"Women have to realise that men's weakness is their sexuality, so women have that sort of power."

What the hell? Put out or he'll kill you and it'll be your fault? Fuck this.

The mind boggles.

More accurate headline:

"Ridiculous articles [like this one] to blame for feminist suicides?"

I'm at a loss.

what the fuck??

this is real? people think this is legitimate?? what is he backing these claims on? WHAT THE FUCK?!?!?

Oh, nevermind the fact that a few days ago, it was men - regardless of their religion -- who manipulated mentally ill women into blowing themselves up at a Baghdad pet market, right? When I first saw this headline, I misread and thought it had something to do with Muslim women being used as suicide bombers (for the benefit of Muslim men, too). Sadly, it's instead about shifting blame once again ...

In other words, if women suffer violence at the hands of men, it's becuase women asked for it.

I've love to take this guy to listen to counseling sessions for victims of domestic violence, rape victims, etc.

Instead of blaming PATRIARCHY for these "male disadvantages" they blame WOMEN?!?! Ahhhhh!!!

Wow. That makes me want to barf.

It almost sounds like these men can't cope with their jealousy of women in traditional women's roles:
* the ability to deal with their emotions more effectively (and therefore mock their stupid man who is emotionally stunted),
* taking care of the home and being all nurturing and shit (while the men come home from that outside world and have no place to feel safe and loved),
* and of course women have the simplicity of using the female body sexually to get what they want (while the men just work for it or something boring like that).

What the fuck are these anthropologists thinking?
*sigh*

Okay, this article is kind of a bit insane. I do, however, find some of the observations interesting.

"Men cannot compete on that level, and the next thing for them to do is to lash out physically with violence."

I mean, that's accurate, and so is the bit about men's sexuality being our weakness, but then the article's all like, "See what you make us do to you, baby?" It's pretty villainous, using an abusers logic to blame women for our flaws.

I kept thinking "this has to be a joke. PLEASE tell me this is a parody."

So is it safe to finally say that men are truly the weaker sex? J/k.

All joking aside, this stems from patriarchal reasoning. Seriously. Read arguments that some Christian fundamentalists make as far as women being responsible for turning men on (whether it be on purpose or not). Oh no, the guy can't claim responsibility. In fact, doesn't this krap ring true with the supposed Islamic fundamentalists?

Then have men express their emotions freely. Oh wait, that'd be too gay.

BS.

One thing is correct: "Women have grown up without restrictions on expressing their emotions and so they are more emotionally developed than most men . . ." And yes, society (not just women, but men, too) tells men they shouldn't express their emotions -- that it's not a manly thing to do -- and yes, such gender stereotyping is obviously a problem for men, and no doubt it can cause problems when men act out.

But, it's a quantum, intolerable leap to blame women for men's violence against women or men because of that. The vast majority of men are able to control their aggression and their sexual urges, thank you, and women are not responsible for those men who won't.

Eradicating gender stereotypes that force men to act like "real men" -- something classical feminism completely agrees with -- would help men become better adjusted.

One women's manipulation is another woman's survival strategy. That's right, I said it. Don't underestimate the patriarchy.

Did that asshole got his Anthropology degree from a cereal box?

The article is lame because of the way it places blame on women and says, basically, that we've seen "enough" social support for women, but the notion that we need to re-imagine masculinity shouldn't be lost. If teaching that masculinity isn't limited to a traditional stoic, non-emotive role can help reduce violence against women, then I'm all for it. It's just silly to suggest that we can't look critically and constructively at ALL culturally paradigmatic gender roles.

SURE women have grown up without restrictions. And men, you know, have all the pressure to look hot but not slutty, be smart but not actually smarter than the person they're with, and be taught that what they really want is a family and not a career.

Here's my new article title: "Males to Blame for Domestic Violence? (Yeah, he beat/killed her)"

astoundingly retarded, even for anti-feminist drivel.

tim, right on the money.

Aren't we to blame for everything?

Nice disgusting, sexist article about women (they manipulate men and make them feel incompetent and inferior; they "drive" men to violence; they weild supposed "sexual power" over men; they are hostile towards men) AND men (they are easily manipulated by women; they can't express their emotions; they are on the verge of violence at all times; they can't resist this supposed "sexual power" women have over them).

Let's not figure out why some men don't have the ability to cope with emotional issues and instead lash out violently. Nope, it's better to tell women to stop [insert the behavior/attitude/clothing/here] that supposedly "makes" these men kill/abuse/assault/rape them, 'cuz that's worked so far.

The whole article is full of sexist, harmful stereotypes about both genders. I'm not sure how it serves anyone.

Well, at least it, in the crudest of manners, points out how damaging patriarchy is on men, which is often overlooked. Taking away the "you made him do it, hunny!" aspect, the idea that men are violent because they are trained to have no other social outlet for emotions points to a huge danger and flaw in societies that really needs to be addressed. These hack-anthropologists don't do that, of course.

Aside from the obvious victim blaming and other typical sexist stereotypes, it does hold a few tiny shreds of truth.

WTF??!!

Notice that they don't seem to care much about the women who are being killed in these murder-suicides.

I can't even figure out what "manipulation" they're talking about. As far as I can see, all the characteristics of women they mention are good things. Do they think women should pretend to be less than they are to stop provoking the poor menz? Isn't that manipulation?

Another gem from Herbert Gayle, also reported on by Petre Williams in the Jamaica Observer:

UWI’s urban anthropologist Herbert Gayle agreed. While Jamaicans will never accept homosexuality, they may eventually learn to become more tolerant of it—but only if those pushing for tolerance play their cards right, he said.

“I have said to people abroad, if you want Jamaicans to be more tolerant then don’t present homosexuality as an option of sexuality, appeal to the human side of people,� he said. “The tolerance will grow, but (homosexuality) as a sexual option? No. Because it goes right through the politic of who we are.� (emphasis mine)

If you keep thanking readers for insane links, they will keep giving them to you.

Did we just go back in time because it sure feels like it!

I feel like a kid in a candy store because I have so much to bash about this article.

"Women have grown up without restrictions on expressing their emotions and so they are more emotionally developed than most men and pretty much manipulate men and make them feel incompetent and inferior," McGill said.
OKAY? No I never had restrictions…I could express myself anyway I wanted too. Oh WAIT I couldn’t because if I become angry then I am too emotional or if I start crying in public I am too emotional once again. There are definitely restrictions on women’s emotions and there are restrictions on men’s emotions this is why we have feminism to break these stereotypes.

“Women have to realize that men's weakness is their sexuality, so women have that sort of power.�

Really…is he really saying this!!!??? Last time I check men and women could control their sexuality. Lets stop letting men think that they can’t control their libido and that women can control theirs. I think we are all human beings and not animals, and can control ourselves enough to not want to kill or violently hurt someone just because they made you angry!

I know I am preaching to the choir but VAW is something that really gets me going and it just makes me sick to see that some people are still so ignorant and stupid that they have to find ways to justify Violence Against Women.

its a shame that some good points are overridden by a ton of crap.

support systems for men, resocializing them to be able to express emotion in a healthy manner, and the respect issue are what needs to be focused on.

this is especially true for young men, as noted above, if only this had taken the tack of the effect the patriarchy has on all people this could have been some good work.

