–which require lower levels of evidence and can be issued without the accused having a chance to defend himself.

Court orders prohibiting one party not only from harassing but, in some cases, from approaching or contacting another are not limited to domestic violence cases. Normally, getting such an order is a cumbersome process. But under abuse prevention laws, on the books in 48 states by 1988, restraining orders are easily available against current or former spouses or cohabitants and some other family members. (Whether the relationship is close enough to qualify–how about an ex-sister-in-law?–can become the key issue at a hearing.) In the last decade, many states have strengthened this legislation, further streamlining the process of obtaining an order, extending eligibility to people who had dated but not lived together, and toughening penalties for violators.

The basis for a restraining order need not include violence. In Massachusetts, over half of the 60,000 restraining orders in domestic cases issued every year do not, according to a 1995 state report, involve so much as an allegation of physical abuse. Elaine Epstein, past president of the Massachusetts Bar Association, recalls “affidavits which just said someone was in fear, or there had been an argument or yelling–not even a threat.” In 1990, the state’s highest court ruled that a restraining order had to be based on “reasonable fear” of “imminent serious physical harm”; but many judges don’t like taking chances and are satisfied with a positive answer to the question, “Are you afraid of bodily harm by the defendant?” In New Jersey, abusive acts which qualify for a restraining order include verbal harassment (which need not involve threats).

Moreover, temporary restraining orders are granted ex parte, without the defendant being present or notified–much less informed of the specific charges. Supporters of current laws concede that getting an order takes very little evidence. “I think judges grant the restraining orders without asking too many questions,” Massachusetts state legislator Barbara Gray, a sponsor of the original abuse prevention statute, told me in 1995. (Gray has since retired.)

Usually within 10 days, a hearing must be held to determine if the order will be extended for a year or more. That’s when the defendant can tell his side–in theory. In fact, writes Boston attorney Miriam Altman, “the mere allegation of domestic abuse…may shift the burden of proof to the defendant.” Hearsay is allowed; cross-examination may be limited; and, many lawyers say, the judge is unlikely to give serious consideration to exculpatory evidence. “I don’t need a full-scale hearing,” one judge told attorney (and Massachusetts state legislator) James Fagan when he brought witnesses disputing a woman’s claim of harassment by his client. The only issue, the judge declared, was whether he felt the woman was fearful–”it isn’t even who’s telling the truth,” he said.

The consequences of a restraining order for the man on the receiving end (and it usually is a man) can be quite serious. If he shares a home with the plaintiff, he will usually be ordered to vacate the premises. Any contact becomes illegal–in many states, a felony punishable by prison or fines (it doesn’t matter if the “victim” agreed to or even initiated the contact). This can have particularly wrenching consequences when there are children involved.

Men who have had restraining orders issued against them on the basis of uncorroborated or trivial allegations have been jailed for sending their kids a Christmas card; for asking a telephone operator to convey a harmless message; for accidental “contact” at the courthouse; and for returning a child’s phone call. The pressure on judges and prosecutors to be tough on violators comes not only from women’s groups but from the media. In Massachusetts, the Boston Globe has been crusading tirelessly on the issue, while showing no interest in horror stories of restraining-order overkill.

While father-rights activists claim that most restraining orders are based on false claims, defenders of the law say that no more than 5 percent of the charges are false. That still adds up to about 2,000 a year in Massachusetts alone–hardly an insignificant figure when it’s a matter of people being evicted from their homes, cut off from their children, sometimes jailed, and branded with the equivalent of a criminal record (their names are entered in the abusers’ registry)–all without the safeguards of a criminal trial.

The policies in Massachusetts may be unusually tough, but they’re hardly unique. Connecticut attorney Arnold Rutkin, editor of the legal journal Family Advocate, writes that judges tend to take a “rubberstamping” approach to protection orders, and the “due process hearings” held later are “usually a sham.” A New Jersey woman whose estranged husband threatened to take “drastic measures” if she didn’t pay the household bills–by which he meant having her telephone disconnected–was granted a permanent restraining order due to “harassment.” When state appellate courts moved to curb these excesses, resulting in fewer restraining orders, an outcry from advocates was quick to follow.

When the advocates and their friends in the legislatures do acknowledge the potential for the misuse of restraining orders, it is usually to say that no safeguards can be adopted without endangering victims. As Barbara Gray told me, “You [would be] saying to a judge: On an emergency basis, you have to look at this woman and see whether you think she’s telling the truth.” Given the horrifying statistics on violence against women, says Gray, one can’t take the risk of not taking all accusations seriously.

Some judges seem to share that attitude. At a 1995 seminar, dispensing advice to incoming municipal judges, Judge Richard Russell of the Ocean City, New Jersey, municipal court declared, “Your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man that you’re violating as you grant a restraining order. Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back and tell him, see ya around. …The woman needs this protection because the statute granted her that protection….They have declared domestic violence to be an evil in our society. So we don’t have to worry about the rights.”

Judge Russell’s comments, captured on tape and printed in the New Jersey Law Journal, raised a few eyebrows. However, he suffered no consequences beyond a mild chiding from the Administrative Office of the Courts. By contrast, recently in Maine, Judge Alexander MacNichol was denied reappointment by Gov. Angus King after battered women’s advocates complained about his alleged insensitivity to women applying for restraining orders–which, the judge’s many defenders said, meant simply that he listened to both sides of the story.

