Conference quark::mennotes

 >     	I challenge the second category.  People who were young during the
 >     Holocaust never forgot what horrible things happened to them in their
 >     childhood.  I hope these two categories are examined differently.

    So... do you have first-hand knowledge that no victim of the Holocaust
    ever blocked out the horrors from their memory? The fact that most
    survivors do remember doesn't mean that some can't. 

    re:.0, two types
    
    And people who read Courage to Heal and conclude that, since they (or
    their children) have some of the "warning signs" they must have been
    sexually abused.
    
    Case in point, the Souzas' daughter and grandchildren.
    
    And, like you, I also question these people's accounts.

    RE: .3

    > My argument is that it is more likely that one who has a
    > horrible experience will remember it.

    It's possible for a person to experience a memory block, though.

    As a teenager, I experienced a bad car accident (a person in the
    other car was killed) and to this day, I still have a memory block
    about part of the crash.  My memory goes to a point where the car
    has been hit (by the car that ran a red light at 55 mph) and I can
    hear the radio turn to static as the car moves diagonally across
    the intersection.  My memory stops abruptly there.  My memory
    continues at the point where the car has stopped and I'm sitting
    up looking out what used to be the windshield.  I did not have any
    sort of head injury.  My memory simply stops and restarts as if
    someone erased part of a tape of the event.

    A few months later, I was sitting with my mother (in my parents'
    living room) when we heard a car crash outside.  I experienced a
    second memory blank right in front of my mother.  I remember
    hearing the crash, then my memory starts again with my mother
    standing in front of me, hugging my head and shoulders.  I laughed
    and asked her what she was doing.  She told me I'd been screaming
    a few seconds before that (starting right after we heard the crash.)

    I can only conclude that I remembered the missing portion of my
    memory when I heard the crash, but then my mind made me blank out
    the experience of remembering.  I've never remembered either moment
    in the years since then (not that I've tried, of course.)  It's
    possible that I saw the person in the other car being fatally injured
    at that moment (or else experienced a fear that my mind won't let me
    remember.)  I have no idea.

    I *do* know for a fact that the mind can block memories of horrible
    experiences, though.  Reginald Denny doesn't remember the attack
    on him, for example - he *did* have head injuries, though, so his
    case may not count.
    
    As mentioned before, I had *no* head injuries at all in the crash.
    I've been curious (at times) to remember what it is my mind was so
    anxious for me to forget, and I'm sure I could do it though hypnosis
    or whatever.  Mostly, I figure I'm better off not knowing.

    	On an indivdual basis you can't say anything. On a statistical
    basis there may be evidence that the system is being abused.
    
    	If, for example, 90% of holocaust survivors remembered what
    happened, but only 50% of supposed childhood abuse survivors remembered
    what had happened it would be be significant evidence that some of the
    latter group (but not all) had not been subject to abuse.
    
    	I was twice fairly close to death as a child. When I was about 5
    years old, I was just coming out of the door of a sweet shop when a car
    went in. I remember it quite vividly. My father had seen the car and
    grabbed me out of the way just in time. A week later the car was still
    there - it had knocked away some essential part of the structure of the
    building, and now it was only the car that was preventing the building
    from falling down. The other time was about a year later. I had one of
    the standard childhood illnesses, but so badly that the doctor gave me
    200 times the standard dose of penicillin in a "kill or cure" attitude.
    Most of that I know only from what my parents told me afterwards, but I
    do remember some of the fever halucinations.
    
    	.4 is talking about two blanks of a few seconds, and remembers all
    of the before-and-after in both cases. This is not on the same scale of
    things as forgetting a whole childhood of abuse.

    Hello,
    
    	The question also enters my mind on the reliability of hypnosis.
    There is a psychiatrist in Atlanta named Dr. Gannaway, and he is
    considered an expert in the study of memory.  This past year he
    was referenced as an expert on memory in New Yorker magazine, Primetime
    Live, Vanity Fair (I can get the exact dates of the articles if anyone
    is interested) among others.  He REFUSES to use hypnosis in his
    practice anymore based on some studies he conducted. (He has also
    refused to be on Geraldo, Sally Jesse among others which also shows
    a lot about his credibility)
    
    	I went to see him lecture, and he had performed and videotaped a
    hypnotic experience which we viewed.  He didn't want to use a random 
    patient because he stated that this would be unethical, so he used a 
    relative through marriage who was a good candidate for hypnosis (there
    different levels of hypnotic capability, and she was a 5 which is good)
    
    	She went under and the session went something like the following:
    
    Dr. G:  You are driving home from the shopping center and it is 5:00pm.
	    The store is just 10 minutes from your home but when you arrive
            the time is 9:00pm.  What happened to those missing hours
    
    Patient: I'm driving home and I see a cow on the side of the road, and
             the cow is having a calf, but is having problems so I stop
             my car and get out to help.  The mother cow is in pain and...
    
    Dr G:    Do you see the light in the sky coming toward you??
    
    Patient: Yes, the light is so bright, it's coming closer towards me. 
             The light lands and there is a big space craft, but I'm
             still worried about the baby cow.  The man comes and takes
             the cow......
    
    
    	Based on Dr. G's one suggestion, this turns into an alien
    experience.  Now I imagine a patient going to a "Therapist" who
    believes that 1 out of 3 women (a popular stat to throw around) are 
    sexually abused, so when someone walks through the door of the female 
    persuasion (which I am) that there is at least a 33% chance this person 
    was sexually abused.  - Scary.
    
    	Primetime Live recently sent a reporter undercover to a therapist
    who had a large number of 'sexually abused' patients.  The reporter
    had a hidden microphone, and went to the therapist and said that
    she had been feeling a little depressed lately.  She also said that
    she and her husband's sex life was not as good as it had been.  The
    therapist immediately asserted that "this sounds like a classic case
    of sex abuse".  The reporter/patient stated categorically that she
    doesn't believe this is possible, that she has no memory of any such 
    thing.  The therapist responds with "When something this horrible
    happens to you, it is so horrible that you would block it out.
    
    	I will end this with a quote from the book "The Courage to Heal" 
    which is the bible for "incest survivors" but it is written by
    two women who DO NOT have the medical educational credentials (one
    was a journalist, and the other I'm not sure about, but neither
    are phd's or md's).  This begins on page 81:
    
    	"If you don't remember your abuse, you are not alone.  Many women
    don't have memories, and some never get memories.  This doesn't mean
    they weren't abused.  If you don't have any memory of it, it can be
    hard to believe the abuse really happened.  You may feel insecure about
    trusting your intuition and want "proof" of your abuse.  This is a
    very natural desire, but it is not always one that can be met"
    
    
    

    RE: .5

    > .4 is talking about two blanks of a few seconds, and remembers all
    > of the before-and-after in both cases. This is not on the same scale of
    > things as forgetting a whole childhood of abuse.

    Agreed (absolutely.)

    However, I do see my experience as one of many possible responses to
    the original question about whether or not it is likely that 'horrible 
    experiences' are remembered.  The mind can easily blank out a moment 
    or a series of moments *without* the person's conscious wishes/decision 
    for this to happen.

    (By the way, I do find it interesting that Reginald Denny's memory of
    LA riots is very specific up until a particular moment - he remembers
    window glass breaking in his truck, then his memory stops even though
    he didn't receive head injuries until moments later.  Like my memory,
    his continues like a tape recording that is stopped at a specific
    instant during the event.  Although it's different than forgetting
    childhood abuse, it shows how protective the human mind can be - on
    an unconscious level, it can decide to protect oneself from memories
    too painful to recall consciously.)

 >     (By the way, I do find it interesting that Reginald Denny's memory of
 >     LA riots is very specific up until a particular moment - he remembers
 >     window glass breaking in his truck, then his memory stops even though
 >     he didn't receive head injuries until moments later.

