What a nice article! Women, feminist leaders have to understand that they are being played like a violin: instead of supporting the family strife they are put against men as a whole. That is done to harm the real cause which is poverty, inequality, bad healthcare, etc. The real feminist movement must have a goal to be equal to men in everything, in good and bad, in sickness and in health... with respect to both. That's how it should be.

by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Feb 26, 2007 at 9:16:17 AM

  (0+)

You are exactly right.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2148 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Monday, Feb 26, 2007 at 5:53:43 PM

  (0+)

If it is true that "males and females batter each other equally" then similar numbers of males and females should be killed in domestic situations each year. Can you show me some data to support this?

by lwarman (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 98 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Feb 26, 2007 at 7:54:47 PM

  (0+)

Absolutely! I love spreading the truth. Take a look at these: http://www.nfvlrc.org/ http://mediaradar.org (I've included one of their reports below) RADAR Media Fact Sheet 1. Women are just as likely as men to engage in partner aggression. * Psychologist John Archer reviewed hundreds of studies and concluded, "Women were slightly more likely than men to use one or more act of physical aggression and to use such acts more frequently." [Source: John Archer: Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 126, No. 5, pages 651-680] * Law professor Linda Kelly noted, "leading sociologists have repeatedly found that men and women commit violence at similar rates." [Source: Linda Kelly: Disabusing the definition of domestic abuse. Florida State University Law Review, Vol. 30, pages 791-855, 2003. Accessible at: click here ] * An international survey of violence between dating partners in 16 countries concluded: "Perhaps the most important similarity is the high rate of assault perpetrated by both male and female students in all the countries." [Source: Murray Straus: Prevalence of violence against dating partners by male and female university students worldwide. Violence Against Women, Vol. 10, No. 7, 2001] * Cal State Psychology Professor Martin Fiebert has assembled a bibliography of 175 scholarly investigations: 139 empirical studies and 36 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm 2. Men experience over one-third of DV-related injuries. * Of all persons who suffer an injury from partner aggression, 38% are male. [Source: John Archer: Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 126, No. 5, pages 651-680] * Of all persons who require medical treatment as the result of partner aggression, 35% are male. [Source: John Archer: Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 126, No. 5, Table 5] * Men who are victims of severe domestic violence suffer other problems, as well [Source: Richard J. Gelles: Intimate Violence in Families, 1997]: o 30% experienced depression o 14% required bed rest to recuperate from the injuries o 10% needed to take time off from work 3. Men are far less likely to report DV incidents than women. * According to the National Family Violence Survey, female victims of DV are nine times more likely to call the police than male DV victims. These are the percentages of victims who called the police in response to the assault: o Women: 8.5% o Men: 0.9% [Source: JE Stets and MA Straus: Gender differences in reporting marital violence and its medical and psychological consequences. In Straus and Gelles (editors): Physical violence in American families, 1990, Table 15.] 4. The myths about domestic violence are numerous. These are some of the common myths about domestic violence: * According to the FBI, a woman is beaten every 15 seconds * 4,000 women each year are killed by their husbands, ex-husbands, or boyfriends * There are nearly three times as many animal shelters in the United states as there are shelters for women * Battering during pregnancy is the leading cause of birth defects and infant mortality * Women who kill their batterers receive longer prison sentences than men who kill their partners Richard Gelles, an internationally-recognized expert on domestic violence, refers to many of these claims as "factoids from nowhere." [click here 5. Many of these myths are based on DV studies that use biased survey methods. * Some studies survey women but not men. Predictably, these studies yield one-sided findings. * The DOJ National Crime Victimization Survey is flawed because persons do not consider most forms of domestic violence, such as slapping, shoving, or throwing an object at a partner, to be a crime. * The DOJ National Violence Against Women survey prefaces the questions by repeatedly using the phrase "personal safety." Those words bias the responses because women are more concerned about personal safety than men. * Some studies of domestic violence assess both physical and verbal abuse. That inflates and distorts the picture of physical violence. [Source: MA Straus: The controversy over domestic violence by women: A methodological, theoretical, and sociology of science analysis. In XB Arriaga and S Oskamp: Violence in intimate relationships. Sage Publishers, 1999. http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CTS21.pdf]

by Teri Stoddard (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 16 comments) on Monday, Feb 26, 2007 at 8:50:06 PM

  (0+)

We need level headed and honest appraisals of the situation, not a generalized demonization of one gender or the other.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2148 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Monday, Feb 26, 2007 at 9:02:52 PM

  (0+)

Thanks for the info but it did not answer my question. "Partner aggression" is a pretty vague term, which can describe anything from a screaming match to a lethal injury. I'm not saying that it is okay to scream at someone, but it is clearly not the same as murder. As you mentioned, it is likely that many assaults (on men or women) are not reported to police, but a dead body is harder to hide. Do you have anything that specifically mentions actions causing death?

by lwarman (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 98 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Feb 27, 2007 at 1:54:42 AM

  (0+)

Although the numbers are about equal between the sexes in all areas of abuse and murder, they use different methods to abuse and murder each other. Here stands the problem with homicides. Not all homicides between relatives are classified as acts of violence, so their figures aren't all in one place. Men do use violence to kill more often than women, by far. But women use poison and medication modifications (insulin dilution, replacements with look-a-like placebos, etc) far more often than men do. So until we get a study funded that will look at all of this, we simply don't have all the answers.

by Teri Stoddard (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 16 comments) on Tuesday, Feb 27, 2007 at 10:44:12 AM