Please tell me there is some women's group in Jamaica challenging this kind of bullshit...

My favourite bit is at the end: "It boils down to respect. If a man does not feel he is respected, then he will feel intimidated and will lash out - and not only in terms of violence but also in terms of finding someone else who respects him more."

In other words, it important for women to be properly submissive, otherwise men will be forced to kill them, or worse: leave them for another women! Yes, the only way to stop men from killing us is to let them oppress us instead. After all, history shows us that women were never murdered by their male partners back in the good ole pre-uppity women days, right?

This has been a long time coming, and we're going to see more and more of it as MRAs gain ground. I'm all for academic observation, for anthropologists and their ilk identifying shifts and trends, which can sometimes come across as rather dispassionate or cold, but for Gayle/McGill to say "women have to realise that men's weakness is their sexuality" - that's not observing a social 'fact' (such as women are encouraged to express emotion more than men are, etc.) so much as prescribing a remedy - a rather stupid, offensive one at that. My friends (including my mother) who have been raped already learnt that lesson; they're much less manipulative now.

What I would like to know is, why waste time writing an article? Why not just print up business cards, tshirts and bumper stickers that say "Women: it's always your fault when I'm a douche."
Quick and to the point. And if a woman sees a dude with one of these, she can stay away. You know, so she won't be tempted to manipulate him.
*Rolling eyes so far back I am resembling Linda Blair in "The Exorcist."

Okay, not to bring facts or anything into the debate, but don't women attempt suicide at a much higher rate than men?

That doesn't seem to jive well with their hypothesis.

GOOD: Yes, giving men more emotional outlets and tools to deal with their frustration is a good thing.

BAD: Blaming all of men's emotional ills on women is ridiculous.

Hey, I have a crazy idea. Can we agree that a gender construct that pushes men to kill themselves and others if they feel disrespected is toxic and intolerable? Can we agree that a manhood where men can't show emotion until it boils over into violence is wrong?

This and the ficticious boys crisis!
Why is it that professionals use their credentials to attempt to give sly credence to misogyny?!

The website this article came off of is full of nonsense social commentary. I mean, it's a horrible article, but I'm not so surprised or offended by it.

It doesn't appear to be a reputable enough article to warrant my outrage.

I can't tell if this is common for Jamaican publications because I'm ignorant of the culture. Although, I have heard Jamaica is exceptionally homophobic.

A U.S. paper never would have run this headline. Instead, it would have been something about how the "drama" in "tumultuous" relationships can "culminate" in murder-suicide. See how much better that sounds?

I like how we are the ones being "Urged" to change our behavior, and not them for killing themselves/us. On another note, for all those commenters surprised by this article, didn't you know that is ALWAYS the woman's fault? No matter what? Snark.

GopherII, I hate the fictitious boy crisis! I remember Newsweek ran an article on it a few years back and I could not see straight for hours.

My favourite bit is at the end: "It boils down to respect. If a man does not feel he is respected, then he will feel intimidated and will lash out - and not only in terms of violence but also in terms of finding someone else who respects him more."

Yes, I love the idea that women are supposed to respect men who deal with their problems with violence and/or philandering. Why the fuck should anyone value that?

I also noticed that the article didn't cover the fact that killing/abusing/cheating on the woman is DISRESPECTFUL to her? Or is respect only for men?

It doesn't appear to be a reputable enough article to warrant my outrage.

You should be outraged anytime something like this is given credence, even a little. It perpetuates and promotes misogynistic (and, in this case, misandric) ideas. The people that are inclined to believe and regurgitate this kind of crap don't give a fig for reputable.

Mmm. Yes. Men are incapable of controlling their emotions, have no psychological boundaries, can't care for others emotionally, can't maintain a household, and are a constant danger both to themselves and others...

Sounds like there's only one solution: institutionalize men! They clearly are not mentally equipped for participation in civil society.

Translation: women are soooooooo powerful that men can kill them at will and be excused for it in a national newspaper. Save me from ever having that kind of 'power'.

On a more serious note, this is an interesting contrast to the stories from the US media usually written about here. As bad as the latter often are (which is bad), the kind of gut-wrenching tripe we see in this article is not at all uncommon in developing-world media.

How about if a man is being manipulated in a relationship, then he gets the hell out of that relationship instead of killing his s/o? Why not simply acknowledge that the relationship is not working instead of staying in it and killing himself (or her)? Why the hell would anyone stay in a relationship if it was making them want to kill? If I were a psychologist, and my patient was telling me that he had thoughts of killing his wife because of severe manipulation, I'd say he was in a toxic relationship, to get the hell out, and please, please please come back for more therapy because you're having sociopathic thoughts!

If a woman is manipulating a man, then yes, that's screwed up, but who's fault is it if he decides to handle his anger and/or alienation in an unhealthy way such as suicide and/or murder?

'GopherII, I hate the fictitious boy crisis! I remember Newsweek ran an article on it a few years back and I could not see straight for hours.'

Theres a whole forum on amazon.com debating the "boys crisis." This stupid mother wrote a large rant about how her son doesnt do well in school because feminism changed everything. She claimed feminism created an 'anti-boy' environment at her sons school. She never even gave him responsibility for his own failure in school! I did some stat research and found that boys habitually forget to do their homework and come prepared to class, but yet its so much easier to blame women! The boys crisis is just a made up claim by those who want to erode feminism.

I think the most interesting part is that the article correctly paints guys for who we are, but then blames the women for our violent behavior. Men are emotional cripples, nothing can change that, but it is our responsibility as men to figure out how to deal with it, be it through anger management or just staying away from women, rather than women's responsibility to avoid doing whatever arbitrary thing might set us off.

As a psychologist, I often have to jump in when I feel that bad media report has twisted the results of valid research to appear sexist. However, you will hear no defenses from me this time. These people are spouting CRAP here. These people must be the Jamaican equivalent of "Dr." Laura.

To defend the fields of Psychology and Archeology a little, the Psychologists who spoke here (one agreeing with this argument, one disagreeing) seem to be counselors. No offense to counseling psychologists, but their comments are likely to be more based on personal observation and interpretation (which is open to more bias) than any generally accepted research and theorizing. The Archaeologist (in other articles sometimes quoted as a sociologist) also seems to be commenting outside his field(s) domain, meaning its mostly opinion.

Not to sound too ethnocentric, but we all know women have a much harder time in less modern countries. It is not the least bit surprising to have "authority" figures making very sexist statements. I think when we focus on the issues still ahead, many people almost forget the progress they have made in this country and other westernized nations to make such blatant sexist thinking unacceptable among academics and most authority figures.

This reads almost like it could be in the Onion - it might as well be titled: "Women: Everything Wrong With Society Is Your Fault".

The private relationship between men and women inside their homes that lead to murder-suicide are far too complicated, I believe, than can be so easily generalized, saying they are the result of women's manipulation. Here are a few very interesting paragraphs from the article:

"'Murder-suicide includes a sort of brooding bitterness and anxiety that is unresolved or unrelieved, and you might have some amount of catastrocising,' said McGill. 'In other words, everything looks worse than it really is, and so you blame the other person and become paranoid. It gets to the place where there is really no resolution of the conflict in the relationship, nor is there any insight into the long-standing problem.'"

