Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    several weeks ago, I was dining out with my family and SO, and my
    sister told me a story about something she encountered in Providence
    the previous weekend.  She was picking up friends on her way to
    church, several of whom lived in a "not nice" neighborhood.  On
    her way up the stairs in a tenement, she encountered a young woman
    waving a court order at a man who refused to leave.  They were arguing
    in the hall at top volume.  Emily went downstairs quickly to the
    car, and retrieved her two 6' tall male friends, who put on their
    "state trooper mirrored" sunglasses.  They stood in that hallway
    until the man left the woman alone.  At that point they asked if
    she was okay, and she said yes, thank you.
    
    What struck me was how difficult it must be to help in such situations
    - how to intrude effectively without risking physical harm to anyone.
    
    That very night, walking back to MIT with my SO, we encountered
    a man beating a woman up in a parking lot.  There was also a child
    screaming (maybe 4 or 5 years old).  The child was merely scared.
     The woman screamed at the man to give her child back, and the man
    beat her about the head, smacked her into a few cars...etc.  To
    her credit she hit back, and my SO and I stood for a few seconds
    before he ran off to get help.  After a nearby restaurant called
    in the "domestic violence", we stood by waiting for help to arrive.
     At one point, the man dragged the child off, and we asked the woman
    if she wanted some help, and told her the police were on their way.
     She screamed she just wanted him to leave her child alone.  To
    their credit, 4 police cars arrived within five minutes, I directed
    them towards where the couple had gone, and the man was caught still
    harassing the woman.  As they stood by the police cars, the woman
    was still sobbing, the child crying loudly, the man now silenced.
     
    I was surprised I had the courage to get involved.  And I didn't
    get hurt, although their physical fight came within several feet
    of me after my SO had gone to make the call.  I was willing to testify
    as a witness, if that was required, but the police watched us walk
    away, and we assumed her bruises and the police's intervention were
    testimony enough.  I know that, sadly, some women go back to that
    situation, particularly if the woman is financially dependent on
    the man, but perhaps this was the one chance she needed to break
    free.
    
    Don't hesitate to call the police if you see a serious domestic
    squabble.  You may save a life.
    
    -Jody
    

    
    A woman is battered every 18 SECONDS in this country.
    
    I saw the same show as well as another this morning (Donahue, I
    think).  One point that was made is that immediate intervention
    and jailing of the batterer, even if it is just overnight, is a
    major deterent to repeated violence in first-time cases.  Unfortunately
    this doesn't usually happen as the participants (police and even
    victim) still view this as a "domestic" matter, not a crime.

    <-1
    
    Thanks for the correction...it's worse than I thought.
    
    MaggiT

    Great - so if my (at this time imaginary) wife goes to the police
    and says I hit her, I get thrown in jail even if there's no evidence
    but her word?  Abuse of any kind is bad, but I worry a lot about
    those who forget about "innocent until proven guilty".
    
    Also, the statistics on reported abuse of men by women may indeed
    be very low, but the actual rates are apparently much higher, for
    reasons that should be obvious to anyone.
    
    I think the key point is indeed to get "domestic violence" regarded
    as a crime just as serious as any other physical assault, but with
    the same safeguards against unjustfied accusations.  The women AND
    MEN who get battered need support - for themselves and for their
    families.  There are far too many cases of judges simply turning
    a blind eye to violence, with often tragic results.
    
    				Steve

    <-1
    
    It is not that easy to prove that one has been abused.  One can
    not be thrown into jail without evidence to prove that an attack
    has taken place.  It is very diffucult to get a restraining order
    and once that has been obtained it is hard to enforce.  If the order
    has been violated the police have to 'see the violation' of the
    order or other witness besides the mentioned parties.
    
    Men may not report cases of 'battering' for whatever reason.  If
    they did the stats would still not match up..Women are the victims
    of domestic violence in greater numbers.
    
    With respect to 'domestic violence', women who have posession of
    a 'writ' restraining their SO,husband or whatever have a diffucult
    time getting a response from the police to enforce it.  A women
    in the Boston area was killed becaluse the judge refused to issue
    a writ...makes one think that domestic violence is 'sanctioned'
    by society...Do men or women have an implied right to injure a loved
    one?
    
    MaggieT

    Women are battered and abused generally MUCH MORE THAN MEN. Certainly,
    no-one *should* be treated this way, but I get extremely annoyed
    at the common occurrence of, as soon as the subject of battered
    women comes up, it isn't long before somebody says "Well, MEN are
    battered too, so the issue is about battered *people*"
    
    Women are *overwhelmingly* the battered - changing the focus serves
    to scatter the energy. No matter how often this subject is brought
    up, it seems we don't make headway. Perhaps as women become more
    "uppity" we will be increasingly physically abused.
    
    Steve, the police don't (often) do a whole (*%^^& of a lot, even
    if your (imaginary) wife goes to them with bad bruises and broken
    bones. Please don't worry about being thrown in jail if she has
    no marks at all. 
    
    The "justice" system is not helping this situation. Very recently
    (last month? maybe June?) a women was ordered by the court to return
    her child and herself to her husband's house. This guy has been
    so abusive to her, her child, and her parents that they are all
    in fear of their lives. A few years ago a woman wanted legal action
    to keep her ex-husband from abusing her. The court did nothing.
    He killed her.
    
    Dawn
    

    I think Steve's main point is well-taken, though, and we shouldn't lose
    sight of it:  we need to ensure that "domestic violence" is treated
    *SERIOUSLY* by the police and the courts, no matter who the victim, no
    matter what their socioeconomic standing, no matter what.  
    
    Violence is violence, in the home or out of it, and we *ALL* need to
    work toward getting rid of police and court officials who can't or
    won't understand that simple fact. 
    
    						=maggie

    How does that follow, Bob?

    Re .8:
    
    I'd settle for arrest and confinement in accordance with "the rights
    of the accused and the normal rules of evidence" as they are currently
    applied to crimes such as mugging and assault and battery of a
    stranger.  However, all too often, because it is viewed as a private,
    family problem, NO action is taken.
    
    By rules of evidence I hope you don't mean requiring a witness.
    It used to be (in many states) that to successfully arrest and
    prosecute for rape the victim had to have witnesses to the crime.
    "Sorry, fella, the physical evidence isn't enough...why you might
    have agreed to wander off into the bushes..."

	Another point of interest here is that police hate to go on 
	domestic violence calls. This is one of the calls that results
	more "cop killings" than others. 

	I used to work for a orthopedic surgeon and we had a couple that
	were regulars with broken bones from their family brawls. One day
	they came in and told us (as they hugged and cuddled) that in the
	last fight the woman had taken pot-shots at the man with a handgun.
	They were laughing about how she couldn't hit him and instead
	ruined several cans of vegetables. Sick minds find strange amusements.

	liesl

    <--(.12)
    "    just tossing men into jail on a womans sayso without
    evidence is a crime as well."
     
    um, who is doing that, Bob?  Who has even *suggested* doing that??
    
    						=maggie 

    	>any woman with a yen for revenge can make the accusation 
	>and put any man away. 

	This kind of argument has kept women *in* battering relationships
	for centuries.  
    
    	I think current laws would probably be sufficient to manage this 
    	problem *if* they were only enforced.  A person who is being
    	battered should be (*easily*) able to get a restraining 
	order to have the batterer removed.  The restraining order should 
	be enforced, and batterers who violate them should then be jailed.

	Restraining orders are temporary.  Their purpose is to allow the 
	victim some element of safety while she (and 99+% of the time
	it is a she!!) figures out what she is going to do.  I think more
	women would leave battering situations sooner, if they believed 
	they could have a safe "get-away" period, and if they believed that
	a batterer would be punished for repeat offenses.  Those of you who
	worry about the rights of the "alleged" batterers would probably 
	be amazed at how many repeat episodes there are.  

	To those of you who honestly believe that women would "make up" 
	stories of abuse in order to have their husbands jailed:
	please consider that it is such a traumatic thing to labelled a 
	victim of abuse that very few true victims ever come forward.  I 
	think it's highly unlikely that someone would claim to be a
	victim when she's not because that's not an enviable position
	to be in.  It is a humiliating thing to admit that a person
    	that you loved and who (you thought) loved you could beat you.
      
    	
	Justine

    
    I think this whole discussion points out one common problem
    with our present judicial system. Victims don't *really* have rights!
    
    I think that Mr. Holt also has a good point in that the evidence
    had better be there before you start incarcerating people.
    
    Maggie correctly points out that we must not allow this to
    continue. I personally don't know what to do. It seems that
    the people that run our judicial system are the least accountable
    for their actions. We can always vote someone out of office but
    what do we do with judges that refuse to recognize that this is
    a valid issue and act accordingly (as had been mentioned in
    earlier entries).
    
    As with many other issues I seem to have more questions than answers.

    The main thing that has to be done to get the abuse to stop is to
    get the victim out of the house, and get counseling for all parties
    (man, woman, and children).  This does not mean that we have to
    always put them in jail.  If the abuser refuses to get help, then
    maybe put him (or her) in jail.  BTW, I put in the (or her) because
    in talking with people who work in shelters, you would be amazed
    at the number of lesbians who are abused by their lover.  For probably
    the same reasons that most hetero abused men don't do anything,
    very few gay men come in for help.  It's not always men who are
    the abusers, but still, women are overwhelmingly the victims.
    Some of the stories these women have to tell are incredible.
    
    The other thing is EDUCATION.  Women need to find out that shelters
    exist, that they can in all likelihood get out, get a divorce, and keep
    their children.  A woman I know suffered years of abuse, and finally
    got out after her youngest child was 18 because he had somehow
    convinced her that she was an unfit mother and he could easily get the
    court to award him custody, and she would never see her children again.
    BTW, he abused the children as well.  She needed to know that there was
    help available to her.  There are other women who believe that it is a
    husband's right to beat or rape her - that she deserved it, and that
    all men do.  I don't know how to deal with women who get out, to
    a shelter, get the man put in jail, then for some reason decide
    they 'love' him, and go back, only to have more abuse.
    
    A question to the people who are concerned about the rights of the
    alleged abuser - are children viable witnesses?  If so, at what
    age?  And what about if they feel guilty because they believe that
    they have caused the divorce of their parents, or because they put
    Daddy in jail?
    
    Elizabeth

    <-1
    
    The problem is not only the need to educate people about this issue
    it is to fight the fear.  When one is terrorized it is hard to be
    objective about what options are available.  I agree that lesbians
    can victimize their lovers.  It is hard to get statistics on this
    type of battering.
    
    I agree that one of the largest frustrations in dealing with battering
    is when the wife or SO (male or female) goes back to the partner.
    I think intense therapy is the only way to stop the abuse. There
    are issues of the mind or self perception that can feed this kind
    of destructive relationship.  Women get beaten down in all areas
    of their lives in this kind of relationship...Sometimes the fears
    of being independent of not being trained to work, feed into a woman
    going back into a battering relationship.  In my experience, my
    husband could be very compelling, and contrite.  Hope springs eternal,
    we want things to be better, to workout.  The equation that
    Love=violence needs to be educated against.  
    
    MaggieT  

    What I find upsetting about some (all?) of the male responses to
    this note is that, first of all, everybody knows that battered wives
    are a legitimate, real problem in our society, everybody should
    know that we (our society) needs to find answers to decrease this
    problem.  In proportion to the number of men who physically abuse
    their wives, there are probably hardly any men being physically
    abused by wives or gay lovers, or lesbians physically abusing one
    another.  I'm not saying there aren't any, but I bet nothing like
    the numbers of husbands beating on wives (all thru history, once
    it was even legal!).  But, the minute women start trying to discuss
    this problem (which has so many aspects to discuss - why do women
    stay, why are men so violent, what is available to help battered
    women, and how can laws be changed to help) - the first thing men
    can think of to say are things like, well, women could lie and say
    their husbands beat them and then get innocent guys thrown in jail
    (how many women who have husbands who *don't* beat them want to
    step forward and say that they *do* beat them?!) or else point out
    that in lesbian relationships women sometimes abuse each other.
     *Flame*  It really kind of pisses me off to hear men saying stuff
    like this when women are trying to sincerely discuss the problem
    of battered wives!!!  *Flame off*
    
    Lorna
    

    
    
    I totally agree with Lorna  (one more and it is a movement).
    
    This is a issue that needs to be addressed by women for women
    and supportive men may listen but not speak (HIGH FLAME) because
    I have had enough of men telling me how I should feel about this
    issue (lower flame) and I am sick and tired of it. (flame off)
    
    _peggy
    		(-)
    		 |	A woman's space is her holy place.
    

    At the risk of speaking at an inappropriate time, I'd like to
    ask a question.  I have an in-law who is in an abuse situation 
    and when we talk, I've tried to indicate that maybe she should
    get out, get a restraining order, get some counseling help
    (for herself, understanding that the gorilla she married "ain't
    got no problem. . .don't need no damned doctor. . .", etc.).
    
    I find I'm a little frustrated because her usual response is
    along the lines of "Yes, I guess I should leave, but. . .) and
    I end up thinking that I somehow didn't say the right words to
    "get through" her objections.
    
    So my question is, are there any words that folks have heard,
    read, or whatever that have been particularly compelling in terms
    of getting the battered individual out of "stuck" mode?  
    
    Thanks in advance for any help on this one.
    
    Steve (who now returns to listen mode)
    

 	About the issue of counseling for all involved in abuse:

	First of all, the recovery rate for men who batter is currently
	estimated at somewhere below 2%, so hoping that therapy will
	make him stop may lead to disappointment.  It seems that some
	highly motivated men who seek therapy may go one to form new
	relationships in which they do not batter, but it's very difficult
	to rebuild a relationship once violence has occurred.