Beyond questions of civil liberties and due process, there is no proof that the crackdown prevents domestic homicides, the ostensible goal of hardline restraining order procedures. Nor is there evidence that it prevents serious assaults. A man who intends to kill a woman and either plans to take his own life or knows that he will face murder charges won’t be deterred by the penalties for violating a restraining order, as too many headlines show. A 1984 study by Janice Grau, Jeffrey Fagan, and Sandra Wexler has concluded that the orders have a protective effect for women who were not severely victimized in the first place. If so, peddling them to women in real danger is like giving cancer patients aspirin.

“The restraining order law was changed to protect women who were really abused, but it doesn’t work,” says Sally Gilmore, the New Jersey police officer. “All it does is create an incredible amount of paperwork for the cops, and most of the time it’s just revenge, or just to get him out of the house.”

Indeed, it has become a commonplace among lawyers of both sexes that restraining orders are routinely misused as a weapon in divorces. It’s hard to come up with reliable estimates of how frequently that happens. But given the advantages conferred by a restraining order, from possession of the house to virtually automatic custody of the children, the temptation is certainly there.

Robert Byers, a Georgia contractor, found himself embroiled in a particularly twisted saga. In 1993, his wife, Lori Anderson, left the state with their 8-year-old daughter. He soon learned that they were with her relatives in Massachusetts–and that the police there were trying to serve him with a restraining order. He went to Massachusetts for a hearing; his request for a continuance so that he could get a lawyer was denied, and the order was extended for a year, barring him from all contact with his wife or child.

Byers went home and filed for divorce. When the Georgia court had trouble locating Anderson to notify her of the custody hearing, he returned to Massachusetts and went to serve her with the papers. She called the police and he was arrested for violating the restraining order; unable to make bail, he was locked up for three months. Finally, he pleaded guilty to the violation in exchange for a suspended sentence.

In October 1994, Byers won custody in Georgia and went back to Massachusetts to petition for the return of his daughter. The next day, Anderson filed a complaint, alleging that he had loitered in her driveway and made threatening calls to her sister. This time, Byers was held without bail. In February 1995, he was found not guilty by a five-woman, one-man jury; the judge also threw out his earlier suspended sentence after reviewing the evidence.

Two hours after Byers’s release, Anderson got a new restraining order. It’s hard to tell how long this farce would have dragged on if a probate judge had not put an end to it by ruling that Massachusetts had to honor the Georgia custody decree. Byers was able to take his child home only after a total of nearly 200 days behind bars.

Stories like that of Byers, perhaps without happy endings, are likely to become increasingly common. Spurred by the O.J. Simpson case, the War on Domestic Violence has intensified in the past three years. The Michigan legislature, in a fit of O.J.-itis, decided to allow restraining orders to take effect as soon as they are issued, before the defendant has been served–which means that he can face criminal charges for something he didn’t know was a crime, creating great opportunities for entrapment. Last June, California abolished a provision allowing defendants in misdemeanor domestic assaults to have the incident expunged from police records if they compensate the victim and undergo counseling–an option still available to the accused in other assault cases. In 1996, a new federal law made domestic violence the only misdemeanor for which a person loses the right to own a gun (with the spurious explanation that domestic assaults are more likely to be prosecuted as misdemeanors than non-domestic ones of equal gravity).

Undoubtedly, there are cases in which victims of intimate violence are badly let down by the system, sometimes with fatal results. But apathy and excessive zeal can coexist–just as horror stories of children yanked from parental homes on flimsy suspicions of abuse coexist with ones of abused children handed back to their tormentors. Indeed, when apathy and excessive zeal do coexist, the policy implications are often disastrous. Douglas Besharov, a child welfare expert at the American Enterprise Institute, compellingly argues that overzealous probes of frivolous claims of child abuse lead to underenforcement where action is needed most because the system is too bogged down in trivial pursuit to single out the serious cases.

It’s probably the same with domestic violence. The system, says sociologist Richard Gelles, fails to differentiate between minor charges of abuse and cases rife with danger signs–such as the events leading to the death of Kristin Lardner, the daughter of Washington Post reporter George Lardner. (The former boyfriend who fatally shot her in May 1992 before killing himself had a long history of criminal behavior; yet after assaulting Kristin, he was not jailed, despite violating his probation.) Indeed, manipulators may be more likely to get the system to work to their advantage than real victims, too scared or too unsophisticated to navigate its channels.

Even if the dangerous cases are caught early, some people are going to be badly hurt or even killed by their mates. Such things are not always predictable. And we might ask, without creating a new “abuse excuse,” whether being denied access to his children might not push a nonviolent person over the edge. “People with nothing to lose are dangerous people,” says James Fagan, the Massachusetts attorney and state legislator.

The most obvious casualties of the War on Domestic Violence have been men, particularly men involved in contentious divorces. But it has also hurt many of the women who are its intended beneficiaries. Part of the problem is the one-size-fits-all approach to domestic violence. For many couples in violent relationships, particularly those involved in mutual violence, joint counseling offers the best solution. But if they have come to the attention of the authorities, it’s one form of counseling to which they are unlikely to be referred. Couples therapy is vehemently opposed by battered women’s advocates–ostensibly out of concern for women’s safety, but also because of the implication that both partners must change their behavior.

A few years ago, James Dolan, first justice of Dorchester District Court in Massachusetts, warned that the system may be engaging in “benign abuse” by “denying women the right to continue a relationship without submitting to the authority of the court.” Dolan may have been stretching the term abuse, but quite a few women might agree with his assessment.