  (0+)

one statistic. If we want to use statistics that bash one gender or another, how about the fact that all the publicity for not paying child support focuses on men, when statistically women who are assigned child support to pay, are much less likely to pay it than men. In fact, women are found to be in default of child support payments at twice the rate of men. Don't get me started. What needs to happen is true equality, not women using the women's movement as an excuse to push an increasing set of discriminatory legislation against men. True equality movements dont attempt to replace one discriminatory set of circumstances and beliefs with another. We need equal pay for both genders We need guaranteed shared custody with equal time with both parent, no 'non-custodial' parent. And that is just the beginning

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2148 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Monday, Feb 26, 2007 at 9:00:57 PM

  (0+)

I've been in the fathers' and equal custody movement for 4 years. My blog is on Mens News Daily, where I report on activities in the worldwide movement. Funny you mentioned True-Equality. I work with both of these organizations: http://www.True-Equality.org http://www.mediaRADAR.org Thanks for making me feel welcome. Teri

by Teri Stoddard (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 16 comments) on Monday, Feb 26, 2007 at 9:41:57 PM

  (0+)

... a few months ago against "husbandry" during a time I was taking a week or two off the site, that was over and done with before I got the chance. I'd definitely like to get her take on this thread.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2148 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Monday, Feb 26, 2007 at 9:18:09 PM

  (0+)

I am a divorced father of one child. I fit 90% of the description of the "man" in this article. We separated when my daughter was two. I was "granted" non-custodial status even though I left because I could not stand the mental abuse my wife inflicted on me and my child. My mistake - I should have thrown her ass on the street and called the cops but I didnt want to be confrontational. She filed a TRO which was thankfully denied. She was granted $1100/month in temporary support which I could barely afford (45% of my gross pay). I had no place to live. I broke my neck in a freak accident, had to have surgery, lost my job and went on disability. I still had to pay 1100/ month. I got to see my daughter unsupervised a few evenings and some weekends but no overnights. Then my wife moved my daughter 250 miles away and I barely saw her the next 2 years. I spent those 2 years fighting for visitation to the tune of 30,000 dollars in attorney's fees. I fell behind on child support before I could get it modified. They took my drivers license. I had a laborer job but couldnt get to work w/o help for 2 years. Now I couldnt afford the gas or physically drive myself to see my daughter. I basically missed her from the age of 2 to 6. I did remarry after living with my current wife for 9 years first. I helped her raise her daughter since she was 18 months old and we have two of our own. I am a dedicated family man, active in my community, coach my son's T-ball team, and am currently negotiating a settlement for the $17,000 they say I owe in back child support (even after years of wage garnishment) to a woman who has half a kid and an executive position with a six-figure salary at a bank (she was a low wage student during our marriage), two homes, three cars and two horses. Oh, and now I have leukemia to boot but my ex- is somehow more deserving in our system. I tell my current wife I love her because I really do (wish I had met her first) but I joke around with her that she is stuck with me for the rest of my life because I cant afford to leave her! I also tell her that if she ever leaves me - I am coming with her! So there is your silver-lining you uber-feminists...

by BriMan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 17 comments) on Monday, Feb 26, 2007 at 10:19:34 PM

  (0+)

Divorced wife #1 because she cheated and put my daughter in a dangerous care situation. I got laid off (Im in IT) when the dotcom bubble burst and my ex waited until a few months of unemployment to sue for sole custody. I couldnt afford an attorney and was shellacked in court. If you have seen Gideons Trumpet on TV, you know what I mean. I was on unemployment earning 1000 a month and was hit for almost $300 per month in Child Support even though my wife was making great money at the time and didnt need my help. I almost went under completely. Moreover, until this time, we were sharing custody equally and my daughter was doing great, straight A's, lots of friends, captain of soccer team, etc. In my opinion, the custody situation is the worst instance of gender bias in this country right now. Equal pay is up there and I will never stop fighting for that for women for an instant. But women need to do the right thing on shared custody.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2148 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Monday, Feb 26, 2007 at 11:01:55 PM

  (0+)

I hear it all the ttime, and I know it's true.

by Katrin R. (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 657 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Feb 26, 2007 at 11:12:59 PM

  (0+)

I hear this all the time. Ten out of ten men tell me that when it comes to divorce, and related law, the man always loses. They say, the woman's lawyer treats her like celebrity, listens to her rage and crying, and tries to set her up against the man. On the other hand, the father's lawyer is not interested, because there is no money in it for him. The lawyer is only a small part of the story. I guess I would normally not find such information that interesting, if it was just a matter of small talk, or angry chatter, or putting down the ex-wife, and/or just whining about money. But it isn't. Almost every time a man has talked about this to me,you could tell that he was really in pain. Most were in pain about not seeing the children enough. Others were in pain about how they were being treated by the ex-woman. Most never bitched about the woman, and were much more saddened, and hurt. This is what I did. I have two boys from two different fathers. I have never been married. My older son's father died recently, and it was nice that Henry, (my son) got to live six month with him the year before. My younger son's father lives only a few minutes away from us. When I was pregnant, he was so upset that I didn't want to get married, that he told me he couldn't stick around. I told him, he did not have to decide until it was time to sign the birth certificate. I told him that if he decided to sign it, that meant he was making a commitment to be Patrick's father. If he decided not to sign it, he was always welcome to change his mind. He did sign it, and he was there during the birth, and he has been there ever since. I have never pushed him, and he has been a wonderful father not only to Patrick(11), but also to Henry (16) from the beginning,and all this time. We never did any legal arrangement, with neither one. Chuck, (Patrick's father) travels with both the boys cross country to visit family every year, and he came with me to visit mine last year to Austria. He takes them skiing, and hiking, and camping. I am not usually involved with any of these events, except for the trip to Austria, and I thank him all the time, and tell him how much I appreciate him. The more I tell him to take a break, the more he does. He has his own set of friends. He is still looking for a long term, permanent relationship with a woman, and when he occasionally hooks up with one, I am usually glad to find out that I like her. (and feel comfortable having another mother around, should that happen) I know neither one of the marriages would have worked. With the second one, my younger son often begged us to live together, so he could be with both of us, but we really did well except for sleeping in the same bed. His dad and I hardly ever fight, we support each other, and he is now happy too that we never married. There was no ugly divorce, and that was what I was trying to prevent. I don't own my children; they don't belong to me; I want them to have as many mothers, and fathers, and mentors, and good teachers...as they can get. At first, and with a first baby, this is often hard to do, and it was for me too. But I soon learned, that none of my kid's fathers would steal the kids from me. I did ask them to, though.