	About therapy for women who have been abused...  If you are close
	to a woman who has been abused, it may seem to you that the best 
	thing for her to do is to seek therapy.  But I would urge you to
	exercise extreme caution before suggesting it to her.  Victims
	of wife abuse have often been told that they are crazy.  They
	have been drugged and institutionalized at the request of their
	batterers and with the approval of the state (and sometimes the
	church) for centuries!!  A lot of the shelters/support groups for
	battered women use a self help model and encourage peer counseling
	but seldom recommend therapy to a woman who has been battered.
	The key (I think) is to be a resource without being a judge, to 
	help a woman discover her own options without giving her advice.
	These are tough things to do, but I think they are important.
   
        Most women who leave their batterers do so only after having
        left and gone back at least once before.  If you have never
        been in a situation like this before (or maybe even if you have),
    	it may be difficult to understand why women stay.  But those
    	of us who are working in the battered women's movement hope
    	that women will find support not only *after* they leave
    	their batterers but also while they're in that situation and
    	trying to find the resources to leave.
	
    	Justine
        

    I reject being told to shut up.  If you want my support and my
    cooperation in solving this absolutely real and terrible problem,
    you'll have to listen to my opinions as well.  If you insist that
    I'm an ogre, well then, why should I try to show you otherwise?
    
    What I see in some of these responses is a lynch-mob type approach
    to the problem.  Can we work TOGETHER to ensure the safety of
    battered women without resorting to name-calling and nose-thumbing?
    Telling fairy tales isn't going to make the problem disappear, no
    matter how hard you wish, no matter how loud you clap your hands.
    Tinkerbell is fiction - this is reality.  Wake up and smell the
    coffee, as Ann Landers would say.

    Maggie Tarbet saw the point in my earlier reply.  It wasn't "Well,
    men get battered too so it's ok that women are battered."  My point
    was that domestic violence needs to be taken seriously by our
    society.  A secondary point was that domestic violence is NOT
    entirely against women, and any solution needs to take that into
    account.  We need education of our public officials and law
    enforcement officers.  We need more widely available support
    of all sorts for those that are battered.  We need the judicial
    system to recognize that the problems won't be solved by telling
    a couple to "kiss and make up".  What are we going to do about
    that?
    		
    		Steve, who is not about to roll over and play dead

    Re: .19 .20 .21
    
    Are we reading the same notes? I do not see any justification
    for theses replies. I went back and re-read the entries by men and
    fail to see what you are refering to.
    
    I made an entry in this note because I too agree that battering
    of people is unacceptable. I expected to be engaged in a rational
    discussion and hoped we might be able to come up with possible
    solutions. 
    
    Back to the subject....has data been accumulated to show that battering
    is passed down from generation to generation? Is there a "typical"
    profile for a person with a propensity towards this behavior?
    Anyone know?
    				Thanks

    HELP WANTED:	SHELTER MANAGER
    
    Within battered women's program. Responsibilities include over-all
    management of shelter, hotline staffing and shelter staff supervision.
    Experience with working with women in crisis and in management
    required.  Send resume by Sept. 11 to Executive Director Women's
    Resources, P.O. Box 911, Fitchburg, MA 01420
    
    E.O.E.

    	I was astonished at the figures. If more than 50% of U.S. women
    get battered, then that means something around 50% of U.S. men are
    wife beaters. (yes, I know that a few wife batterers may have several
    marriages, but equally a few women may marry several batterers in
    turn, so it probably cancels)
    
    	Does anyone have any figures for any other countries? Having
    lived in England and France I don't remember having seen any statistics
    for those countries, so I had assumed it was rather rare. The only
    case I have known personally is my sister.
    
    	She was a policeman, and married one of her "customers". Before
    they were married he already had 30 convictions, including assault
    and battery, robbery with violence, etc... I thought that this was
    an understandably rare case. Even then, I don't think he hit her
    for the first 5 years of their marriage.
    
    	Or is the "typical profile" asked for in .25 just U.S. male?
    :-)

    	Discussions about domestic violence can be controversial
    	and difficult.
    
    	I'd like to make a special request that we all try especially
    	hard to keep the flames down (from all sides) out of respect
    	for the readers of this conference who have personally
    	experienced physical abuse from a lover/spouse/SO (of either
    	sex) and who may still be *involved* in an abusive relationship.
    
    	If the statistics we've seen here are anywhere close, we most
    	likely have more victims reading these notes than we might
    	imagine.
    
    	Let's try to keep things calm, ok?

    When I was 17, my best friend, Patsy, was just beginning to get
    beat up by her boyfriend.  While she saw it as unpleasant, her parents
    were always fighting, and some of that violence spilled over onto
    her (she got hit alot), so it wasn't very strange to her.
    
    _I_ thought it was horrific, but never passed any judgement on her
    (and never told her what I thought of her father or boyfriend).
     I _did_ yell at her about not using birth control with Tod, and
    dragged her off to Planned Parenthood (along with a depressingly
    large crew of girls from work who were in the same boat.  My dad
    thought we were going to Vermont to buy liquor, but it was birth
    control).
    
    While we were there, I picked up some pamphlets on battered women.
    They described a cycle which perpetuates abuse.  For you who have
    _ever_ been hit, or scared of being hit, PLEASE read this.  I am
    not saying you should get out -- that is _your_ choice, not mine
    -- I am simply saying that you may find the following very familiar.
    This is a very complex problem, and you may find this helps you
    to understand what is going on.  My friend Patsy and I talked a
    lot about it, and I like to think that I had a hand -- albeit
    indirectly -- in her moving out of her home.  She left her lover,
    and moved into her own apartment which is very hard to do for someone
    from a poor/blue-collar upbringing -- the only way for a young woman
    to leave such a home is to do so with a boyfriend or husband and
    she had neither at the time.
    
    One Cycle of Abuse:
    
    Stage I:
    
    Growing tension.  The woman has seen this before -- soon there will
    be a blow-up, and he will get violent.  The longer the tension,
    the worse the violence when he finally blows, and she knows this.
    If she tiptoes around him for a long time, when she finally gets
    him mad, he will _really_ hurt her, maybe leave marks or broken
    bones.  After a while, she learns to pick a fight whenever she feels
    this tension happening.  Maybe that way, he'll only yell.  Also,
    the sooner the fight, the sooner it is over with.
    
    Stage II:
    
    She or one of the children triggers him.  If it is the children,
    she has to figure out how to get his attention away from them. 
    Sometimes she triggers him so as to prevent the kids from doing
    it.  This way, _she_ bears the brunt of it, not the kids.
    
    It's a bad fight, and she says "I've had it."  She may only say
    this to herself as she doesn't really see how she could prevent
    it or walk out on him.  _She_ knows once an abuser, always an abuser.
   
    
    Stage III:
    
    They make up.  He is contrite, often horrified at what happened.
     How could he have hurt her?  He loves her!  How could he live without
    her?  Why did he hit her?  She is sorry too.  _She_ knows how bad
    he can get when he's mad, the fight was her fault too.  He says
    he'll never do it again, she says she'll stop picking fights, they
    both try to make a go of it.  She has forgotten what she told herself
    just a little while ago, that it will happen again.  They both honestly
    believe it won't happen again, that they are in love, and it _can_
    work between them.  They are both shocked at what happened and the
    SHOCK is what they make up over -- they never address the issue that
    started the fight.  _That_ problem is still there, however large
    or small, left to fester.
    
    Stage IV:
    
    Bed of Roses
    
    This lasts for an indefinite amount of time.  They are both really
    lovey-dovey, just like when they first met.  It is an incredibly
    happy time, and almost always happens only AFTER a fight.  She knows
    this subconsciously, and is often relieved that a fight is going
    to start, because the end of tension will eventually lead to this
    bliss.
    
    Stage I starts again as tension begins to build up.  They both begin
    to know the ritual of fighting to renew their happiness, and it
    is incredibly seductive.  It is very easy to say tha a woman should
    leave after the first time she is hit, but it is not that easy, because
    right AFTER that first time, they are very happy; their love has
    been tested and found to "conquer all."  It is similarly difficult
    after they have been through the cycle a few times, because she
    feels guilty at starting the fight: "yes he hit me, but I deserved
    it by picking on him when he was down."  What she has to realize
    is that she picked on him KNOWING that it was going to happen sooner
    or later, and sooner might mean yelling and later might mean something
    REALLY bad.  Starting fights has become a survival instinct with
    her, but her feelings of guilt have kept her from seeing clearly.
    
    This description really hit home for me because I saw it happen
    over and over to my best friend.  She only left Tod after she started
    to see through the cycle: she wasn't so happy about the "Bed of
    Roses" because she knew she couldn't be there with him unless they
    had a BEEEEEG fight first.  She felt less guilty about starting
    fights: "yeah, I started it.  So WHAT!?!?!?  MOST people can fight
    without hitting each other!"  When he came round to make up, she
    stopped allowing them to drop the issue that started the fight in
    the first place, and he'd get pissed off without getting to spend
    a week or two in the Bed of Roses.
    
    When she had compared her experience to this "cycle" that some stranger
    wrote, without knowing him or her or their particular situation,
    she was free, finally, to say, "what's wrong with me? NOTHING!"
    
    That took a long time (2-3 years is a very long time when you're
    <20 years old).  She would not let anyone "badmouth" Tod, and if
    anyone told her to dump him, she'd stop listening.  It was something
    SHE had to do.
    
    She was lucky.  She was strong, and had friends who loved her. 
    She didn't know this until she finally left, but we had been there
    for her all along.  The stink her parents put up both when she left
    Tod and when she moved out of their house was not to be believed.
    
    I firmly believe EVERY woman has the strength that Patsy had.  If
    our "advantage" is that we form strong relationships easily, then
    ANY woman can make the friends she needs to help her through a time
    like that.  All it takes is talking.  Agreed, talking about it is
    hard, but you CAN do it.
    
    Lee

    	RE:  .30
    
    	Either you've been meeting the wrong women or you are reading
    	the messages wrong.
    
    	Speaking as a former victim of domestic violence, I can honestly
    	say that when my husband used physical violence against me,
    	I saw him (during those episodes) as something quite CONTRARY
    	to what *I* would consider "manly."
    
    	Please don't suggest to us that *WE* are all to blame for the
    	widespread physical abuse of women by husbands/SO's (and that
    	we have somehow "ASKED FOR IT.")
    
    	That's *PRECISELY* what spousal abusers *LOVE* to say in their
    	own defense, and it's a bunch of horse puckey.  [No offense.]
    
    							Suzanne...

    <--(.30)
    
    Bob, I would certainly agree with Suzanne's assessment.  Either you've
    been associating with some *sick* women or you've been led to believe a
    lie.  
    
    The preferred way to break off with someone with whom you don't "click"
    is to "let them down easy"; that may have been what you were hearing,
    because from your notes you certainly seem [to me] a responsible,
    intelligent, thoughtful, caring person...but very conservative.
    
    						=maggie

    Re .30, in my opinion witty, intelligent conversation, and a wide
    range of interests is what keeps a man from being boring - not a
    punch in the face!!!
    
    Lorna
    

    Because this  issue  is historically a non-problem, for which it's hard
    to  come  up  with general solutions, and because this is so personally
    painful for some, it's critical to exercise extreme sensitivity in this
    discussion.

    Here's something that worked for me:

    Back in  the  early  70's,  MS magazine published a cover story on wife
    abuse.  I read the article and took it with me when we visited friends.
    I  discussed  it  at  the  bridge  table.  Bad idea. She didn't want to
    discuss  it,  he  was ticked off. She tried to assure me that it was an
    issue  only  between the two people involved, neighbors had no right to
    intrude,  call  the  police or anything of the sort unless the children
    were being abused. I (never known for my delicacy in discussing current
    events  or  politics), persisted in the conversation on a "theoretical"
    level. We went on to talk of other things. But what happened was that a
    seed was planted. I let my friend know she could always count on me for
    whatever  she  needed.  She  stayed  with  him for a couple more years,
    kicked him out, took him back, left him for good. If she needed a place
    to  stay,  she came to me. I lied if he called. She got away. She's now
    happy  and proud of making it on her own - raising her kids and holding
    down a great job and dreaming dreams of what she wants to do next.  

    She had  to come to the conclusion that no one had the right to do that
    to  anyone.  That he had no right to do it to her. That she hadn't done
    anything to deserve it.  

    I bought  her  books,  didn't press, talked when she wanted to. She has
    now  decided that if she sees a woman in a battering situation, she has
    the  obligation  to  speak  out, to lend books, to offer assistance. So
    there's a net that starts.

    I think  we always need to talk empowerment to people. Power comes from
    within  as well as from without. Not just women empowering their lives,
    but  all  of  us  opening up to be complete. Any movement empowers it's
    constituency  to  envision  an  alternative  to the present patterns of
    living  (Sartre  talks about this in Being and Nothingness). That's why
    it's  important  to  have  grassroots  organizing  and notes files that
    enable  people to talk about things in a wider audience. And as we talk
    to  each other, so do we then need to keep talking whenever it can make
    a difference.

    - Paula

    
    Let's not forget emotional battering....Where the spouse (or whomever)
    runs the person down so far he/she doesn't think that life can improve.
    The victim loses all self-esteem.
    
    I knew a woman in college whose husband was cyclically abusive.
    The cycle was about three weeks long.  She and her children were
    actually able to plan around it, and often they would leave the
    house for the night when the explosion was going to happen.
    
