Conference turris::womannotes-v2

>Women feel anger towards men, why don't
>    	they ever take a gun and go flailing madly through a university?  
    
    Well, there have been a few cases where women have gone berzerk with a
    gun and committed mass murder. The woman who killed a bunch of children
    in a school in the midwest a couple of years ago comes to mind.
    Obviously, many more men than women commit these types of crimes.
    
>    	*Is* male violence is an accepted part of society?
    
    Sort of. I don't think people say "yeah, it's alright," but there does
    seem to be alot of people who have conditioned themselves to no longer
    get upset about it. And that's a form of acceptance.
    
    The Doctah

    
    	>*Is* male violence is an accepted part of society?
    
    	yes.
    	it is wrong and it must be changed.
    

    I believe male violence is very much a part of this culture,  just as
    the myth that women (girls) are passive.  Look at (but not for long)
    Saturday morning cartoons!  There are *still* many violent shows, not
    to mention all the war toys kids are exposed to during the commercials.  
    The indoctrination starts at an early age.
    
    Look at our national pasttimes - people pay
    top $$$$ to see two men beat on each other (i.e. boxing); hockey has
    become so violent, seldom a game goes by without a fight. 
    
    Look at the jury's verdict in the Fla. case:  The jury found a rapist
    not guilty because the woman was "asking for it" by the way she was
    dressed.
    
    Look at the women who are murdered and/or abducted by ex-husbands or
    lovers.  Despite the womens' pleas to the court that these men would
    hurt them if left out on the streets, these men were allowed to roam
    the streets.
       
    I find it so depressing, but it also makes me feel that we can't give
    up either! We need to continue working against this
    madness by providing appropriate role-models for kids, families,
    and acquaintences. That there is an alternative way of life.

    Although I agree pretty much with what you're saying Carla, I must pick
    a nit here...
    
    I watched the same Oprah (all right Ill admit it :-)) and I only recall
    One male actually stating that, sort of.... There was one other male
    that kinda danced himself into a HUGE hole and sort of implied the same
    thing, but to say three outah four or whatever is wrong.
    Considering that probably four males was the maximum amount of males
    ever to be allowed to speak on her show.  Ever notice how she...
    nawwww nevermind.
    
    

    With notable exceptions -- "Fatal Attraction" comes to mind -- how many
    films/ tv shows ever show women stalking men?  But, it seems like every
     other cop/adventure show/film uses some variation of that theme.  Is
    it art imitating life or vice versa?  I don't know but I'm not
    entertained by watching women being put in the role of victim.  I also
    have to wonder how much constant exposure to those types of images
    inures our reaction  so that outrage dies down to something close to
    acceptance.
    
    I also wonder if those making the movies, and the segment of society
    who support them, are just more comfortable with portrayal of the 
    stereotypical roles of women as the "weaker sex" and the big strong
    (smarter) men as the rescuers.
    
    I think by continuing the fight, we can make great strides against the
    domestic violence situations. A part of that is not only
    changing the justice system (not easy but do-able) but in helping the
    women involved to improve their self-esteem and get out of the victim
    mode. A tough task but one, because the need is known and support
    services can be put in place, that can be accomplished.  I really don't
    know how you prevent the mass murder/serial murder situations where the
    victims and their killers are most often not in anyway connected.  I
    have a 20 year old daughter.  I have brought her up with a very strong
    sens of her self-worth.  I don't worry about her being involved in an
    abusive situation.  I've helped to give her the tools to protect
    herself.  What tools could I/can I give her to protect herself from the
    madmen (Montreal/Ted Bundy.....) of this world?  

    re:Carla
    
        >When has a woman stalked the streets looking for male victims to 
    	>kill?  I'm serious, has this ever happened?  And was she caught?
    	
    There was a famous incident here in California where a teen-age
    girl shot and killed kids on a school playground. When later questioned
    as to why she did it, she stated "I don't like Mondays." This
    was later turned into a well-known song by the Boomtown Rats,
    "Tell Me Why I Don't Like Mondays".  
    
    Woman's violence against men seems to be mostly against spouses
    or boyfriends, who in turn were abusive towards these women.
    
    >When are men victims?  Are men ever raped by other men?     
    
    In prisons there have been instances of this.
    
    >Do men
    	>ever beat other men?   
    
    Leonard vs. Duran. They both get paid big money to beat/ get beaten.
    
    >Women feel anger towards men, why don't
    	>they ever take a gun and go flailing madly through a university?
    	
    See the schoolyard incident above.
    
    >Why don't women go to war over religious or political beliefs?
    	
    Woman have been restricted from taking combatant roles in the miltary.
    As political leaders, they have gone to war. Maggie Thatcher, PM
    of the UK during the Falklands crisis. Golda Meier of Israel. Various
    queens throughout history, such as Elizabeth I of England, Cleopatra
    of Egypt, and a wide variety of others. Women have played individual
    roles in war as well.
    
    >Why can't some men control their hostility towards others?  
    