"'The problem I find is that men have a difficulty dealing with strong emotions and so are unwilling to seek help,' he said. 'Some do, but usually in the company of a mistress or another woman. However, most do not, especially if there is a lot of emotional dependence in the particular relationship that is causing the problem. There is a feeling of isolation, of worthlessness and a feeling of rejection. And so if the person's self-esteem is very low and bound up within the relationship, the person will feel like a non-person.'"

The article does very little to describe the women's manipulation and that is just one thing that really bugs me. I can see that two people in one fucked up situation can spiral into violence, but to put blame on one person because she is supposed to be the more emotionally mature is the type of generalization that makes murder-suicides statistics and not the horrible death of two individuals.

I read this article when I was in high school and it opened my eyes to just how messed up a relationship can be between two people and the power of verbal abuse on men.

"The whole article is full of sexist, harmful stereotypes about both genders. I'm not sure how it serves anyone."

I haven't checked yet, but I am sure that it and studies like it will be picked up by certain MRAs and antimisandry sites.

"Well, at least it, in the crudest of manners, points out how damaging patriarchy is on men, which is often overlooked."

Yes, be certain that MRAs and antimisandrists don't get it, not seeing past the so called "feminist" or anti male agenda. In any case, they are focused on the short term, like "My ex-wife won't let me see my kids, and lied to get a TRO and custody, but she asked the courts to increase my child support payments. Can anybody help me?" like I can read at Glenn Sacks. I have no doubt that the pain of some men is quite real, though I would never compare it to that of a woman with an abusive partner.

"How about if a man is being manipulated in a relationship, then he gets the hell out of that relationship instead of killing his s/o?"

Because men's/father's rights activists don't want themselves or other men to be "victimized" by alimony or child support payments, or being made out to be the villain by a system that will likely deprive them of their children, perhaps never to be seen again, and one that takes the side of women (as usually lower income and custodial) when seeking mens' assets and income.* I agree seeking professional help is preferable to being a "manipulative" woman or abusive/murderous man, but ultimately it is the person's own choice, until they are *recognized* by authorities as an imminent threat.

* I am not claiming that MRAs are correct (I do not even bother posting on any of their sites), but if you spent time on Glenn Sacks and other sites like his, you would at least understand why they (there are a few who claim to be women) think the way they do, and what drives them.

Opps, Here is the article ( I hope the link works this time):

http://www.nemasys.com/ghostwolf/Reflections/Writings/howtokill.shtml

The author has a long history of abuse and writes quite a bit about his personal experiences. It is thought provoking to say the least.

jeangenie, are you an MRA troll, or are you just using sarcasm very poorly? The notion that rape victims "learn" to be "less manipulative," as a result of rape (as you put it in your 2:28 pm comment), is incredibly offensive. Women, manipulative or not, never cause rape.

And this story is bullshit. I would no more blame women for being the victims of abuse or murder, than I would blame a baby or small child for being the victim of abuse or murder, for "irritating" the parents through their behavior or crying incessantly. The frustration or lack of parenting skills of the parents (or medical/psychiatric needs of the child) should be addressed by qualified professionals. Those in problematic relationships should seek help, preferably together.

Unfortunately, many people are ashamed or simply will not cooperate in seeking treatment for themselves because of the stigma involved. Believe me, there is a stigma attached to seeking help, even if the results are beneficial. I am currently being penalized in my search for a new job (government service or those requiring security clearance or background checks, as is common in health care), because I went to a psychiatrist for problems I had (originally simple stress) during nursing school last year. Things got out of hand after he started claiming I had ADHD, depression, and bipolar type II (the "more dangerous" kind) disorder (I disagree with the latter two, but agree I have stress and have been documented in school records as showing symptoms of ADHD since at least the age of four - ADHD was not recognized until 1982 and is still debated today). A non physician PhD therapist I went to, the local expert on the condition, immediately claimed I had Asperger's Syndrome (as seen in Rain Man), and pointed out its "symptoms" in my behavior and my life.

"The author has a long history of abuse and writes quite a bit about his personal experiences. It is thought provoking to say the least."

Like I said, there is no doubt that the pain and frustration of some men is real. The pain and frustration (not the women or children) can result in men expressing themselves in unproductive, illegal, and unpardonable ways. People like that and society need to learn that it is ok to seek help, and that some people really need help (or deserve to be put away).

In regards to the author of that page I posted, he ended up divorcing his wife and getting away from her. I thought it was interesting that in his case, it was mostly his wife that needed the counseling but did not seek it out, though I think you hear more on that in his other writings. Sometimes it feels like gender and traditional social roles are just the hammer and nails that one person uses to hurt another.

The most important thing to take from this rubbish article is this:

SCIENCE IS CONTAMINATED BY SEXISM AND PATRIARCHY. ALL FORMS OF SCIENCE ARE.

In a (somewhat) related story:
I was out driving today, and I was in the left lane and realized I needed to make a right-hand turn in less than a block, so I put my signal on, but the guy that was in the other lane didn't speed up or slow down, he just kept right on my rear flank. So I sped up and got in front of him to make the turn, and flipped him off (to thank him for being so nice and letting me over) and he FOLLOWS ME TO MY DESTINATION, BLOCKS MY CAR INTO ITS SPOT, AND PROCEEDS TO CALL ME "PSYCHO" because I "flipped him off for no reason." That's right, the guy that FOLLOWED ME to my destination did so in order to call ME psycho, and inform me that I am a "fat bitch." So apparently females are also to blame when men have irrational, psychotic road rage.

"One thing is correct: "Women have grown up without restrictions on expressing their emotions and so they are more emotionally developed than most men . . .""

Ummm no...

Women are taught to supress their emotions too, just different ones than men. Can't be angry, frustrated, hardworking, upset, etc.

"In regards to the author of that page I posted, he ended up divorcing his wife and getting away from her. I thought it was interesting that in his case, it was mostly his wife that needed the counseling but did not seek it out,"

Yes, and this is the problem with counseling and psychiatry (or Al-Anon, for loved ones of alcoholics). An abuser cannot be helped or stopped, unless they agree THEY are the problem. The victim can only be empowered to leave or not be an enabler (or go to the authorities).

"jeangenie, are you an MRA troll, or are you just using sarcasm very poorly? The notion that rape victims "learn" to be "less manipulative," as a result of rape (as you put it in your 2:28 pm comment), is incredibly offensive. Women, manipulative or not, never cause rape."
Ummm...I thought my characterization of the article as 'stupid and offensive', along with the post's location on the Feministing message board, where such sarcasm (born of anger) is often found, would have clearly signposted the comment as sarcasm. I'm sorry if you didn't get it, and of course I didn't mean to be offensive. You think I'd joke about my own mother's sexual assault???

"How about if a man is being manipulated in a relationship, then he gets the hell out of that relationship instead of killing his s/o?"

Also, if we were talking about a woman with a manipulative (or abusive) husband, we would call this blaming the victim. I see there are sympathies and public support for women who kill their abusers.

Oh, my fuckin' God. That is all.

I'm so unbelievably tired of all these articles and people talking about abusers and rapists as though they don't have any self-control and just can't help beating the crap out of their girlfriend, cheating on their spouse or raping somebody, and oh, if only you women wouldn't do this, you would be safe and the poor men wouldn't have to feel manipulated or inferior anymore. As if beating or raping someone isn't a conscious decision that someone decides to make, but just something that always happens and will happen and the only thing we can do is get women to be more careful, because that's worked so well before. I know it's been said a million times now in a million different ways, but victim-blaming is the one thing that really induces me to frothing-at-the-mouth rage.