    That didn't always work, because he would coming looking for them.
    
    She got a court order restraining him from coming within 100 yards
    of any place she or the children were, their schools, work and
    grandparents homes.  He didn't obey the order;  one time we (her
    co-workers) had to rescue her and were threatened with violence
    ourselves.
    
    She finally left him because she became convinced that he was mentally
    ill (i.e., she couldn't "fix" it, it was outside what she could
    control in her life).
    
    Even so, she wavered.  The night she finally realized it was over was
    two days before Christmas;  a group of us were at her new apartment
    (three days old), celebrating her new life.  She was talking about
    how she wasn't going to divorce him, perhaps she could help him
    find therapy that would cure him.  Her 8 year old son suddenly took 
    his sister's doll and started beating it, screaming, "I HATE HIM! 
    I HATE HIM! I HATE HIM!" over and over and over.
    
    She sought therapy for herself and her children instead.  They're
    doing ok.
    

    re .32
            
    '  The preferred way to break off with someone with whom you don't "click"
           ---------
    is to "let them down easy"  '    
    
                    
    Maggie -- preferred by whom?

    <--(.36)
    
    um, psychologists, advice-columnists, humans, ....
    
    I think I can see your point, tho:  I did make it look as though
    there's some sort of formalism involved, didn't I.  <sigh>  Not
    my intent.
    
    						=maggie 

    It caught my attention because of some discussions I had with my
    women's group back in the mid-70's.
    
    We were furious about being "let down easy" by men so often.  Granted,
    it is better than overt brutality, but too many of us had felt used
    by men we dated who seemed interested and said they would call and
    never did.  And by the men we would date for months who would suddenly
    disappear without a word.
    
    At that time, lots of us were still fighting injunctions not to
    call or "chase" men, and when they never called, or disappeared, we felt
    powerless and used. 
    
    A number of feminist therapists I know counsel their clients to
    deal with breaking up more directly rather than hoping that the
    other person will "get the message", or "figure it out".  It's painful,
    but it is affirming of the other person's right to respond to the
    change.  It's probably easier on the person who is no longer interested
    just to drift away, but I think that is harder on the person being
    left.  For one thing, they don't know what is going on.
                        
    I bring this up because I think it is an issue that many feminists
    are trying to change -- in theory, at least.
    
    Holly
                                                    

    
    I am learning  much by this and other related notes. There seems
    to be two main themes here. How women are dealing with abuse and
    how they are learning from the past. At first I was really annoyed
    at the reply that no men respond to this note, but as I read the
    reply's of women telling how they are dealing with abuse I realised
    that that part of "battered women" could only be told by women.
    It is the " WHY " part that scares the SH*T out of me and most men 
    (my opinion only). I hope that women continue to learn how to get out
    of a abusive relationship and share with each other the pain and
    help they can offer. I hope even more that men will look the beast
    in the eye, realize that it is a problem that goes far beyond "losing
    ones temper" and deal with it in a "humane" way.
    
    							Chris
    

    I'm interested in some opinions...
    
    A family member brought up an issue this past week. To make a short
    story long, a man who had confessed to murdering at least 40 (FORTY!!)
    woman was sentenced to the electric chair and was to be executed
    this past week. At the last minute his sentence was indefinitely
    commuted. (FYI, this happened in Florida.) Now, I'm not discussing
    whether or people should be executed for crimes. However, my family
    member pointed out that she has seen a pattern of men who have murdered
    in particular several women not paying fully for their crime. She
    feels that this is because it is women who are being murdered (as
    opposed to men).
    
    Now, just trying to remember news stories over the years of mass
    murders (the one-at-a-time kind, not the indiscriminate shooting
    on a street corner kind), and without doing research, it does seem
    that the victims of these crimes are usually women or children.
    My point in placing this message under this topic is - maybe there
    is some connection in society, in the "justice" system, in families
    between lack of support for battered women (and children) and for
    punishing (I would say mostly) men who commit crime after crime
    against women. Certainly we've all heard at least one story about
    a man who rapes a woman who has done it at least once before and
    was not punished very severely the first time.
    
    Now, believe me I am not a violent woman, but hey, we have a right
    to live our lives freely. The ideal would be not having to worry
    about crimes in the first place, but it is an added insult, injustice,
    absurdity that we can't even be assured that the people who commit
    crimes (abuse, rape, murder) are being punished. Yes, there are
    discussions we can have about rehabilitation in some cases, but
    not in others.
    
    Anyway, I would be interested in opinions and thanks for listening.
    Can you tell I live in the city right now?
    
    Elisabeth

    re .40
    As far as the situation of men murdering women getting off more
    lightly is concerned, I only have negative evidence. Amnesty
    international found evidence that in America a Black person
    was more likely to receive the death penalty for murdering a White
    than either a White person or a Black person for murdering a Black.
    It is my unconfirmed suspicion that were there a statistical difference
    relating to the different sexes that information would have been
    picked up and publicised as well.
    
    Bonnie

    re .40, .41:
    
    Yes, there are statistics that people in general get a lesser sentence
    for murdering a minority person than a white person.  One is also
    more likely to get a harsh sentence if the victim was wealthy or
    powerful.  Conversely, if one is wealthy, white, and powerful, the
    chances of getting any sort of prison sentence are relatively low.
    
    It is also true that serial murderers and rapists whose victims
    are either women or children get fairly light sentences when the
    severity of the crime is looked at.  This just goes to show that
    the judicial system over values the male, wealthy, white people
    more than others.  THIS NEEDS TO BE CHANGED!!!  Many judges simply
    don't take these crimes seriously.
    
    Elizabeth

    I think a lot depends on who the women and children are (unconfirmed
    suspicion).
    
    If they are the "property" of an "elite" man, I think the penalty
    is higher.
    
    If they are poor, on welfare, prostitutes, or non-white, I think
    the penalty is lower.                   
    
    Holly

re 40 

About 1979 a university psych department staged fights at the entrance to
the student union to research the good samaratin who steps forward to help.
The fights were staged so that one party was clearly beating up the other
party.  They discovered:

   Bypassers were most likely to help when one man was clearly beating up
   another man.

   Bypassers were most least likely to help when a man was clearly beating up
   a woman.

Also, the fewer bypassers, the more likely one would attempt to intervene. 
The bigger the crowd, the less likely someone would step forward. 

Alas, I forget the 'intervention' results for a woman beating up a woman 
and a woman beating up a man.

 For further reading on the subject, read "Women who Kill" by Anne Hall.
It is a look at the legal system in America from the days of Cotton Mather 
onward and the attitude of that system towards women who commit murder. 
 It is relevant to this topic, in that a large number of the women in 
the book were "battered wives" who killed their husbands as a last resort.

 As an aside, having read the book, I now understand a lot more about the
"feminist movement" (?) and the injustices which women have faced over the
years.

			Nigel

    Just a correction - "Women Who Kill" is by Ann Jones.  I've been
    meaning to check it out for the statistics on variation of sentencing
    for violent crime between men and women.  I seem to recall there
    is a difference, and that it's significant.  - Paula

    re.47  so lorna, what did you expect in a society which no longer
    expects men to act manly ?

    
    	I was visiting a friend once when we saw a guy get out of
    	his car, go around to the car and grab this woman out by
    	her hair and started beating on her right in the street.
    	We both ran down and got hold of him and pulled him off.
    	The next thing you know I was hit from behind and turned
    	just in time to see a rock heading right at me. The woman
    	had got off the ground and grabbed a rock and hit me with
    	it all the time yelling "leave him alone, leave him alone!".
    	I never did figure this one out, we hadn't hurt him, only
    	held him from reaching her...

    <--(.49)
    
    I would argue that you did the right thing, George, except that
    you should have subdued *her*, too!!  <--(dead serious here)
    
    I hope your title doesn't really reflect your current position on
    the subject, because someday a life may depend on your willingness
    to get involved again.                                   
    
    ...and I commend you for the willingness you displayed then, even if
    the victim was too foolish or (and this is quite possible) too enmeshed
    in the abusive relationship to respond well to your concern!
    
    						=maggie

    If when this discussion winds down could someone be so kind
    as to enter a list of do's and don'ts. Now I don't mean to
    trivialize this. It's just that if I ever encounter situations
    such as have been entered here I'd like to be able to help as
    best I can. One I do remember was a person telling a battered
    woman that if she needed a safe place, she could always stay with
    that person. And if I remember right, that offer was greatly
    appreciated. Thats the sort of thing I mean. So if anyone will
    do so, I thank you in advance.      

    No 'manly' man would EVER hit a woman, except in self-defense.
    The abusers, whatever they are, are NOT men.

    <--(.53)
    
    Well said, Dana!  Spot on!

    
    	RE: .50
    
    	No Maggie, the title was looking back on it a bad choice on
    	my part. I doubt very much that anything could ever change
    	me on this, if I ever saw it again I'm sure I'd get involved
    	again without thinking about it..... Then again it has been
    	said more than once that I can never learn to mind my own
    	business in matters like this. BTW, I also get in the middle
    	when ever I see someone beatin up on someone else for no
    	reason.
    

    re: .48 -
    
    What do you consider "manly behavior"?
    
    Carol
    

    
When someone (in this case, most likely a man) does something that we think
is awful (in this case, beat his wife), it is quite common for us to 
describe that "terrible" person in a way that sets him apart from us.  
He is sick.  He is not "manly"...  But the most conservative information 
available suggests that over 1,000,000 women are battered by their
husbands or live-in lovers each year.  So does that mean that these 
1,000,000 men are all deviants, in need of therapy?  

Possibly.  I can't cite the case here, but some studies have been done 
on the relative "sanity" (defined, I guess, in some credible way by 
recognized psychological testing tools) of wife abusers as compared 
to the general population.  The research that I saw showed 
*NO Difference* in how wife abusers tested in comparison to their 
non-abusing peers.  Granted, those tests may have been flawed, but 
doesn't it seem more likely that the reason for this abuse is more 
sociological than psychological?   Who are the most likely targets
of abuse?  Women, children, and older people.  What do these 3 groups 
have in common?  Women and children are often portrayed as sex objects 
(and sometimes as objects of implicit and even explicit violence) in the 
media, (Who else remembers the ad in Ms. Magazine's "No Comment" section?  
It was an ad for a bowling alley, and the copy read, "Beat Your Wife
Tonight.")  The social contributions of the elderly and of women are 
undervalued.  Violence against women is still sanctioned by the
state in some cases.  (Several states have not yet changed the 
legal definition of rape to allow prosecution of men who rape their
wives.)  It is legal for parents to hit their children, and many 
schools allow corporal punishment.  The elderly are overmedicated, 
neglected, and often abused in institutional settings.  With all 
this culturally accepted abuse of women, children, and the elderly, 
is it surprising that so many men abuse their wives?  They do it 
because they can, because they know that nothing will happen to 
them if they continue.  In fact, in many cases the wife blames 
herself, and others blame her for the abuse that she suffers.  

We may send hands full of repentant men to therapy, and some of them 
*may* be reformed.  (and this is a good and necessary thing - 
a stretcher at the bottom of the cliff.)  BUT as long as there is
social inequality, women and children and the elderly will continue 
to be victimized.  


Justine
    

    RE: .56
    
    It's hard to tell what the author of .48 was referring to, since
    Note .47 has been deleted. Who knows what the context was.
    
    RE: .36 .37 & .38  (The notes about "letting someone down easy")
    
    The women who replied felt it was the men who were "guilty" of
    doing this. On the other hand, the original note about being
    let down easy came from a man, who was told "he was too good for
    her".
    
    Not only did he come away from this encounter feeling that he wasn't
    being dealt with honestly. He "tranlated" this sort of mixed message
    to become:
    
         "From now on, I should not be nice to women, because if I'm
          too good for them, they'll want to end the relationship".
    
    Even though I believe that "good" people (male or female) cannot
    help but be anything other than what they are, I believe the next
    time this man enters into a relationship with a woman, he'll
    probably *try* to act not-so-good. After all, where has "goodness"
    gotten him??
    
       Alan
    
    
    

    I have to admit to being shaken by all I've read here this morning
    about battering/abuse...I didn't think it was that prevalent.  I
    feel compelled to relate my own experience and why men must be
    included in discussion of problems & solutions.
    
    A part of me will always be the helpless little boy, 30 years ago
    watching his adopted father verbally and psychologically abuse his
    adopted mother and sisters...I have to suppress a flash of anger
    whenever I see someone without power put down by someone with it.
    Our relationship as siblings (including an older brother) has been
    damaged because meetings between us always degrade to bitching
    about dad and how much we hate him...Even tho I know his drinking
    and his attitude are a disease, It's too close for me to be
    objective...
    
    I don't know if he was physically abusive because he was afraid
    of my brother & I, but my wife tells me that my sisters kept a
    lot from us as they were afraid of what we might do to him...
    I can't imagine the restraint and maturity that required.
    
    It is in the nature of the human animal to be violent, we need
    all the help we can get from our brothers and sisters to advance
    beyond ourselves and our early experience...I know I find myself
    virtually incapable of aggression in any form even the health y
    levels normally required...
    
    As to manly behavior?,
    	Macho means you only cry when someone else hurts.......mwr
    

    Re: .48 - unmanly to be violent
    
    Contrast, if you will, the expectation that a man is expected to
    be violent, to intervene in domestic violence and in the execution
    of those prosecuted of killing women but at the same time he is
    told to have complete control at all other times.
    
    The point is that men are not given the freedom of the easy route
    of never being violent.  They must walk the fence of being violent
    and passive.
    