And then there are the women who, often on the basis of a misunderstanding or a single, trivial incident blown out of proportion, are labeled as victims against their will. “It was very paternalistic, even if women were involved in the system,” says Susan Finkelstein, reflecting on her experience. “At one point, I told a prosecutor that I didn’t appreciate being told what was best for me by someone who didn’t even know me. She said, `It strikes me as odd that you don’t appreciate the fact that we’re trying to protect you.’ What I said didn’t matter. It seems so ironic that in trying to give women a voice, they are taking away their voices.”

Free Copy of Friends To The End - Support DAHMW and Trudy Schuett

From Trudy:

We’re officially launched over at the new DAHMW website. The front page has a new  message which will be up for a few days before it goes back to what’s supposed to be there.

That special message includes a link where you can go to get a no-cost download of Friends to the End in either PDF or Word Doc for your reading pleasure. No registration involved; no hoops to jump through, just a download.

We also have a number of new ways to help support the work of DAHMW on the Support Our Work page  Some of these are through online shopping which doesn’t cost any extra to the customer.

There are plenty of volunteer opportunites available, as well. Nearly all of these are things that can be done from a home office, as we recognize a commute to Maine is not always feasible for everybody ;>)  Not to mention that online is what DAHMW is all about!

Please tell your people about the new stuff and the new site!

–
Trudy W. Schuett
http://trudywschuett.homestead.com
Friends to the End
Sweethearts & Monsters

Anti-Feminist Beliefs & Criticism, Or One Feminist’s Impressions

I came across this article the other day, and it struck me as a good example of the disconnect between feminist ideology and the reality of life in the Western world. I know such examples are everywhere, but this one managed to cram so many (deliberate) misconceptions into one article, I thought it would be convenient to address them all at once. Call me lazy…  The article is called “Anti-Feminist Beliefs & Criticism”, and it was written by one Suzanne MacNevin in January 2008. The title implies a bit broader scope than it covers, but still it hits on quite a few beliefs, or should I say, feminist interpretations of the beliefs of anti-feminists, and as such is worth picking apart:  

Anti-Feminist Beliefs & Criticism

By Suzanne MacNevin - January 2008. There is a growing plethora of anti-feminist websites out there and there is noticable trends amongst the topics discussed amongst such websites. One of the leading criticisms is that feminists are out to get pregnant and get alimony/child support payments from their deadbeat dads/husbands. 

I don’t think it’s that they’re out to get pregnant, it’s that they have nothing to lose and much to gain financially by filing for divorce when they get tired of their husbands. I’m not sure why you’re labeling the men as “deadbeat dads” when you you haven’t gotten to the divorce part yet, but your bias is clearly showing. 

Which leads me to one conclusion: The primary driving force behind such websites are “Deadbeat Dads” who sometimes write under the guise of a female name. 

I can see how someone with your attitude could be led to such a conclusion, but it’s hardly the only possible one. It isn’t even a very likely one.  By the way, I’m not a Deadbeat Dad writing under the guise of a female name. I’m a woman who uses her powers of observation and an open mind to see what’s going on around me. I don’t write because I’m disgruntled about a child support arrangement; I write because I can’t stand injustice or double standards, both of which are rampant against men, and especially fathers, in Western society. 

The websites typically include statements like the following: “Women will use sex and pregnancy to snare a man’s wallet.” “Marriage is a trap designed to enslave men.”“Divorced women take their ex-husbands for every penny.”“Women make men pay child alimony for children they didn’t even father.”“Feminists use divorce to take away a man’s children and his money.”“Women falsely accuse men of cheating and then take their bank accounts.”“Bachelorism is the only way to fight feminism.” You get the general idea. Basically these are men who are complaining about spousal/child support and divorce settlements. The last statement about bachelorism is essential to the “anti-feminist philosophy” that all women are money-grubbers and that you mustn’t commit to a relationship because she will wipe out your bank account. Perhaps for some men this might be good advice. Seriously. If the men in question actually believe these kind of bullshit statements there isn’t a lot we women can do to change their minds. They have essentially become brainwashed by the philosophy of bachelorism and thus can’t commit to a relationship (and likewise would probably make horrible parents and adulterous husbands). 

Every one of those statements is based on fact. They don’t say “all women”, or “every woman”, they say “woman”. It’s like when you say “Deatbeat Dads” when referring to divorced fathers. I’m sure you don’t mean every divorced father is a deadbeat, right? Or do you?  Unfortunately, Suzanne, you don’t get the general idea. What you see as fathers refusing to take responsibility and spreading misogyny while they’re at it, is in fact men who have been through the wringer warning men who haven’t. The sad thing is that men still innately love women, and that’s why we have an epidemic of men living in poverty and unable to see their children. Because the warnings are not heeded. They’re not “brainwashed by the philosophy of bachelorism”; they’re learning some self-preservation skills.   

So why bother trying to change their opinion? Well, one can hope, but if they aren’t smart enough to figure out the flawed logic of bachelorism they are much more likely to be proponents of it than possible converts to equality.

 So far, Suzanne, I haven’t seen any proof of flawed logic on their part. Calling the statements “bullshit”, and slamming men who don’t want to be victims as “horrible parents and adulterous husbands” is pure opinion on your part. Your logic isn’t even flawed; it just hasn’t been evidenced to this point.  