And, you know, it's not as if women never feel inferior to men, especially growing up in a society that continually tells them they are.

"SCIENCE IS CONTAMINATED BY SEXISM AND PATRIARCHY. ALL FORMS OF SCIENCE ARE."

Mary, 'science' as a whole is not contanimated by sexism or patriarchy. Assholes who misuse science and deliberately twist their conclusions to support preconceived misogynistic notions are.

No, I'm pretty sure that all forms of science are contaminated by sexism and patriarchy

That's why feminism's work is so difficult. It has to question pretty much everything we know and take for granted to be true.

I'm genuinely sorry, jeangenie. As a rape survivor, I'm always on high bullshit-alert. I really wouldn't put it past a MRA sketchster to make a seriously awful joke. My bad for misinterpreting your (now obvious) sarcasm.

"SCIENCE IS CONTAMINATED BY SEXISM AND PATRIARCHY. ALL FORMS OF SCIENCE ARE."

"No, I'm pretty sure that all forms of science are contaminated by sexism and patriarchy

That's why feminism's work is so difficult. It has to question pretty much everything we know and take for granted to be true."

All forms of science? You can make the argument (and I speak of a general you, not you in particular) that scientists, as people, can be influenced by their own biases whether they know it or not. But that’s because they’re people, not because it’s science.

Indeed, if you were even passingly familiar with science, you would realize that it is based upon the idea that nothing can be "taken for granted" because we must always "question pretty much everything we know" constantly and with evidence in order to expand our knowledge and better understand the universe around us. Good scientists are the first to stand up and say that we know nothing, and are not even certain of that. Humans are innately fallible creatures, but science is a philosophy that helps us compensate for that.

There are plenty of quacks, fakes, and plain old evil and malicious people in every discipline, that that also applies to scientists (and I doubt that term actually applies to the ‘researchers’ behind this paper, ha) is hardly a reason to make huge, irrational, and ignorant statements about any of the fields in the sciences.

all those saying the man should just leave if he is being manipulated, well as a male stated, is that not blaming the victim?

does not the definition of DV/abuse include psychological abuse? The issue they bring up as far as men having fewer outlets is very true and should be remedied. more outlets and resocialization are the key.

ucla, all the stats ive ever seen do indeed have women attempting suicide more but men being "successful" at a much higher rate.

as far as the "boy crisis", you may not believe all the reasons given for it but if you look at the UK, what theyre doing over there and the results theyre getting, it might do us well to undertake some of the same measures. If we dont do that, would you really be comfortable with millions more male high school dropouts who leave any kind of public system in their mid-late teens, kill themselves and others at a high rate and would be beyond any efforts to change their world view?

danadanica, you're assuming that the "manipulation" mentioned in the article is 1. actually happening and 2. constitutes abuse. That's not even supported by the article itself.

Re: Tim, With regard to your comment: "Women have grown up without restrictions on expressing their emotions and so they are more emotionally developed than most men . . ."

Tim, The problem I have with that statement is that I feel it is playing into gender stereotypes. Women and men are brought up with certain expectations, so if their emotions fall outside of these expectations than they are discouraged from expressing them. It's as equally restrictive on girls as it is on boys. Let me give you an example of how women's emotions have been restricted. There is a stereotype that men are supposed to express anger and women are supposed to cry (or whatever) this is equally as restricting on both sexes, why can't women get angry when they feel anger? Why can't men cry if they are sad? It goes both ways.

Also as far as women's sexual emotions go, we have been extremely discouraged from expressing them too. For example women are supposed to act like "virgins" they are not supposed to show any sort of desire or "horniess" otherwise they will be labeled a whore. Women are discouraged from masturbating and self exploration, and often young girls are told they can't do X Y or Z because it's for the boys only. (I always wondered why girls couldn't play ice hockey or football for example). These things all effect our emotions and how we express them. So I would submit to you that just as emotional expression is restrictive on boys, it is equally restrictive on girls, remember the whole "boys get angry, girls cry" is only a stereotype, not reality. I know plenty of girls who hold their emotions in, it's not just guys that are effected by this.

Maybe it's time to really look at how certain gender stereotypes have effected your thinking, because gender expectations effect both sexes. I don't think it's fair for you to say that women are more emotionally free than men because that is a stereotype too, and a direct result of the influence of gender rules.

Damn those sexist laws of physics! The third law of thermodynamics has been keeping women down TOO LONG!

"you're assuming that the "manipulation" mentioned in the article is 1. actually happening and 2. constitutes abuse. That's not even supported by the article itself."

This article itself is bullshit. However, I hope you are not implying that there are not manipulative or abusive women, or that men are not sometimes abused by women, i.e. women are only victims and only men are abusive. I have seen the "DV" by women is self defense against marital rape argument here just last week. Such thinking is one reason MRAs and so called antifeminists came about, and part of why they are so loud.

Here's where I learn how open minded people can be. These are long ass quotes, but it's a long ass study, and much of it must be spent defending herself from critics (including feminists) who have been on the attack against data on men as victims of DV or women as perpetrators, since 1976. Most notably, this very piece and its writer are recognized as "antifeminist."

"By dismissing the possibility of female violence, the framework of legal programs and social norms is narrowly shaped to respond only to the male abuse of women. Female batterers cannot be recognized. Male victims cannot be treated. If we are to truly address the phenomenon of domestic violence, the legal response to domestic violence and the biases which underlie it must be challenged."

DISABUSING THE DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC ABUSE: HOW WOMEN BATTER MEN AND THE ROLE OF THE FEMINIST STATE
LINDA KELLY

Professor of Law, Indiana University School of Law, Indianapolis. B.A., 1988,
University of Virginia; J.D., 1992, University of Virginia.

http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/downloads/304/kelly.pdf

[start quote]

B. Defending Female Violence

1. Quantitative Criticisms

If the methodological critiques are accurate, the assertion that
men and women engage in similar patterns of domestic violence can
be denied fairly. Yet even effectively raising the shortcomings of
these criticisms (as I have just attempted to do) does not sufficiently
respond to the critics. For those interested in discrediting the assertion
that men and women both act violently, a bolder move is to not
only accept the female use of violence, but to defend it. In conceding
that women do engage in acts of domestic violence, female use of vio-
lence is justified as self-defense—a lifesaving reaction of women who
are being physically attacked by their male partners.63

The development of the battered woman syndrome as a defense
for crimes committed against abusive male partners, including homicide,
evidences the wide acceptance of a woman’s use of violence as
self-defense.64 The self-defense theory of female domestic violence is
not, however, fully supported by the statistics. According to the statistics
on intimate violence, while in approximately 50% of cases both
spouses are reported to act violently, in the remaining 50% only one
spouse is reported to ever use domestic violence.65 Admittedly, the
finding that in approximately 50% of cases both spouses engage in
violence does not help in determining who is initiating the violence.66
Consequently, the battered woman/self-defense theory is a plausible
explanation for the female use of violence in those cases. However,
the remaining 50% of couples who report violence by only one spouse
further breaks down to reveal that while the husband is the sole perpetrator
in one half of such cases, the wife is the sole perpetrator in
the remaining half.67 Moreover, when questioned specifically as to
initial abuse, men and women report initiating violence at similar
rates.68 These virtually identical rates of violence by men and women
as sole perpetrators call into question the assertion that women’s use
of domestic violence is always defensive; they also suggest that
women may be the only physical aggressor in violent relationships as
often as men.69