    Re: .57
    
    I think we need to dig deep into the both sociological and genetic
    programming to find the root of these problems.  Why do men have
    so much trouble getting angry without getting violent?  Why do
    women have so much trouble leaving these men?
    
    Men are not given the permission to talk about their feelings in
    this society.  Would the rate of violence go down if more men
    could let their feelings out without violence?
    
    The cycle that Lee talked about starts with tension.  The tension
    of a man who is trying to hold his feelings in.
    
    Re: .58  Violent men get the girl
    
    I read with very much frustration, the stories of how the men who beat
    their wives or girlfriends seem to have the least problems with holding
    on to them.  I have known more that a few men who treated women very
    well, only to loose them.  God that makes me mad. 
    
    It seems that I am not the only man who is getting these mixed
    signals.
    
    Re: unfairness in the courts
    
    I think that much of the unfairness in the courts is due to the
    fact the the person that can hire the best lawyer will win the
    case.  Since many of the men who are charged with domestic violence
    have the means,  the lawyers can get them off.
    
    I would bet that if lawyers could not be well paid there would be
    a lot more justice.    
    
    Re: .*
    
    One more point I need to mention, I'm sure that you have heard it
    before but I think it is worth stating, most victims of violent
    crimes are men.  Grated that they are almost all victims of the
    violence of other men.  The statistic still shows that many poor
    black young men can expect to murdered.
    
    It would be nice to believe that, at our current state of civilization,
    the need for men to be willing and able to be violent is no longer
    necessary.  I don't get the feeling that I would be safe in the
    city unless I look like I am willing to resort to violence (Not
    look like a victim).  If a woman sticks with a man who she knows,
    by personal experience, is willing to get violent then maybe, in
    a sick sort of sense, she feels safer.  Non-violent men don't
    give her that feeling of safety.
    
    
    				   	MJC O->
    
    
    
    

    re: 456.60 by VINO::MCARLETON "Reality; what a concept!"     
    
>    The cycle that Lee talked about starts with tension.  The tension
>    of a man who is trying to hold his feelings in.
    
    Sorry, that is the tension of two people holding their feelings
    in.  Men are not the only people who are afraid of their own anger
    -- a large number of women are afraid to say what they think when
    they get angry for fear of the ramifications of... I don't know
    what exactly they're afraid of... they say "something I'll regret"
    and I've heard that phrase from as many women as men.
    
    Also, men may not be societally permitted to express their emotions,
    but women are not societally permitted to be angry, much less express
    that anger.  Both of these are anachronisms and on their way out.
    My point is that the suffering of men that you point out is _not_
    largely limited to males; in fact women suffer from the same thing
    and to a similar degree.
    
    By contrast, being beaten by your spouse or loved one _is_ suffered
    largely by women -- the proportion of men who are beaten by their
    loved one is miniscule.
    
    In Sisterhood,
    
    Lee
    

      RE:  .60
    
>>    Re: .48 - unmanly to be violent
>>    Contrast, if you will, the expectation that a man is expected to
>>    be violent, to intervene in domestic violence and in the execution
>>    of those prosecuted of killing women but at the same time he is
>>    told to have complete control at all other times.
  
    		Who expects men to be violent?  Not all women think
    		men should be willing to jump into violent physical
    		fights (and risk death) to help a stranger.  It may
    		show courage (possibly) but I'd rather that the man
    		just move (with me) to safe ground and call the police.
    		
    		As far as "executing" those prosecuted for killing
    		women -- how often is one called upon in this country
    		to be the person who turns on the juice for the electric
    		chair.  (Do you think that the man who *does* throw
    		the switch is "out of control" as he throws it?)
    
 >>    The point is that men are not given the freedom of the easy route
 >>   of never being violent.  They must walk the fence of being violent
 >>   and passive.
   
    		What country do you live in?  The vast, vast majority
    		of the men I've known in my life have lived their entire
    		adulthoods without having engaged in brute physical violence
    		at all (except for the violence that *some* of them
    		dealt to the women that they loved.)  The women were,
    		of course, a fraction of their size and bulk.  Not much
    		of a challenge to overpower a woman who weighs 70 pounds
    		less than the man does.  
    
 >>   Men are not given the permission to talk about their feelings in
 >>   this society.  Would the rate of violence go down if more men
 >>   could let their feelings out without violence?
   
    		Why do men feel they need permission to speak in a
    		society that is dominated by males?  If men want to
    		talk about their feelings, women are willing to listen.
    		If you're all waiting for permission from other men,
    		there's not much that women can do to help you open
    		up.
    
  >>  I read with very much frustration, the stories of how the men who beat
  >>  their wives or girlfriends seem to have the least problems with holding
  >>  on to them.  I have known more that a few men who treated women very
  >>  well, only to loose them.  God that makes me mad. 
    
    		Guess what?  Women often hear stories about how women
    		who treat men like dirt are the ones who have trails
    		of men at their feet (while "nice" women end up the
    		losers in love situations.)
    
    		They're both gross generalities and have nothing to
    		do with individuals (or your chances of meeting a woman
    		who will like you if you aren't violent.)
    
  >>  It seems that I am not the only man who is getting these mixed
  >>  signals.
    
    		If a lot of men out in the world really believe that
    		women *want* them to be violent (even if it means that
    		they end up the victims of men's abuse) -- then we are
    		in a lot more trouble than I realized (and might as
    		well forget about getting mugged on the street.)  The
    		muggers will just wait til they start dating us (and
    		make their lives a lot simpler.)  [I'm being sarcastic.]
    
 >>             I don't get the feeling that I would be safe in the
 >>   city unless I look like I am willing to resort to violence (Not
 >>   look like a victim). 
   
    		Me, too!!!  I don't need to walk with a violent-looking
    		man at my side to avoid looking like a victim.  I also
    		don't need to actually engage in violence to look that
    		way, either.  Neither do men.
    
 >>    If a woman sticks with a man who she knows,
 >>   by personal experience, is willing to get violent then maybe, in
 >>   a sick sort of sense, she feels safer.  Non-violent men don't
 >>   give her that feeling of safety.
    
    		You have a point here.  Women who live with their
    		muggers don't have to worry about being attacked on
    		the street.  In fact, I'm sure it is the last thing
    		on their minds.
    
    		Instead, they worry about being attacked/maimed/raped/
    		killed/beaten in their own bedrooms by the person that
    		that they married before God.  (What a comforting feeling.)
    
    	Mike, I'm sorry for sounding so incredibly mean and sarcastic
    	in this reply.  It just bothers me a great deal to see someone
    	come into this file and try to make excuses for why some men
    	beat their wives/girlfriends/SO's when so many of us here know
    	that there is simply *NO JUSTIFICATION* for that sort of thing
    	at all.
    
    	No, I don't think violent men are manly or necessarily unmanly
    	(per se.)  The key is whether or not they can control their
    	violent urges when they are with their loved ones.
    
    	No, I don't think it is unreasonable to ask a man to have very
    	tight controls over his violent tendencies when he is among
    	his wife/children/parents.
    
    	A man who is unwilling or unable to have control over his own
    	violence is a man that cannot be trusted in any sense.  It's
    	like letting a Pit Bull climb into your bed every night (never
    	knowing when or if he'll go crazy and kill you while you sleep.)
    	
    	Control over violence is the absolute *LEAST* that one should
    	be able to ask from a loved one.
    
    							Suzanne...

    Re: .61 GCANYN::TATISTCHEFF "Lee T
    
    > Also, men may not be societally permitted to express their emotions,
    > but women are not societally permitted to be angry, much less express
    > that anger.  Both of these are anachronisms and on their way out.
    > My point is that the suffering of men that you point out is _not_
    > largely limited to males; in fact women suffer from the same thing
    > and to a similar degree.
    
    So what your saying is that being forced to hold in emotions cannot,
    in and of itself, cause a man to get violently angry, because women
    are also forced to hold in anger and they do not get violent.  So
    then the question becomes "Why do men get violently angry while
    women do not?"  I don't agree that men have anywhere near the number
    of emotional outlets that women are permitted but, I do not claim that
    this fact explains or justifies the treatment that the wives of
    these men receive at their hands.  I think that the existence of
    clear channels for men to talk about their feelings would help to
    cut down on some part of the violence that we see today.
    
    Re: .62  NEXUS::CONLON
    
    > What country do you live in?  The vast, vast majority of the men I've
    > known in my life have lived their entire adulthoods without having
    > engaged in brute physical violence at all.
    
    I don't know about the childhoods of the men that you have known
    but I do know what it was like for me to grow up as a man.  Young
    men who grew up in my home town (Pontiac Michigan) were not allowed
    to live in peace if they did not appear willing to engage in violence.
    I would venture to guess that many other men grew up the same way.
    
    > Why do men feel they need permission to speak in a society that is
    > dominated by males?  If men want to talk about their feelings, women
    > are willing to listen. If you're all waiting for permission from other
    > men, there's not much that women can do to help you open up. 
    
    This sounds to me the same way the old "Women could succeed in
    business if they would only try" adage probably sounds to you.
    It's the same "The problem's all in your head" game.  Just because
    you do not see the obstacles does not mean that they are not there.
    
    Sure: *Some* women are willing to listen to *some* of men's feelings.
    The rest call it whining.
    
    > If a lot of men out in the world really believe that women *want* them
    > to be violent (even if it means that they end up the victims of men's
    > abuse) -- then we are in a lot more trouble than I realized...
    
    I don't think there are many men who actually think that women
    like men to show violence toward them.  There may be a pervasive
    feeling that, If you are going to err, you are better off opting
    for too violent a makeup.  An occasional slip on the too violent
    side will be forgiven, the lack of the willingness to be violent
    will not be forgiven.
    
    > You have a point here.  Women who live with their muggers don't have to
    > worry about being attacked on the street.  In fact, I'm sure it is the
    > last thing on their minds. 
    
    I think that that, in fact, one of the reasons that may women stay with
    a man who beats them. They expect that all men are that
    way.  They think that the level of beating that they are getting
    is the best that they can expect from a man (he does love her
    after all).  She might expect worse treatment from a random man on
    the street.

    > Mike, I'm sorry for sounding so incredibly mean and sarcastic in this
    > reply.  It just bothers me a great deal to see someone come into this
    > file and try to make excuses for why some men beat their
    > wives/girlfriends/SO's when so many of us here know that there is
    > simply *NO JUSTIFICATION* for that sort of thing at all.
    
    Of course there is no excuse or justification that would allow a
    man to beat his wife. Good god no!
    
    I would not take these arguments to court to try to defend the
    actions of a accused wife beater.  That's not what I am trying
    to do here.
    
    I'm sure that many, if not most, men who beat there wives have a
    very low respect for women and somehow feel that they have some
    kind of a right to do what they do.  I have no sympathy for these
    men at all.  Yes, there are ogers.
    
    Many other men might realize that what they are doing is wrong
    and might be helped if someone understood why they resort to
    violence.  The priority in such cases is still for the safety of
    the wife.  To the extent that the ideas explain wife beating they
    also lead to better understanding of the wife beater.
    
    I and fulling understand the position that we don't have time
    to think about the why's when so any women are victims.

    > It's like letting a Pit Bull climb into your bed every night (never
    > knowing when or if he'll go crazy and kill you while you sleep.)
    
    Now there is a apt analogy.  We do breed dogs for their ability to
    be violent.  I believe we do the same with men.
    
    					MJC O->
                           

                
    
    

    RE:  .63
    
 >>   I don't know about the childhoods of the men that you have known
 >>   but I do know what it was like for me to grow up as a man.  Young
 >>   men who grew up in my home town (Pontiac Michigan) were not allowed
 >>   to live in peace if they did not appear willing to engage in violence.
 >>   I would venture to guess that many other men grew up the same way.
   
    		Sure, I agree that small boys and teenagers are
    		frequently forced to show their willingness to engage
    		in violence.  How often is the average grownup MAN
    		forced to do that sort of posturing (unless the man
    		lives/works/plays in violent surroundings, that is.)
    
    		The men that *I've* known who beat up their wives/etc.
    		went to normal jobs (like DEC) all day and the only
    		violent posturing they ever did was to terrorize women
    		and children (whose bodies were only a fraction of
    		the bulk of the men's bodies.)  Like I said before,
    		big challenge.  A man who can't feel like a man unless
    		he proves that he can beat up people who are half his
    		size has a **serious problem**.
   
 >>   Sure: *Some* women are willing to listen to *some* of men's feelings.
 >>   The rest call it whining.
   
    		Mike, I sympathize with the predicament of men who
    		sincerely want to be able to talk about their feelings
    		with every woman on Earth.  But for now, men need to
    		be content with the women who *ARE* willing to listen
    		(just as WOMEN have to be content to confine *our*
    		emotional outlets to people that are willing to listen
    		to us.)  Not everyone *is* willing to hear us either.
    
 >>   An occasional slip on the too violent
 >>   side will be forgiven, the lack of the willingness to be violent
 >>   will not be forgiven.
   
    		You put too much store in how impressed women are with
    		men's capacity for violence.  
    
    		As far as I'm concerned, the opposite of what you just
    		said is true.  One violent act against a woman in my
    		presence is the kiss of death on love/friendship/anything.
    		It's the one thing that I do not forgive because it
    		has been my experience that men find it difficult (if
    		not impossible) to change that particular tendency/habit.
    		I'll change my mind about that the first time I meet
    		someone who is able to permanently STOP abusing women.  
    
    >>> You have a point here.  Women who live with their muggers don't have to
    >>> worry about being attacked on the street.  
    