After all bachelorism does offer a lot of tantalizing prospects for men:

 •             No need to commit to a relationship.•             No need to marry.•             He can sleep with many different women.•             He can have group sex.•             He doesn’t have to worry about raising children•             He doesn’t have to worry about financially supporting children and/or wife.•             More free time due to complete lack of family responsibilities.•             Able to travel more with less responsibilities.•             Able to live the wild lifestyle of a bachelor.

 This makes me the saddest of anything you’ve written so far. If you had actually had a conversation with the men you find on anti-feminist sites, with the possible exception of the radical ones, you would know that men in general would like nothing more in this world than to settle down with one woman life, raise their children, and make sure everyone is taken care of. They are operating out of self-defense. 

Theoretically he also gains more financial security and less stress, although the reverse can be easily argued if the woman also works and children provide a source of happiness and stress relief.

Actually, he does gain more financial security and less stress, as if he is married and a father, he knows that in the even of divorce, the majority of which are initiated by the woman, he has a snowball’s chance in hell of gaining even equal custody, much less unlimited access to his own children. In addition, all she has to do is say, “I’m afraid of him”, and BAM instant restraining order, and he doesn’t see them at all. Even if she doesn’t do that, her word will be taken over his in court, and child support will be ordered, very often in an amount more than he can afford and also have a roof over his head.  She can be the best wife and mother in the world, it doesn’t change the fact that she can play those cards at any time. Again, it’s not that men hate women. They just know what a chancy proposition it is to marry one and/or make babies. 

There are after all a fair number of men out there who due to their personal beliefs do not make ideal husbands or fathers. Infidelity and cheating being a regular occurrence, plus some men may simply may not be cut out to handle to the trials and tribulations of raising a family. I would argue therefore that these “below par” men simply aren’t ready (and may never be ready) to commit to either the faithfulness or the responsibilities required of marriage and children. 

Would you mind proving that? What is “a fair number”? What “personal beliefs” are you talking about? Is this more of your flawless logic? 

But with time that can change. As men get older they will undoubtably notice the loneliness and feel like they are missing out on something. They won’t be able to party like they once did and will be lonely on Christmas and Valentines. Presumably time will eventually mellow these men out, hopefully within time for them to still raise a meaningful family. 

Actually, men are already lonely. They know they are missing out on something. They just can’t believe, given our current culture, that that “something” is even possible. I have to agree with them that it occurs only rarely. The ones who don’t realize they’re missing out are the women who are too busy with social lives and careers to commit to loving and supporting one man, warts and all. 

Sadly one of the fundamental beliefs of bachelorism is that women are to blame for divorce. I disagree. 

You can disagree all you want. Women instigate the majority of divorces. Numbers don’t lie. 

I think both sexes are to blame for the bad choices that led to their marriage in the first place. People rush into marriage way too easily. It is much wiser in my opinion to give the relationship time and then when they are more certain of their compatibility and ability to commit then they should consider marriage. Some of the primary causes of divorce is sexual unhappiness, infidelity, money, stress and lack of trust/communication. Those problems lead to the breakdown of the marriage and either sex can be to blame. Money is an important part of this. Men can be rather sensitive about money and paying spousal/child support to these men seems wildly unfair. Why should they have to pay for children they themselves didn’t give birth to? 

This is a completely unfair, ridiculous, bigoted, and offensive statement. It has nothing at all to do with who carried the child. Did you ever stop to consider that without his sperm, there would be no child?? Did you ever stop to consider that fathers love their children, and would do anything for them? Did you ever stop to consider that it’s not the child support they object to, but the crippling amount of it? Or the fact that she’s using that money - supposedly earmarked “for the children”, to get her nails done? Or that they’re in agony because they miss their children? What about the ones whose children are turned against them by their mothers? You should be absolutely ashamed of yourself for making such a statement. If you were near me, I’d wash your mouth out with soap. 

Because they still made the choice to have sex and make a child. That seemingly small and insignificant act is nevertheless the life giving act of creation and gives the woman two choices: Abortion or a lifetime commitment to raise a child, including all of its financial burdens. 

True. They didn’t choose to be nothing but a walking wallet. Financial burdens??? You have got to be kidding me. Trust me, hon, the single mom in the Western world will never go hungry.  

If the couple in question is married it is already presumed that their marriage includes the goal of making babies and having children. The male is automatically financially responsible for the welfare of the child (and therefore also to the mother who may have to quit work or cutback her workload in order to properly take care of the child). 

The idea behind marriage is to partner through the rest of their lives. Children are not part of the marriage equation. If they both decide they want children, then fine. If he doesn’t want them, and she does, so she lies about the birth control and conceives, why in hell should he have to pay for her choice? The law says he does have to pay, though. That’s just one more reason men have to distrust women. Congratulations. 

If they are not married the legal matter varies from country to country, but the laws usually expect the male to assume some part of the financial burden. Is it fair for men to be forced to assume financial responsibility for their “wild oats”? Absolutely. Men don’t take this matter seriously enough. They think they can sleep with whomever they want without any consequences but in this world of STDs, HIV/AIDS and pregnancy that is simply not true. 