by Katrin R. (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 657 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Feb 26, 2007 at 11:02:54 PM

  (0+)

Thank you for these great comments! teri

by Teri Stoddard (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 16 comments) on Monday, Feb 26, 2007 at 11:55:26 PM

  (0+)

The problem is centered in the marriage. If there is no marriage, there's no divorce. Now marriage is a basically unenforceable contract, so family law is created to protect the vulnerable parties in the event the "contract" is broken. This covers children certainly, and in some circumstances, an ex-spouse, although such protection is becoming almost unattainable, thanks to the polite fiction that equality, though never legislated, has been achieved between the sexes, and the full-time homemaker can just run out, find daycare and a 60 hour/week job paying 150% above poverty and never have another worry. Right. Marriage contracts are broken when one party opts out. This can happen in many ways: any addiction (including alcohol or other drugs, extra-marital sex, workaholism, gambling, spendthrift habits), abuse of the partner or children, or just plain abandonment come to mind. Yes, there are women who should never be wives and mothers: they haven't the interest, skills or abilities. These women are usually easy to spot. So why did the men marry them? Why impregnate them? Many women learn about the ineligible men; untrained, unsuited, and not predisposed to marriage, but there are "charmers" hiding their pathology behind some heavy disguises; and there are the "late blooming rotten apples" who decide to become corrupt sometime after the marriage. There are husbands not worth finding! It is irrational to think that somebody who opted out of a contract with an "equal" adult partner and abandoned the family is going to suddenly become a model single parent and protect and nurture innocent, powerless children. Nobody "gets religion" in the process of getting a divorce. What went on before the decree will most likely continue after. To legislate for "joint custody" under such circumstances will not be in the children's best interests. It will keep lawyers employed, though. If in fact the two parties can cooperate in child-rearing responsibilities, why was the marriage untenable? What kind of fraud was perpetrated, perhaps a gay person entered into a marriage with an unsuitable partner? The injury done to the other spouse is never considered anymore-it is a quaint and antique notion. But family law is supposed to protect the children. It is not designed to protect the ex-spouse. So I cried like a fool when I signed the decree in the judge's chambers. I knew basically what I was signing up for: relative poverty, loneliness, and lots of hard work, which was my life for 18 years of marriage, but without the abandonment, abuse, despair, and need to cover up for Daddy's failings. I didn't expect to be signing up for many way-below-poverty years, false accusations, multiple lawsuits, custody battles in threee states, a kidnapping, and 6 years of searching for a deadbeat, gone to ground in a state that permitted such "disappearances", although we tracked him down in his $2 million mansion eventually. But being a competent adult, and having a supportive family, I coped. Throughout, we remained a family, those of us who didn't opt out. And that was the whole point. The point of marrying, the point of divorcing, the point of persisting in doing the right thing by the children. So no, don't look to me for sympathy for the absentee, failed husband. It takes grit, persistence, and a desire to do right to participate in any social unit. Show me a man like that, and I'll marry him. If you don't beat me to it.

by KarenDetroit (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 19 comments) on Tuesday, Feb 27, 2007 at 9:45:53 AM

  (0+)

Wow...lots of anger there. You know, if men were the scumbags you think they are, I might agree with some of this. But I'm happy to report, you are wrong! You think men leave their wives????? WRONG! Women initiate, by far, the majority of divorces. Do you think they divorced these 'scumbag husbands' because they cheated or abused the wife or kids? WRONG! Most women, by far, say they divorced their husbands because they felt emotionally detached and bored. Most men don't want a divorce. Most men wish they were still married to their former spouse. Men aren't the problem when it comes to divorce. So...before you go around degrading men, I suggest you do a little research. I shouldn't be surprised to read this. Radical feminists have flooded the media and government with false statistics and propaganda, and most of what we see of men on TV makes them look stupid. Men deserve much more respect than they're getting.

by Teri Stoddard (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 16 comments) on Tuesday, Feb 27, 2007 at 11:01:30 AM

  (0+)

It isn't who files the papers, it's who is picking up the responsibility for dealing with the untenable situation. You have got to get your head out of whatever closet it's in.

by KarenDetroit (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 19 comments) on Tuesday, Feb 27, 2007 at 11:12:37 AM

  (0+)

Wow...lots of anger there. You know, if men were the scumbags you think they are, I might agree with some of this. But I'm happy to report, you are wrong! You think men leave their wives????? WRONG! Women initiate, by far, the majority of divorces. Do you think they divorced these 'scumbag husbands' because they cheated or abused the wife or kids? WRONG! Most women, by far, say they divorced their husbands because they felt emotionally detached and bored. Most men don't want a divorce. Most men wish they were still married to their former spouse. Men aren't the problem when it comes to divorce. So...before you go around degrading men, I suggest you do a little research. I shouldn't be surprised to read this. Radical feminists have flooded the media and government with false statistics and propaganda, and most of what we see of men on TV makes them look stupid. Men deserve much more respect than they're getting.

by Teri Stoddard (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 16 comments) on Tuesday, Feb 27, 2007 at 11:05:51 AM

  (0+)