    >I think that that, in fact, one of the reasons that may women stay with
    >a man who beats them. They expect that all men are that
    >way.  They think that the level of beating that they are getting
    >is the best that they can expect from a man (he does love her
    >after all).  She might expect worse treatment from a random man on
    >the street.
		
    		You missed my point (I said I was being sarcastic.)
    		What I meant was that the danger in the home becomes
    		so great, that an abused woman has neither the time nor 
    		the inclination to worry about an imaginary attacker when 
    		she has a REAL ATTACKER sleeping on the bed next to her every
    		night.
    
    		"They" think that all men beat women?  Where are you
    		getting your information from?  That is a good guess,
    		but it doesn't happen to be true.  Women know DAMN WELL
    		that it isn't normal to get beaten up by their husbands
    		(why do you think "they" find it so humiliating to go
    		for help and why the vast majority of injuries get
    		reported as "I fell into a doorknob"???)
   
   >>   We do breed dogs for their ability to
   >> be violent.  I believe we do the same with men.
    
    		Humans can be bred to have certain tendencies, but
    		in the end, a human of at least average intelligence
    		has to take responsibility for his or her own actions.
    		A person who commits violence against loved ones has
    		a serious, serious character flaw.
    
    	It's nice to try to understand abusers, but let's not try to
    	make excuses for them and try to paint them as "victims" of
    	our culture (as if their actions are "understandable.")
    
    	Maybe you don't think that you are doing that (making excuses
    	for abusers) -- but much of what you are saying here sounds
    	that way to me.  If I'm misreading you, I apologize.
    
    						       Suzanne...

    It sounds as though you two are in violent agreement on most of
    the problem.
    
    						=maggie

        Suzanne,
        
        I know this is a very hard topic for us to discuss as it is so
        emotionally loaded on all sides. It is absolutely clear that it
        is wrong to beat the people you love, and I don't think that
        anyone here would argue with that. I do think that some of us
        who are men might have insights into why the men who beat their
        wives do. If we express these reasons it is not to make excuses
        for the wife beaters, but in order to help understand the causes
        of this syndrome, and ways to try to help reduce the incidence
        in the future. 
        
        At the risk of sounding like an apologist, let me try to clarify
        one point that I don't think you were able to see. It is true,
        as you have said, that most full grown men do not often find
        themselves confronting a situation where violence is approriate
        or socially mandated. However, as you have mentioned, young boys
        and adolescents *are* put in lots of situations where violence
        is demanded of them. As a society we teach them how to be
        violent. We prepare them with reactions and solutions and skills
        athat are not often needed or are appropriate.
        
        It is therefore not surprising, even though it is deplorable,
        when these reactions and skills erupt in later life. No, they
        don't need to be violent. Yes, it is wrong for them to respond
        with violenec. But it is one of the major skills we teach them
        as children. 
        
        You commented on how hard it appears to be for men to give up
        the use of violence, and that observation is very true. It is
        hard. Non-violence when you are taught violence is extremely
        hard. And since we teach violence and violent reactions to our
        boys and them send them out to live lives where violence is
        inappropriate, they have a very hard job, and the difficulty of
        it increases the tension and the frustration and the urge to
        violence.
        
        What I think Mike Carleton was trying to say was that the way we
        raise our boys is one of the contributing factors in why men
        lose control and beat women. I don't think he is trying to
        diminish the guilt of the people who beattheir wives or
        children, but merely to shed some light on where the roots of
        the problem are so that perhaps our daughters and grand
        daughters will have less of a danger in their homes than our
        sisters and mothers. 
        
        JimB. 

    	RE:  .66
    
    	Jim, I do understand what you are trying to say about men
    	(and how they are raised to deal with violence as boys and
    	then are sent out into a world where they are expected to
    	know how to control it at all times.)
    
    	Consider this -- women are raised in the opposite way (that
    	is, we are raised to be NON-violent and to develop *OTHER*
    	sorts of skills other than the kind that prepare you to defend
    	yourself against a physical assault.)
    
    	Then *WE* are sent out into a world where we could end up
    	facing physical assaults in our own bedrooms (from the men
    	to whom we have pledged our devotion and commitment in a
    	wedding ceremony witnessed by our parents, friends and God.)
    
    	If you thought that it was rough to grow up having to fight
    	other boys who were (in general) your own size -- try seeing
    	what it's like to be an adult and have to endure physical
    	violence from a member of your own family (and try having
    	that violence come from a person who towers over you in 
    	height and outweighs you by 70 pounds.)  
    
    	Men can talk all they like about how rough it is to grow up
    	as a male in our society (with the inherent mandatory violence
    	that young boys have to go through.)  Well, battered women have
    	to face the same thing (but at an older age and with serious
    	choice-limiters like small children to worry about if one
    	considers removing oneself from the violent situation.)
    
    	Most men seem to assume that the instant a woman wants to talk
    	about problems, an elaborate network of people spring up
    	immediately to give her all the opportunities that she desires
    	to "let out her feelings."
    
    	Not true!!!!  During all the major crises of MY life, I was
    	dead solid alone with a capitol A (except for my little child
    	who was too young to understand what was happening and had
    	emotional needs of his own.)  Whatever networking came along
    	occurred much, much later (after the crises had long passed.)
    
    	Most battered women do not talk about it to other women for
    	the first several YEARS that the violence occurs.  Most women
    	keep these sorts of things (and OTHER major crises) deep in
    	their hearts until the various situations are nearly resolved.
    
    	We rarely get credit for having the kind of courage it takes
    	to quietly rebuild our lives (with children in tow) after some
    	Earth- and family-shattering event has ripped the rug out from
    	under us.  I can honestly say that the most courageous people
    	I've ever known in my life have been women.  (Pretty amazing
    	since we were not prepared as children to deal with most of
    	the turns that our lives have taken as adults.)
    
    	While I can appreciate your efforts (and Mike's efforts) to
    	try to understand why some men beat women, I think that maybe
    	there are other more immediate issues at hand in this topic
    	(such as getting the message to women that their safety DOES
    	come first and that they *CAN* survive the loss of the serious
    	relationship.)  Others have done it and have made decent lives
    	for themselves and their children.

    	Given the misconceptions that the world has about domestic violence,
    	it is not surprising that hardly any identifiable individuals
    	are willing (in notes) to tell the stories of exactly what they
    	went through.  It's just so blatantly obvious that too many
    	people (mostly men) just find it too difficult to understand
    	something like this.  It's easier for the women of this
    	conference if they just don't bother talking about it.
    
    							Suzanne...

    	By the way, Mike Carleton, I'm not asking you to feel
    	pity for abused women.
    
    	Domestic violence is a phenomenon (like a lot of other
    	less-than-thrilling features of our culture) and it bears
    	examination especially since the primary victims are women
    	(and this file deals with "topics of interest to women.")
    
    	Just try to keep in mind that the victims of spousal abuse
    	are accustomed to hearing the same sorts of misconceptions
    	that have been brought up here (the ones that try to "explain"
    	the behavior of the man and end up putting the blame back on
    	women, somehow.)  These misconceptions are some of the main reasons
    	why, so often, domestic violence goes unreported or un-prosecuted
    	(i.e., because many women feel that they will not be believed
    	or they will ultimately be blamed for the abuse.)

    	Just something to think about.
    
    						    Suzanne...

    I think some of the men writing in this topic have been making very
    good points.  I appreciate the analysis of some of the male members,
    and am glad that you are thinking about the subject.
    
    The women have been continuing to speak a truth which doesn't often
    get listened to carefully. (When first starting to speak about this
    subject in my own life I kept noticing that most people who listened
    to me thought they were listening to me, but took my words and tried
    to *change* them.)
    
    Both of the above need to happen.  It is very important to me that
    we not get lost in an evaluation of who "has it worse", who is more
    of a victim, who has less resources.  As long as battering occurs,
    all participants are losers, with women almost always having more
    to lose when the actual violence occurs.
    
    Holly

    	RE:  .69
    
    	Absolutely right, Holly.  
    
    	One of the things that seems apparent is that spousal abuse
    	is so far outside the range of possible behaviors for the
    	average man that it is sometimes difficult for the non-abuser
    	to be able to conceptualize what is happening in a violent
    	home.  (So they sometimes translate the words into ideas that
    	*DO* seem more possible/plausible.)
    
    	It took a lot of women's stories (all put together) to show
    	that the unbelievable *DOES* really happen and that there are
    	patterns to the behavior.
    
    	It is not the least bit surprising to find men who cannot
    	understand domestic violence (and it's probably to their credit
    	that they *DO* find the behaviors so unthinkable.)
    
    	Domestic violence **IS** unthinkable to the average man (thank
    	God.)
    
    	The educational process that is required to understand this
    	phenomenon is not an easy one (for the abused, the abusers or
    	the non-abusers.)  I think the discussion here has stayed about
    	as calm as one could wish in the light of the seriousness of
    	the subject-matter.  For that, I thank you all.
    
    							Suzanne...

    One thing to remember is that we have the power to stop the cycle. We
    can raise our sons not to see violence as a means to an end and our
    daughters to not accept abuse. 

    Piece o' cake, right? 

    One of the things that makes it difficult to break this kind of cycle
    is the desire for "normalcy." Some years ago, my ex-wife (who is a
    pretty ardent feminist) and I were discussing some of the issues in
    trying to ensure that her son would not turn out "macho." She wanted
    him to be able to "fit in" at the same time that she wanted him to be
    different. There is no easy formula. 
    
    
    	bruce

        Suzanne,
        
        I have no problem at all with what you say about women being
        taught the exact opposite of boys and caught up in the precise
        reverse bind--being trained to be incapable of violenece and
        then put into violent situations. I in no ways meant to deny
        that in present one half of the story. I left that half out only
        because I don't feel competant to speak to the way that girls
        are brought up. I was raised as a male, and all my children are
        male. My sister and wife are both tom-boys, and my sister as
        always been at least as much of a scrapper as I.
        
        I believe that what you say is true. Girls are brought up in a
        way that hampers them tremendously in dealing with or coping
        with violence, and as women they have to live with men who are
        not adequately trained in controlling their violence. A real
        lose/lose situation.
        
        Just as I said that we must raise our boys to cope with and
        contain their violence we must raise our girls (or those of you
        who have girls must) to deal with the violence that happens in
        our culture. Only by doing both sides ofthis can we break the
        future cycle of violence.
        
        You are also absolutely right that stopping future violent
        cycles is only half of the task before us and the least
        immediate half at that. There is also he very important job of
        helping the women (and if it is possible, the men, but it may
        not be) break out of the cycle that they are trapped in raight
        now. To do that we must convey to them that they are not bad or
        guilty, that we as people of good will support them, that there
        are others with their problems, and that you can deal with these
        problems.
        
        By adding to that message, I in no way meant to diminish or
        detract from it. If I did I am sorry.
        
        It was certainly not my intention to say that boys had it worse
        in controlling their violence than women did in being victims of
        it. Having been a victim of (non-domestic) violence as a boy, as
        well as a man who had to struggle to control my violence, I am
        sure that the victims role is much harder, and that the violenec
        originating from a loved one can only make it that much worse.
        If I conveyed any other impression, again I am sorry.
        
        JimB.

    	RE:  .72
    
    	No apology is necessary, Jim.
    
    	It was never my intention to elicit your sympathy (or anyone
    	else's.)
    
    	I just wanted to be sure that we were all clear on the distinction
    	between a guy who just "lets off a little steam once in awhile"
    	and the profile of an abuser.
    
    	Believe me, women are becoming more and more equipped to deal
    	with violence on the streets (the PREVENTION of violence, mostly.)
    	And many women have survived and left abusive spouses (and are
    	now encouraging other women to see the alternatives to violent
    	relationships as well.)
    
    	I realize that it is difficult (if not impossible) to talk about
    	a subject like this in a public notesfile.  It was inevitable
    	that a rathole would develop.  I regret having thought that
    	something useful could have come out of this discussion.
    
    	Anyone who needs information on this subject should turn to
    	a proper support group (where the facts can be discussed openly
    	without having to worry about how "INNOCENT men" might feel when
    	they hear about such things.)
    
    	Not that I don't value the contributions of innocent men to
    	this note.  It's just that it is disheartening to see misunder-
    	standing develop with the sort of men who are NOT THE PROBLEM.
    
    	Some subjects are better off being discussed in forums (OTHER
    	THAN NOTES) where the participants are primarily women.
    
    	No offense is intended to anyone.
    
    							Suzanne...

    
    RE: .73
    
    
    
    	"I realize that it is difficult (if not impossible) to talk about
    	a subject like this in a public notesfile.  It was inevitable
    	that a rathole would develop.  I regret having thought that
    	something useful could have come out of this discussion."
    
	I guess it never occured to you that you did your best to dig
    	that "rat hole" with every reply you entered.
    
        
    	    
    	"No offense is intended to anyone."
    
    	Ditto
    
    							Chris
    
    
    

    	RE:  .74
    
    	Digging a rathole was never my intention, either.  
    
    	It just made me somewhat unsettled to see some of the comments
    	in this note that 1) appeared to be trying to justify the
    	behavior of persons who engage in spousal abuse, and that
    	2) appeared to misunderstand the victims' reasons for staying
    	(by suggesting, for example, that the victims' actually felt
    	**SAFER** in the world with a man known for being capable of
    	violence against his wife.)
    
    	Should I have let it slide that a man in here STATED that 
    	the victims think that **ALL** men are abusive (and that
    	the abuse they are getting regularly at home is probably
    	less than that they would receive from other men)?????
    