    Doesn't seem surprising to me. Three years ago, when I had a bicycle
    accident, I remember everything up until the time my bike and I were
    suspended in mid-air, Wiley Coyote style (having just hit some sand
    while steering around a pothole at 20+ mph). Next memory is already on
    the ground, with people (other cyclists unknown to me) clustered around
    me, and EMTs already called. I had no head injury of any significance
    (though my helmet lining was cracked in 5 places), so I don't know if I
    was ever unconscious or not. But there are 5-10 minutes (including the
    moment of impact and sliding - my side looked like a belt sander was
    used on it, and my pelvis was cracked) is missing to this day. (When I
    was a teenager, I cracked my head, never lost consciousness, but lost a
    full three hours.)

    These experiences, and Denny's, involve some head trauma, so they don't
    relate directly to emotional experiences, but they do say something
    about the storage of information. In one case, I know I never lost
    consciousness, and in the other case I'm 90% sure I didn't, but in both
    cases memories were lost (or misplaced).

    	I have read that the way that memory works is that things are first
    entered into short term memory and then after one to three minutes some
    things are fixed and become long term memories.  Trauma may interfere
    with the process of "fixing" items in the buffer.  This would mean that
    the traumatic event could cause one to lose memories that occurred in
    the minute or so previous to the trauma.
    						John
    

    To confirm .4 and .9 re blanking...
    
    In 1979 I was struck from behind by a car while riding my bicycle at
    about 11:30 PM.  My bike's front rim reflected the headlights to me,
    and in my eyeglasses-mount rearview mirror I saw the car coming, and I
    knew I was going to be hit.  The next thing I knew, I was lying on the
    roadside some several minutes later.  My memory of the incident is
    still vivid enough that I can picture in my mind the image of the
    glaring shiny rim - but not the headlights in the mirror, which I saw
    only seconds later.  My storage in those few moments was incomplete,
    and the storage of the next several minutes was nil.  I can verify this
    exact hole in my memory with any of several people to whom I related
    things on the night of, and the day after, the accident.
    
    I imagine that a child undergoing abuse may well experience the same
    sort of blockage - the thing is just too horrible, so the brain
    short-circuits somehow, and the memory is not stored.  What bothers me
    about this scenario is the supposed mechanism whereby the image is
    stored in the subconscious and recalled by hypnotherapy.  It does not
    sound reasonable to me.  My skepticism is compounded by studies that
    were done to test people's suggestibility under hypnosis.  The studies
    showed that subjects could be induced to remember things that had
    happened to other people as if they themselves had experienced them. 
    In some cases, vivid memories were induced of events that had never
    occurred at all, similar to the demonstration described in .6.
    
    I have no doubt that some of the newly-remembered abuse is legitimate,
    but I am scared that some, probably a greater percentage, is not.

    While I think it's possible for someone to have forgotten horrible
    experiences from early childhood, and then remember them under
    hypnosis, I, also, feel dubious about the number of incidences of this
    that seem to have been reported recently.  My feeling is that it's
    probably true in a very small percentage of cases, but I'm skeptical
    about most of them.  I think it's dangerous to me.  I can imagine how
    awful it would be to be an innocent person, and have somebody you never
    touched suddenly claim that, while under hypnosis, they suddenly
    remembered you abused them 25 yrs. ago, or whatever.  What is a person
    supposed to do to prove their innocence?   It seems like a convenient
    way for someone to try to get someone they don't like in trouble.
    
    Lorna
    

    Well, it sounds as if memories "not stored" (due to trauma) may not
    be recoverable.

    I'm a bit skeptical about that, though, based on my second "blanking"
    (where I'm in the safety of my parents' living room and the SOUND of
    a car crash triggers some memory that causes me to scream and to blank
    a second time.)

    I had already recited my memories of the crash a number of times to
    our insurance company lawyers (and my parents,) so the experience of
    remembering the stuff I already remembered couldn't have been severe
    enough to blank it.  I must conclude that I blanked OTHER memories
    that had come back momentarily.

    Never again did the mere SOUND of a car crash have this effect on me
    - it only happened the one time.

    I should also mention that the sound of my own accident is another
    (sort of) blank that I have.  I remember the accident as being silent
    except for the radio going from music to static.  I also remember
    the song that was playing on the radio when my car was hit.  Witnesses
    told us that the sound of the crash was deafening.  I remember the
    feeling of the impact very, very clearly (and the sense of crunching
    metal.)  But the accident happens in silence for me when I recall it
    (except for the static.)

    Something else about the second blanking in my parents' living room:
    It brought me back from the state of emotional shock I'd been through
    since the accident.  I'd been going to school every day, but I was
    very quiet (would hardly speak to anyone.)  I refused to drive and
    I was in constant terror as a car passenger.  After the episode in
    my parents' living room, I laughed for the first time since the
    accident (and shortly after that, I started driving again.)  It made
    a world of difference to go through the episode and scream about it,
    even though I had no memory of remembering or screaming (and felt
    NONE of the emotions of fear or screaming when the episode stopped.)

    I believe that *both* phenomena exist.  Namely,
    
    	1) It is possible to have lost and then regain memories of
    	   emotional trauma.
    
    	2) It is also possible to suggest to the mind false memories of
           emotional trauma.
    
    The problem being, I don't beleive it's possible in most cases for an
    outside observer to make the distinction between the two.
    
    mm

re:             <<< Note 89.12 by BSS::S_CONLON "Almost paradigm." >>>

>    Something else about the second blanking in my parents' living room:
>    It brought me back from the state of emotional shock I'd been through
>    since the accident.  I'd been going to school every day, but I was
>    very quiet (would hardly speak to anyone.)  I refused to drive and
>    I was in constant terror as a car passenger.  After the episode in
>    my parents' living room, I laughed for the first time since the
>    accident (and shortly after that, I started driving again.)  It made
>    a world of difference to go through the episode and scream about it,
>    even though I had no memory of remembering or screaming (and felt
>    NONE of the emotions of fear or screaming when the episode stopped.)

What you describe is a pretty classic example of dissociation, the
psyco-babble for blank spots on the tape of life. The blank spots sometimes
do lock up behavior as in your example (and many of abuse) until the
emotions at the time of the event can be released and dealt with more
completely.

There is about 18 months of my childhood where I was in the hospital with a
serious illness, and I can't remember 10 minutes of it. Due to whatever
happened during that formative time I now have some problems to work
through (we know the problems come from this time period due to the
developmental tasks at that age). After lots of work we have not learned
much, except that it was a real bad time.

I find it interesting that noone has yet replied that has been an abuse
victim to the point of dissociation. Through my own work and contact with
friends that have been abused (some over long periods of time) to the point
of dissociation, I can say clearly that this is not something we invented
at someone else's suggestion. And it's no fun trying to reconnect with the
emotions at the time so they can be diffused and integrated. But I have
experienced (and seen in others) significant life changes as a result.

I used to be more skeptical until I got some experience with it. Your
mileage may vary, but at least drive the road before broadcasting your
mileage.

    RE: .14

    > What you describe is a pretty classic example of dissociation, the
    > psyco-babble for blank spots on the tape of life. The blank spots 
    > sometimes do lock up behavior as in your example (and many of abuse) 
    > until the emotions at the time of the event can be released and dealt 
    > with more completely.

    These examples of "trauma amnesia" (or "dissociation") from accidents
    show that it isn't terribly unusual for a person to blank out certain
    experiences.  In my case, it is quite likely that I remembered the
    blanked out portion, then blanked out that moment, too.

    It just shows what the human mind is capable of doing in response
    to some types of "horrible experiences."

    re: .16
    
    yes
    
    re: accidents/memory loss
    
    I too was in a car accident that involves some memory loss.  The
    difference I see with these scenarios is that there is not doubt
    that I was involved in an accident.  In a case where an adult is
    led to believe he/she was abused, but has no memory whatsoever, in
    my mind there is doubt that the abuse happened.  

