I’m shamelessly spoiling here, so if you want to watch the movie first, be my guest.

The film stars Dennis Weaver as a man driving across the California desert on his way to an important business meeting. (I might add he’s in a red 1971 Plymouth Valiant. I don’t know cars, but we’ve owned three of those things, so I know that one! The only difference – ours were all pea-green, and one was a 1974). In the middle of miles and miles of miles and miles, he comes upon an old, greasy, filthy, diesel-fume-spewing oil truck (a 1955 Peterbilt 281, for those of you interested in such things), driving slower than he is, and blocking his way. So he activates his turn-indicator, and passes the truck.

In an early example of road-rage, the driver of the truck, who we never see aside from his arm and his boots, proceeds to terrorize Weaver through first messing with his head, and then trying very hard to kill him. The thing that scared me so bad back in the ‘70’s was that the trucker. Never. Gave. Up. No matter what Weaver did, he couldn’t get away.

As I was watching it again yesterday, though, it occurred to my more mature mind that “Duel” was about quite a bit more than a homicidal trucker and a hapless businessman. Spielberg says it wasn’t intentional, but whether he meant it this way or not, I saw a rather brilliant commentary on the changing roles of men and women during that era, and the difficulty and dissatisfaction people experienced trying to reconcile themselves to those roles. It could be that the writer, Richard Matheson, was making the social commentary and Spielberg was making the film, but I don’t think it makes much difference to the point. It didn’t really occur to me until this morning, but certain things kept coming up in my mind. For instance:

• While he’s driving along, Weaver is listening to the radio. Only AM was available in those days (it’s all we had on our Valiants as well), and it was pretty much talk shows. One of the callers to a particular show was a man who was complaining about a census (?) form he had to fill out. He had to indicate who was head of the household, but he had lost his job and his wife was supporting them, and he had lost his status as the head. The female host kept reassuring him that the answers were completely confidential, but he was saying he was embarrassed that his neighbors would find out. He went on to say that he wore a housedress while dusting because it was easier to dust in a housedress. The radio show was kind of playing in the background, but it was definitely there.

• When he stops at a gas station, Weaver makes a phone call to apologize to his wife for something that happened the night before. They had evidently been at a party, and a man had made a pass at Weaver’s wife (“he practically tried to rape me”), and Weaver had said and done nothing about it. He indicated to her on the phone that it wasn’t as bad as she said. She then demanded to know if he’d be home by 6:30, because his parents were coming to dinner and she evidently hated them. He was apologetic, saying he thought he’d be home by then, but if he didn’t meet with this guy today, he wouldn’t be able to meet with him at all.

• He sits by himself in a diner, debating in his head what he can do about this homicidal trucker. He has seen the guy’s boots, and thinks he’s in the diner, but doesn’t know which guy of the many in cowboy hat and boots it is. He’s really afraid, really sweating it, and finally decides his trucker is one particular man. So on his way out of the diner, he confronts the man, telling him he’ll call the cops if the trucker doesn’t leave him alone, telling him he can’t terrorize someone on the road like that, telling him all kinds of things. They wind up in a physical altercation, and Weaver winds up cowering on the floor, while everyone in the diner laughs at him. The proprietor talks the trucker down, comps him his meal and a drink, and the trucker leaves. In the wrong truck.

• We never know the identity of the trucker. He seems to represent Weaver’s fear. Finally, Weaver is forced to confront his nemesis when he can literally go no further as he’s driven to the edge of a cliff. He props his briefcase against the gas pedal, and aims the Valiant at the approaching Peterbilt. They have a head-on collision, and the truck’s momentum carries truck, driver, and Valiant over the cliff to certain death. The movie ends with Weaver sitting on the edge of the cliff, alone in the desert with no transportation, chucking rocks out over the chasm.

I went looking for similar analysis on the internet, and came up with some interesting stuff. From Experience Festival:

(This appears to be a Scientology website, but the analysis seems valid)

In fact, on some level, Duel seems to play around with the ideologies and concepts of the socially acceptable male versus that of the female. We can see this in our protagonist, who is appropriately named David Mann. While it may appear that he is representing the everyday man, he is just the opposite of what sociologist Janet Saltzman Chavetz believed (in 1974) to be the traditional male. He isn’t tough, he isn’t aggressive, he isn’t proud, and more often than not, he allows his emotions to get in the way of the problem at hand. While very few women appear throughout the film – including his wife, a tomboy snake enthusiast, the waitress at a nearby restaurant – they all seem to be more controlling and more dominant than him. It’s no wonder that his apologetic phone call to his wife had to do with him not speaking up for her when another man was supposedly hitting on her the night before.