    	That statement not only insults the intelligence of women, but
    	it adds to the growing number of misconceptions that keep
    	unnecessary distances between men and women in our culture.
    
    	That statement came from an obviously nice, reasonable man,
    	too.  I did not intend to attack the man, but merely his
    	assumptions.  I think (hope) I made that clear.
    
    	Perhaps you are suggesting that we just humor the men in this
    	conference and patronize them (by just calmly agreeing with
    	everything men say and then having some sort of coded message
    	to women at the bottom that says, "He's wrong but let's not
    	tell him.")
    
    	Now I suppose that YOU will feel obligated to get in "the last
    	word" on this and tell me I'm full of crap.  Go right ahead.
    
    						      Suzanne...

    	<---- .74 & .75
    
    	I didn't mean for that reply to come out quite as provacatively
    	as it did.
    
    	The subject of domestic violence is a very touchy one for those
    	of us who have known victims of it.  It's very difficult to
    	talk about this without remembering some of things that have
    	been seen or heard about (i.e., the damage done to the victims
    	and their children.)
    
    	It's even more difficult to read replies to this note that lack
    	sensitivity to the nature of this crime and to the dilemna that
    	often faces the victims when they consider prosecution or flight
    	from it.

    							Suzanne...

    Because a topic may be hard to discuss in notes does not mean that
    it should be ignored...Womannotes offers many resources on hard
    issues for all of us... I understand when one gets tired of stroking
    egos that may be hurt by a discussion....But, information on this
    topic is important to share.  Women need to treat this space as
    their own and share their experiences and resources with each other.
    
    
    

    
    I do not feel that this has become a rathole! I for one have learned
    from this discussion; especially the womans point of view. 

         Re: .75
    
        > Should I have let it slide that a man in here STATED that 
    	> the victims think that **ALL** men are abusive (and that
    	> the abuse they are getting regularly at home is probably
    	> less than that they would receive from other men)?????
    
    	> That statement not only insults the intelligence of women, but
    	> it adds to the growing number of misconceptions that keep
    	> unnecessary distances between men and women in our culture.
    
    	> That statement came from an obviously nice, reasonable man,
    	> too.  I did not intend to attack the man, but merely his
    	> assumptions.  I think (hope) I made that clear.
    
    Before your burn me at the stake reread 456.16

    > 456.16 SSDEVO::YOUNGER "This statement is false"

    > There are other women who believe that it is a husband's right to beat
    > or rape her - that she deserved it, and that all men do.
    
    > Elizabeth 
    
    Elizabeth made it clear in the note that this information came from
    her conversations with people who worked in woman's shelters.  I
    am not trying to impugn the intelligents of women, I am just restating
    what I read in .16.  My only addition was to add that the she may
    also believe that the situation would not be better elsewhere.
    If that was too big a leap than please excuse me.
    
    I hope that my contributions to this note are positive.  If only
    women talk about these things then you will have no hope of
    understanding it from the male perspective.  I believe that such
    an understanding is necessary if you ever expect to change the
    behavior of the abusers.  
    
    I am not trying to belittle the suffering of the women at all by
    looking at the man's side of it.  I merely point out that if you wish
    to change the man's behavior then you will have to change the forces
    that push him to abuse or change the forces that fail to stop him from
    abusing.
    
    I also agree with what Bruce said about trying to experiment with
    changing young boys not to be "macho".  I believe that I am the
    result of my mother's attempt to do just that and I have suffered
    greatly for it.  I don't mean to imply that my suffering can be
    compared to that of the victims of domestic violence.  I simply
    don't know enough to compare no do I feel the need to. 
    
    					MJC O->
    

                                                          

    I believe that it is really and sincerely important that we
    women of this notes file, try and listen to the men who write
    here and not paint them with the same brush, so to speak, as
    we do men who have hurt us.  The men who write here, may be misinformed
    or naive, but they do like us, for the most part I believe ;-)
    and it is not giving in to anything to be willing to learn and
    share...
    
    I mean, if all the Black people I had met, decided when I tried
    to share my misconceptions and beliefs that I was a racist
    then I would never have grown to be the person I am. I would
    *please* ask my sisters here to give our brothers my Black friends
    gave me, and not assume that they are sexist and try and listen
    to what they say and let us all learn and grow together and go
    on and build a better future together...
    
    
    when do we lay down bitterness and go on to build uptopia??
    
    peace
    
    Bonnie

    	RE:  .79
    
    	Mike, what Elizabeth said was that "some women" believe that
    	all men hit their wives (etc.)  
    
    	What YOU said was that you felt that MOST women stay with
    	abusers because they feel "safer" from other attackers and
    	later said "They [implying a few, many or most?] stay because
    	they think all men beat their wives."  [paraphrased]
    
    	I have *ALSO* visited Battered Women's shelters/groups (with
    	a friend) and none of the women I met thought that all men
    	abused their wives.  
    
    	Believe me, I realize that you are here trying to make some
    	sense of out a phenomenon that makes no sense whatsoever.
    	Join the club.  I've met women who have gone through this
    	sort of thing (I've seen their injuries and reports from
    	witnesses) so I know it happens.  Yet it makes no sense to
    	me either.
    
    	I can't even explain to you why it bothers me so much to hear
    	you speculate that battered women actually *LIKE* their
    	husband's violent tendencies (inasmuch as they might help the
    	woman to feel safe from outside attackers.)
    
    	To me, that's like saying, "Yes, I really prefer that the dog
    	dump his loads on my new living room carpet because I really hate
    	it when I accidently step on them out in the yard."

    	It makes about as much sense as anything thing else about this
    	phenomenon (and that's not saying much.)
    
    	I would just appreciate it if you would introduce your theories
    	about this subject carefully.  No one here is an authority on
    	the subject, but many of us know people who have lived it and
    	are very touchy on these matters.
    
    						Thanks!
    					       Suzanne.....

I just read a silly novel where the heroine attempted to rob the
hero, got caught, and he whipped her.  He then then brought her to his
home where he gave her beautiful clothes so that she could catch some man
and get married and become repectable.  The story included a lot of conflicts
between the two where he always had the upper hand (usually by force because
of his superior strength).  She then fell in love with him.  And he fell
in love with her (presumably because she defied him and he had to
subdue her).  In the end she's telling him how dutiful she will be and they
laugh about the time he spanked her.

This is a typical "Taming of the Shrew" plot.  If you think about it, you
realize this plot is everywhere, in books, in movies, in TV shows, on MTV.
Who tells the young men that this isn't real life?  Who tells the young women
that this is not what romance is about?

    re .79, .81  (Mike, Suzanne)
    
    I said that some abused women believe that all men hit their wives, and
    have a right to.  Even after getting into the shelter, these figure
    that they will either have to go back to the man they just left, spend
    the rest of their life without a husband (back to "can't get a
    man/can't keep a man"), or find another man who will also abuse them.
    These have a long family history of abuse - they've seen it happen to
    their mother, their sisters, themselves, possibly in several
    relationships.  Of course, this tendency is probably related to the
    tendency to find a husband who is something like your father, and the
    tendency to find the same types over and over. With some people it's
    alcoholics, others it is abusers, with others, it is other types,
    sometimes less destructive.  The women who believe that all wives are
    abused have that as their personal experience - all the women they're
    close to are in the situation. 
    
    Still, if you ask them how they got a black eye, they will give
    you some story like they ran into a door.  I'm not sure if this
    is because they know on some level that this shouldn't be happening,
    and are denying it for that reason, or because they believe that
    it is a private family matter, and none of anyone else's business.
    
    Novels like that described by Karen in .82 are another part of the
    problem.  It is good, useful, and helpful for a man to "knock some
    sense" into a woman.  No wonder there are big problems. 

    	RE:  .83
    
    	Elizabeth, I agree that a some women may think that all men
    	hit their wives, but it seems to me that they know on a
    	CONSCIOUS level that not all men do it (and believe on an
    	UN-conscious level that it is supposed to happen.)
    
    	If they didn't think it was odd/unusual, then how would they
    	end up in a battered woman's shelter?
    
    	Ideas like this may be misleading, though (providing "pat
    	answers" for things that have no pat answers.)
    
    	We can look at the behavior patterns and see how closely they
    	match, but why do some men (with similar backrounds) refrain
    	from exhibiting this behavior.
    
    	There are no easy answers to any of this.
    
    							Suzanne...

    RE: .82 - novels (media in general)
    
    Good heavens, we (the great American public) are still laughing
    at, an allowing to be shown on the air, a 50's TV show in which
    the male lead (who outweighs the female lead by
    only-God-knows-how-much) *CONSISTENTLY* threatens her with physical
    violence. And every time he says "Someday, Alice, POW! Right to
    the moon!" the laugh track kicks in, or the audience really laughed
    (*shudder*) when it was filmed.
    
    Personally, I just get the creeps.
    
    But this show was brought back because people think it's *funny*.
    And they appear to think that the violence is the funniest part.
    
    Dawn
    

    The Honeymooners IS funny. I also imagine that no one would laugh
    if he did hit her.
    
    

    
    
    Each day it gets harder and harder for me to look at the
    accepted violence in our "entertainment" media and not feel
    replused.
    
    What is funny in the Honeymooners is not the proposed attact
    but the physical antics of the cast and even that wears thin.
    
    The battering of women is not funny, nor should the threat
    be funny.  Think about this.  Sex is not enhanced with a black
    eye or a broken nose.
    
    _peggy
    		(-)
    		 |	My language is violent, I should
    			go the way of the Goddess and change it.
     

re: .82,

	If I were to catch someone (male or female) attempting to rob me,
    then they should expect to be thoroughly whipped if neccessary (or simply
    arrested if possible without physical violence).  I am an equal
    opportunity whipper - to base the reaction upon the sex of the
    offender would seem to be discriminatory...would it not?


				-davo

p.s.	By the way, "whipped" connotes various meanings, I am using the
	term to mean "physically subdued".

RE: < Note 456.88 by JUNIPR::DMCLURE >

	Being whipped (as in hit with a whip) for robbing is not the point.
	In fact her male cohorts were not whipped.  The continual subjucation
	by physical force is the point.  For purposes of brevity, I did not
	list all the instances where the hero subdued the heroine by
	force.  Besides whipping and spanking, kissing was also done by force
	(until the end of course).

...Karen

    RE:75 & 76
    
    
     ** I regret having thought that
     **	something useful could have come out of this discussion.

    	This is what I found offensive. It appears that when the discussion
    	isn't going according to your likes it becomes useless. This
    	is a subject that has large range of problems associated with
    	it. It is bound to have some real fireworks in it. But who can
    	say how useful it is?
    
    	I have no problem with your reaction to what men have stated
    	in this topic. But I do have a problem with how you believe
    	a statement by ONE man insults the intelligence of women.
    

    **	Perhaps you are suggesting that we just humor the men in this
    **	conference and patronize them (by just calmly agreeing with
    **	everything men say and then having some sort of coded message
    **	to women at the bottom that says, "He's wrong but let's not
    **	tell him.")
    
	I can't figure how you came up with this. But so there is no
    	false assumptions. NO.
    
    
    **	Now I suppose that YOU will feel obligated to get in "the last
    **	word" on this and tell me I'm full of crap.  Go right ahead.
    
    	Suzanne... I have no such intentions. 
	
    							Chris
        

    
    
    <sarcasm on>
    
    Just think if we didn't keep jabbing at each other like this we
    might actually begin talking about the topic.  And if we were
    sensitive to the pain of former (and perhaps even current) battered
    women, and kept our desire to debate hypothetically someplace else
    (like in a less highly charged topic), then women who have been victimized 
    in this way might begin to feel safe enough to share their stories.  
    And then we might all learn something.  It boggles the mind when you 
    consider the potential that a forum like this has.
                                                     
    <sarcasm off>
    
    Justine
                                                

    	RE:  .90
    
    	Your objection has been noted.  (Literally.)
    
    						Suzanne...
    

    It is important and valuable for all of us to grow and learn
    how to communicate with each other, and this is an especially
    sensitive topic. However, may I encourage everyone to bend this
    back towards the base topic?  Thankyou
    Bonnie J

This is taken from a note I got on a mailing file which encountered
    the topic of violence portrayed in popular media - along the lines
    of the "taming of the shrew" and such like...but this refers to
    Japanese incidents (it's not just in the US that this happens)
    
    -Jody
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    
    There was an article on the front page of the Wall Street Journal a
    while ago entitled "Grown Men in Japan Still Read Comics and Have
    Fantasies". 

"The American thugs grab for the voluptuous blonde, Maki. But from the
shadows cloaking the empty baseball stadium of the Kentucky Albatrosses
steps the once-great slugger Isamu 'Sam' Yagami. With a fusillade of
machine-gun bullets and grenades, he annihilates the villains and rushes
Maki to safety.

"Soon, she stands naked before him. 'This is your reward,' she says. 'Have
your way with me.'"

This is an excerpt from "Japanese comics books called manga, a
billion-dollar industry in a nation with a 99% literacy rate. More than 1.5
billion manga (pronounced with a hard g) are sold each year, with the most
popular manga magazine exceeding 4.5 million copies weekly." 

"Manga runs the gamut from economics to sadomasochism."

The article goes on to say that "girls manga has dreamy plots similar to ...
Harlequin romances...There are golf, tennis, billiards and gun manga for
Japanese who can't find the time or the place to practice the real thing."

The best one is about "RapeMan".