    Nobody has the answer to this question.
   
    > Why do men get in fights at bars?  (OK, women do too, but not nearly
    	as often.)                                                         
                    
    Alcohol lessens inhibitions against fighting, which then relates
    back to the previous question.                  
    
    Male violence is traditionally accepted part of masculine behavior.
    This is not to say that it is right.
    
    -roger
    
    

    Some unhappy observations and a premontion:
    
    � When are men victims?  Are men ever raped by other men?  Do men
    � ever beat other men?  
    
    The incidence of male to male violence is significantly higher
    (anybody have pointers to some of the stats entered in this conf?)
    than male to female violence.  Male to male rape is a common
    occurance in various institutions (reform schools, jails, prisons).
    To the best of my knowledge, it's relatively rare outside such 
    places.
    
    � Women feel anger towards men, why don't they ever take a gun and 
    � go flailing madly through a university?
    
    I don't know and I'm not certain anyone does.  I suspect some of it
    has to do with women's historical lack of power (real and/or
    perceived).  I suspect some of it has to do with the social roles
    women have historically played.  But beyond that, I can't help
    but wonder if there aren't physiological and/or psychological
    characteristics inherent to women that yield different "aggression
    quotients", if you will.  Given some of the trends I've heard of
    lately I really wonder about this one.  
    
    For example violent crime is rising faster among young women than
    most other demographic groups.  My very uneasy premonition is that
    while the obvious fact is that the kind of derranged murder/suicide
    we saw in Montreal has been perpetrated far more often (factors of
    magnitude) by men than by women, it's only a matter of time until
    some equally insane woman commits such an act.
    
    Christ, I wish I could believe that there was some way we could
    quickly reverse this murder/suicide trend, but I don't think this
    will be the case.  If it's to happen, that is, if we (the species)
    are someday meant to come to a point where such insanity occurs
    only in the most rare of instances, I think it will take a long,
    bloody time to get there.
    
    Steve

    The problem is that men are trained to be competative and agressive.
    If the equality of women means taking male values then women will
    start committing more crimes and more violent ones. If men start
    adopting some of the traditionally female values maybe society would
    start changing in a better direction.

    What we need is a new idea of what being successful means. Of what
    is acceptable behavior for men and women that includes co-operation
    instead of competition, assertivness instead of agression. liesl

    
    re:.8
    and that, to me, is the best part of feminism: learning new and
    different ways to be a person that are *better* than the old sexist
    ways i, and many others still, grow up with.
    

    Funny, in another conference, I just mentioned a scene from a film as
    an example of how our society actually encourages violence in men. In
    "Dirty Dancing", our hero, without a word of dialogue in which he tries
    to express his emotions on the subject, becomes uncontrollably angry at
    the villain and beats him to a pulp. Our heroine, although not sharing
    this need that men seem to feel to express righteous anger in some
    physical and violent way, nevertheless appears to accept it as normal
    male behaviour and love him all the more for it.
    
    I'm appalled at the way so many of our movies, so many TV shows and our
    culture in general tends to accept/encourage violence as an appropriate
    expression of the emotion of anger in men. Indeed, I feel, as a male,
    growing up I was encouraged to perceive that there was no acceptable
    public emotion for a man to feel except anger, and that the expression
    of that emotion in an act of violence was not only acceptable, but
    expected. I also suspect that the ridiculously extreme force with which
    some males express anger, is at least in part due to the repression of
    all other emotional responses. It's OK to have the emotion of anger and
    express it, so a lot of other, unexpressed male emotional energy is
    channeled into this single emotional outlet.
    
    Add to this the fact that the only other "irrational" behavior
    tolerated in men is sexual desire and it seems to me you have a
    cultural formula designed to promote male assaults and in particular
    assaults against women.

RE:  male-male rape.

From what I read this is not that uncommon in society as large but
even more underreported that men raping women.  The reason I've heard
is that men are supposed to be strong and heterosexual so to get
raped by another man is very much a no-no...

    RE:10  Good Note!
    
    I think you're right when you say that the limitation of allowable
    emotions funnels that energy into anger. The other emotions are to be
    surpressed, and when they can be surpressed no longer, surface as
    rage.
    
    -roger
    

    
    	I went to school and worked in an environment that almost 1/2
    	of the people were homosexual males.  Most of them were in the
    	early 20s age range.  Most did not have a steady significant 
    	relationship.
    
    	Based on what they told me, there was alot of males beating (not fights
    	but hitting, kicking used as a punishment) males in this group.  Also
    	homosexual rape was not uncommon.  I'ld say about 20% of this group had 
    	either been raped, raped or knew someone that had been.
    
    	So to answer your question, it male-to-male sex based violence does
    	happen.  It's certainly not to the extent that it does with
    	male-to-female.  It seems to me that it happens more than
    	female-to-male or female-to-female.
    