True that. And in this age of sexual freedom, women face that same choice. What if he wants the child, and she doesn’t? Too bad, so sad, should have been born a woman. Do you honestly not see the double standard? And please don’t tell me how hard it is on a woman’s body to carry and birth a child. Please. That is what our bodies are made to do. If she doesn’t want it, she should give it to the dad and pay child support until the child is 18 or out of college. If she doesn’t want to get pregnant, maybe she shouldn’t have spread her legs, or forgotten to take her pills last week, eh, Suzanne? 

I’m not one to point to the Bible as a source of wisdom, but there is a reason why adultery and sex before marriage is frowned upon. In ancient times if a young woman lost her virginity before marriage (or if her husband abandons her and runs off) she would end up impoverishing her parents with an extra mouth to feed. If the family was farmers they might not mind so much so long as food is plentiful and they need an extra person to help with the work. But if not that “bastard baby” could cause financial and social problems. 

That’s funny. My understanding is that if she lost her virginity, he married and supported her. Is this some new feminist interpretation of the Bible? 

The same is true today. We look up to women who manage to make it on their own, but it is a difficult task and well-nigh impossible without the aid of family, friends, husband and/or government support. Why should the government (and thus taxpayers) be forced to support the mother and child when it was partially the fault of the father who sired the child? How fair is that for society to end up paying for one man’s sexual urges and inability to stop spreading his seed around? 

Excuse me? What happened to the miracle of pregnancy and birth giving her all the rights? How is this all of a sudden all the man’s doing? You have a shifting sense of reality. Real life doesn’t change according to your moods. If it was true 3 paragraphs ago, it’s true now. If it’s not true now, then it wasn’t true before. Your logic is seriously flawed. 

And if society or the deadbeat father doesn’t pay up what is the social effect of having hundreds or thousands of women impoverished and struggling to feed and clothe these children? No, I am sorry dear bachelors. You need to own up to your responsibilities and stop blaming feminists for what is primarily a societal matter and only a feminist matter due to context of divorce and motherhood. 

Divorce and modern motherhood are exactly what it IS about, Suzanne. Men don’t have a say in these matters. Only women do, legally. I grant you, there is the occasional scrupulous woman who treats her man fairly, but frankly most women in the West wouldn’t know “fair” if it bit them on the ass. 

Without child and spousal support a good portion of our economy would be suffering under the weight of sexual and economic repression. In turn our society would also feel a huge limit on sexual freedom. 

Spousal support? If it exists at all, it should last only a year AT THE MOST until the mother can get on her feet, and that’s only if she has no education or work experience. Better yet, let the children go to the parent best able to support them. Having breasts and ovaries does not by any means make someone a better parent. In fact, most cases of abuse and murder of one’s own children are committed by the mother. I’m sure you’ll find a way to blame a man for that one, also. As for limiting sexual freedom, you say that like it’s a bad thing. Sex is meant to be so much more than meaningless rutting. Thank you, feminism, for turning it into no more than dogs mating on the back porch. 

Men should think twice about their sexual freedom and how they take it for granted. Don’t abuse it. Wear a condom if you’re not ready to have a child. 

Men get this. That’s why they’re not marrying. I’m thinking maybe women could benefit from taking your advice, though. 

And don’t blame feminism if your relationship or marriage goes sour. You made your decisions and you have to live with the consequences. Blaming women and being a deadbeat dad isn’t going to help anything but your own sense of selfishness. 

We didn’t have an epidemic of single mothers before feminism. Coincidence? You tell me. 

Special Report: The Trouble With Men, Article by Adam Dudding

Special Report: The Trouble With MenArticle by Adam Dudding The article starts out ok, and I think the author genuinely means to be sympathetic toward men. Unfortunately, it soon veers off into misconceptions and winds up being just another “let’s blame men for _______” article. I’ll hit some of the highlights.  *Disclaimer* I am American through and through, and I wouldn’t have even known this was about Kiwi men if the article didn’t explicitly point it out. I know nothing of Kiwi men. I’m saying this relates to us all, Kiwi or not, male or not. 

Count the heads, says economist Paul Callister, and it’s all too obvious that New Zealand men are increasingly going missing from the education system, missing from families, missing from certain areas of the workforce and literally missing due to unnecessarily early death.

 

Some of our most lethal problems can be blamed on our evolutionary heritage, says University of Canterbury psychology professor Garth Fletcher. Since our distant hunter-gatherer past, men have always taken greater risks with their physical safety than women, in the hope of gaining social status and impressing a potential mate.

 Hmm…I always thought that our hunter-gatherer male ancestors took the greater risks with their physical safety so that the tribe could eat and have skins and sinews and bones and stuff. I had no idea it was all about strutting at the local mall. What was I thinking? So the human male is like a giant peacock. Good to know. Social status very likely played a part, but it’s not the same thing as playing chicken. The point had to be made, though, else how could Mr. Dudding go on about fast-driving, risk-taking, hard-drinking Kiwi men?  

In the mid-1980s a time of radical economic change the annual male suicide rate in New Zealand leapt from 15 per 100,000 of population to 29, and stayed there through the 1990s; over the same period, the female rate held steady at six per 100,000.

 

Actually, says Fletcher, you’d expect male suicide rates to rise faster than women’s at such times, because of the greater importance men place on status; depression and suicide are characteristic male responses to loss of that status.