[omission]

D. Responding to The Critics: Why Female Violence Must Be Examined

Acknowledging the damage differential in the domestic violence
used by men and women may seem to end the need to study female
violence.81 Yet does it? A number of important practical and theoretical
justifications militate against ignoring female violence. First,
notwithstanding the “damage differential,� some important normative
observations about men and women can be drawn from an acknowledgment
of male and female violence. Given the statistical parity
in the use of domestic violence,82 there appears to be no basis for
the traditional belief that women are either born or bred to be less
physically aggressive than men. Likewise, the statistics do not bear
out the “nagging� wife stereotype. Women are not more prone to engage
in verbal abuse than men.83 Moreover, the recognition of the difference
in consequences between male and female violence does not
diminish the fact that men and women bear similar intentions in regard
to their inclination to engage in intimate violence.84 In fact,
their comparable intent leads to similar results when the physical
strength difference between men and women is taken into account.
Controlling for the “hand-to-hand� combat advantage of men by relying
solely upon statistics measuring injury produced by domestic violence
involving a weapon, the rate at which men are injured by
women is similar or greater than the rate at which women are injured
by men.85 Put succinctly by one commentator, “[a]pparently, it’s
just a matter of style.�86

Second, focusing on the injury, rather than the assault, contradicts
the understood campaign against wife-beating which has been
to end wife abuse per se, not just the violence which produces injury.
87 To support a domestic violence policy restricted only to injuryproduced [sic]
violence would end the expectation of any legal response or
social protection to noninjured victims.88

A third argument for resisting the effort to deny, defend, or minimize
female abuse of men lies in recognizing that the decrease in
male abuse of women is largely credited to the attention which has
been given to male abuse of women since the earliest explorations of
domestic violence. Increased treatment and prevention programs,
counseling for male abusers, and shelters for abused women are
amongst other important items credited for the significant reductions
in male abuse of women.89 Defining domestic violence as the abuse of
women by men has brought a growing cultural intolerance for wife
abuse, while there is reported to be little change in the tolerance of
female violence.90 In very real terms then, the failure to stigmatize or
even acknowledge the female abuse of men allows and encourages its
continuation.91

[end quote]

Domestic violence: Not Always One Sided
Pri-Med Patient Education Center, Harvard Medical School

http://www.patienteducationcenter.org/aspx/HealthELibrary/HealthETopic.aspx?cid=M0907d

[start quote]

Nearly 11,000 men and women, a representative sample of the American population ages 18 to 28, participated in a national survey.

[omission]

Almost 25% of the people surveyed — 28% of women and 19% of men — said there was some violence in their relationship. Women admitted perpetrating more violence (25% versus 11%) as well as being victimized more by violence (19% versus 16%) than men did. According to both men and women, 50% of this violence was reciprocal, that is, involved both parties, and in those cases the woman was more likely to have been the first to strike.

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%).

That means both men and women agreed that men were not more responsible than women for intimate partner violence. The findings cannot be explained by men's being ashamed to admit hitting women, because women agreed with men on this point.

[end quote]

Whitaker DJ, et al. "Differences in Frequency of Violence and Reported Injury between Relationships with Reciprocal and Nonreciprocal Intimate Partner Violence," American Journal of Public Health (May 2007): Vol. 97, No. 5, pp. 941–47.

The Whitaker study is not some MRA hack job, published in Jamaica, btw. That first link was from Harvard Medical School.

http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/5/941

American Journal of Public Health

Differences in Frequency of Violence and Reported Injury Between Relationships With Reciprocal and Nonreciprocal Intimate Partner Violence
Daniel J. Whitaker, PhD, Tadesse Haileyesus, MS, Monica Swahn, PhD and Linda S. Saltzman, PhD

"At the time of this study, Daniel J. Whitaker and Linda S. Saltzman were with the Division of Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Ga. Tadesse Haileyesus is with the Office of Statistics and Programming, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Monica Swahn is with the Office on Smoking and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."

http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/42/15/31-a?eaf

Psychiatric News, American Psychiatric Association

"These findings on intimate partner violence come from a study conducted by scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The lead investigator was Daniel Whitaker, Ph.D., a behavioral scientist and team leader at the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (which is part of the CDC). Results were published in the May Journal of Public Health."

"The issue they bring up as far as men having fewer outlets is very true and should be remedied. "

There is less of a need for "men and children's" shelters in the US than for women and children, but there should still be such places for men who choose to leave abusive relationships, and the children, if they need to be taken for safety reasons. That is another goal of MRAs. Not all abused men can just set up house on their own if they leave. I can't afford to live without my wife.

I read this article when I was in high school and it opened my eyes to just how messed up a relationship can be between two people and the power of verbal abuse on men.

This is beginning to sound like some sort of weird oppression olympics. Men physically abuse women, women physically abuse men. Women verbally abuse men, men verbally abuse women.

My mother, due to being gang raped, then having my father killed in a car accident within weeks of each other when I was under a year old, physically and emotionally abused me. She never hurt me much and was always terribly sorry, but I will always be emotionally stunted. My (step) father physically and emotionally abused me as a teenager due to a complete lack of coping mechanisms. He never really hurt me but simply the use of his physicality (he's a big man) as a tool of power seriously scarred me. I am left with a feeling of guilt from being quite so fucked up when I've never been raped myself or had the shit beaten out of me.

I grew up terrified of rape (my mother's attempt to protect me from the world) so adopted anger and aggression as a coping mechanism. I am a hard person to be in a relationship with. But I have a wonderful partner and I will never hurt him.

It doesn't matter the sex of the abuser, abuse of any kind is damaging

I had Asperger's Syndrome (as seen in Rain Man), and pointed out its "symptoms" in my behavior and my life.