    It is not the memory of abuse or the repressed memory of abuse but the
    potential of creating in a persons mind a situation that becomes
    reality that is frightening.  At that point the person cannot
    distinguish between truth and fiction but in a quest for justice is
    willing to sacrifice the person or the family they believe wronged
    them.  What is real and what isn't is the dangers that I see with these
    so called therapists, especially once it moves to the legal system for
    retribution or justice.
    
    Memory is a strange dream.

to Costello_J:

>That equated to over 40 persons who had
>    been raped and had no memory or physical evidence of the abuse.
...
>but I am fighting for a fair shake for other
>    families.

Good luck in your fight against what sounds to me like an injustice.

Please let me point out that you don't have to prove that every memory
recovered through therapy and/or hypnosis is false.  And a good rule of
advocacy is never to try to prove more than you need to.

All you need to establish are two points:

1.  It is possible for false memories to be generated through hypnosis or 
therapy.  There is a lot of good evidence for this.

2.  The facts in your particular case suggest that abuse on this scale which
left no unrepressed memory or physical evidence is extremely unlikely.


Another point is that people with these memories, whether true or false, find
them extremely distressing.  They need support and acceptance, even when that 
support and acceptance has to stop short of breaking up families or taking
legal action.

    >the potential of creating in a persons mind a situation that becomes
    >reality that is frightening.  At that point the person cannot
    >distinguish between truth and fiction
    
    If that's frightening, I've got bad news for you.  *No one* can
    distinguish between truth and fiction with 100% certainty.
    
    mm

 >         If that's frightening, I've got bad news for you.  *No one* can
 >     distinguish between truth and fiction with 100% certainty.

    How do you know that's true?

    I think as far as actual events go, people can distinguish between
    truth and fiction with 100% certainty most of the time.  Perceptions of
    events and interpretations of conversations are a different matter.  If
    someone gets up to speak, it's a fact that they spoke, but there might
    be various ideas, by different people, as to what was said.
    
    Lorna
    

    Something strange in saying 'people can distinguish between truth and
    fiction with 100% certainty MOST of the time'
    
    Would you like to spend years behind bars and have your families life
    ruined because someome could distinguish between truth and fiction 
    with 100% certainty MOST of the time?
    
    

    (By the way, I think .21 was a joke?)

    - Jim

    re .23, of course not.  My comments in .22 don't mean that I think
    adults who suddenly "remember" having been abused as children should be
    able to point the finger at just anybody and have them put behind bars. 
    Nobody should be put behind bars unless they can be proven guilty,
    anyway.  
    
    What I said I meant at surface value, and was more in response to Mary
    Maling's comment than it was to the problem of people being hypnotized
    and suddenly claiming to remember having been abused as children.  To
    be honest, my first inclination would be to dismiss most of those cases
    as some sort of new-age hysteria.  Some people seem to be desperate to
    find someone to blame their problems on, and maybe if they can't find
    anything else, they'd like to pretend that they suddenly remember that
    old Uncle Henry molested them when they were an infant.  
    
    I don't think anybody should be put behind bars for commiting a crime
    that nobody can remember.
    
    Lorna
    

    .21> How do you know that's true?
    
    I don't :-)
    

    Do you discount or question that multi-personality syndrome occurs?
    This happens to victims of sexual abuse also. The different
    personalities take control of the person in order to forget the pain,
    in order to find strength, in order to self-protect.
    
    The mind does amazing things.
    
    People who were unfortunately victims of the holocaust were not
    isolated. They did not feel guilty or confused. They eventually had their 
    fears validated. They eventually had their lives validated. 
    
    Do you remember when you were 1 or 2 or even 5? My vaguest recollections 
    begin at the age of 4 or so.
    
    When a child's sense of safety is blown to bits, when the person who is
    supposed to love and nurture has invaded his or her little body, the
    child goes into a self-preservation mode. Selective perception is not
    unique to survivors of sexual abuse. Most people I know selectively
    perceive things every day. We adults use a thin filter. Maybe children
    use an opaque shield. 
    
    Kate

.27> Do you discount or question that multi-personality syndrome occurs?
    
    Kelsey Grammer's ex-stripper wife had that, or so he says.

    re.25
    
    The issue is not guilt, the guilty must be held accountable.
    
    It is what we allow to be done to the 'accussed' that is a real
    crime.  
    
    If the media gets a hold of the story and sensationalized it to sell
    papers, your toast, whether your guilty or not is irrelevant!
    

    re .29, I guess I don't understand how your reply relates to my .25.
    
    Lorna
    

    .30
    
    It is not the remembering but what society allows to be done with the
    accustation, we punish the guilty and the innocent.
    
    A person through a hypnotist/phsycologist/bad dream/drugs, "remembers"
    that 20 years ago you molested them.  The authorities by the story and 
    your accused. Your local paper senstaionalizes the situation.  Your not
    gulity, person was out to lunch in a previous life. What effect will
    that have on your job, family, postion in the community and finances?
    
    Why are all priests guilty?
    
     
    

    re .31, I don't know.  You tell me.  Why are all priests guilty?  (Is
    this a joke?)  Because, otherwise I don't recall *ever* saying anything
    about priests in this notesfile.
    
    I don't really disagree with you, so I don't know why you're aiming
    these comments at me.   I am, also, concerned about the possibility of
    innocent people being accused of child abuse.
    
    Lorna
    

    .32
    
    Sorry, my comments are not aimed at you.  The priest situation was an
    example of media sensationalizing the acts of a few to negate the good
    of many.      
    
    With all the publicity regarding child abuse at churches, and homes for 
    children, victims are coming forth with accustaions of incidents that 
    happened years ago.  The media has sensationalized these victims and I
    think cast doubt on the entire priesthood guilty or not.  Celebasy
    turned from sexual repression to certain degressions.
    
    Doesn't anyone ever wonder if....  
    
    
    
      

Re.32

	Lorna, I'm still trying to work out what was said. Count yourself
	unlucky to have understood the little you did.

	- Paul.
 

    Lorna, regarding the reference to the priests.
         
    The topic of this note is two fold.  One, abused individuals that were
    afraid to tell and secondly, those that 'remembered' through theraphy
    or 'media hype'.
    
    Over the past few years, individuals have come out with horrific
    stories regarding orphanages and schools for boys run by the Catholic
    Church.  That started an avalanche of individuals coming forth and
    detailing severe abuses.  Some through fear and shame, some through
    councelling.  This has cast a pawl on the priesthood.  Many
    of these schools etc. have been closed.  Priests are in jail or await
    sentencing.  This entire situation falls into both catagories of this
    note.
    
    In addition to insitutions, individuals have come out with tales of the
    conduct of local parish priests and alter boys.
    
    I do not know if this type of uncovering is happening in your area but
    it has been front page news here for a while (even todays paper - "the
    Worst of the Christian Brothers Awaits Sentencing").
    
    What an oxymoron - Christian Brothers.  The details were too graphic
    and horrific for the news media to describe.  One only hopes there is
    an alternative to heaven.
    
    I would think that comprehending the events that must have happened to
    these individuals would fall into the 'unlucky' catagory.  The fact
    that many are getting their just rewards is the 'luck' portion.
    
    Is that clearer.  I thought I was within the context of the note.  

    re .35, I realize that there have recently been a number of Catholic
    priests who have been accused of abusing boys.  It just seemed to me
    that you mentioned priests in a manner that suggested, to
    me, that you thought I had brought the subject up before, and I hadn't.
    
    What's the problem?  Why are you addressing me on this issue?  
    
    I have nothing to say about it.  I'm not a Catholic, a priest, or a
    boy, and I have no clue what the true facts are on this issue.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    RE: .36 A number of?  that nails it down, doesn't it.

    re .37, well, what do you want me to say?  What's wrong with saying "a
    number of"?  I don't know how many Catholic priests have been accused
    of child abuse.  I know some have.  
    
    I've never even spoken to a Catholic priest in my entire life.  I was
    raised Protestant.  
    
    Lorna
    

    How did we get down this road!  Lorna is innocent.  
    