 Oh, yes, I’m sure it’s because men have “lost status” that their suicide rate doubled for that 15-year span. I wonder if it could have anything to do with the fact that more and more men were being cut off from their families and going to jail for defaulting on their child-support? Which support, I might add, was based on their incomes while employed. What happens when these men get downsized out of their jobs? Do they get a government program to re-train them? Hell no. They get accused of working under the table and being deadbeats, purposely keeping money from their children out of a sense of petty revenge.  Tell me, if a child is only allowed to see its father for a very limited time, enforced by the government, who is the one with the opportunity to alienate it from its father? (Hint: It’s the one who qualifies for public assistance and gets primary custody in the majority of cases because everyone knows that people with boobies are nurturers and never abuse their kids).  

Not quite. Some men were taking on caregiving roles, but seldom fulltime, and what stood out for Callister was a rather different trend, one which was being spotted throughout the West: as men dropped out of paid work they also tended to drop out of family life. “When men lose their jobs, marriages can split up.”

 

State support for women raising children on their own, plus a growing intolerance of violence by men towards their partners, bolstered that trend. (Meanwhile, a different set of high-achieving men tended to end up with high-achieving partners, enjoying their double income and putting their children in paid childcare.)

 Probably had nothing to do with the fact that women as a whole tend to “marry-up”. If he’s suddenly not earning more than she is, he winds up looking for a new place to live. Yeah, it’s probably that all those unemployed men, no doubt due to loss of status, started spontaneously beating their wives. (The parenthetical point about high-achieving men winding up with high-achieving partners is interesting, too. Notice the women still aren’t “marrying-down”. ) 

In an influential 1996 essay, the Economist magazine took an apocalyptic, if stereotypical, view: “Consider a neighbourhood in which most working-age women are not in paid jobs. This may conjure up a picture of tidy homes, children at play, and gossip. Now think of a neighbourhood in which most men are jobless. The picture is more sinister. Areas of male idleness are considered, and often are, places of deterioration, disorder, and danger.”

 What the hell? Places where people sit around and do nothing generally are “places of deterioration, disorder, and danger”; that much is true. But it holds true for both sexes. There are some women who keep a tidy house, raise the kids, run the errands, and show affection to their husbands, I’m sure. Some very very few women.  Have you taken a walk through the local Wal-Mart lately? If there was ever a place that needed Spandex Police, that would be it. The aisles are crammed with fat women, often screeching at their children and their men, pushing shopping carts full of cake and chips and ice cream, and wearing clothing that shows off way too much of their anatomy. I’m sorry, but imagining a neighborhood where “most working-age women are not in paid jobs” just conjures a picture for me of Oprah-watching, Starbucks-drinking, online flirting, housework-eschewing harpies. Even the thin ones.  Most of the men I know take their responsibilities very seriously. If they are staying at home taking care of the kids and the chores while she’s earning the income, they’re doing their damnedest to be the best stay-at-home-dad there is. I know there are exceptions, and they’re the ones who get all the press, but they are far from the majority.  

The kind of low-skill manual jobs with which a man could easily support his family in the 1950s were now badly paid or non-existent, replaced with service sector jobs, “and they don’t want some tattooed guy serving coffee; they want a pretty young woman”, says Callister.

 LMAO! Sexist much? 

The trouble is this, says Fletcher: There are young working-class men who, for whatever reason, won’t go to university and won’t get qualifications, and there are young working-class women who are much more likely to do so and get a higher paying job.

 “For whatever reason…” Hmm…could it be that universities cater to women and push liberal, feminist agendas? I read an article recently that said that Women’s Studies is greatly losing popularity as a major. Know why? It’s permeated every course at this point. You can’t NOT get women’s studies. Let’s see, he could go to school and learn about what an oppressor he is while listening to his female friends complain about their thug boyfriends, or he could train as a mechanic and avoid the whole thing. What a difficult choice. There’s some more to the article, but I’ve had my say. It’s good that there are articles like this being published; it’s more than we had before and at least tries to explain why men have the status in society that they do. We need to keep going in this direction, and bring the truth to the mainstream. With feminism dictating the law of the land, and how that law is interpreted and enforced, we have an uphill battle. But I have to believe that eventually people will wake up and actually look at the world around them, and follow the evidence to its logical conclusion.  I just hope it isn’t too late.

Hope Chests = Oppression

I tried and tried to quote only excerpts from this post,   but it only does itself justice if you read the whole thing. Apparently, the ladies…erm….womyn over at feministing can’t imagine why anyone would want a hope chest, filled with hope chest-y things.

According to those paragons of all that a woman should be, wanting to make a comfortable home for your family means that you don’t value education, or accomplishing anything on your own. It seems that if you don’t fit their narrow definition of what a woman should be, ladies, you should be belittled and criticized.

Now what does that remind me of….?

(For an extra treat, pop on over there and read the comments. So much bile in one place. Who would have thought it possible?)