Holy cripes! Me too. The same thing happened to me during my high school days. It started in later middle school when I was having fights with friends (as adolescents do-particularly backbiting ones) and teachers started giving my mom reports of how I wasnt seen with my old friends, ect. I was still having fights with friends (getting back together, then breaking up...) and the teachers started telling my mom about it. I was in high school and completetly pissed about this kind of intrusion. My mom set up an appointment with a therapist and I wouldnt talk. He said I had anti-social personality disorder, obstanence defiance disorder, ADHD and a crap load of other completetly crazy diagnosis! He told my mom that if I didnt take medication I would go catatonic. The medicine they were trying to force on me was paxil, zantac,anti-psychotic medications and ridalin. I remember asking what those medicines would do to me if I took them and didnt have any of the diseases-and never got a reply. I told them I wouldnt take that crap, but my mom brought home all the medicines anyways. Every night after dinner she would try and force me to take that crap. Luckily, I never did. Eventually because I wouldnt take the medicines my mom enlisted me in a juvenile psychiatric institution (without even telling me) which was run by the same asshat that tried to force schizophrenic medicines on me. Like therapy sessions, I wouldnt 'cooperate' so I got out 1 month later. I was sent to isolation room because I refused to call him 'Dr.'I remember real mental people getting out sooner, and those that were caught robbing peoples houses getting out in two days. Eventually my mom made me go to a new therapist that said I had aspergers disorder-because I wouldnt talk to her. I remember some of the 'advice' they gave to my mom when I wouldnt take my meds was to take something away that I really valued. My mom did that, and I remeber having my favorite things taken away solely because I wouldnt take medications that wouldve fucked with my head. I remember a patient in the juvenile ward who was so drugged she had tubes coming out of her nose. She took about 5 different mind altering medications. I asked her what was wrong with her, and she said she had attempted suicide. How are you supposed to work through your problems if you cant even feel yourself? She was only 15! She said she felt miserable because the meds made her bloat up and she was already fat. She said she was depressed because her parents gloated over her skinnier, younger sibling and would make offensive comments to her, especially concerning her weight. She wrote peotry, I wonder what happened to her. Another girl was in there because she had extreme anger because a close friend of her mothers raped her mom and thats where her baby sister came from. She would ride by and toss eggs at his house. The mother never brought the rape to trial. Was the girl crazy? I dont think so.

It's guys like Herbie that make me occasionally regret having Y chromosomes.

I guess it's a wonder that so many of us actually get through the day w/o a homicide.

sorry if someone alredy write this but this article seems reminiscent of

"well you wouldn't have gotten raped if you weren't wearing that/weren't at that party/weren't acting so sexy".....

I'm going to have to take Mary Tracy9's side on the whole science being contaminated thing. And this is coming from an archaeologist feminist, so please no one say I know nothing about science.

All cultural constructions established in a sexist culture are inherently tainted with sexism, because the acceptable viewpiont within the structure is sexist. This applies to science as well. Add to that that science involves hierarchies, notions of acceptability and "fact," and the quest for absolute truth much more so than many institutions commonly criticized by feminists. Science is more dangerous than government, law, economy, and religion, because of all of these institutions it can claim to have the most objective "truth" on its side. So, in that regard, all science is suspect. And that's WITHOUT personal biases of individual scientists.

Wow, long post. I'll just sum it up as someone misdiagnosing a sane, healthy person because of an overanxious mother. Psychiatric abuse, and I've heard of other stories by people such as medical abuse by therapists- ie take ridalin, for your mental problems only later to find out you've had MS.

"He said I had anti-social personality disorder, obstanence defiance disorder, ADHD and a crap load of other completetly crazy diagnosis! He told my mom that if I didnt take medication I would go catatonic."

I decided to keep my mouth shut in the thread where OB/GYN was called the least scientific field of medicine. At least in OB/GYN doctors can claim they understand much of how women's bodies work, and how babies develop and are born. I am no supporter of Scientology and believe Tom Cruise since his appearance on Oprah is acting like a loon, but some of what they say about psychiatry is true. Psychiatry is one of (if not the only) fields where it cannot be physically proven, as through labs such as a blood test, that a person actually has a condition. Yes, I've seen the pretty color pictures that show how brains function. But can they show me that my dopamine and serotonin levels are low, affecting my mood, before giving me chemicals in an effort to keep the levels up? No, they never even checked. I did see an effect, however. The medication made me impotent while I was on it. When I studied psych nursing and pharmacology, the texts and instructors including a groundbreaking PhD researcher from California were quite clear that they didn't understand some conditions or "why" some medications worked. They just treat it or give drugs because they say it is effective.

No, the diagnoses are what they get out of the DSM-IV [TR], and are based on exhibition of symptoms. These symptoms, and the diagnoses, are determined by committee, to decide whether or not they "really" exist. ADHD used to simply be considered poor self discipline on the part of children, and in Japan where the concept is still new, they still perceive "problem" children that way allowing them to perform poorly in school, not advancing their education, and adversely affecting the rest of their lives including performance on the job if the "symptoms" continue into adulthood, as they commonly do.

After one year at the discount rate of $130 per hour, my doctor still can't make a final decision on what I have, and he puts me on different medications and messes with the dosages to see if it is "working." I'd like to say I simply had trouble at nursing school because of stress, but the department made me go to a psychiatrist if I wanted to continue my schooling, as well as get a clearance. Thanks to the uncertainty of my condition and treatment, I have failed to get a security clearance to work in security for a federal agency. I will now wait to see if I can gain employment as a nurse at another.

I'm still waiting on the results of my interview to see if I can be a psychiatric nurse at the local acute care facility, where people only stay a few days to manage crises before going home or being transferred to a long term facility. I want to be a psych nurse to help people manage their lives so they can get out, as well as be a sympathetic ear for people inside, not because I really believe in the science of psychiatry or the medications.

A male--very interesting study. While worrisome in its implications, studies like this are important to ensure the eqality of everyone.

It's easy to say that one gender is better than the other when talking about positive actions and traits, but to come to the realization that both are about equal even in such problems as domestic violence is a lot harder.

One issue I have:

"According to both men and women, 50% of this violence was reciprocal, that is, involved both parties, and in those cases the woman was more likely to have been the first to strike."

As someone who has both seen and been involved in domestic violence, I would say this is a skewed concept. If someone twice your size backs you into a corner, spits on you and screams obscenities at you, you're likely to strike first, no matter the gender. People who are physically abusive will often harass the other person into striking first, as they then "have a reason" to strike back.

I grew up with a very violent father and the classic "afraid to leave" mother, and as such had pretty bad violence issues as a teen; I heard the "C'mon and hit me" chant many times, and I will admit to giving in to it. And yet, I've only been in two physical fights as an adult, both with said violent father, and both before I turned twenty. I had to come to the realization that I had the choice to either be violent or I could deal with conflict in other ways, and I chose to learn other ways. Violent tendencies can be overcome; many violent people can and do control themselves, but will try the "I can't control myself" lie anyway.

While I realize that not every study can cover everything, and I completely agree that domestic violence perpetrated by women is a serious issue, the physical aspect is only half of the problem. It's a little like the tiger at the San Francisco zoo--pick on it until it kills someone, and then it's the animal's fault (yeah, I realize that I'm opening a can of bizarre metaphorical worms and the analogy's not perfect.)

I'm also troubled that the implications of this study seem to be that in a violent domestic dispute, man and woman are equal partners, and thus neither more or less responsible. While I don't doubt that some couples are equally violent, I worry that this kind of study, or at least the way it was written, may hurt the many people who are on the receiving end of physical and psychological violence.

LP-

Yes, well. Jamaica is essentially a fundamentalist Christian nation.

This is a place where homosexuality is still a crime punishable by over twenty fucking years in prison, and it's not terribly uncommon to see gays and transgender people stoned and beaten in the streets.

"A male--very interesting study. While worrisome in its implications, studies like this are important to ensure the eqality of everyone."