"RapeMan works for hire. In a typical story, a young girl goes to a dance
with her boyfriend but then dances with other boys. The boyfriend gets angry
and hires RapeMan. After a rape scene that goes on for pages, the distraught
girl goes to her boyfriend's house to tell him what has happened. 'It's you
I love; I danced with those other boys to make you jealous,' she tells him.
Shocked, he confesses that he hired the rapist. She sheds a tear, and they
embrace. 'That shows how much you love me,' she says." (Great stuff, huh?)

    -----------------------------------------------------------------

�    There was an article on the front page of the Wall Street Journal a
�    while ago entitled "Grown Men in Japan Still Read Comics and Have
�    Fantasies". 

    What's your point?
    Who wrote the article?
    When was it written?
    Did you ever see one of these comic books?
    How is this different from US men watching sadomasochistic
    porno flicks?
    Have you ever been to Japan and seen these books or talked
    to the men who read them?
    
    One can only hope that the readership of this file takes
    the base note with the supposed authenticity it seems to deserve.

    You don't know what the hell you are talking about.

>�    There was an article on the front page of the Wall Street Journal a
>�    while ago entitled "Grown Men in Japan Still Read Comics and Have
>�    Fantasies". 
    
    I have ceased to trust any media organization that produces articles
    with headlines like this since that inspid piece of idiocy 60 Minutes
    perpetrated on fantasy role-playing games.
    
    >Did you ever see one of these comic books?
    
    I haven't seen the ones they cited, but I get the translated reprint
    of one, Lone Wolf and Cub.  It is violent, though it's mostly
    swordfighting.
    
    >How is this different from US men watching sadomasochistic
    >porno flicks?       
    
    Well, to pick a nit, you don't need actors and actresses for a comic
    book.
    
    >One can only hope that the readership of this file takes
    >the base note with the supposed authenticity it seems to deserve.
     
    I'm not quite sure what you mean by that.  The books they describe
    certainly exist.
    
    >You don't know what the hell you are talking about.
                                           
    What we need is to get Carolyn, oh, nuts, I've forgotten her last
    name.  She's read manga -- I think she gets what part of it suits
    her taste shipped here.

    Carolyn?
    
    DFW

    
    I thought .94 was pretty interesting, though it is hard to know
    what kinds of conclusions to draw about it.  Has anyone seen, for
    example, any figures on violence against women or domestic violence
    in Japan?  It's difficult to do any kind of cross-cultural analysis 
    because information is not always available in other countries, and 
    there are differences in how abuse and violence get defined in other 
    countries and over time.
                
    Justine

I passed the discussion of Japanese comics on to a friend who works for
Dec in Japan, who sent the following for inclusion here.  Diane speaks
and reads Japanese.

Martin.
-----
From:	JRDV01::ZINGALE "DIANE ZINGALE - JAPAN R&D CENTER TOKYO
		13-Sep-1987 1951" 13-SEP-1987 20:00
To:	THUNDR::MINOW
Subj:	RE: Found this in WOMANNOTES -- care to respond?

Hi,	please post this following reply for me.

	I'm like to respond to the entry about MANGA in Japan. First off -
everything mentioned is absolutely true. Adult Japanese men usually read
pornographic/ violent comic books called Manga. You can commonly see about
3/4's of the average people commuting on the train in the morning reading
them (some of my coworkers in DEC Japan have collections of them too).

	I'm involved in a foreign women's group here called Foreign Executive
Women. For one of our programs we had a local Japanese Feminist group that
is specifically fighting Pornography come to speak. They note that there
is little popular support in Japan among men or women to restrict this
kind of literature . (you can buy MANGA in any bookstore or subway station.)

	There's also 2 editions of the evening papers... the one that;s
delivered home is the news only. The one that you buy on the newstand
is the same news intersperced with all manner of nude photos. Its the
newstand variety that you usually notice people reading on the trains here.

	Different cultures have different values. Until the Japanese 
themselves decide that there is anything wrong with this kind of literature
- there is unlikely to be any kind of change.

					Diane, (in Tokyo the last 3 years)

    Apologies for any confusion - I was trying to state that the portrayal
    of violence against women, and pornogrpahy, is accepted openly and
    without question by some cultures outside the U.S.  After tracing
    it back to its source, it was originally posted on usenet in one
    of the sociological discussions of how women are treated in different
    societies.  I have no figures, but suspect that since women are
    more subordinate to men in Japan (it is part of the culture), abuse
    would seldom be reported.   I know nothing about their
    status on violent crimes, but since they have harsher penalties,
    I would think this alone would act to reduce crime. 
    
    re: .96
    And please don't tell me I don't know what the hell I'm talking
    about.  That kind of remark is unnecessary and unproductive.  Ask
    if I can back this up - or ask if anyone else can corroborate my
    story.   
    
    -Jody
    

    sorry, that was intended to reply to .95...
    

It's evident that this problem is more complex than the average person
realizes.  Referring specifically to the Japanese culture, I'm talking
about thousands of years.  Diane is right about one thing - the majority
of the Japanese see very little wrong with the material that is found
on the newsstands.

This is a culture that opens an annual fertility celebration with  a 
papier mache penis that rams into a paper vagina.  They even have a
contest, not unlike our Miss America pagent, to judge breasts and penises.
Children are taught at a very young age that sex and reproduction is a
fact of life as well as a responsibility.

After the second world war, G.I.s would visit *co-ed* bath houses and 
leer at the women.  They quickly found themselves uncerimoniously dumped
on their behinds in the middle of the street.  They were told that 
whatever was on their minds was appropriate only in a geisha house or the
bedroom - not a bath house.

I've seen/read "Rape Man."  It's reflective of old attitudes and 
misconceptions, not to mention stupidity.  I wasn't impressed.  It's a
fantasy, though, one that says sex is the answer to anything, never mind 
trust and respect, thank you very much.  I prefer my cutesy manga, with
space ships, talking animals and the like, with some occasional samurai
justice.

You may find *this* very interesting.  I don't have the exact figures,
but I did get in touch with several of my relatives in the land of the 
sun over the weekend..........domestic violence is *not* tolerated in
Japan.  Their statistics of instances are of the lowest in the world.  
Their penalties for such behavior are of the harshest.  Wife and child
beatings are definite no-no's.  And this is not all due to western
influence.  Ancient swordsmen have been known to behead a man on sight 
for such mistreatment, no questions asked.  (They also expected to be 
"appropriately" rewarded, too, and the women felt it was their obligation.)

The fact is, it is.  We understand it better and know we can change "The 
Way."  Let's do it.

Carolyn_who_wonders_how_could_Dave_forget_a_last_name_like_Champion

    
    Just wondering, what is it exactly that we know better and that
    you want to change?

    
Re: .102 - 

We know that the victims are not at fault in this situation.  We know
more about the causes and effects of battering.  We know that victims 
in this situation can have a choice - stay victims, or get help.  We
know that this is a wrong way to treat our fellows and that it doesn't
have to be this way.

What I want to change?  Attitudes.  The very attitudes that allow this
sort of thing to happen.

Carol(yn)

    
    
    I read an interesting article in a Psychology Today back issue over
    the weekend that dealt with pressing charges against the abuser.
    
    It seems that time in jail is a deterrent against repeated offenses
    in many instances.
       
    I will type the article (study findings) in tomorrow when I have
    time.
    
    richard

    
    
    	According to the rules of this conference, you are
    	supposed to wait 24 hours before entering a reply
    	if you are angry.  I did not, so my aplogies to 
    	those that I offended.
    
    	Let me explain my position.  I've spent somet ime
    	in Japan in 1985 and 1986 and have many friends who are Japanese
    	nationals or are Nisei [Japanese first generation born here]
    	which might make me a little more sensative to issues
    	surrounding Japan and it's people.
    
    	Your entry struck me bluntly.  My reactions were:
    
    	1-	You shouldn't quote material without references;
    	2-	What's wrong with adults fantasizing?
    	3-	What's wrong with men reading comic books?
    
    	First off, if you cite material, then say where and who
    	wrote it.
    
    	Secondly, fantisy is healthy.  Ask Dr. Ruth.  
    	
    	Thirdly.  Yes, DIane is correct [of course, then again,
    	she spends most of her time in a martial arts studio],
    	MANY men read these magazines and they are plentiful.
    	Most of them have the most beutiful arts i've seen
    	in cartoon drawing collections.  They range
    	in topic from cutesy to futuristic and, of course,
    	violent.  
    
    	But who are *YOU* to judge if this is violent or not?
    	Violence is a rather subjective term.  What's violent
    	in one culture may not be considered violent in another.
    	
    	Diane is also a Gaijin [foreigner] so is sensative to
    	issues that Americans find distressing, so her opinion
    	is biased also.  What really matters is what do the Japanese
    	women think?  Tell you what, i'll find this out and get
    	back to you with their answers.  There are many I know
    	who would answer me honestly.
    
    	Look at all the pornography here with explicit beatings
    	scenes.  I've scene many men in NY Subways reading these
    	and never thought twice about it.  It's not mine
    	to judge.  What SOME men in JAPAN consider reading material
    	should not reflect the general thought patterns of
    	Japanese men.  And what about these thought patterns?
    
    	Is it really so bad that these men read violent manga?
    	Isn't it interesting that a country which vagrant publication
    	of violence [not too unlike OUR television] has one
    	of the LOWEST levels of civil abuse in the world?
    	Perhaps their reading of this material is an outlet 
    	for fantasy that might otherwise be reality [speculation
    	here, but you get my drift].  Before you go screaming
    	HOW BAD THIS IS, think about the consequences and the
    	reality behind the situation.  Realize that not every culture
    	thinks that certain 'ways' are wrong as we might tempt
    	to think they are.  Live 
    
    	When I said you don't know what the hell you are talking
    	about, I assumed you have never been to Japan.  Perhaps
    	I am wrong and would like to apologize for my ignorance.
    	If the foo $h!ts.
    
    	

        As a reader of some moderately violent manga, and fan of Samurai
        films which can also get pretty violent, I feel I too must say
        something about the discussions of violent manga that has been
        going on. 
        
        1) I don't think that any woman who has been the victim of
        domestic violence, or who has close friends, loved ones or
        relatives that have been so victimized, can be blamed for taking
        a very dim view of any positive representation of sexual or
        domestic violence. Further since it is no-one's business which
        women have and have not been so abused, anyone it is out of
        place to criticize *any* woman or anyone related to a woman for
        their views on this subject.
        
        2) It is especially inappropriate in this conference.
        
        3) The term manga applies to a very wide range of Japanese comic
        books, and not merely to the violent comic books read by adult
        men. I mention this because Diane Zingale's mail message which
        Martin posted is ambiguously worded. When Carol Champion and I
        characterize ourselves a manga fans, I don't want everyone
        thinking we are necessarily Rape Man fans.
        
        Comic books in Japan are a much more widely read phenomenon than
        they are in the USA. There are manga for men, women, boys,
        girls. There is one devoted to young girl's volleyball, for
        instance, in which the bulk of an issue is devoted to a single
        game. It's very weird if you come to it with a Western
        perspective. 
        
        4) RE: "Who are you to judge if this is violent or not?"
        
        Aw, come on, rape, assualt, death, decapitation and mutilation
        are objectively violent, regardless of culture. There may be
        cultures in which one or all of these are acceptable in some
        circumstances, but they are still violence.
        
        Furthermore, many manga aimed at adults *are* violent, including
        some very good ones. To give an example, there is "Kozure
        Okamii", reprinted in the States as "Lone Wolf and Cub", and the
        basis of the movie seen here as "Ninja Assasin" (I may have that
        name wrong). "Lone Wolf and Cub", recounts the adventures of a
        Samurai turned assasin. He is called the "Baby Cart Assassin"
        or "Baby Cart Wolf" because he wanders the country side pushing
        his toddler son, Diagoro, in a cart that conceals many deadly
        weapons. 
        
        The manga and the movie are fairly graphic in their violence.
        The art is also beautiful and the stories interesting because of
        the character of both the father and the son, and the presence
        of the youngster adds a very human dimension to the story
        telling. In the context of the stories the violence is
        appropriate and by being realistic (people can die or be maimed
        by violence), rather than portraying an unrealisticly rosey
        picture of it, it can, at least in my view, help understand the
        role that violence has played in our society as well as Ogami's.
        
        Denying that Kozure Okamii and its ilk are violent would not
        serve any useful purpose. The questions rightly are: how is the
        violence portrayed? what values are presented? and what light
        are they presented in? Denying that Rape Man is violent and that
        the values portrays are deplorable would be a great disservice
        to manga, and to the discussion of the portrayal of violence in
        media, and is a slap in the face of those who find such a
        portrayal deeply offensive. 
        
        In summary, I am certainly willing to defend manga, some
        portrayals of violence, and even some forms of violence
        themselves, but that is a far cry from defending all manga, all
        portrayals or all violence. I certainly do not defend spouse
        abuse or the glorification of it in any media.
        
        JimB. 

re: -.2
        
I cited the quote after your request, to the best of my ability.
    
    I think there is nothing wrong with adults fantasizing, I never
    said there was anything wrong about adults fantasizing, I objected
    to the fact that some of these fantasies include rape, violence,
    and - simply put - sex which results in someone being injured against
    their will (please, don't ask me to consult with sadomasochists
    so I can get their point of view).
    
    I think there is nothing wrong with men reading comic books.  Many
    of my friends do.  I never said there was anything wrong with men
    reading comic books.
    