Your statements in quotes "Now marriage is a basically unenforceable contract, so family law is created to protect the vulnerable parties in the event the "contract" is broken. This covers children certainly, and in some circumstances, an ex-spouse, although such protection is becoming almost unattainable, thanks to the polite fiction that equality, though never legislated, has been achieved between the sexes, and the full-time homemaker can just run out, find daycare and a 60 hour/week job paying 150% above poverty and never have another worry. Right." Full time homemaker?!?! Situations where one parent doesnt participate in parenting?!?! What percentage of situations does that cover? Most breakups where children are involved concern two parents that work and share childcare responsibilities. If you want to protect the children, assign both parents completely joint custody. Psychiatric studies show that when both former partners have a large role in the childs life post divorce, it makes for much better adjusted children. If you have a parent in the situation you described, "the full-time homemaker can just run out, find daycare and a 60 hour/week job paying 150% above poverty and never have another worry. Right." give custody to the other parent because the 'full-time homemaker' is clearly not in a position to take care of themselves, let alone children. "Marriage contracts are broken when one party opts out. This can happen in many ways: any addiction (including alcohol or other drugs, extra-marital sex, workaholism, gambling, spendthrift habits), abuse of the partner or children, or just plain abandonment come to mind. Yes, there are women who should never be wives and mothers: they haven't the interest, skills or abilities. These women are usually easy to spot. So why did the men marry them? Why impregnate them?" All good reasons why children who are in the above situations should be taken away from both parents. This is not an argument for one party to be given custody and the other given miniscule visitation and forced financial support. "Many women learn about the ineligible men; untrained, unsuited, and not predisposed to marriage, but there are "charmers" hiding their pathology behind some heavy disguises; and there are the "late blooming rotten apples" who decide to become corrupt sometime after the marriage. There are husbands not worth finding!" And who is to say that the reality isn't the reverse? "It is irrational to think that somebody who opted out of a contract with an "equal" adult partner and abandoned the family is going to suddenly become a model single parent and protect and nurture innocent, powerless children. Nobody "gets religion" in the process of getting a divorce. What went on before the decree will most likely continue after. To legislate for "joint custody" under such circumstances will not be in the children's best interests. It will keep lawyers employed, though." Abandoned? Very few divorce situations are abandonments and those parents arent interested in custody anyway. That is not what we are talking about. "If in fact the two parties can cooperate in child-rearing responsibilities, why was the marriage untenable? What kind of fraud was perpetrated, perhaps a gay person entered into a marriage with an unsuitable partner?" Well, in my case, my wife cheated and left my daughter in a dangerous care situation so she could fly across country and be with her paramour. So, what is your point? "The injury done to the other spouse is never considered anymore-it is a quaint and antique notion. But family law is supposed to protect the children. It is not designed to protect the ex-spouse." Which is the mistake we all seem to be making. Protecting both ex-spouses and making sure they can both be strong and present parental units is the only real way to protect the children. For those sorry men and women who dont want to be parents, take their parental rights away. Dont use them as an excuse to abuse the rest of us. "So I cried like a fool when I signed the decree in the judge's chambers. I knew basically what I was signing up for: relative poverty, loneliness, and lots of hard work, which was my life for 18 years of marriage, but without the abandonment, abuse, despair, and need to cover up for Daddy's failings." You dont think that men like me whose goal is to be parents post divorce go through the same thing? The only difference is, we are often saddled with more than 66% of the child rearing costs, get 10% of the ability to be with the child, and watch as our ex spouses spend most of the child-support on clothes or alcohol. "I didn't expect to be signing up for many way-below-poverty years, false accusations, multiple lawsuits, custody battles in threee states, a kidnapping, and 6 years of searching for a deadbeat, gone to ground in a state that permitted such "disappearances", although we tracked him down in his $2 million mansion eventually. But being a competent adult, and having a supportive family, I coped." Neither did I. Except that I am in the same situation and unable to get much time with my child. So, I am considerably worse off than you.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2148 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Feb 27, 2007 at 11:28:57 AM

  (0+)

You lost your best chance to do best for your family when you went all passive there. Life is a contact sport.

by KarenDetroit (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 19 comments) on Tuesday, Feb 27, 2007 at 11:39:38 AM

  (0+)

... and when I did find out, both sides of the family begged me not to file for divorce. I thought about it for a year and then filed. Because I wanted to do the right thing, I petitioned for fully joint custody. My ex was travelling with her job 50% of the time anyway, so I ended up having my daughter most of the time for the first 18months post divorce anyway. It was after that time that this whole mess happened. I got laid off, my ex got a job that did not require travel, and there it was. My ex harbored resentment for my divorcing her, and waited until the exact right moment to do what she knew would hurt me most, take my daughter away.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2148 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Feb 27, 2007 at 12:01:42 PM

  (0+)

The statistics in this article are misleading. I worked for nearly 2 years as a volunteer in a shelter, helping and counseling victims of spousal abuse. As a result, I had to read a lot of literature--studies, stats, psychology etc.--on this topic. I quit because it was very depressing, even horrifying at times. Based on my readings, and depending on the sources, the real violence ratio is 3-4 male to 1 female. Besides, a number of women who resort to violence do so after years of abuse, and/or to protect their children. But most of all, a 5 '6'' woman is not physically equal to a 6' 2'' man; because of men's greater physical strength, the physical consequences of spousal violence are obviously much more severe for women than for men and the number of females killed by males is greater than vice-versa. There can be no equality, no symetry there; there are natural physical differences at stake, and unless women become as tall and strong as men and stop bearing children, propagating the myth of male/female symetry is just denial. And certainly, fathers have ''rights''; however, parents rights should be conditional on fulfilling their parental responsabilities--love, nurture, educate, protect. Fathers who are good parents active in the care and rearing of their kids must be heard and protected by the law. However, the ''rights'' of the father, or the mother for that matter, should never come before the protection and well being of the child, like when visiting rights are granted to abusive, violent fathers. Sadly, a number of fathers insist on their parental rights only after a divorce, as a revenge against their spouse. The number of children killed by fathers as a way to hurt their ex-wives ihas increased lately. Unfortunately, these violent fathers give a bad name to fathers associations. And finally, the word ''right'' is not appropriate in this context; children are human beings, not a piece of property for parents to have rights on. And I find sexist and manipulative this way to entice women-- be nice, accept and support the demands of fathers' rights associations and you will find a husband. Does the author really believe that women are so desperate and dumb they will believe this balloney?