I don't consider it worrisome to acknowledge that the reverse of the stereotype can be true, it is simply a sad example of "equality." And it really isn't the level or severity of IPV or DV that matters, as "antifeminist" Linda Kelly points out. IPV/DV is a problem, period. I have no intention of blaming women for violence (on either side of the equation), or portraying them as the sometime villains in abuse. I simply don't like it when media or the general public considers DV/IPV a problem of "only" males against females (again just last week, I saw the "95% of DV is man on woman" claim - no it isn't that simple, though sexual assault apparently is, where study shows over 95% of offenders are male),

Over 95 percent of sexual assault offenders are male.
Greenfeld, Lawrence A. “Sex offenses and Offenders. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Us Department of Justice, 1997, via The Sex Abuse Treatment Center of Hawaii
http://satchawaii.com/statistics.html

and the legal system and system of aid for victims, as in the establishment of battered women and children's shelters (but not for men AND children who would escape abuse), adopts the "only" men can be abusers, and women can "only" be the victims view. Even a perusal of lesbian woman on woman violence, including rape, will show that it also is a common, serious, yet almost completely ignored problem, apparently even by feminists who write and post a lot about LGBTQQ issues.

Again, this is not about, "what about the menz" victims or the evil of women, it is what about victims that are ignored when we generalize (as when we say, completely supported by research, that "rapists are men").

I didn't even notice this part:

"As someone who has both seen and been involved in domestic violence, I would say this is a skewed concept. If someone twice your size backs you into a corner, spits on you and screams obscenities at you, you're likely to strike first, no matter the gender. People who are physically abusive will often harass the other person into striking first, as they then "have a reason" to strike back."

I am sorry that you had to experience that. But other than being the "anecdote as evidence" fallacy, I could easily google you stories of women who actually are evil to their men and children; this is called the famous, probably feminist, "DV by females as self defense" argument, as mentioned by Linda Kelly. Please don't start. I can say the same about violent men "defending themselves," particularly in those 50% of cases where the violence is two way (also recall CDC study suggests the woman initiates violence on male partner 70% of the time when violence is NON-RECIPROCAL, i.e., WOMAN STRIKES AND MAN DOES NOT STRIKE BACK), and when women pick up a weapon, as they are more likely to do, but not often studied, and usually ignored (except in those famous anecdotal instances where woman, eg, shoots or castrates sleeping husband in "self defense" - are men allowed to cut, stab or shoot their violent wives? I can't afford to live without the financial support of my wife, or to pay her alimony or child support if we ever separate, either - how the hell am I supposed to support two households when I cannot support even one by myself - can I kill my wife if she ever becomes violent against myself or the children (recall my wife began as taller and heavier than I. larger than the average US female, and quite strong; I on the other hand, am around the lowest tenth percentile of US males) and expect the support of feminists?).

Don't make excuses for violence against men like this anti-woman OP defends male violence against women. (And I do not forget that the OP concept is simply odious.)

A male, are you actually suggesting that the "dv by females as self defense" - as you call it - isn't valid?

I think your comments on many threads have been well intentioned, but I'd recommend reading this.

"A male, are you actually suggesting that the "dv by females as self defense" - as you call it - isn't valid?"

Not as often as most women's supporters would have me believe. What is your excuse for women abusing children, in significantly larger numbers than men (yes, I know divorced women have custody more often, and there are more single mothers than fathers)? Is that the patriarchy too?

"Other methodological criticisms of the CTS:
In the original studies, no questions were asked about rape or sexual assault, in which male abusers predominate."

Please note the new CDC study discussed in Feministing does take emotional and sexual abuse into account. I believe I have always acknowledged, even brought up myself when talking about IPV/DV, the other inequalities such as disparity in physical aspects of power, economics, social standing, and infliction and severity of injuries.

OTOH, no one has ever explained how the CDC finds that male and female respondents agree (in the Whitaker study) that women instigate the violence in 70% of NONRECIPROCAL violence, eg, man did not strike first, and man did not strike back, and one sided violence was evenly divided between male and female.

Can you show me how 95% of victims of DV are women, as I have seen claimed by supporters of women's rights? (Try a google search on "95% domestic violence" with no quotes.) Even in infliction of injury, that is clearly untrue. I would also like to see how DV is the leading cause of injury to women. I'd like national findings, not allegedly the findings of one emergency room, or the work of Stark and Flitcraft.

No degree of overstatement, hyperbole, or exaggeration is necessary to tell me why more needs to be done to assist female victims or prevent and punish criminal acts by males, or to explain to me why more attention and resources are devoted to women (and children) instead of male victims. Even recent CDC findings like the Whitaker study or the new article "CDC: Quarter of U.S. women suffer domestic violence" are quite enough.

Important caveat: Recall, as when discussing the extent of IPV/DV against women, that abuse is not limited to the physical. Limiting discussion of abuse to men beating, raping, and killing women, the physical injuries they cause, and the cost of medical treatment of those physical injuries, ignores the very real trauma of women (and men) who are emotionally and psychologically abused.

Thank goodness, no flames yet.

I feel the need to explain myself. Please note I am not calling the account of any individual who reports being a victim untrue, or calling women's activists or feminists liars.

I am simply saying that without some substance behind it, such as reputable research (e.g., university or government sponsored, hopefully applicable nationwide or to the public at large, like these CDC studies both feminists and MRAs like to cite) with results that can be confirmed or reproduced by independent third parties (a scientific standard, not misogynist denial), generalizing violence by women as self defense against male violence (or threat of violence) is not justifiable. I would be grateful to be educated if this information could be found. It's just that I have not encountered such data, from ANY source, including feminist websites.

Is a woman justified in using physical force to defend herself against violence, or what she reasonably believes (note I do not insist "actual") to be an imminent threat? Of course she is. As a matter of fact, a LETHAL RESPONSE to NON-LETHAL violence or reasonable threat of violence is justifiable BY LAW in a number of jurisdictions such as Hawaii, where I live. A woman in Hawaii can KILL to defend herself against what she reasonably *believes* to be an *attempted* rape, BY LAW. (Note a dead man cannot defend himself against an accusation of rape, nor can a dead woman defend herself against a man's claim that she attempted or represented an imminent threat to kill him. It cuts both ways. How often are such laws abused to commit murder? I couldn't tell you, because how can it be proven without witnesses or material evidence?)

There are even instances where I will EXCUSE violence by women against their partners, without threats or violence against them. As I have written, a woman should be entitled to at least slap a man who cheats. Should a man be entitled to slap or cause physical harm to his cheating wife? No, and I did not do so either, in either real life instance of my wife cheating, by her own admission, and her later abortions because the identity of the father was in dispute. (Apparently, the woman gets pregnant in EVERY single instance of sex without a condom that I know of in the 13 years we have been together, except two or three times with me, INCLUDING while on the Pill. Daaaaamn. I will say it again, as a nurse, and a man who knows: ALWAYS use a backup form of contraception, preferably including a barrier method to prevent STD/STIs. Woman also threatens to divorce me if I ever bring up her infidelity. I dare say that I am the victim, and would be legally justified in divorcing her for adultery, but will not because I'll be damned if I'll pay her for fucking around on me, and taking my kids back to Japan where I'll likely never see them again.) Call me biased and softhearted to women, cuz I don't like hurting them. The patriarchy can sometimes serve women.