Spielberg illustrates how our protagonist lacks this sense of manliness, despite his valiant efforts. The enormous truck that haunts is simply a manifestation of all the things he has failed to overcome as a result of not “being a man.” (Bear in mind, this is someone who children looked down upon and laughed at during a rather humorous scene in the film.) After several attempts to avoid and bypass the problem (the truck), it appears that it has just become far too powerful and overwhelming. With no other option, he must face the problem head on, as a man should. This, of course, is taken literally in the final scene as the big rig plummets to its demise. The smoke that had once blinded the protagonist from all life’s possibilities has finally cleared and he is left feeling more in control than ever.

From The Spinning Image:

David Mann (Dennis Weaver) is a businessman on a long distance car journey to his next appointment. On the way, he passes a huge truck whose driver takes a serious, inexplicable dislike to him, so much so that he tries to run Mann off the road. But it doesn’t end there - it becomes obvious that the trucker will not be satisfied until Mann is dead…

…

The truck itself is a formidable beast: bulky, grimy, billowing exhaust fumes and sounding its horn, it would be threatening even if it wasn’t trying to murder Mann. We never get a good look at the trucker, all we see of him are his arm as he waves Mann past (both times to potential doom) and his cowboy boots as he walks around the side of his vehicle. This adds to the air of paranoia and menace - we are never given a reason for the trucker’s murderous intent.

Mann, on the other hand, is represented as weak: Weaver is nervous and sweaty, his voiceovers are panicky and desperate. The whole drama feels like a test of his manliness (or lack of it). In the scene at the cafe, after he has been run off the road for the first time, he has to take an aspirin, then grows to believe that the trucker is sitting amongst the cafe’s customers with him. But when he picks a fight with the most likely suspect, Mann ends up cowering and beaten on the floor; he doesn’t actually pick the right guy, either. In fact, nobody he goes to for help actually believes him or assists him, cranking up the tension all the more.

From Todd Alcott:

SOME SUBTEXT: While sweating it out in Chuck’s diner, Mann whines to himself about how one simple thing can tear away the veneer of civilization and put a man “right back in the jungle,” but the laws of Duel seem to have a more medieval origin. “Honor” plays a significant role: the protagonist is a man stuck in an early-seventies world where honor, specifically masculine honor, is under constant attack. His wife criticizes him for not defending her honor at a party, he whinges at the prospect of his mother coming to visit (a prospect that reduces him to a child), he gripes to a gas-station attendant that he’s not the boss of his house, a caller on a radio show he listens to complains about how not having a job has removed his title of “head of family.” (Family is a burden in Duel, a rarity in Spielberg’s work, although not surprising in a movie made by a 21-year-old. 21!) When Mann(the extra “n” is for extra iNadequacy!)’s life is in danger, “real men” in cowboy boots glare pitilessly at him, old men laugh at him, he is made to sit my himself in the “pink section” of the diner, where he can barely muster the manliness to order the ultra-un-macho meal of a cheese sandwich and a glass of water. It doesn’t help his case that Mann, as played by Dennis Weaver, with his tidy mustache, at times resembles a weak-jawed Burt Reynolds.

Balancing “honor” in a civilized world, of course, is “duty.” Mann has a duty to his family, to his job, to the middle-class suburban society he represents. He’s a Civilized Man, and his sense of duty is so great that, even after he suspects that his life is in danger, he still proceeds to his job appointment — even after the truck has tried to shove his car into the path of an oncoming train and he’s hours late for his appointment, Mann does not turn around and head home — he grimly pushes ahead. Perhaps he feels his duty to his family is that great, or perhaps he decides he would rather be fighting for his life with a homicidal maniac than back home with his shrewish wife and burdensome kids.

(To beat the truck, he runs at it head on, shoves his briefcase marked “David Mann” [his briefcase is his life] against the gas pedal and dives out of the car, abandoning his life, and his suburban morality, seemingly once and for all.)