by francine (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 385 comments) on Tuesday, Feb 27, 2007 at 10:56:35 AM

  (0+)

you are biasing your data in favor of whatever conditions are common to situations where women end up in a shelter.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2148 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Feb 27, 2007 at 11:12:11 AM

  (0+)

Yes, if you got your information from a "Battered Women's Shelter" I can almost guarantee you were given false statistics and shown debunked "studies." Please...so this silliness can stop...please research Erin Pizzey. And read the TRUTH on these websites: http://www.nfvlrc.org/ http://www.True-Equality.org http://www.mediaradar.org/

by Teri Stoddard (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 16 comments) on Tuesday, Feb 27, 2007 at 11:24:36 AM

  (0+)

You don't believe me. You're not ready. You have to see it for yourself. The problem is, you don't want to see it for yourself. Whether fear, or not wanting to leave what has become familiar, you stay where you are, throwing insults and accusations at people you've never met. I am not a liar. I am not stupid. I have seen for myself who and what the worldwide Men's Movement, Fathers' Movement, Equal Parenting Movement and Family Rights Movements are all about. I know these people. I work with them. I believe these guys, and the ladies, have gone through some of the same things you have. By the way, you keep saying abusive men, like they are the members and leaders of these movements. You're wrong. Yes, there are men who do the things you point out. We have many women members who've been in those situations. They're involved because they realize how important it is to change the laws so it won't happen to anyone else, especially their kids and grandkids. There are also men involved who have been victims of a female. You can keep saying that women are small so they could never win in a domestic violence situation, but you're wrong. Women are more likely to use weapons, surprise attacks, an accomplice or poison. I can show you the statistics, the news reports and introduce you to the men. Women also use emotional abuse, including threats of being thrown out, accused of abuse or never seeing the child again. This isn't about gender. This is about outdated, corrupt, and dangerous child support enforcement, welfare, and family court systems. I'd also include Child Protective Services. Tell me if any of these sound familiar: Having to endure a child custody fight, possibly a divorce, not seeing your child when you want to, sometimes only when supervised, sometimes not at all, being accused of things you didn't do, including spousal abuse, child abuse and/or sexual abuse, having other people believe your ex's lies, being accused of lying, being ordered to take parenting classes, being ordered take anger management classes, sometimes for years, having to do all of this when you were the victim of abuse, having to pay for an attorney you can't afford, going to court without an attorney, losing your job, losing your home, losing your court case, losing friends, knowing you will never see your child again, losing faith in the government, losing faith in people, losing faith in yourself, thinking about committing suicide, or committing suicide. The people you accuse of being abusive men, are actually everyday men and women, mothers, fathers, grandmothers, grandfathers, ministers, male and female attorneys, professors, male and female actors, male and female film producers, male and female legislators, male and female radio personalities, male and female singers, male and female authors, etc. You know, normal people. They're here because they, or someone they know, has gone through the trauma you're so familiar with. Not everyone has gone through everything I listed, but most have gone through many of them. If you ever decide to set aside your illusion, I'd be happy to show you my reality. I can even introduce you to women who used to think and feel like you do about us. We're okay. Really. : )

by Teri Stoddard (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 16 comments) on Thursday, Mar 1, 2007 at 12:56:53 AM

  (0+)

This comment defies long-established facts as reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 150 scholarly studies spanning two decades and countless science-based studies. Moreover, the complete reverse would be closer to the truth. The CDC's "Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report" from May 19, 2006, reported that high school girls physically attacked their boyfriends at an almost nearly identical rate as high school boys have attacked their girlfriends. The girl's attack rate, however, was the slightly higher rate. The nationally representative survey was conducted in 2003 on almost 15,000 students in grades 7 through 12. The survey defines dating violence as hitting, slapping or physically hurting the partner on purpose. This report also confirmed that more than 150 previous studies have found females are equally likely as males to engage in domestic violence and again, the female rate was slightly higher in most of these studies. See: References Examining Assaults by Women on Their Spouses or Male Partners: An Annotated Bibliography. The most comprehensive research into dating violence worldwide is the University of New Hampshire's Family Research Laboratory's ongoing International Dating Violence study - covering 19 countries at first, then expanded to 32 - which finds that the median rate of female-on-male dating violence (29.2 percent) is actually higher than the rate of male-on-female dating violence (24.7 percent). Even when limiting the investigation to severe violence, female perpetrators predominated at 9.4 percent as compared to 9 percent male perpetrators. (See: http://www.nh.gov/dv_straus.html and http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID41E2.pdf). The Trends in Intimate Violence Intervention conference was held in New York City from May 22-25, 2006. Several scientists presented studies and papers that show it is males who comprise the largest victim's group where intimate partner violence and dating violence is concerned, and women are the largest perpetrator group. Recently, Murray Straus, co-director of the Family Research Lab at the University of New Hampshire, completed an international study on partner violence among university students. His queries of more than 13,600 students revealed that the most common instance of partner violence is mutual abuse. The second most common situation of partner violence is when the female is the perpetrator against the male, he said. This leaves the reverse - when males abuse females - to be the least common in practice, although the most common in publicity. However, despite the overwhelming evidence that men represent the largest victims group, there is no funding for support or services for male victims of abuse or their children. All they get is a piece of paper, if they are lucky. This has resulted in discrimination suits in California, with suits pending in several other states. To further complicate matters, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) states, "Nothing in this title shall be construed to prohibit male victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking from receiving benefits and services under this title." VAWA 2005, Section 40002(b)(8). The current appropriations bills that fund the Violence Against Women Act programs and regulate the Victims of Crime Act request not one cent be allocated for the majority of abuse victims, who are males. These bills do in fact violate the very federal law they fund. Even given overwhelming facts that men comprise the majority group of abuse victims, that the Constitution requires they receive equal protection under the law, and VAWA itself mandates support and services be provided to male victims of abuse, one has to question the wisdom and motives behind the construct of the appropriations legislation. Aside from the process basing its justifications on patently false and/or outdated statistics, it will create a legislative system that discriminates against a subject class who comprise the majority of abuse victims. Moreover, our "anti-abuse" programs are clearly dangerous to safety and well-being of their children. Intimate partner violence, also known as domestic violence, and dating violence are the two areas where the most false and/or misleading information is produced and disseminated into our daily lives. The major result of this is the most widespread, systemic abuses of human and civil rights since the abolition of slavery. The question for you, francine, is: What are your scientific, ethical, and moral bases used to justify supporting a system that knowingly excludes the majority of abuse victims and their children from receiving any support or services, while ignoring the majority of the perpetrators?