Let me give you some reasons off the top of my head, some I imagine without justification, and at least three reported in research by offenders and victims alike (I would be glad to show you the source if I can google it again) that women might use violence against male partners, just once, occasionally, or habitually, in no particular order:

- Self defense, naturally
- An expression of sudden anger
- General poor anger management skills
- An expression of frustration
- A reaction to stress
- General poor management of stress
- An offense by the man, eg, infidelity
- Psychiatric disorder
- Temporary insanity
- Influence of drugs or alcohol
- Mental impairment
- Explicit provocation to violence by male
- A very poor attempt at humor or horseplay
- An accident, like not intending to connect or hit someone with a thrown object or weapon, but it did
- A simple laying on of hands or a shove (legally battery, however) being classified as an act of violence by researchers

Screw it, that's enough. And last, but perhaps not least:

- Woman is simply an unpardonable violent criminal, as abusive men are *usually* portrayed

Please note, I am not stereotyping the mentally ill, drug users, drunks and alcoholics, the learning impaired, or any other group as violent (except violent criminals), nor am I JUSTIFYING violence (except for self defense, cheating, or actual lack of cognition). I am just imagining an offender's reasoning. I will not even generalize women as violent criminals, the way male abusers are demonized.

Also note that I have never encountered justification including "self defense" as recognized by an organization of women's activists in the case of a male abuser, much less a habitual one. Again I would be grateful to be educated otherwise. I wonder how it would be if those women who attacked, castrated or killed their abusers were instead killed by their alleged abusers (not all the men were arrested or convicted beforehand) in legally justifiable self defense (where those jurisdictions allowed for it)? Would women's activists stand behind a man in support of the law in killing a woman, an alleged victim of abuse? I'd like to see it happen if that situation ever comes up.

However, if you cannot even imagine that a woman can simply be criminally inclined (for whatever reason such as conditioning by a lifetime of abuse at the hands of others - my wife with a long history of abuse and no good role model for motherhood, also used to strike our children in frustration until I witnessed it and VERBALLY stopped her), we'd better just drop this entire subject, and I'll sit on my ass again and see if I get banned or I shut the down the thread again.

This reminds me of a notorious case in Japan about 10 years ago, when I lived there. A man (who was a medical doctor) killed his wife and two young children. He confessed (as almost everyone does in criminal cases in Japan, but that's another story), but rather than being given the death penalty, as would be usual for such a heinous crime, he was given life in prison due to mitigating circumstances. Those mitigating circumstances?--His dead wife was considered partly at fault for berating him before the murder about his infidelity, insisting that he leave the hospital where he and his mistress worked, and go work somewhere else with someone he wasn't having an affair with. Plus, he only killed his children because he felt sorry for them since they'd have to grow up being teased because their father killed their mother.

I'm not taking issue with his not getting the death penalty--I'm against it. I'm just disgusted that his wife was partially blamed.

This reminds me of a notorious case in Japan about 10 years ago, when I lived there. A man (who was a medical doctor) killed his wife and two young children. He confessed (as almost everyone does in criminal cases in Japan, but that's another story), but rather than being given the death penalty, as would be usual for such a heinous crime, he was given life in prison due to mitigating circumstances. Those mitigating circumstances?--His dead wife was considered partly at fault for berating him before the murder about his infidelity, insisting that he leave the hospital where he and his mistress worked, and go work somewhere else with someone he wasn't having an affair with. Plus, he only killed his children because he felt sorry for them since they'd have to grow up being teased because their father killed their mother.

I'm not taking issue with his not getting the death penalty--I'm against it. I'm just disgusted that his wife was partially blamed.

Blaming the victim, women especially, is quite common. In Japan, the idea that one's children are pitiable or would be stigmatized by being "left behind," orphaned, or the children of suicides/criminals if allowed to live, therefore they should also be killed, remains strong. Murder-suicide, or killing one's entire family within reach, including one's elderly parents and even small children, is still a notable phenomenon.

"[Women] pretty much manipulate men and make them feel incompetent and inferior," and this is supposed to justify male violence? As a result of females' universally-superior emotional development? BULLSHIT. (Occasional reader, first-time poster, mostly because I've got some personal experience on this front.)

Two friends of mine are getting divorced. Partway through the process, I started dating the husband involved. The reason for the divorce does sort of fit with the profile above: he left because his wife was deliberately manipulative and was emotionally abusive for years, refusing to even reduce the level of her cruelty, much less attend marriage counseling (her reason for not attending was "everything is wrong because of my attitude, and the counselor can't change that"). On occasion, the combination of her contempt for the man who didn't magically turn into Wonder Husband Like Her Father upon marriage plus her frustration with life in general led to unprovoked physical attacks on her husband. A textbook study of how deserving women are of violence (according to the published asshole quoted above), right?

Uh, no. One, the husband never hit her. Two, he never threatened her with violence. (The only "threats" involved were his repeated warnings over the last six months of marriage that if she didn't even try to improve her actions, he would have to leave.) Three, there is a GIANT difference between a 160lb woman hitting a 250lb man, and the reverse situation -- the damage was more emotional than physical. At times he became suicidal, but she was never a direct threat to his safety and life. And finally, I don't believe this manipulation and abuse was the result of her superior emotional development, but of many emotional traits she never developed in childhood, in adolescence (when we first became friends), or in adulthood, whether before or after she met her husband.

Had she learned basic conflict resolution skills, the importance of honest self-expression to everyone she met (rather than balling it all up and taking it home to vent at her husband), how to take responsibility for her emotions and desires (instead of passive-aggressively trying to make someone provoke her to anger [like by repeatedly asking what was wrong when her body language clearly declared something to be wrong] so it would be *their* fault, not hers), and to identify and heed her feelings on important decisions instead of, for example, marrying someone she eventually admitted she had never loved on the assumption that he'd change and she'd love him later, the marriage never would have happened in the first place, nor would the bulk of her abuse of her husband. Perhaps if she hadn't been raised to go to Bible college, get married, and live happily ever after as a perfectly-matched Super-Husband and Super-Wife after the magical wedding vows were pronounced, she might have recognized in college that she is nothing like her happy homemaker pastor's wife mother (and marriage wouldn't change that), and her own husband would not acquire the very specific traits (like a particular attitude to particular kinds of housework*) she saw in her father and wanted her Super-Husband to possess. A less stereotyped upbringing and some willingness to confront the personality traits that have been tripping her up as long as I've known her could have kept more or less all of this from happening.

So yes, some women can be manipulative and abusive (and of course some men can be so, as well). In no case does this justify the wronged husband in committing violence against his wife or children. Why can't this asshole recognize this and grant men some responsibility for their actions? Why can't someone recognize that many women are trained to repress and to manipulate in place of healthy expression, and that a more female-friendly society would do more to remedy these things than still more kowtowing to males? For fuck's sake, if my partner can put up with the sorts of twisted abuse his ex-wife-to-be continues to deal out, however unjust, and do his best to make the end stages of the divorce suck less instead of retaliating, there is no circumstance whatsoever under which killing one's wife is acceptable, short of immediate physical defense of self or children. And that self-defense provision had damned well better be available to battered wives.

(*Regarding housework: an obvious example would be cooking. She hates to cook, but would also become verbally abusive any time he did so because the kitchen was meant to be her terrain. She repeatedly told him that he could never do anything right, he was incompetent, he was clumsy, etc, and should therefore never try to prepare food. Within a few months of having moved out he had become a great cook, preparing complicated Italian recipes, desserts, and chicken pot pie from scratch. Which is good, because I don't much like cooking, either. Down with stereotypes and hand me the power tools, please.)