In Act II, Mann is required to stop to help a stalled school bus get started again — his attachment to suburban responsibilities extend even into his life-or-death struggle in the desert. As he valiantly attempts to assist the bus (the car he drives is even called a Valiant, I am not making this up), the suburban kids make faces and jeer at him for his lameness. (I’m surprised his Valiant is red — the character is about as beige as they come.) The movie not called Truck Fight or Meaningless Attack, it’s called Duel, and one recalls that a duel begins when one’s honor has been offended.

The truck, of course, knows no honor at all. Its filth and smoke stand as a symbol of pollution, its size and aggression stand as symbols of everything that pushes Mann around and makes him feel small and helpless. To string all the symbols along, one could say that the tanker truck symbolizes the heartless, homicidal oil economy (cf There Will Be Blood) that created the middle class that Mann belongs to, and also created the automobile culture that allowed for the suburbs in which he lives so safely.

I find it interesting that the feminism-driven role-reversals were obvious and troubling even then. I’d be interested in seeing commentary of the film from the time. I’m not saying our roles were necessarily any better before then, and certainly some social change was necessary given our changing technology and economy, but I think it’s a real stretch to say that we’re any better off now.

So, was it social commentary, or Hitchcockian thriller? I think it was both, and in any case, “Duel” is well worth 90 minutes of your time.

So, in the spirit of “paying it forward”, I thought I’d try, in a nice way, to explain a few things to here. This is my effort:

Renee,

First of all, if you’re going to criticize someone’s work, it’s dishonest and shows that you know your arguments are weak if you cherry-pick the parts you’re going to acknowledge. For the benefit of your readers, here’s the first part of my post:

So, what do I have against feminism, anyway? Well, nothing, per se. I mean, if you look at feminism as a movement seeking to ensure equal opportunities and rewards for everyone regardless of gender, what could possibly be wrong with that? And to be fair, I think a lot of the early feminists – female and male – had just such a concept in mind. I’m not so sure about the movement leadership at the time, but it doesn’t really matter what their motives were at this point, does it? The point is moot. What’s done is done.

Now we as U.S. citizens theoretically have equal access to the voting booth, education, and employment, among other things. Great! Again, whether exclusion from these things back in the day was on the basis of gender, economics, race, social status, or whatever other reason, it makes no difference now. Whether feminism is solely responsible for bringing those things about, creating a middle class, that doesn’t really matter either. Those points are also moot. What’s done is done.

I’m willing to concede that we wouldn’t have those freedoms today had there never been a feminist movement. I think a strong case could be made against that position, but for the sake of argument, I’ll concede it. So the movement accomplished what it purportedly set out to do. How marvelous! Crack open the bubbly, let’s celebrate!

I mentioned equal access regardless of gender to education and employment, as well as to the voting booth. I mentioned that a lot of the early feminists probably had those goals in mind from the start. I even conceded “that we wouldn’t have those freedoms today had there never been a feminist movement.” That’s slightly more than the vote.

I’m actually glad you wrote your piece; it is really useful in proving my point. Feminism has lied to you, my dear. Or at the most, you’ve been fed half-truths. And the fact that you, yourself, brought all of these fallacies up makes it impossible for you to say, “Well, that’s not REAL feminism”, because to you, and to a lot of your sisters, clearly, it IS real feminism.

I’ve been where you are. Well, maybe not quite where you are, but let’s just say I bought in to a large part of the propaganda. I believed, and I was indignant, as you are.

Then one day, I followed my curiosity, as I am wont to do, and wound up on a board full of men (and one or two women) who were fed up with what they saw around them, and were not afraid to say so. In fact, one of the first things I read there was about how Western women in general, and American women in particular, aren’t worth the time it would take to tell them to fuck off.

I thought, “Wow. These guys sure are bitter. It sounds like they’ve been involved with some really vile women. Well, we’re not all like that, and I’m going to prove it to them.” Or something along those lines.

And so, as I am also wont to do, I jumped right in and introduced myself. If I recall correctly, I said something like, “Hi. I’m Kelly, and yes, I’m an American woman. I won’t apologize for being a woman, but I’m looking forward to talking with you.” I really don’t remember exactly. I won’t go into the details of what followed, but you can safely assume there was hostility involved.