by Terri Lynn Tersak (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Thursday, Mar 1, 2007 at 8:21:48 PM

  (0+)

this kind of drug fantasy as worthy of anyone's perusal. A better title would be "Can't Handle Reality?"

by KarenDetroit (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 19 comments) on Tuesday, Feb 27, 2007 at 11:28:05 AM

  (0+)

I think that is a pretty huge organization, at least on the West Coast, and in Oregon, where I live. The only qualifications you need to work there as a counselor, or volunteer, or to be admitted as a 'battere woman' is, you need to hate men. I'll end before i start.

by Katrin R. (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 657 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Feb 27, 2007 at 6:57:57 PM

  (0+)

particularly those of us who dont fit the unfortunate stereotype some of you like to present. Consider the following research: Divorced or separated men commit suicide 400% more than women. This may be due to a combination of legal and cultural tendencies that favor women in these situations. For example, 85% of protection orders are awarded to females, and only 7% of these petitions are denied. Since 1994, only 15% of American men are granted custody of their children in divorce settlements. Furthermore, when the father lives outside the home, 40% of children have no contact with them; the other 60% average just 69 days a year. These factors may help explain why divorce situations are higher risk. Men who become depressed after losing custody of their children is a huge mental health issue. click here

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2148 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Feb 27, 2007 at 11:49:13 AM

  (0+)

But then, competence in social situations isn't something men work at, is it? Depression is a sign that change must be made. That Man cannot respond to change is not Woman's fault, nor that of the Law. Law is not designed to hold the world still so that Man need not move out of his comfortable complacency. Suicide has been defined as "a permanent solution to a temporary problem". If Absolute, Permanent Solutions are what one seeks, neither marriage nor fatherhood are going to be comfortable. I don't claim to be typical--but I've met a lot of women with similar stories, some of them worse. That anything short of civil war can get so ugly is not good. The fact that the whole family was hurting prior to the divorce had nothing to do with the divorce occurring, nor the events after the divorce? Everything was peaches and cream until the Little Woman got a silly notion in her head that There Must Be Some Real Changes? If I had a nickel for every dollar wasted so the family counselor could convince me that my husband really wanted to be an ex, I could pay dues to this blog! That was a male counselor, by the way.

by KarenDetroit (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 19 comments) on Tuesday, Feb 27, 2007 at 12:15:28 PM

  (0+)

There is an important line that separates people who are for equality of race, color, creed, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, etc., and those who simply want to reverse which group is dominating the other. It's easy to tell what kind of people are members of the former. Gandhi didnt hate or denigrate the British and Martin Luther King didnt hate or denigrate white people. It is also easy to tell what kind of people are members of the latter. Their approach to equality involves demonization and dehumanization of the other group. You might want to do an honest assessment of where you are as far as that is concerned and where you really want to be. I desire to be neither oppressor nor oppressed. I dont see the same coming from you.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2148 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Feb 27, 2007 at 2:01:52 PM

  (0+)

Don't worry about this, Steven. You got two women supporting you right here. Katrin

by Katrin R. (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 657 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Feb 27, 2007 at 8:24:40 PM

  (0+)

If you had a car, and never changed the oil, would it be the car's fault it threw a rod? If you had a potted plant and never watered it, would you be surprised if it died? If you want to call some men inferior based on the fact that they aren't putting anything into the marriage, passively ignoring their partners' pleas for some remedy, and then whining about its inevitable failure and drugging themselves, drowning themselves in despair and committing suicide as a final "so there!" to a cold cruel world, then yes, many men are immature and childish and self-defeating. Blaming it all on the law, the partner or the feminists is displacement. Much worse is being so emotionally distant from home as to not be vitally aware of the quality of parenting the children get in your absence. Again, the marriage needs to be treated with at least as much respect as a car, as much attention as the sports world, and as much caution as a retirement fund in stocks. And that means social interaction 24/7 with the partner. Expecting someone to put her entire emotional life on hold until you get around to it is cruelty. Expecting someone to constantly be the Parent, while you revert to Childhood, is fatuous. Expecting someone else to deal with all the firefighting while you are out "doing other things" is raising the question of why you are important at all in the daily scheme of life. Telling a woman dying of cancer in a hospital, like Gingrich, that you want a divorce, is unconscionable: ditto flying off on business when the mother of your children has a pending root canal and is in such pain as to need narcotics and a full-time childcare provider, as happened to me personally. It isn't politics, it's personal. It can't possibly get any more personal. Today in the paper, local murder- suicide: the perfect couple, he a PhD in Psychology, she a nurse in a highly public setting. Neighbors can't imagine what happened.