    Looking back at .31, sorry, my fault. I mentioned 'priests'.  
    
    I was trying to comment about never putting the innocent behind
    bars.  But, I looked at a different definition of 'behind bars'.
    
    My point is when abuse hits the media, both the gulity and the innocent
    are punished.  As in the case of the priesthood.  While I am not a
    Catholic, I have a nagging doubt when I meet a priest due to the media
    coverage of the events previously listed. 
    
    As far as the number of guilty priests.  Numbers don't matter because 
    an entire group is branded.  Is 1000 abusive priests good or is one too 
    many.  

    Re .27,
    
    	I agree that some multiple personality syndrome occurs, but I
    strongly believe that a great number of these and sexual abuse
    victims where the victim "repressed" the memories are not valid.  I
    would love to see a study which examines/really examines the cases
    in which the memory has been repressed and takes this as a separate
    category than people who remember all along but are afraid to tell.  
    
    	I have met many families who have children who have "remembered" that
    they were abused after going to a therapist for a problem other than
    sexual abuse - e.g. an eating disorder, depression etc..   The parents
    I have met stand accused of abuse and are taking any kind of action to 
    get their children and grandchildren back in their lives.  They have
    taken lie detector tests, have tried to get their child to go to an
    alternate therapist, or have tried to meet with their child's
    therapist, but a lot of these therapist's advise their patients to
    disown their family and pick a family of their own.
    
    	In my family's case thank God I have 5 other sister's who were in
    my household who remember our happy upbringing.  My sister claims that
    we were all abused over a period of years, but have forgotten.  All mail 
    we sent to her had to be reviewed by her therapist before she could read 
    it, and her therapist would only give her "the positive" stuff.  Her 
    therapist refused to meet with any of us.  The therapist's and legal
    system has a monetary interest in these cases and should be held
    liable.  My heart goes out to the people who are being falsely accused,
    and after my sister's case I have become highly skeptical of
    therapist's, and agree with the American Medical Association's recent
    finding that Hypnosis is highly suggestible and cannot be relied upon
    for accuracy.
                 

    from 132.159

    Decided to move this over to a more appropriate topic.
    Radio this morning said that the woman mentioned in 132.159 will
    not be prosecuted.  D.A. ruled as "self defense".  She claims
    she tried to leave, then barricaded herself in the bedroom.  When
    he came in, she shot him.  He was unarmed.  

    Also a Ft. Collins, Co. woman has been arrested for shooting her
    boyfriend dead in a "domestic dispute".  Police were called before,
    then left, then were called back after the shooting.

    Looks like it's open season, dudes.
    fred();

Well, Fred, one way of looking at it is that it's been "open season" on
women for a long, long time.  Men have been allowed and even encouraged to
hurt or kill women who displeased them.  I don't condone violence of any
sort, but I think that each case should be judged on its own merits.

					Steve

    Steve,
    
>Well, Fred, one way of looking at it is that it's been "open season" on
>women for a long, long time.  
    
    Well, Steve, when you take the "they have been doing it all along" 
    approach what you are doing is admitting that what I an saying is 
    right.  While your position, which you are trying to use to justify 
    and excuse what is going on, remains in doubt.
    
    
>Men have been allowed and even encouraged to
>hurt or kill women who displeased them.  
    
    ENCOURAGED?????!!!!
    
>I don't condone violence of any
>sort, but I think that each case should be judged on its own merits.
    
    Then you open up the other side of you mouth and basically ageree
    with my position---NEITHER JUSTIFIES THE OTHER.
    
    fred();

You misread me entirely.  Nowhere did I try to justify anything.  I was
just observing that it had been open season on women for hundreds if not
thousands of years.

Yes, "encouraged".  Did you know that the phrase "rule of thumb" comes from
a law specifying the maximum diameter of the stick a man may use to hit his
wife?  There are laws saying that it's ok for a man to shoot his wife if
he catches her in an infidelity.  Our society teaches young men that if
a woman doesn't do what you want you just slap her around.  It has never
been socially acceptable for a woman to strike a man. 

I took your comments as implying that men have not been violent towards
women, or that such violence was never condoned.  Rather than becoming
defensive, what we all need to do is work towards eliminating violence of
all kinds against all people.  We need to teach our sons as well as our
daughters that violence is wrong.

I will say that I am dismayed at many of the cases where "battered woman
syndrome" is successfully used as an excuse for violence.

				Steve

        re .44

>You misread me entirely.  Nowhere did I try to justify anything.  I was
>just observing that it had been open season on women for hundreds if not
>thousands of years.

    If you weren't, then why did you bring it up?  why is it that every
    time someone tries to bring up a men's issue we have to face the
    obligatory, "But men have been doing xxxx"?

>Yes, "encouraged".  Did you know that the phrase "rule of thumb" comes from
>a law specifying the maximum diameter of the stick a man may use to hit his
>wife?

    Since when???

>  There are laws saying that it's ok for a man to shoot his wife if
>he catches her in an infidelity.  

    What State?  And again since when?  What country?  There are countries 
    that will shoot her for you.  Am I responsible for the actions of those 
    countries?  Should we nuke any country that doesn't agree with our
    standards and "force our morals down someone else's throat"?

>Our society teaches young men that if
>a woman doesn't do what you want you just slap her around.  

    I certainly haven't had anyone tell me nor even imply that this is ok.
    In fact just the opposite.

    >>It has never been socially acceptable for a woman to strike a man. 

    Balderdash.  Read Andy Capp lately?  Women hitting men is supposed
    to be _funny_.

>I took your comments as implying that men have not been violent towards
>women, or that such violence was never condoned.  Rather than becoming
>defensive, what we all need to do is work towards eliminating violence of
>all kinds against all people.  We need to teach our sons as well as our
>daughters that violence is wrong.

    Then again, Steve, whey did _you_ bring it up.  And where have I
    ____EVER____ said that I thought violence against women was ok???

    fred();

I don't think Andy Capp is funny.

All I did was point out that a few men were finding themselves in the
position a far larger number of women have found themselves in.  Do you
disagree with this?

					Steve

    
    >I don't think Andy Capp is funny.

    You made the statement that women hitting men is not condoned or
    taught in society.  I was pointing out OH YES IT IS!  To the
    contrary, for a man to even defend himself against such violence
    will be considered "abuse".  In fact, she can KILL you and CLAIM
    she was "abused" and there won't be much done to her.

>All I did was point out that a few men were finding themselves in the
>position a far larger number of women have found themselves in.  Do you
>disagree with this?

    I don't disagree, but SO WHAT!  Does either justify the other?
    It appears that the point you are trying to make is that it does.  
    Otherwise I don't see much reason for making the point in the 
    first place.

    fred();

Ok, Fred.  Tell me what point you were trying to make with your "open season"
remark.

				Steve

    I don't know if it was changed in the 1973 revision of the penal code,
    but in Texas, killing one's wife was (is?) considered justified if the
    husband caught her commiting adultery.  I don't know if a wife catching
    an adulterous husband was/is accorded the same treatment.
    
    Regarding any killing, I'd want to know all the details before reaching
    a conclusion about justification or lack thereof.
    
    Steve

    	In both the Bible and Greek legend we have stories of women killing
    men, and at least in the Bible story I am thinking of her action was
    approved. We are told that Socrates was frequently beaten by his wife,
    and that is probably not legend. Lucretia Borgia tended to poison her
    men friends, while Elizabeth I tended towards public execution when
    they became too familiar, but was generally approved as a good queen.
    
    	Women have been beating and killing men through all recorded
    history.
    
    	Dave, happily married for more than 25 years, but anxious to set
    the record straight.

    I agree with Steve that our western society, in a multitude of ways,
    allows or even encourages men to do violence to women, but hardly the
    other way around.
    
    An article in a non-sensationalist Dutch newspaper [ Vrij Nederland,
    sometime in April 1994 ] revealed that: "in cases where one partner in a
    (male/female) love(?)/emotional relationship (i.e. marriage or
    co-habitation) killed the other, an overwhelming percentage [ may have
    been 75%, may have been 90% ] was the man killing the woman".