I stuck it out, though. I didn’t get (too) mad, and I didn’t give up (you guessed it – I’m pretty much incapable of turning down a challenge like that)! I asked questions, I listened, because I was genuinely curious about their point of view. And that brings me to the point I’m trying to make here.

They didn’t say, “The world is the way we say it is, because we’re men, and you will accept what we have to say without question, or you will get the hell out of our room.” Far from it. Oh, they weren’t polite. They didn’t cut me any slack. They were very wary.

But they didn’t write me off just because I’m a woman.

They said, “Act respectful, and you will be treated with respect. Don’t believe anything we say. Do the research for yourself. Go to the sources we give you. Go to your own sources. Look at the historical facts. See what can and cannot be proved. Don’t take anything at face value.”

So I did. I followed their advice. It was a profound and difficult experience. Discovering you’ve been manipulated from the get-go is humiliating, disheartening, and disorienting. But seeing the manipulation for what it is is, well, to use a feminist term, empowering.

I debated how to approach this post. I was going to pick your arguments apart, one by one. I even made a list and started copying source url’s. Then my natural sarcasm started kicking in, and I realized I was going in a direction that was counterproductive.

So I’m thinking I may just list the fallacies I saw in your post, say why they’re fallacies, give you a few sources, and challenge you to open your mind a little and do the work. Trust me, I know it ain’t easy. I know you may totally blow me off. That’s fine. It’s not my purpose to force you to change. That’s beyond my power. All I can do is show you the way. You’ll have to decide if you’re secure enough in your beliefs to see how they stand up to the cold light of day.

1. Women still make 70 cents for every dollar a man makes, and the disparity is even larger for women of color. Not true, when you compare apples to apples. Here’s a wiki article – wiki being known for consistently deleting articles about Misandry and men’s rights.

2. The vast majority of women that are single mothers live in poverty, Actually, according to this link, 27.7% of custodial single mothers live in poverty, although in researching it, I did find statistics up to around 35%. However, given that women initiate 2/3 of divorce, and that women are most likely to gain custody, it kind of looks like the situation is mostly in the control of those same mothers.

3. daily the right to have an abortion is continually being assaulted Ok. And daily the right to have an abortion is defended as well. That’s called free speech. What’s your point? As far as I know, abortion is still legal.

4. Mothers that are married, and work outside of the home still perform most of the domestic duties, childrearing, and elder care. This constitutes a “double day. Could it be that a messy house bothers her more? Or that she doesn’t think he’ll do it right? Ask yourself this: are women being forced to do more housework, or are they choosing to make the house the way they want it? Besides all that, prove it. I submit that if both spouses work full time, they split up the chores – including running the kids all over town and cleaning the gutters.

5. Women bodies are constantly sexualized in the media. I challenge you to watch fifteen minutes of television without seeing the image of a half naked woman, selling us something we neither want, or need. And men are constantly belittled in our media. Not only that, but men are also sexualized in the media. Sex sells. You’re never going to change that. If you want to stop those ads, organize a boycott. Don’t complain about how powerless you are.

6. Daily for a small fee one can have access to violent pornography thus reifying our rape culture Ok, first off, the term “rape culture” is one that was made up by feminism to be used in women’s studies courses and to play on your fears. How safe do you think it is for a lone man to walk down a dark street in a rough neighborhood? Second, when you use the term “violent pornography”, you really mean “against women”. There’s a fair amount of femdomme porn out there as well. Ever seen the ones where a man is bound spread-eagle and kick in the crotch (as a very mild example)? Again, you get a half-truth.

7. hip hop is your thing, I can imagine how you might find it pleasant to hear women referred to as bitches and hos continually Here’s the thing about hip hop. If you don’t like it, don’t buy it. It isn’t a society-wide phenomenon. Freedom of speech, and all that.

8. sexism that has been thrown at Hillary Clinton. My goodness a woman president, we cannot have that, when she gets her period she might be tempted to push the button. Where oh where will we hide the tampon dispenser in the Oval office? You see that office is the repository of male bodily fluids, and the cleaning staff are used to dealing with semen, and not blood. Ok, I’m not sure where this came from, but have you considered that maybe, just maybe, Mrs. Clinton isn’t the right woman for the job? I’m sure sexism has been thrown at her. I’m sure racism has been thrown at Obama. I’m sure infidelity has been thrown at someone else. And draft dodging. And anything else their opponents can come up with. Welcome to politics.