by KarenDetroit (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 19 comments) on Tuesday, Feb 27, 2007 at 8:49:11 PM

  (0+)

It comes across in your writing. You sound pissed off. You sound like you were wronged, and you believe all men are like your ex. What makes you think every divorce is just like yours? What makes you think men are always at fault? Look at infidelity. 23% of wives and 25% of husbands. Doesn't look like men are much worse when it comes to morality, if you ask me.

by Teri Stoddard (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 16 comments) on Thursday, Mar 1, 2007 at 1:32:50 AM

  (0+)

By Bettina Arndt, Staff Writer The Age (Melbourne) 4 August 2001 Features "Our darling Greg died of a broken heart," announced the death notice placed by his mother and sister when federal MP Greg Wilton killed himself last year. Wilton's death attracted massive publicity, highlighting his marriage break-up and loss of his children as events precipitating his drastic action. Three weeks earlier, Wilton was found in a distressed state in a car with his two young children. Wilton, 44, was well aware of the vulnerability of men in his situation. Three years earlier he gave a speech in parliament commenting on a report on youth suicide, pointing out that the group at greatest risk of killing themselves were adult men. "From the extensive research (of) the last five years ... it becomes apparent men kill themselves due to an inability to cope with life events such as relationship break-ups of the kind (I) myself have suffered," said Wilton, whose first marriage had ended in divorce. Each year in Australia, more than 1000 men aged 25-44 take their own lives. The rate of suicide among these adult males is more than twice the teenage (15-19) suicide rate. While the male teenage suicide rate has been stable for the past decade, the rate for adult males has been rising since the 1970s. Most of them, like Greg Wilton, are casualties of family breakdown. A Queensland study of 4000 suicides found more than 70 per cent were associated with a relationship break-up. The study, conducted by Professor Pierre Baume, who is now at Monash University, showed men were nine times more likely to take their lives following a break-up than women. In the 1990s we spent more than $31 million on youth suicide prevention. Yet no federal suicide funds have been targeted at the males showing the most consistent rise in suicide rates. The plight of these men has only just made it on to the national agenda. This month our peak suicide prevention body - the National Advisory Council on Suicide Prevention - for the first time is considering national initiatives addressing this risk group. A series of meetings is being held between state and federal suicide bodies, plus expert panels, to determine how to reach these men. Professor Ian Webster, chairman of the council, names this group as the priority facing his committee. "It is a real problem for us. We are trying to determine how best to approach it. I don't feel that as yet we have any clear way of engaging with this risk group or deciding how to appeal to them." Webster said his committee is likely to invite key research and interest groups to propose new initiatives, an invitation welcomed by Chris Cantor, a Queensland psychiatrist who has spent the past six years researching and writing journal articles drawing attention to the unmet needs of this risk group in suicide policies. Cantor, who conducted some of his original research with Baume at Griffith University's Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention, believes the link with relationship breakdown is critical. His own research shows the risk of suicide is far higher for men in the period following marital separation - the suicide risk among separated men was 18 times that of separated women - but, after divorce, the rates for men declined to three times those of women. Baume's data also points to the separation period as the critical risk time. "The real risk is within four to six weeks of the separation rather than after divorce. Men are most vulnerable immediately after rejection," he said. Cantor questions whether the first weeks are so vital but feels this issue needs exploring. He would like, through the Family Court, to track families from the point of separation through to six months post-divorce, with regular interviews of both parents and children to measure mental health, depression and suicidal tendencies. From his previous research, Cantor suspects that loss of meaningful contact with children will emerge as a major risk factor for suicide. His research shows women with children are less likely to commit suicide than similarly aged women without children. "It seems highly likely that most of the suicide problems associated with separated men may relate to child access problems. The research suggests that some non-custodial mothers may be in the same boat," he said. Overseas, other researchers are reaching similar conclusions. Augustine Kposowa, associate professor of sociology at the University of California at Riverside, analysed data from the National Longitudinal Mortality Study and found the ri sk ratio for divorced men is 8.6 times the rate for divorced women. He, too, is convinced the key factor is men's loss of their children. "Even with visitation rights, a man may not get to see his children. He's already experienced loss of love through the break-up of the relationship and then he faces the loss of his children. This drives some men, especially in the early stages of separation, to come to the conclusion that life is not worth living," said Kposowa, who is researching the role of the court system and loss of custody in the heightened suicide risk for divorced men. Edward Kruk, social work professor at the University of British Columbia in Canada, has conducted research in both Britain and Canada on the impact of divorce on fathers. He found that, after losing daily contact with their offspring, the fathers in his study passed through a grieving process similar to that of parents whose child has died - 61 per cent described mental health difficulties they had not experienced prior to the divorce, including suicidal tendencies. Meanwhile, in Australia, an organization supporting separated men is gathering data that demonstrates worrying suicidal tendencies in separated men. MENDS (Men Exploring New Directional Strategies) programs have been running for more than six years, recently with Commonwealth Government funding. Psychological evaluations of more than 500 men attending the programs show most of them fall into the highest risk category for "suicidality" - showing thinking processes and behavior known to precede suicide. MENDS has evidence its programs - based on education and the group support provided by men sharing similar experiences - have a significant effect on suicide risk during the critical separation period. But the problem is how to reach separated men who are floundering on their own. The founder of MENDS, psychologist Owen Pershouse, believes he has a possible answer: "Between 30 and 40 per cent of calls we get following up publicity about MENDS come from women. They are mostly mothers, sisters, sometimes a work colleague or even the ex-wife. Women notice what's happening to men they care about. They are the ones to target." Baume agrees that women may provide the key to reaching these troubled men. He believes the ultimate solution lies in long-term cultural change, teaching boys that it is not unmanly to express their feelings so separated men don't end up so isolated. But, given the reticence of the typical Australian male to admit he's in trouble, Baume believes the answer lies in harnessing the power of women to get men to talk to them. Women like Alice. That's not her real name, but as the mother of a 23-year-old who has just attempted suicide, Alice naturally wants to avoid publicity. Her son is reeling from the loss of his two-year de facto relationship. The couple has a three-month-old baby. "This girl is his whole life. He feels life isn't worth living without her and his new baby," said Alice, who luckily works in New South Wales community services and was able to quickly obtain good psychiatric help for her son. Her nervousness is increased by the fact that three years ago her son attempted to hang himself when his first major relationship came to an end. Listening to this mother talk about her son's dependency on these two young women, one wonders how often broken relationships feature even in youth suicides, when young men suffer the loss of that first taste of intimacy after emotionally constrained years of male adolescence. Clearly relationship breakdown isn't the whole story in the worrying increase in male suicide - there are numerous other relevant factors, such as substance abuse, mental illness, and unemployment. But given the evidence suggesting it could be a key factor, at least it offers policy makers somewhere to start. What Baume, Cantor and Pershouse are suggesting is public campaigns drawing attention to the fact that recently separated men are high risk. If we can run youth suicide prevention campaigns encouraging young men to look after their mates, why can't we teach our community to watch out for men who have lost their families? Cantor, who suggests workplace initiatives may be effective, believes these men may be an easier target than youth, being more mature and aware of their responsibilities to their families.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2148 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Feb 27, 2007 at 12:13:08 PM