    If this is not 'bad enough', "in very many [practically all?] cases
    where the woman killed the man, it was a result of years and years of
    being hit and abused by the man, and where the woman basically could
    not see any other way out" [ the article does not claim that there
    was no other way out, only that the woman saw no alternative ],
    whereas "in very many cases where the man killed the woman, it was
    because he was unable to accept the fact she had decided to terminate
    the relationship.

    -Sim Lee.

imo, statements like "our society encourages men to be violent to women" or
even "our society teaches young men that if a woman doesn't do what you want 
you just slap her around" are pretty hard to follow if not somewhat misleading.
by that logic, men (collectively!) are taught to be the "bad  guys"!

in my experience, a statement like "our society fails to protect women from
violent men" is far more accurate, this starts with countless cases of battered
women, where police are reluctant to get involved in domestic disputes going
right up to domestic rape cases where women can still face a pretty tough time 
before being heard by the authorities.


andreas.

Re: .52

But men ARE taught to be "bad guys"!  That's what's so horrifying!  It's
rarely explicit, mostly by example, but it's there.  Fortunately a majority
of men have a strong enough sense of "what is right" that they can overcome
the influence, but it's difficult for many.

					Steve

But 'some' men ARE taught to be "bad guys"!  That's what's so horrifying!  It's
rarely explicit, mostly by example, but it's there.  Fortunately a majority
of 'these' men have a strong enough sense of "what is right" that they can overcome
the influence, but it's difficult for 'the rest'.

					Steve

also Steve

men are taught to be the bad guys by example?? whilst most of us men probably 
know that not much would happen if we decided to beat our women, because the 
authorities are slow to react, this does not imply that we are *encouraged*
or *taught* to be violent to women! 

if one man decides to beat his woman he *decides* to be a bad guy and should 
be held responsible for his actions! other men cannot and should not be held 
responsible for this man's actions, but as members of society it is in our 
collective interest and our individual responsibility to see that this sort of 
violence does not go unpunished.

where do we get by making all men into "bad guys"? i mean, where does that
leave the indivdual, male or female for that matter, and his/her room for 
action?

as was mentioned earlier, each case should be judged indviudally, and going
by statistics we might aswell acknowledge the fact that more men are violent 
towards women than the other way round. where does does leave us as individual 
members of society? imo, the only (obvious) thing we can do as individuals is 
make a stand against violence, wherever it comes, from *without* taking the 
blame for it!


andreas.

    	By the way, anyone who talks statistics should remember that they
    are only available for recent years and in a few places. Shakespeare
    talks about shrewish women who would throw things at their husbands. We
    have no statistics for those days, only the facts that sometimes
    married men and women might be violent towards each other, and that
    sometimes it was the men and at other times the women. Chaucer has
    tales of women that did rather nasty things to their husbands
    (sometimes with the help of their lovers).
    
    	Saying it has always been worse for women than for men has no
    validity outside places and periods where you have reasonably credible
    statistics. Could people quote references for any time and place other
    than Western Europe or the U.S. and for any time earlier than (say) 50
    years ago. Otherwise I can probably quote them anecdote for anecdote
    when they claim worse treatment for women than men, such as the above.

    
    Re open season.
    
    Personally I have _never_ seen _anyting_ that says it's ok to batter
    a woman.  I have seen lots of things that says that says women
    battering men is "no big deal".  There are studies taht show that
    men are the victims of "family violence" nearly as much as women.
    Reference again Andy Capp where Flo knocking Andy lop-t-loop is
    supposed to be _funny_.
    
    We have also discussed other forms of abuse especially in relationships
    and where pregnancy and children are involved where a man's future
    becomes basically subject to the female's whim.  Then we see that
    it is even more sinister where a man doesn't even have to be the
    father of the child to get stuck.  
    
    Now we basically have legalized, unchallenged murder where you can
    be blown away and she will basically walk.  In spite of the mantra
    being chanted over "wife abuse", men had better wake up and smell
    the coffee.  As Steve said, the majority of men _aren't_ violent,
    but the few men are being used as justification for the violation
    of the rights of all.  And men are allowing themselves to be silenced
    and put down for daring to speak up.
    
    fred();

    So, Steve Lionel. You went to Bad boy school? Learn how to beat your
    wife? Bludgend the kids? Kick the dog? Where is such a school? How does
    one learn such things? Watching too much American TV? From street
    corners? Sex courses? AAhh! I know! The Manchester Union Leader!:)
    
    
    
    
    

    >	By the way, anyone who talks statistics should remember that they
    >are only available for recent years and in a few places. Shakespeare
    >talks about shrewish women who would throw things at their husbands.
    
    	Shakespeare also talks of a husband who murders his wife because
    	he *thinks* she's been unfaithful to him.
    

    Wanna good show to watch on the subject. Watch the old Alfred Hitchcock
    flicks on Nick at night. 

    re: .59, to say nothing of the play where the wife persuades her
    husband into committing a murder which ultimately results in him being
    killed.

    
    There was an episode of the TV series "Hunter" where a woman kept
    setting men up and killing them in "self-defense" when they tried
    to "assault" her.  Hunter could never catch her.  Finally the
    writers, out of poetic justice, had her kill herself in a fit of
    self-pity.

    fred();

    >          -< Try "The Duchess of Malfi" to quote from plays. >-
    >
    >re: .59, to say nothing of the play where the wife persuades her
    >husband into committing a murder which ultimately results in him being
    >killed.
    
    	Like Bible quoters, we can each find ample evidence in
        Shakespeare's canon for whatever we want, including acts 
        of violence commited (or urged on) by both men and women.  
    
    	So what?  

    
    let individuals be responsible for their own behavior and
    not be considered as acting as a representative of their gender.
    
    thats real equality.

.57> There are studies taht show that men are the victims of "family violence" 
.57> nearly as much as women.

in the case of men being victims of "family violence" does this include boys 
and adolescent males being exposed to violent dads or do those studies only
cover violence between adults in adult relationships?


andreas.

    re .64:
    
    My thoughts exactly.

    re: .63
>    	Like Bible quoters, we can each find ample evidence in
>        Shakespeare's canon for whatever we want, including acts 
>        of violence commited (or urged on) by both men and women.  
>    
>    	So what?  
    
    	That is exactly what I was trying to point out. "The Duchess of
    Malfi" was written by one of Shakespeares contemporaries, but includes
    a lot more domestic violence and just plain evil. None of this in
    itself proves that women mistreated men more than men mistreated women
    in those ages. We have only anecdotes, not statistics, and anecdotes
    taken from plays are doubly dangerous since it wasn't even intended to
    represent the average life of a normal family.
    
    	The only thing the plays indicate is that instances of such things
    probably did happen, and that the author chose them as being
    dramatically significant in his play. We have no statistical evidence
    as far as I know of how men treated women and women treated men 400
    years ago.

    
    re .65

>in the case of men being victims of "family violence" does this include boys 
>and adolescent males being exposed to violent dads or do those studies only
>cover violence between adults in adult relationships?

    The studies I've seen usually only include adults.   I also wonder
    why you only note dads as being violent.  I've seen some moms
    that could wield a pretty mean hairbrush too.  When I was younger,
    I had a friend whose mother broke her hand smacking him up
    side the head.  She later committed suicide.  He's now in the
    mental hospital (and probably will be for the rest of his life)
    for murdering his grandmother.  I suppose you can draw all sorts
    of conclusions from that one.

    fred();

    Hair brush nothing!! Try knives, meat cleavers, shot guns, and the list
    goes on and on..
    