9. Any idea where your clitoris is? Found it by accident didn’t you, because female sexual pleasure just isn’t taught in sex education classes. Wow. Do they teach male sexual pleasure in sex ed these days? Seems I remember learning about ovulation, semen production, std’s, stuff like that. Besides, I knew where my clitoris was long before sexual maturity, and not because of abuse. It’s actually pretty common.

10. barefoot, and pregnant This term was reportedly coined by a sexist legislator in 1963, and has been used ever since as a feminist catchphrase. You can do better than that.

11. They just need to spread their legs when told, and feign pleasure at the mans will. I’m not sure where you’re going with this. Are you saying we’re all sex-slaves?

12. perfecting the skill of fellatio while ignoring the fact that your man thinks that cunnilingus is some foreign country off the coast of Italy. Throw the little man in the boat a life jacket, and buy a vibrator, it may be the only way you will ever have an orgasm See my comment on #11. Or you might try communicating with your man. Just a suggestion.

13. it isn’t considered sex when lesbians are intimate. Is this why the rape scene in “The Vagina Monologues is so empowering?

14. Did you know you stink? Don’t worry though there are douches for that, just don’t think about what it is doing to your natural chemistry My understanding is that douches are for occasional use only, and it’s better to use the unscented vinegar-based ones. Maybe they’re telling you something different these days? That’s marketing, just like the Gardasil commercials. Did you know that 85% of the deaths from cervical cancer in the last count could have been prevented if the women had chosen to get a pap smear?

15. Didn’t you know that women are supposed to all have hairless prepubescent bodies at all times, while men can go around looking like they belong in gorillas in the mist, with nary a batted eye Look at mass media advertising, and then ask your male friends what they prefer. I think you’ll find that preferences vary, especially when it comes to the prepubescent look. Shaving our pits and legs is part of grooming. Just like when men shave their faces, trim their beards, wear ties, all that stuff.

16. diet industry is dependent on your desire to conform to the ideal female form to maintain profits. Don’t worry though Jenny Craig will love you, for every dollar of your meager disposable income that you spend trying to get into an unachievable size o. Do you have any money left after purchasing your high sodium diet food? The diet industry is as bad as the pharmaceutical industry. Successful advertising is not the same as coercion. Besides, how many home gyms and protein powders are sold because men are supposed to be muscular and cut?

17. Good stuff because what’s left has to go to the plastic surgeon. You know that a true woman cannot allow herself to age naturally. No that would mean that you didn’t care about yourself. Better get those boobs lifted, the stomach tucked, and those crows feet removed See #16.

18. man, who even though he is five years older than you is becoming distinguished while you look dried up, and used. There are evolutionary reasons for older men being attractive to us – they represent someone more established and able to support us. As for older women looking dried up and used, I don’t think I agree with you. Yes, we lose our firmness and suppleness, but if we go into it gracefully, I think older women can be very beautiful. You can’t expect to always look fertile. Blame the primitive brain, not sexism.

19. You see, you took so much time out of the workforce to raise children, and take care of your elderly parents that it has effected your retirement benefits. Should you have the misfortune to outlive your spouse, and loose his share of benefits you will become a regular at food banks, and soup kitchens. Even with the discounts you will get for being a senior, economically life will be very hard for you. If you choose to stay home and raise the kids, that’s the choice you make. I don’t know about you, but I’ve been putting money into retirement since I was 30 years old. You have to take care of these things yourself, instead of expecting someone else to do it.

20. “Ninety percent of girls reported experiencing sexual harassment at least once. Specifically, 67 percent of girls reported receiving unwanted romantic attention, 62 percent were exposed to demeaning gender-related comments, 58 percent were teased because of their appearance, 52 percent received unwanted physical contact and 25 percent were bullied or threatened with harm by a male. 52 percent of girls also reported receiving discouraging gender-based comments on the math, science and computer abilities, usually from male peers, and 76 percent of girls reported sexist comments on their athletic abilities, again predominantly from male peers.” Yes, but what is unwanted sexual attention? “Hey baby, give me your ass”, or “You look really sexy in that short dress”? Who isn’t teased because of their appearance? I’ve worn glasses since the 3^rd grade, had acne since 6^th grade. Trust me. I got teased. What about the boy who isn’t buff and wealthy? Think he’s not getting teased? Think again. That’s only your first few statistics. Question the rest of them.