  (0+)

A strike would be the perfect Darwinian solution to the cultural division in this nation. Suitable men, with enough of whatever it takes to make a marriage work will ignore the hysteria, and those who have no sense of purpose, skill or commitment will virtuously eliminate themselves from the gene pool as an act of spite (a true case of cutting off one's nose...) While women may not benefit in this generation, within 30 years the results will be measurable and positive--assuming that the Evangelicals with their Cover the Earth, Submissive Wife programs do not swamp out all the intelligent and educated. Expect a lot of sperm-donor children. The solution is in practicing Marriage, as I stated at the beginning. This nation doesn't practice or support marriage for anyone. It is only now starting to practice and support children after the marriage ends. We must go forward, not taking away what little protection children have gained, but building some clear and unambiguous supports and definitions of what marriage is (and what it isn't) which is where Feminism came in long ago, and still works to bring about the flowering of people. And it cannot be the Right Wing marrriage model, since that is if anything more dysfunctional than average.

by KarenDetroit (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 19 comments) on Tuesday, Feb 27, 2007 at 12:26:05 PM

  (0+)

it also ignores others who have as much or more need than the ones they are ostensibly protecting. My example - I had my drivers license revoked because I owed back child support. It wasnt important to the system that I had suffered a broken neck, come within an 1/8 inch of being a quadriplegic, had to endure 4 months of recovery and therapy where I couldnt pick up a loaf of bread, and I had no employment opportunities (being laid off 3 days prior to my accident) during these almost 5 months it took to heal fully. So even after I was good to go, I couldnt drive to interviews. I owned and lived in a duplex in a small town with no local business market to speak of, no bus system, and no support. So even though I was willing to work - I had to take a laborer job because the foreman could pick me up in the AM. So now I have no hope of paying off the back child support and getting my license back because of sub-par earnings. How is that protecting the child? I felt hopelessness, anger, bitterness towards my ex- and her attorney and the DA, and I harbored suicidal thoughts. My neighbors called the police on me one evening because I decided I needed to take my $300 softball bat and beat the sh*t out of a tree or I was going to lose it (both the tree and I survived). I entered into another relationship with my now wife who was a single mother. I resented her child because I couldnt see my own. I was confused and disturbed but my future wife stuck by me, loved me unconditionally, drove me the 500 miles to see my daughter when we could and showed me that there was hope and love in the world. Meanwhile, my public defender told me in Support Court one day that the DA will see me and my nascent family living under a bridge rather than consider my ex- who was now making a six figure salary, owned her own house that she bought with my credit and the severance from my previous employment, and had not collected a single welfare check (unlike me) as not being rightfully owed these thousands of dollars that I did not have. They also made it very clear that even though they were called Child Support, the only support they care about is money. Parenting doesnt enter the equation. So here I am many years later and finally am less than 2 months away from owing zero back child support for one child while I have three others to care for. I now have a chronic disease that is probably somewhat attributable to years of enormous stress levels and thus a lowered life expectancy in my middle forties. How is that considered Child Support? People - WAKE UP. You are all paying for this enormous state bureaucracy that is federally funded to keep a few deadbeat people off of welfare. All of the money collected from non-custodial parents washes straight thru the DCSS. They justify their bloated budgets, their 12 story buildings and thousands of computers, employees and attorneys by the amount they collect. We have traded welfare for the needy for welfare for the attorneys (who are otherwise useless I presume). While I understand karendetroit's anger, I do not understand her close-minded pursuit of the atypical. It is a shame what her ex- did to her family but she really should be questioning the circumstances that she willingly put herself in that led to the travesty of her post-breakup world. I do not know how I could have been such a bad judge of character myself but I was - and I ultimately learned to recognize quality and it literally saved my life. I am thankful now (and still a little bitter) but not so angry anymore. Time heals I guess.

by BriMan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 17 comments) on Saturday, Mar 3, 2007 at 12:52:18 AM

  (0+)