    Speaking of violent women. The princes of swift knives is reported
    doing a porn flick. Yep. Ol Mrs. B is doing xxx's. And that aint hugs
    and kisss either. Guess that ranks right in there will old Johnny
    signing T shirts and short arm inspections.:)
    
    I knew all along she was a cut from the rest.:)
    
    

    oops! Belated snarf on that last one too.:)

    
    re .69

    Probably the only way she can get a man to come anywhere near her
    now ;^).  Also heard John Boy was sentenced to a few days in the
    slammer for smacking his girlfriend around.  A couple of
    real winners, those two.   They should have stayed married.
    They deserve each other.

    fred();

    I had heard HE was doing the porn movie to show the world that
    it still works!!!

    jacqui,
    
    You are confusing the rumors with facts!
    
    Shame on you

    ooooopsie......

    They both should have been locked up. Both Mr and Mrs. B. Anyhow, I
    didnt mean to open the rodents hole on this.
    
    

.68> I also wonder why you only note dads as being violent.

from reading .51, "an overwhelming percentage was the man killing the woman"
and reading .57 "there are studies that show that men are the victims of 
'family violence' nearly as much [note: not AS MUCH] as women." the conclusion
is nigh that men, in general and in our western society, are more inclined to 
resort to violence than women.


andreas.

    Amd what of men in the noble Europe? Where sexism is very much alive.
    Where American women as business reps have a difficult time gaining 
    any credience or credibility in these market places? Are the laws as
    progressive as they might be in the USA? Or do they want to do such
    diligent studies?
    
    In the American Law books, going back into the stacks to the 17th
    century. Men are always the bad guys, the rasputins, vile. And women
    were and are still the pure'er than driven snow. And in the late 20th
    century, still viewed as such. 
    
    Yes, american culture might be viewed as the wild west, still, But...
    there are other places with thier problems too. Irland, the middle
    east, the Cuba, Haitti, etc... What of family violence in these
    countries? 
    
    Well all, hope everyone is having a good day off for the Laborday
    Holidays. This weekend, for us in New England, spells the end of warm 
    weather for us. Winters winds are soon to come to call on us.
     
    cariri     k

.77>  Amd what of men in the noble Europe? Where sexism is very much alive.
.77>  Where American women as business reps have a difficult time gaining 
.77>  any credience or credibility in these market places? 

yeah, from what i've read it seems like you guys over there in the US are 
really under fire. a recent article which i've read, mentioned that a european
coming from a 'pc'-unaware climate, doing business in the US, might get into
trouble before he knew it, for engaging in a casual flirt at work, or for 
giving a playful pat on the ...err...

these cultural differences aside, doesn't the history of all the world's wars
suggest that this violence thing is more of a male domain since time began, or 
at least since the amazons have gone out of fashion? of course bringing the 
amazons back and sharing out violence equally could make for dramatic change...
:-)


andreas.

    
    
    > doesn't the hostory of all the worlds wars
    
    No, it shows that for the longest time men were programmed to believe
    it was there job to fight and die for the community. Why? 
    
    David

why? 

'coz they were programmed by malicious women? is that it? :-)

since you ask, i am sure you know the answer.
    

andreas.

    As women were programed to be the home care providers. Men, have had to 
    defend the homes against other tribal nations. Men, the warriors, the
    hunters, and women the care givers, home makers. 
    
    Insofar as europe goes. Perhaps many should start looking at the
    problems in there own back yard, before bashing or making comments of 
    violence in America. Sounds like America has come many mny miles,
    and we realize that there are many more to go.
    
     chrit v

    re: .77
>    Amd what of men in the noble Europe? Where sexism is very much alive.
>    Where American women as business reps have a difficult time gaining 
>    any credience or credibility in these market places? Are the laws as
>    progressive as they might be in the USA? Or do they want to do such
>    diligent studies?
    
    	It is true that there is generally a different attitude in Europe.
    We have had a lot more queens, female prime ministers, than the U.S.
    has had female presidents.
    
    	What seems to be different to me is that casual flirtation *either*
    way between the sexes seems to be normal in Europe. One of my female
    colleagues will often drop a curtsey and blow a kiss when she enters
    my cubicle. I can compliment any of my female colleague on their
    clothes, and many of them expect a kiss on the cheek when we meet
    outside strictly formal surroundings.
    
    	Americans seem to take such things much more seriously. Some
    American women would be a little taken aback if I kissed them on the
    cheek when meeting them in the corridoor, and American men might
    misunderstand something as a serious sexual advance that was only meant
    as a normal greeting.
    
    	In terms of laws, there were some parts of Switzerland where women
    only recently got the vote, but up until then, opinion polls had shown
    that in general they didn't *want* the vote. They could tell their
    husbands how to vote, and let him take the trouble. In several
    countries the laws are specifically very equal - in some countries
    where employers are required to permit maternity leave the couple can
    decide how they are going to split this between them, so the woman can
    go back to work while the man has "paternity" leave to look after the
    young baby as a legal right.
    
    	Do you have any statistics for family violence in Ireland, Cuba,
    Haiti, etc. ?

i have never made a difference between western europe and the USA, on the 
subject of "violence in adult relationships", george, let alone go "bashing 
and making comments of violence in America". i happen to be quite a fan of the 
USA and i also think that the western industrialized societies are comparable 
on the subject of violence in relationships.

having said that, i realise that the discussion on "violence in adult 
relationships", might well be going beyond the scope of this topic.

the point i was making is that we might as well acknowledge the fact that men
on the whole, are more inclined to use violence towards their partners in 
relationships, than women are; all reports i have ever read seem to indicate 
this. i don't see why this should be such a touchy issue, since this does not 
imply that any individual man is going to resort to violence neither does it 
make a particular woman non-violent by default. 

before the courts, each case of violence should be judged on its merits. and 
going back to the original topic which sparked this discussion (89.41), of 
course there will be women which will abuse the judicial system in cases of 
violence in relationships, claiming that they have been victimised by their 
vile husbands, when in fact, it could well have been the other way round.

assuming for a moment that it was a well established fact that men in general
are more inclined to resort to violence in relationships, then the fact that
men are more likely to be exposed to false claims of violence (because they 
become more vulnerable to such claims), also becomes common knowledge, and the
responsibility is on the judicial system to take this vulnerability into account
and to establish the true circumstances behind each case of violence 
objectively.


andreas.

    Non-violent women:
    
    Golda Mier		Israel PM 1967 war w/Egypt, Syria, and Jordan
    
    Indra Gandi		India Pres, 1971? war with Pakistan
    
    Margret Thatcher	UK PM, 1982? Falklands war (which they almost lost)
    
    
    All these 'women' engaged, and actually started in the case of Golda
    (preemptive) the war. I use them to show that women leaders .nes less
    war.
    
    Steve

    Another report this a.m. that a Pueblo, Co. woman ran over her
    boyfriend with her car during a "domestic dispute".  He's dead.  
    She's "under investigation".

    fred();

    
    >Golda Mier          Israel PM 1967 war w/Egypt, Syria, and Jordan
    
    not so, Mrs Meir was PM during the '73 fracas when Egypt and Syria
    attacked Israel.
    
    Mr Levi Eshkol was PM in 1967.
    

.86>  Another report this a.m. that a Pueblo, Co. woman ran over her
.86>  boyfriend with her car during a "domestic dispute".  He's dead.  
.86>  She's "under investigation".

      Fred, I'm having trouble discerning your point...  You post these
      little snippets where, evidently, some woman is provoked,
      "goes tactical", and some guy ends up dead.  Are you trying to
      warn us that Women can be just as brutal as Men?  Well, we already
      know this...  Should a Woman on the verge of being "OJ'd" NOT defend
      herself?  What are you counseling your daughters/wife to do in a
      live-or-die situation?  Do you provoke your wife/woman into situations
      where she would want to kill you (perhaps via some Lawyer)?  

      Please, help us understand...