21. Feminist theory is fluid, and constantly changing to meet the diverse needs of women Ah, here’s where you throw in the “all the bad stuff isn’t REAL feminism”. The convenient denial.

22. Simply stating the facts of the lived experience of women does not constitute the demonization of men. Why should women deny the horrors of their daily lives so that men can have a feel good experience? I never said stating the facts of our lived experience constitutes the demonization of men. I said blaming men for everything bad that has ever happened does. Is your daily life really a horror? Really?

23. men have been slaughtering women since the beginning of time. I couldn’t find a source that said this. Do you have one?

24. Now with the aid of technology we are killed before we can even take our first breath. It is called femicide The only information I found about femicide deals with the killing of female fetuses in India. Which is absolutely horrible. But I’m a little confused. If abortion is ok, but femicide is wrong, then that only leaves the murder of male fetuses. Is this really what you’re trying to say?

I challenge you, Renee, and everyone who agrees with you, to question your beliefs. If you find that you’re able to support them, so much the better - it puts you in a stronger position. If you find that they’re flawed, that’s good, too. Make up your own mind. Don’t let anyone else tell you what to think. Including me.

I admit I lifted this verbatim from Kim’s blog. It’s SO important! Get yourselves over there and sign (please).

H. Con. Res. 241

Coming shortly on the heels of the unanimous passing of House Bill 474, “Recognizing the immeasurable contributions of fathers in the healthy development of children….” (yes, we are checking now to see if Hell has, indeed, frozen over), comes the following bill.

Wow. While this bill has yet to be passed and is currently stuck in committee, it’s very encouraging to see other bills being passed that recognize the invaluable and irreplaceable contribution of fathers and bills being submitted that recommend actual action being taken to promote and protect the role of fathers.

Lukeskywalker on Antimisandry.com has done some admirable activist work and has an online petition in favor of passing this legislation.

Here’s the link to the petition

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/urge-the-us-house-of-representatives-to-pass-h-con-res241-expressing-the-support-for-the-enacting-of

Please, please take the time to add your signature and, if possible, to forward this on to everyone you know. If we can’t eradicate divorce and the instances of children being raised in broken homes, at least we can do our part to try and insure that children have the benefit of their fathers in their lives.

Did you read this part?

Whereas 40 percent of the children under age 18 not living with their
biological fathers had not seen their fathers even once in the past 12 months,
according to national survey data;

In instances where the mother has custody, nearly half of all children haven’t seen their fathers in a year…..what a sad, disturbing statistic.

Here’s the link to Luke’s antimisandry.com post. He’s also included some great sample e-mails that can be used to send to our representatives voicing support for this bill.

http://antimisandry.com/important_email_petiton_campaign_urge_us_house_pass_joint_custody_resolution-t11265.html

Now we as U.S. citizens theoretically have equal access to the voting booth, education, and employment, among other things. Great! Again, whether exclusion from these things back in the day was on the basis of gender, economics, race, social status, or whatever other reason, it makes no difference now. Whether feminism is solely responsible for bringing those things about, creating a middle class, that doesn’t really matter either. Those points are also moot. What’s done is done.

I’m willing to concede that we wouldn’t have those freedoms today had there never been a feminist movement. I think a strong case could be made against that position, but for the sake of argument, I’ll concede it. So the movement accomplished what it purportedly set out to do. How marvelous! Crack open the bubbly, let’s celebrate!

But wait.

Is there anyone still alive who was part of that original movement? A contemporary of Susan B.’s? Anyone who remembers a time when women (and most men, incidentally) couldn’t vote?  I doubt it. If there is, please accept my apologies for assuming you dead. But I really doubt it.

We got the vote in, what, 1920? That’s 88 years ago, nearly a century! So what is feminism trying to accomplish now???? I say the push is now for special privileges for women, not equal opportunities. I say further that the new strategy, and one that has worked very well for nearly a century, is to get those special privileges by making women look like victims of society in general, and men in particular. Not only that, but to make it really effective, they have to convince the women themselves that they really are victims.