<blockquote>  

March 03, 2008

Anti-feminist org wants to “bring back the hope chest” Who says anti-feminists are out of touch? I mean, who wouldn’t want to enter a contest where the prize is an old cedar chest filled with linens…or something. Seriously, the Clare Booth Luce Policy Institute has a campaign to “Bring Back the Hope Chest.” (And all you have to do is convince your friends to sign up for these super fab “Luce Ladies” calendars!)I was going to write a post about this, but Ann and I had a Skype conversation a couple of days back that I think says it all. Check it after the jump.Jessica Valenti: OMG http://www.cblpi.org/students/ take back the hope chest!Ann Friedman: WHOA!!!!JV: hahahahaah AF: also: “damsels in success”?!?!?! JV: i know! i love this: “The prize (you guessed it–a fabulous, authentic, cedar-lined hope chest filled to the brim with fun, fancy and frivoulous items that any newlywed would would envy) not only celebrates marriage, but makes the man-hating feminists crazy!” AF: hahahahaha JV: hope chests make us crazy? love love love this. can’t wait to post AF: hope chest got me looking so crazy uh oh uh oh uh oh JV: esp since the way to win is to get your friends to sign up for their creepy calendar lol AF: i know! JV: plus the deadline is extended. something tells me swarms of college gals weren’t lining up for musty linens AF: hahaha JV: i wonder what comes in it…. hymens? AF: a copy of Who Stole Feminism and some doilies JV: michelle malkin AF: hahaha… she pops out of it like a stripper, only wearing culottes JV: YES all the shlumps that we’re supposed to take back are also in there an anti-feminist douche comes with every chest! AF: take back the loser! you not only get the sweet retro wedding gear, you get the actual schlub to marry! JV: when you open the chest, laser beams shoot out and disintegrate any diplomas hanging around AF: and automatically impregnate you and zap the shoes off your feet and put a rolling pin in your hand JV: ah, antifeminism

</blockquote>

“Friends To The End” To Benefit DAHMW

I got an email from Trudy Schuett this morning. She recently published in “real” space a book that’s been cyber-published called “Friends To The End”. It’s about a male victim of domestic violence, and all proceeds beyond cost are going to the Domestic Abuse Hotline For Men and Women. Trudy’s been an activist for quite some time now. If you can, and feel so inclined, get a copy. Here’s the text of her email:

Quote:

Friends to the End is a book that sent me off on a path I’d never imagined.When I first started writing it in late 1999, my main intention was to write something a bit unusual; a book that wasn’t appearing in the dozens by different authors under different titles in every bookstore in the country.I began writing this book about a male victim of domestic violence, under the same misapprehensions that most people held at the time, and still hold today — that there is the same help available for male victims as there is for women. All anyone in this kind of situation need do is pick up a phone and help will surely come, is the conventional wisdom.I don’t know why I didn’t know better. After all, I’d been working with and around the social services in my community for over a decade at the time. Yet, when I began searching the internet for the agencies that provided services for male victims, so I could be sure to have my facts straight, I found that these agencies did not exist. Not only did they not exist, some of the women-only agencies were quite put out with me that I should even ask about such services.

Once I did find a good resource, I had to practically re-write the book from the ground up, as the original manuscript was based on ideas that were simply impossible in the real world.

I have to admit I never tried very hard to find a “traditional” publisher, as I’m a citizen of cyberspace through and through. So it happened that the book was published in e-book format by two different publishers – but not until now in hard copy.

People have been nudging me for some time to do this, not the least of whom is Jan Brown, Executive Editor of the Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men & Women. She’s always felt that Friends is an approachable book on the subject, that needs to be available to the general public. Yes, it is fiction, but I’ve been assured by male victims themselves that everything that happens in the book has happened to one or more of them, too.

You’ll probably think that it’s pricey for a paperback, and I suppose that’s true, but I’ve priced it so that DAHMW can make some cash from the proceeds. You see, every dime above costs is going straight to DAHMW. Not a percentage, not a portion, but the whole thing. If you’re not familiar with DAHMW, it is the only agency with a national reach that provides direct client services for male victims of domestic violence.

For those really can’t afford the paperback, it’s available in download form for $5, and DAHMW still gets a nice donation.
Book available at: http://stores.lulu.com/twschuett

Trudy W. Schuett
______________________
http://trudywschuett.homestead.com
P.O. Box 1252
Yuma AZ 85366

It Used To Be Satire…

Darn. I wanted that to be bigger heh. Here’s the text:

LOCAL: Playground Deathtrap

By Sarah Paterno

Margaret Phillips of Blossom Lane has retained the law firm of Liddy Gate & Winn to support her claim against the Cayuga Palms Community Planning board for negligence in playground planning. She claims the negligent planning led to serious injuries to her daughter, Clara.

“It’s not a playground”, Mrs. Phillips says. “It’s a deathtrap. This lawsuit isn’t about the money. It’s about protecting the other children.

She says her daughter Clara allegedly lost her balance on top of the jungle gym because she was trying to light a cigarette without spilling her beer. She lost her balance and fell, breaking her arm and dislocating her shoulder. Mrs. Phillips says the playground should have had signs prohibiting the use of tobacco and alcohol products, and that her 12-year-old daughter wouldn’t have been injured if such signage was there. The community has offered $412.58 , which is the cost of the medical bills, and promised to post new signs. Mrs. Phillips’ lawyers rejected the offer and want $1.8 million in damages.

In The Beginning: Origins of Man and Myth - Joseph Campbell lecture

With all credit to Joseph Campbell, and Harper & Row, Publishers.

Please note: Campbell was a Buddhist, and meant no disrespect to any other religion. I am not a Buddhist, but I mean no disrespect to any other religion either.

I have a Joseph Campbell page, and will move this post there, as soon as I figure out how

I got the text of this lecture from a book I bought, “Transformations of Myth Through Time”. This piece speaks very clearly to the nature of human beings as men and women, and our place in the natural order of things.

The material of myth is the material of our life, the material of our body, and the material of our environment, and a living, vital mythology deals with these in terms that are appropriate to the nature of knowledge of the time.