    And as for what Japanese women think, I have no idea...I never said
    I had any idea...and I don't feel I need to consult them in order
    to know what *I* think.  I put forth an opinion, just like everybody
    else.  I do not force anyone to take my opinion as their own - I
    am not out to convert people.
    
    as for your remark that I'm somehow saying we have no violence
    portrayed in the media here, from my note 456.94 comes:
     "...This is taken from a note I got on a mailing file which
    encountered the topic of violence portrayed in popular media - along
    the lines of "the taming of the shrew" and such like...but this
    refers to Japanese incidents (it's not just in the US that this
    happens)..."
    I think it says quite clearly it does happen in the US...don't you?
    
    And I never SCREAMED how bad it was - these comic books and their
    being read by a large public - I stated calmly that the US is not
    the only country that portrays abuse/violence (particularly of women)
    in the popular media.
    
    As for my having visited Japan, again, I felt that the information
    I had gotten was enough to help me vocalize the opinion that I feel
    abuse/violence portrayed in ANY culture may well have negative affects.
     I don't have to go to Japan to get an opinion, and since there
    has been so much input here corroborating my story that these comic
    books do indeed include abuse and violence in some cases, I feel
    that my opinion is strengthened by this conversation.  I have no
    desire to foist/force my opinion on the entire Japanese reading public.
     I simply wished to bring to people's attention the fact that abuse
    and violence (often towards women) in the popular media may know
    no geographical boundaries.

    
    -Jody
    

�     I don't have to go to Japan to get an opinion, and since there
�    has been so much input here corroborating my story that these comic
�    books do indeed include abuse and violence in some cases, I feel
�    that my opinion is strengthened by this conversation.  

    No, you don't have to go to Japan to get an opinion.  But going
    there [ or talking to someone with ACTUAL experience ] might
    make your opinion more valid.

�    I simply wished to bring to people's attention the fact that abuse
�    and violence (often towards women) in the popular media may know
�    no geographical boundaries.

    Is this supposed to be news?

    re .108
    
��    I simply wished to bring to people's attention the fact that abuse
��    and violence (often towards women) in the popular media may know
��    no geographical boundaries.

�    Is this supposed to be news?

    To some people evidently it _is_ news.  When we talk about pornography,
    someone always brings up Europe and the fact that upper-torso nudity
    in women is common in all advertising there and it's everywhere
    (including the subway, TV, etc).  Well, the only place I have faced
    physical abuse is Paris, and while I was there I used to get very
    angry at the sight of it everywhere, perhaps inciting people to
    do what they did to me and a friend.
    
    On a side issue, that comment had a very sour tone, and I would
    request that you make an effort to not sound quite so nasty.
    
    thanks
    
    Lee

    
    
    reprinted without permission from August 1986 Psychology Today
    ==============================================================
    
    Social critics have divergent views on whether arresting wife beaters
    makes them stop.  Some believe it only makes them angrier and more
    vindictive; others believe its shocks them into an awareness of
    the severity of their crime. 
    
    It is now up to those who do not believe in arrest to provide proof
    for their views, because a recent study of 783 battering incidents
    in southern California dramatically decreases the likelihood that
    they'll do it again.
    
    Socialogist Richard berk and his colleague Phyllis Newton compared
    207 men who were arrested with 576 men who were reported but not
    arrested for battering.  They checked to see if the men were reported
    again during the next 28 months.
    
    In the course of their study, the researchers found that the composite
    suspect was 32 years old, had no prior convictions, used no weapons,
    was often but not always drinking, commited the offense on a weekend
    evening, had only a 50 percent chance of being married to his victim
    and had a 44 percent chance of being unemployed.
    
    In two thirds of the cases the victim called the police; in the
    remainder neighbors or others in the house made the call.  Generally,
    for a police officer to make an arrest, the victim had to sign a
    complaint, or the officer had to witness the battering or have evidence
    (such as bruises or signs of a struggle) that it occurred.
    
    Overall, when the police stepped in and made an arrest, the suspects
    were 31 percent less likely to be reported again for violence, which
    shows that the "treatment [of arrest] works rather dramatically."
    the researchers say.
    
    But Berk found that arrest was a stronger deterrent for some men
    than for others.  For those who Berk judged very likely to batter
    again --younger men who resisted arrest, had been drinking, or had
    prior convictions-- arrest proved most effective.  Specifically,
    of the 25 percent or so who were very likely to batter again, only
    one forth of the men who were arrested did so, compared with almost
    two thirds of the men who were not arrested.
    
    On the other hand, the men who were least likely to batter again
    were not helped by the arrest at all.  Whether arrested or not,
    about 28 percent were reported again.
    
    Why didn't arrest help these men?  The researchers think it's because
    the men viewed the battery as an "accidental" one-shot loss of control
    that just happened to occur again.
    
    Why is arrest so effective for the worst offenders?  Probably because
    they are worried about the stiffer sentences they are more likely
    to get for a repeat offense and the deleterious effects on their
    employment prospects, Berk and Newton surmise.
    
    
    (The study appeared in the American Socialogical Review, Vol 50,
    no.2)
    
    

    re: .104
    
    Thanks in advance for posting the title/issue of the P.T. article;
    I'm curious to see what it says.  I do know that in at least some
    parts of the country, the threat of jail/prison time does have 
    some effect, though I'm not exactly sure it's a "deterrent" in the
    usual sense of the word.
    
    Most residents of state prisons follow a code of "ethics", albeit
    one we on the streets might find strange.  For example, in the
    Texas prison system, rapists are generally thought of as low-
    lifes and child molesters are positively evil (according to
    the good, upstanding murderers, robbers, burglars, etc. who
    comprise the rest of prison society).  Those convicted of rape
    or child molesting will very often try and hide the fact by telling
    other inmates that they're in for burglary, drug possession, murder,
    or some other "respectable" crime - being known as a rapist/molester
    in Texas prisons is tantamount to volunteering to be beaten up,
    maimed, and/or killed (and probably raped along the way, too).  
    
    I know of one case in which a paroled child abuser, having been 
    arrested for a similar charge while serving his parole, hanged 
    himself in jail before coming to trial.  He left a note saying 
    that hanging himself was a better fate than that which awaited him 
    if he returned to prison (he was most assuredly correct).  I'm 
    not sure I'd say he was "deterred", but he sure won't be bothering
    any more kids in the future.  However, there are others who hear
    such stories while in jail awaiting trial and I know of one such
    person who I sincerely believe was "scared straight" in such a
    way.
    
    Steve
    
    

	Reprinted from the Gardner News without permission

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

WASHINGTON - Battered women who kill their abusive mates should be able to
defend themselves in court on the grounds of psychological self-defense,
says a lawyer-psychologist who has studied 100 such women.

 In testimony for a house hearing today on women, violence and the law,
Charles Patrick Ewing said the system holds battered women to an unrealistic
standard of accountability when they try to protect themselves.

 "Should a battered woman, or anyone else, who uses deadly force to...
avert what reasonably appears to be the threat of psychological destruction,
be branded a criminal and sent to prison?" Ewing asked in his testimony.

 "I think not. But that is precisely what is happening in many cases under
current self-defense law," said Ewing, an associate professor of law and
psychology at the State University of New York at Buffalo.

 Ewing's testimony was submitted to the House Select Committee on Children,
Youth and Families for a hearing on marital rape, date rape, domestic violence
and related topics.

 Committee chairman Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., said a woman is beaten every
18 seconds in the United States, and a woman is the victim of rape or attempted
rape every 3 1/2 minutes.

 "Violence committed behind closed doors still gets an inconsistent response
from our justice system, when it gets any response at all," Miller said in a
prepared opening statement. "A battered wife who kills her husband ... is
more likely to be convicted of murder than is the husband who beats his wife
to death."

 Ewing said that of the 100 women he studied, nine pleaded guilty to homicide
charges, three entered pleas of not guilty by reason of insanity, and three
had charges dropped before trial.

 The remaining 85 women went to trial claiming self-defense, he said.
Sixty-three were convicted of various forms of criminal homicide and received
sentences ranging from probation to life in prison.

 In a book he has written on the subject, Ewing proposed that state lawmakers
expand self-defense law to include the use of deadly force where necessary to
prevent extremely serious psychological injury.

 Such a change would mean sympathetic juries could honestly apply the law 
instead of ignoring it in cases where the killing did not occur in the midst
of a beating but the women did not deserve to be convicted or punished, Ewing
said in his testimony.

 Symbolically, he said, in recognizing psychological self-defense, "the law
would fully and unequivocally acknowledge the dreadful psychological plight
of battered women..."

 Psychologist Lenore Walker, executive director of the Domestic Violence
Institute in Denver, recommended in her testimony that self-defense laws be
changed to justify acts by battered people who reasonably perceive that serious
physical harm or death is imminent.

 She also said child custody laws should be changed to bar joint or exclusive
custody and visitation for batterers who have not proven they have changed 
their behavior. And she said child abuse laws should reflect the threat of
harm to a child who witnesses spousal abuse.

 Walker said child custody and visitation issues are used by batterers to
abuse and harass women even after they have terminated their relationships
with abusive men - a development she said researchers and service providers
failed to anticipate.

 "Long after the marriage bonds are severed, battered women's lives are still
in jeopardy," Walker said in her testimony. "Men who batter women simply do
not let them go."

    When I first started hearing the news story George reprinted (.112)
    I was thinking "Yeah, good stuff!" to myself.
    
    Then they got to the line about sanctioning the use of deadly
    force in self defense of perceived psychological harm.  Is 
    anyone else uncomfortable with that notion?
    
    Steve
    

    
    RE: .113	Yes, I was uncomfortable with that aspect also. I'd
    		be interested in what the women have to say regarding
    		this particular part of the article.

    Cynical me, I assumed the reporter had klutzed.
    
    Yes, it says "the grounds of psychological self-defense", "`the
    threat of psychological destruction'", and "the use of deadly force
    where necessary to prevent extremely serious psychological injury."
    
    On the other hand, the context also speaks of a House hearing on
    "marital rape, date rape, domestic violence and related topics",
    "`Violence committed behind closed doors'", and uses words like "beaten"
    and "rape".
    
    What they state they are discussing are "cases where the killing did
    not occur in the midst of a beating".  When they get to the
    testimony of the woman expert, Lenore Walker, she (apparently,
    since she is not quoted) speaks of "acts by battered people who
    reasonably perceive that serious PHYSICAL harm or DEATH is imminent."
    (Emphasis mine.)
    
    You see, self defense is justifiable homicide, which requires that
    it (the killing) be done to prevent a violent felony.  If the woman
    has not yet been hit, or had a projectile weapon aimed at her, how
    can the court be *sure* that her darling hubby didn't just want to
    caress her?  The discussion is apparently about the best sort of,
    um, technique to add to the law's arsenal to assist the Law in
    approaching Justice.
    
    So, my take on it is that "psychological destruction" is lawyerese
    for intimidation, the threat of injury, maiming, mutilation, or
    death, even if it is not backed up by an IMMEDIATE physical act.
    
    Even so, the term does not thrill me, and I would heartily recommend
    that a phrase involving words like "intimidation", "threat", "fear
    of imminent harm to self or third party present" be used instead.
    Shall we continue this discussion with this substitution assumed,
    so that the [numerically, at least] larger problem of battered women
    may be discussed, instead of the smaller problem of excessive reaction
    to mental torment?
    
    							Ann B.

    Except in states with "Make_my_day" laws, one is not allowed to
    use force when retreat is possible. On the other hand it can be
    argued that a psychologically abused person could not perceive
    that retreat was possible. Hellish choice.
    Dana

        I believe you'll find that most states allow the use of force
        when reteat is possible. The most obvious exception was
        Massachusetts, but I believe that even Mass has soften its law
        and now permits the use of force and of deadly force even in
        circumstances where retreat is still possible.
        
        The case that caused the change in the law involved a woman who
        shot her ex-husband after she retreated around the house and into
        the cellar with her child or children, but finally shot him
        without checking to see if the bulk-head was unlocked permitting
        further retreat. It was felt by some that someone who would
        pursue and attack a person armed with a rifle over an extended
        period of time might be just a tad unreasonable and dangerous
        and that women have a right to protect themselves and their
        children from such maniacs.
        
        JimB.

    One day in the women's room, I found an article about woman battering.
    We had these pockets taped to the walls in the women's rooms with
    health related articles that the nurse posted, but I mostly ignored them.
    Until this one.
    
    It's by Esther R. Rome, for the Boston Women's Health Book Collective.
    
    Eventually, the supply ran out.  I waited a bit, in case the nurse
    had some other idea; then I made more copies and put them there.
    They dwindled; I did it again.
    
    I just made more copies, and I'll send one to you through interoffice
    mail if you tell me where.  It's just one page.   There are references
    for other pamphlets.
    
    Unfortunately, sometime in the past couple of months, some of the pockets
    have been removed.  Must have been part of the women's room
    refurbishing.  But I feel like taping another pocket up: I missed this 
    small communication with unknown women; I don't think I told anyone
    here I was doing it.  

    I don't even know if it was the nurse who posted the first one.    
    
    I used to wonder why they picked up the articles too.

    Lisa, thank you for continuing to  be sure that article was
    available.

    Occasionally, I'll run across a book or comics store that will
    run out of an item, but won't bother to order some more of it,
    thinking, "Whew! Well, we got rid of all those, thank god." It
    doesn't seem to occur to them that the reason they're sold out
    is because they've got people out ther that *want* the item,
    and that they could sell more by ordering more.
    
    Doesn't the same thing occur to whomever it is that supplies
    these articles in the first place?  It seems obvious that if a
    whole supply of copies of a batter-women article gets grabbed
    up that there must be a need for it.
    
    --- jerry

Liz (and others) might consider posting copies of 1.2 (the "press release")
in appropriate places to make others aware of this file.

Martin.