How do they go about it? They can’t out and out lie, because that won’t work at all. No, they have to come up with something people can relate to, something they can prove, and something that makes people react emotionally.

So if you can’t lie, the only other alternative is to tell the truth. Ah, but it’s all in the way you tell it. Only include the juicy parts. Include the stories about men beating up, raping, even killing their wives. Leave out the part about how the vast majority of men wouldn’t dream of doing such a thing. Leave out the part about how the vast majority of men would like to see the perpetrators of such horror killed. Leave out the part about women beating up, raping, even killing their own children. It wouldn’t be politically expedient to mention those parts of the truth, so we’ll just leave those out.

And that is what I have against feminism. It’s a big fat lie. The reality, whether any readers who call themselves feminist want to believe it or not, is not some pie-in-the-sky “equality”. It’s the elevation of one sex, by the demonization of the other. Kind of like the Nazi party elevated the Aryan race, by the demonization of the Jews. It was wrong then, and it’s wrong now.

Public release date: 19-May-2008
Contact: Rebecca Hughes
hughes.r@ghc.org
206-287-2055
Group Health Cooperative Center for Health Studies

Men experience domestic violence, with health impact

Group Health study debunks five myths about abuse of men

SEATTLE—Domestic violence can happen to men, not only to women, according to Group Health research in the June American Journal of Preventive Medicine. “Domestic violence in men is under-studied and often hidden—much as it was in women 10 years ago,” said study leader Robert J. Reid, MD, PhD, an associate investigator at the Group Health Center for Health Studies. “We want abused men to know they’re not alone.” His findings confirm some common beliefs but also debunk five myths about abuse in men:

Myth 1: Few men experience domestic violence. Many do. In-depth phone interviews with over 400 randomly sampled adult male Group Health patients surprised Dr. Reid and his colleagues: 5% had experienced domestic violence in the past year, 10% in the past five years, and 29% over their lifetimes. The researchers defined domestic violence to include nonphysical abuse—threats, chronic disparaging remarks, or controlling behavior—as well as physical abuse: slapping, hitting, kicking, or forced sex.

Myth 2: Abuse of men has no serious effects. The researchers found domestic violence is associated with serious, long-term effects on men’s mental health. Women are more likely than men to experience more severe physical abuse, said Dr. Reid. “But even nonphysical abuse——can do lasting damage.” Depressive symptoms were nearly three times as common in older men who had experienced abuse than in those who hadn’t, with much more severe depression in the men who had been abused physically.

Myth 3: Abused men don’t stay, because they’re free to leave. In fact, men may stay for years with their abusive partners. “We know that many women may have trouble leaving abusive relationships, especially if they’re caring for young children and not working outside the home,” said Dr. Reid. “We were surprised to find that most men in abusive relationships also stay, through multiple episodes, for years.”

Myth 4: Domestic violence affects only poor people. The study actually showed it to be an equal-opportunity scourge. “As we found in our previous research with women experiencing domestic violence, this is a common problem affecting people in all walks of life,” said Dr. Reid. “Our patients at Group Health have health insurance and easy access to health care, and their employment rate and average income, education level, and age are higher than those of the rest of the U.S. population.”

Myth 5: Ignoring it will make it go away. Not so. “We doctors hardly ever ask our male patients about being abused—and they seldom tell us,” said Dr. Reid. “Many abused men feel ashamed because of societal expectations for men to be tough and in control.” Younger men were twice as likely as men age 55 or older to report recent abuse. “That may be because older men are even more reluctant to talk about it,” he added.

This study extends Group Health’s research on domestic violence, a.k.a. intimate partner violence. The team’s previous publications have documented the prevalence, persistence, and health effects of domestic violence on women. In the current study, they asked men the same questions that they had asked of women. “Our team is concerned about abuse of people: of women as well as men,” Dr. Reid added. “We do not want to downplay the seriousness of domestic violence as experienced by women.”

Dr. Reid said more research is needed to determine the best ways for doctors to ask men if they have experienced domestic violence—and how best to help them into couples counseling, leaving their partners, or getting protection orders. The National Domestic Violence Hotline is toll-free 1-800-799-SAFE (7233).