    Perhaps instead of teaching your male children not to hit, kill, women.
    We should be teaching both male and female children not to do nasty
    things to each other. And I think that is what Fred is trying to tell
    you. Women are just as capable as men are in the domestic violence. And
    to say that ONLY women are pushed to the brink is horse pucky.
    But because of our media hype, and typical male bashing, women are pure
    as driven snow, and men are all villian, rasputians, neanderthal types.
    

    
    re .88

>      Fred, I'm having trouble discerning your point...  You post these
>      little snippets where, evidently, some woman is provoked,
>      "goes tactical", and some guy ends up dead.  

    So.  A woman who "goes tactical" is "provoked".  What is a man
    who "goes tactical"?  Lets see--abusive, wife-beater, scum?

    >Are you trying to
>      warn us that Women can be just as brutal as Men?  Well, we already
>      know this...  Should a Woman on the verge of being "OJ'd" NOT defend
>      herself?  

    The problem I have with this is that it seems that every woman who
    "goes tactical" is _assumed_ to be doing so in self  defense, while
    a man who so much as defends himself against violence is assumed to
    be "abusive".

    >What are you counseling your daughters/wife to do in a
>      live-or-die situation?  Do you provoke your wife/woman into situations
>      where she would want to kill you (perhaps via some Lawyer)?  

    So now you want to get personal?  You _assume_ that I "provoke" my
    wife?  You couldn't be further from the truth.  What if she "provokes"
    me?  Once again you provide us with a perfect example of the kind of
    hypocrisy I've been fighting for years.

    fred();

I think it's useless to post reports of wives killing their husbands as
supporting the notion of "open season".  I could find ten reports of husbands
killing wives to every one the other way.  There's got to be more context
than that to be meaningful.

Now if it happened that there were a significant number of the husband-killers
who escaped punishment by means of a defense not plausibly allowed to men 
accused of killing their wives (that is, self-defense), there would be
a point to it.  But the reality seems to be that the vast majority of husbands
who kill their wives don't do so in self-defense but because the wife
"displeased" them somehow. 

I agree 100% with George that we need to teach both our sons and our 
daughters that violence is wrong.  Fred's "open season" is really more for
everyone - you can get blown away on the highway just for passing "the wrong
car", or for wearing a nice leather jacket, or for working at McDonalds.
What's wrong with this picture?

Rather than taking umbrage at a so-far-still-unusual piece of the growing
violent trend in our society, we should work at teaching respect for each
other as human beings.  This is how the violence will stop.

					Steve

    
    
    Andreas,
    
    > coz they were programmed by malicious women, is that it? :-)
    
      Calm yourself Andreas,it was a real question, not a rhetorical. :-)
    
    
    David

        re .91

    Although the instance of husband-killing is not as frequent as women
    being killed, the common defense for killing ones husband has become
    the "battered wife" defense.  More often than not it seems to work.
    In the the other case I posted here, THE DA DIDN'T EVEN PRESS CHARGES.
    In the newspaper report of the second case, it appears that she was
    extremely drunk and agitated.  He tried to stop her from driving, and
    she ran him over,  SHE WAS RELEASED FROM CUSTODY ON RECOMMENDATION
    OF THE DA PENDING INVESTIGATION.  Were you assuming she was trying
    to escape his brutal beating?

    When was the last time you saw a "battered husband" defense?  If there
    ever was one, it probably got laughed out of court.  Now we get Mr. 
    Soule talking about "provoked" women.  He even goes so far as to 
    attempt to suggest that I "provoke" _my_ wife,  while I've seen in 
    these notes files what happens to a man who even dares to suggested 
    that an incidence of domestic violence was because he was "provoked". 

    fred();

.90>  So now you want to get personal?  You _assume_ that I "provoke" my
.90>  wife?  You couldn't be further from the truth.

      First, my apologies...  I had hoped the questions were phrased in a
      rhetorical manner, not directed to you, per se, but to the general
      Mennotes community.  Guess I failed, will try to do better...

.90>  Once again you provide us with a perfect example of the kind of
.90>  hypocrisy I've been fighting for years.

      I wouldn't call it hypocrisy as much as living by a different "code"...

.90>  What if she "provokes" me?  

      And this, my friend, is the whole gist...  I (and a few other readers,
      I gather) try to live life so as NOT to be "provoked", and, to NOT
      "provoke".  This way of life tastes so good that it's hard to understand
      how Men could be otherwise.  Yup, some of you guys have been through
      the wringer and I find it almost impossible to identify with you.  In
      trying to do so, I fail BIG time.  

      Fred, a couple of times you have pointed out to me my "blind spot" with
      regard to finding fault with only the Men...  I acknowledge this and
      plead GUILTY!  You see, were I to be in the situations you posted, I 
      would probably blame myself...  Non-provocatives don't let things 
      escalate so I would have had to have done something really stupid (like
      jump in front of a car) to end up dead...  

      So, being "provoked" (into violence or lust) is just not in My 
      definition of what it is to be a Man, thus, it's no excuse.
      Unfortunately/fortunately, I judge other Men by this code...

    re .94
    
    Thanks, Don, appologies accepted.  I probably come across in notes
    a lot more intense than I am in real life.  I _can_ relate to the
    non-violence, non-provocation bit, I've been there.  They say that
    there's nothing worse than a reformed alcoholic and in a way I
    fit that discription.  I took _all_ the responsibility for _everything_
    that happened because I really bought into the non-violence bit.
    I always thought I was big enought to just _absorb_ the b.s. without
    responding--then I got ran throught the grinder.  My anger stems not 
    so much from what happened to me as from what happened to my kids 
    because of the ingrained "poor female" bias that I faced.  
    
    I am one lucky %$#@, because my wife has walked beside me through
    a good portion of the b.s.  She understands where I'm comming 
    from, even supports me, because she's seen it first hand.  And
    yes I do get a bit touch when someone suggests that she is the
    type that would put up with any "provocation".  Sorry if I come
    across too strongly on that account.  I also come from a family
    that has strong belief about what is right and what is wrong
    and what one should do about it.  So when these things come up
    I tend to "saddle rozinante" and go tilting at windmills.
    
    As for my daughters, I tell them that they should never falsely
    accuse anyone.  There may sometime come a day when your integrity
    is all you have.  I also tell them that if they ever _are_ are
    attacked in a life-or-death situation that they should hurt him/her
    _bad_.  They are both in self defense training and are quite 
    capable of doing so.  He may not die, but he is likely to walk
    with a limp or talk in a falseto the rest of his life ;^).
    
    fred();

> I took _all_ the responsibility for _everything_ that happened because I 
> really bought into the non-violence bit. I always thought I was big enought 
> to just _absorb_ the b.s. without responding--then I got ran throught the 
> grinder.  

i can sure as hell relate to that fred() - my ex was extremely bad tempered and
violent, she used to just black out - whilst i'd remain calm, as the children
were around as well. my eldest daughter witnessed alot of this action and one
day as her mum threw another fit (throwing the whole dinner at the wall) she
said to her mum, as her mum put her to bed, "you know mum, dad's not afraid of 
you". the fact that her own daughter saw her as such an ill-tempered person 
really got my ex thinking in her soft moments.

fact is, that my daughter began to suffer under the situation and i realised
it was best for all of us to end the relationship. we didn't have mutual custody
in the courts then, the kids went to the mother by default, which meant i'd 
lose the kids unless i could prove that my wife was insane. she threatened 
repeatedly that she'd kill me if i tried to take the kids from her. there 
wasn't a real chance anyway, such as the law was at the time. needless to say 
that in the divorce trial i was portrayed as a vile, violent etc. husband 
- the court didn't buy that theory though.

with all that violence fred(), i did later wonder, if, during the marriage, 
i should have been just rough to my ex, shut her up and set her straight, 
you can probably relate to that. well i never did, that's just not me. i sure 
know though, if ever i get into such a situation again, i am not going to hang 
around that long to try and make it work.


andreas.

    re .87
    
    Sorry about that, I always get them corn-fused.
    
    Steve

    .95 And if you had done it, they might have dragged you out by the
    heals to the poky for doing heinous things. And branded you the
    vile villian. And that is what Fred is trying to point out.
    