This woman with her baby is the basic image of mythology. (A photo of an African tribeswoman, sitting in front of her hut, smiling at the camera, with her infant in her arms). The first experience of anybody is the mother’s body. And what Le Debleu called participation mystique, mystic participation between the mother and child and the child and the mother, is the final happy land. The earth and the whole universe, as our mother, carries this experience in to the larger sphere of adult experience. When one can feel oneself in relation to the universe in the same complete and natural way as that of the child with the mother, one is in complete harmony and tune with the universe. Getting into harmony and tune with the universe and staying there is the principal function of mythology. When societies develop out of the earlier primeval condition, the problem is to keep the individual in this participation mystique with the society. Now, looking around, you see how little chance we have, particularly if you live in a large city.

Also we have the problem of the woman and the man in relation to mythological experience. In spite of what the unisex movement states, the differences are radical from the very beginning to the end. This is not a culturally conditioned situation. It is true also of animals, among Jane Goodall’s chimpanzee friends, for example. One of the problems in human development is the long infancy. The child, until fifteen or so, is in a situation of dependency on the parents. This attitude of dependency, the attitude of submission to authority, expecting approval, fearing discipline, is the prime condition of the psyche. It is drilled in. Also, the particular mores, the particular notions of good and evil and roles to play of the society, are imprinted.

One is born, is a blank—a little biological creature living spontaneously out of its nature. But immediately after it is born, the society begins putting its imprinting upon it—the mother body and the whole attitude of the mother. You can have a gentle, loving mother or you can have one who is resentful of the birth, which conditions a whole psychological, out-of-adjustment, situation. I was surprised to hear from Jane Goodall that the young chimpanzee also has a long period of dependency on the mother. and one of the psychological problems of the chimp is the same as that which the human being faces, namely, after weaning and disengagement, to become actively, psychologically, disengaged from the mother.

Until very, very recently, the condition of the female in the human society has been that of service to the coming and maintenance of life, of human life. That was her whole function—the woman in the role of center and continuator of nature. The man, however, has a very short and ultimately unimportant relationship to this whole problem. He has another set of concerns. Jane Goodall’s males control an area of some thirty miles circumference, and they know where the bananas are. When the bananas are failing in one area, they know where to go for more. They also are defenders. They defend against invasions by other little tribes. and just in the primary way, the function of the male in this society is to prepare and maintain a field within which the female can bring forth the future. These are two quite different roles. And their bodies are made for them as well. The male is not engaged, like the female, in the constant charge of children. He has a lot of free time. He knows where the bananas are, but it isn’t time to go there now, and nobody’s bothering us, so what do we do? This is it; in men’s clubs, delousing each other. (A picture of male chimps delousing each other). So, this is a long-standing institution, the men’s hunting team, the sports team, the men’s club.

These are Hill Tribes people of New Guinea. (A picture of tribesmen wearing head-covering mud-clay masks and brandishing bows and spears). Now the interesting thing about this is that this is a ceremonial battle, but serious. There is plenty of food. There is no need for one tribe to invade another to get their property. What are the men going to do? They are sitting around, with nothing to do, so they invent a war. This is a war game, and the spears are serious. So, when one man is killed, the battle ends and then we have a period of waiting for another attack. This gives the men something to do. All the time they are on guard against the other one launching the return attack, preparing for it. The male has to have something serious to do, that’s all.

The male body is built for combat, for defense. It is a fact that, in the human body, every muscle has an impulse to action and one is not fully alive unless one is in action. So we have the invention, always, in societies of games. Games of strength, games of cleverness, games of winning, as in ancient Greece. In the male community what is important is the ranking, the pecking order, what Jane Goodall called “Alpha Male” –who is Alpha Male? Who is top male? In a charging display, a fellow comes down the line pulling down branches, and anyone who wants to claim top male position has to challenge him in the this action. The winner is top male. She describes one little follow, who was anything but a top male, who found that by kicking oil cans around he could make quite an impression. For a couple of days, before everyone else caught on, he was top male.

Jane Goodall described a very interesting episode which struck me, and I bring it forward as a little suggestion. She was seated on a hill slope, observing through glasses a number of her chimpanzee friends over on the opposite slope of the valley. There were half a dozen males, and females of about the same number, and a few of the little ones. It was pouring rain, and suddenly there was a prodigious thunderclap and the males went bananas. They started charging displays one after another. When I heard that I recalled that the philosopher Giambatista Vico (1668-1744) had suggested that the first notion of the godhead arose out of experiencing the voice of the thunder. The voice in the thunder is the first suggestion of a power greater than that of the human system.

The male chimpanzee is almost twice as heavy as the female. There is no question about physical supremacy. This applies largely to the male/female in the human sphere as well. Here is Theseus abducting Antiope, the queen of the Amazons (a picture of a Greek vase picturing this) –the power of the male and the female submission to it. The female is physically vulnerable. Also, she is booty, and one of the problems of the male is to protect the females of the community from abduction. This is a long-standing situation, and the breeding of the race favors these two opposed physical organizations. And so the myths have to deal with this, and the male body and the female body have their symbolic values throughout the system.

Now, as for biological spontaneity, a young female chimp takes her younger brother or sister as a doll and imitates mother and plays with the child. Males don’t do this. The young male starts pushing young females around. Then he starts pushing older females around. When he gets to be really big and strong he enters the men’s group and finds his place in the pecking series