###

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Group Health Center for Health Studies funded this work, co-authored by Melissa Anderson, MS, Paul Fishman, PhD, David Carrell, PhD, and Robert Thompson, MD of the Group Health Center for Health Studies; Amy Bonomi, PhD, MPH, now an Ohio State University associate professor of human development & family science in Columbus; and Group Health Center for Health Studies affiliate scientific investigator Frederick Rivara, MD, MPH, of Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center and the University of Washington.

Group Health Center for Health Studies

Founded in 1947, Group Health is a Seattle-based, consumer-governed, nonprofit health care system that coordinates care and coverage. For 25 years, the Group Health Center for Health Studies has conducted research on preventing, diagnosing, and treating major health problems. Government and private research grants provide its main funding.

Please visit the virtual newsroom on our Web site, www.ghc.org under “Newsroom.”

This is only one study, and the sample was hardly representative of the American male demographic, and on its own isn’t really all that significant. With heartfelt thanks to Marc A., commenting on Glenn Sacks’ blog, here are some links to follow up:

We link and discuss a number of them here at http://www.ncfmla.org/dv_data.html

The infamous “Fiebert Bibliography” is constantly updated and is at http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

Here are a few examples:

A recent 32-nation study by the University of New Hampshire found women are as violent and controlling as men in relationships worldwide. http://www.unh.edu/news/cj_nr/2006/may/em_060519male.cfm?type=n
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID41E2.pdf

The University of Florida recently found women are more likely than men to “stalk, attack and abuse” their partners.
http://news.ufl.edu/2006/07/13/women-attackers/

The University of Washington recently found similar results. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070625111433.htm

Last year Harvard Medical School announced a study showing half of heterosexual domestic violence is reciprocal and that women initiate most of the reciprocal violence and 70% of the non-reciprocal violence. “Violence was more frequent when both partners were involved, and so was injury — to either partner. In these relationships, men were more likely than women to inflict injury (29% versus 19%). When the violence was one-sided, both women and men said that women were the perpetrators about 70% of the time. Men were more likely to be injured in reciprocally violent relationships (25%) than were women when the violence was one-sided (20%).”
http://www.patienteducationcenter.org/aspx/HealthELibrary/HealthETopic.aspx?cid=M0907d

A recent study in the Journal of Family Violence found many male callers to a national hotline experienced high rates of severe forms of violence from very controlling female partners. http://www.springerlink.com/content/a7q0032j88817218/fulltext.pdf

A University of Pennsylvania emergency room report found 13% of men reported being assaulted by a female partner in the previous 12 months, of which 50% were choked, kicked, bitten, punched, or had an object thrown at them, 37% involved a weapon, and 14% required medical attention, at http://www.aemj.org/cgi/content/abstract/6/8/786

University of Pennsylvania Professor Richard Gelles states: ‘Contrary to the claim that women only hit in self-defense, we found that women were as likely to initiate the violence as were men,’ in his article reprinted at http://www.ncfmla.org/gelles.html

This data is recognized by the American Psychological Association.
http://www.apa.org/monitor/oct06/pc.html

This Canadian government report also recognizes the above data.
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ncfv-cnivf/familyviolence/pdfs/Intimate_Partner.pdf

According to the Centers for Disease Control, every year there are 4.8 million incidents of intimate partner assaults and rapes against women and 2.9 against men, with 25% of the deaths being men. http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dvp/ipv_factsheet.pdf

Archer, J., ‘Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review,’ Aggression and Violent Behavior (7) 2002, 313-351, http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/Dutton_Corvo-Transforming-flawed-policy.p
http://www.maennerbuero-trier.de/Archer_2002.pdf

Dutton, D., & Corvo, K., ‘Transforming a flawed policy: A call to revive psychology and science in domestic violence research and practice,’ (11) 2006, 457-483, http://www.nfvlrc.org/docs/DuttonCorvo.policypaper.pdf

Dutton & Nicholls is “The gender paradigm in domestic violence research and theory: Part 1—The conflict of theory and data”, which is on our website at http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/Dutton_GenderParadigmInDV-Pt1.pdf

Straud & Scott, “Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence: The Evidence, the Denial, and the Implications for Primary Prevention and Treatment” http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V70%20version%20N3.pdf

Are the numbers significant yet???

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.

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.”

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

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 a