    Sorry it has happened to you and your children.

thanks george, next one's for you ;-)

    Next one is for you too!;)

we're getting seriously off track here, george, or have we pressed all juice
out of this topic? :-)

andreas.

    Fred you are right, you seldom see men in a "self-defense" on spousal
    murder.  Intead they use "the witch[sic] deserved it" defense around
    here, and a significant number of men get less than 7 years using this
    defense.
    
    meg

    
    re. 102

    Care to reference a case where "the witch deserved it" was used as
    a defense.  "Battered husband", as I said, would get laughed out
    of court.

    Last time I checked, seven years is still a whole bunch more than
    zero.  

    Meg,  I've never denied that these things happen to women.  I've
    repeatedly stated that I do not support such behavior.  However,
    you still seem to be stuck in the "it only happens to women" mode.
    Such attitudes do not win many points.  The hypocrisy is so blatant
    as to turn people away.  False accusation, IMHO, is one of the
    most heinous of all crimes.  It not only hurts the immediate victim
    of the false accusation, it eventually starts to raise suspicion
    against real victims.  As I said before, there comes a time when
    integrity is all you have.

    fred();

> False accusation, IMHO, is one of the most heinous of all crimes.  

false accusations should be easily uncovered before a court in a fair and
just legal system.

do you doubt the courts aren't doing their jobs?

if they do, as they should, we should be looking at statistics of legal cases 
to settle this, ie. whether i) "it (violence in relationships) only happens to 
women" or ii) "it happens mostly to women" or iii) "it happens as often to 
women as it happens to men"

speaking for my neck of the woods, option (ii), is the front runner.


andreas.

    Colorado,
    
    man used the fact that he was overcome by the fact that his wife was
    leaving him to kill her as a defense.  Judge's sentence was 2 1/2 years
    with work release so he could support his children.
    
    Another used this same defense to get off on criminaly negligent
    homicide when he murdered his ex-wife's boyfriend 3 YEARS after the
    divorce was final.  He got 180 days ISP and then 2 years normal
    probation, and was awarded JOINT PHYSICAL custody of the children when 
    his 180 days were up.
    
    Word is that OJ might try this defense.

        re .104

>if they do, as they should, we should be looking at statistics of legal cases 
>to settle this, ie. whether i) "it (violence in relationships) only happens to 
>women" or ii) "it happens mostly to women" or iii) "it happens as often to 
>women as it happens to men"

    More like iii).  Violence against husbands is rarely reported (remember
    the "men are supposed to be big enough and strong enough and tough
    tough enough to just _take_ it).  Also note that we are dealing with
    other forms of abuse than just violence.

    But why does this need to be a mutually exclusive problem.  That's
    the problem I have with the whole thing.  It's been made a separate
    problem with only the women's side being represented.  Can you say
    "hypocrisy"?   The attitude seems to be "Women are made of sugar
    and spice and everything nice and couldn't possibly do anything bad
    and couldn't possibly do any of these things.  So let's focus only
    on the men, and since women are inherently honest, lets just take
    their word for anything they claim happens".

    The "it only happens to women" is being used as an excuse to
    propose some extreme severe remedies.  One female congress-person 
    tried to attach an amendment to the "crime" bill that would allow 
    the _husband_ to be locked up for 24 hours in the _first_ claim 
    of offense by the female.  Think of it. No trial, no proof, thrown 
    in jail on _just_ her say-so.  Another constitutional right down 
    the tubes.  It didn't get in (I don't' think, but who knows just 
    what _is_ in that thing). 

    fred();

    re. 105
    
    Still more than the last two I sited got.
    
    fred();

    The issue around false acusations is that in the divorce courts in the
    US, much of it is fluffed off. And the man is villianized thru the
    entire proceedings. And I have mentioned the man who has had his truck
    set on fire, his mail tampered with, his phone tampered with. All
    Federal offences. But, NO one, will get involved because it has been a
    marrital disute. When the hell is it not? He had been divorced from his
    ex for 5 years? And insofar as seeing his kids. Well the youngest
    daughter has not been seen about 4-5 years. 

    
    The "trump" card in divorce proceedings has become _accusation_
    of child abuse/child molestation.  The courts take a "we can't
    take the the chance that this _might_ even be true" attitude.
    The flip side is that some accusations have been so blatant that
    some judges are starting to treat _all_ accusations with 
    suspicion.

    Who is the biggest victim when the accusation is true and is
    treated with suspicion?  It is the same as when the accusation
    is false.  The man, no!  The woman, no!  IT'S THE CHILDREN STUPID!!

    It bears repeating:  Sometimes all you have is your integrity--
    protect it.

    If the Democrats would say, "We won't put up with this *bleep* even
    from a Democrat", and give Bill Clinton the heave-ho, they'd win the
    next election in a walkover.  The same if women would say, "We 
    won't tolerate this behavior even from women.  Especially false
    accusation", then they'd get a lot more support on things that
    really are "women's" problems.

    fred();

.106> But why does this need to be a mutually exclusive problem.  That's
.106> the problem I have with the whole thing.  

why not look at it from an men point of view? ie. from situations that men 
often find themselves in.


.108> The issue around false acusations is that in the divorce courts in the
.108> US, much of it is fluffed off. And the man is villianized thru the
.108> entire proceedings.

if by statistical fact or (as it appears to be the case today) merely by a 
commonly held prejudice, violence in relationships is seen as to be coming 
mostly from men, then there is, today, a lot of pressure on an individual man 
in court, when faced with false accusations of violence. and this is additional 
pressure to the already existing emotional strain of going through the divorce
faced with the prospect of losing the children. the guy is placed at a 
disadvantage from the start and if under such circumstances he succumbs to the 
pressure and lashes out emotionally, the case is lost for certain. it's a 
tough call, but the only chance for getting a fair trial in this situation is 
to keep a level head. as fred() says, your own integrity and the concern for 
your children is all you have at this point.


.109> The flip side is that some accusations have been so blatant that
.109> some judges are starting to treat _all_ accusations with suspicion.    
    
this is what i meant in .84, that men _are_ easy targets for false accusations
if they are preceived as being most often the violent part, and women shrewd
enough to exploit this perception will make false accusations and it is the
responsibility of the courts to take a man's vulnerability to such false 
accusations into account. 
now how to prove this vulnerability? if there were figures (i mean hard facts 
such as based on case statistics and not 'hidden' figures based on assumptions 
of instances of violence which are not brought to the public eye) which proved 
that in most cases, violence in relationships does indeed come from men, then 
this would underline an indivdual man's vulneralibility to false accusations 
in court - and the courts would be obliged to treat such accusations of 
violence with suspicion.


it cannot be in anybody's interest that court rulings are based on false
accusations, be they from women or from men.



andreas.

        Heard on the news (WBZ radio BOSTON) that Abraham Lincoln was very
    likely an abused husband. They went on to say that Mary Lincoln was
    known to strike her husband and throw things at him. To the point of
    oftentimes drawing blood. His decsion to enter politics may have been
    soley to get him a breather from his wife...
    
    bob

    There was a Tom West, who took his life several years ago. His wife, at
    the time, was a homemaker, or domestic engineer. And she took martial
    arts. Black belt. He would come home, after a days work to a nightly
    thrashing from his wife. He complained to the Exeter NH police. They,
    of course, laughed at him. And he filed for a divorce. Somehow, it got
    real messy from this point, he winds up taking a job in Washington
    State during the proceedings. And it doesnt look good for him as the
    case goes. The judge is upset because he is now out of state, on advice
    from his attorny. Needless to say, the stress was too great for him.
    And ended his life over it.
    
    He left the house fearing for his life. He was denied visitation
    of his children as well. I am not certain the reasons. But, I think it
    was that she did not want the divorce.......

For some real statistics on women killing their husbands, see note 432.3
in QUARK::MENNOTES-V1.  It's apparently about as common as men killing
their wives.

re .-1, a most enlightening report, thanks for the pointer.


andreas.