    	

    	Throughout history violent defensive behavior by males has allowed
    their survival and the survival of the women and children in their
    society.  Unfortunately the violent instincts are some times unleashed
    against non-enemies.  If our (male) ancestors had not been willing and
    able to fight for our society we would today be the victims and slaves
    of some conqueror.  Does anyone believe that our fate would have been
    any better than that of Eastern Europe if our society hadn't fought
    against an alien ideology 50 years ago?  How many women in our society
    would have been raped if we had not been willing to resort to violence?
    	The problem is that sometimes those violent instincts are sometimes
    not accompanied by the inhibitions that protect our own society against
    them.  When that happens there is a horror story for one or more
    individuals in our society.  If the instincts were suppressed in all of
    us every individual in our society would have a horror to tell.  Until
    our species evolves to the point where no one feels that their own
    social theories, beliefs or personal desires should be violently
    imposed on others we are going to need our own violent instincts. 
    Perhaps it is a good thing that some women are becoming more inclined
    toward defensive violence.  This is likely to discourage some of the
    animals in our society who lack the proper inhibitions.
    	I hesitate to mention the following in this conference, but think
    that it may be helpful since the subject has already been opened:
    	I think that there is a conscious intent in our laws to make a
    sharp distinction between the penalties for rape and those for murder. 
    The kind of animal who values his own desires over another's right to
    her own body is unlikely to see a significant moral distinction between 
    rape and murder.  The news anywhere I have ever lived have reflected
    this.  It is unfortunate that we cannot punish these animals as they
    deserve without as risking the lives of others who have not yet been
    victimized.  I am glad that the victims are still here and did not
    suffer the fate that other victims of these animals have.  I hope that
    can recognize that they were victims of vicious animals, not of
    thinking beings.  
    					John
     

    Good note, John.
    
    The Montreal incident has had a surprisingly profound effect on me and
    my attitudes in the last week or so.  I have never before thought of
    myself as a victim.  Now I admit to quite a bit of doubt about my
    ability to protect myself and an accompanying amount of fear.  I feel
    physically vulnerable for the first time in my life and it's not a
    pleasant feeling.  This feeling has been reinforced by an incident that
    occurred on Tuesday.  
    
    I was at a gas station pumping gas.  It was very cold that day so I'd
    worn my fake fur coat.  As I stood at the pump I gradually became aware
    of some man shouting abuse from a car stopped at the stop light on the
    street.  It gradually sunk into my conciousness that he was shouting
    abuse at me.  It appears that this "man" was an animal rights activist
    and thought that my coat was real fur.  Apparently he felt that this
    gave him the right to verbally abuse me in very load and graphic terms. 
    I ignored his tirade (it was a very long light and he went on for a
    good 3 minutes).  I was tempted to go over to the car and try to talk
    reasonably to him but suddenly the Montreal incident popped into my
    mind and I was afraid to even look at him for fear his actions would
    accelerate from verbal to physical abuse.
    
    To be honest I really don't know how to deal with this sort of thing. 
    More importantly I don't know how to deal with my own fear.  I've found
    myself going over past incidents with the men in my life and feeling
    afraid of them and what they might do if angered.  These are not men with 
    whom I've had angry words or fallingsout but men who are friends,
    relatives, people who I trusted.
    
    I don't want to live my life from fear but how do you work past the
    feelings that arise from this sort of thing?  Rationally I know that
    it's not reasonable to condemn all men for the actions of a few but
    then fear is not particularly rational.
    
    Nanci

    re [.15] - I wonder if this big mouth would be so hot to take up 
    the animal rights issue with some big guy in a leather jacket 
    gassing up his Harley?

    I wondered that too.  I also wondered if he would have done this if he
    hadn't been "safe" inside a car?  Would he have done it if I'd been in
    the car instead of outside - exposed?   There are no answers I suppose. 
    My first thought was to go over and "educate" him.  "You wouldn't know
    a mink if it bit you, pal."  But then I thought, I shouldn't have to
    justify ANYTHING to this obnoxious foul-mouthed b@#%$&d whether it's
    true or not!  The ironic thing about it is that I bought that
    particular coat because it is a fake and I couldn't morally justify a
    real one.
    
    Later the anger went away but the fear remained. 

	Women may be the ones who raise male children but all are
	raised in a patirarchal society.  Changing the way children
	are raised is a very slow process.  The adults doing the
	raising need to be aware of what they are doing, and how
	to make improvements.  Then those children become adults
	and raise their children in a more human manner who then
	have children and raise them ....

	This is how society gets changed one person at a time and
	women can not do it alone.  Men have a VERY big responsibility
	toward raising their children with love and understanding.

	Until men (general case) accepts their responsibility for
	future generations, they will continue to undermine any
	progress that women are able to make raising responsible
	children.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			Children are not clean slates
			They carry the debts of their parents,
			parents, parents.

    re: .18
    
    Do you have kids?  I don't mean to sound harsh, but I have two, aged
    22 and 18, and I marvel at their attitudes and values -- both the
    ones that they have that I hope I helped bring about, *and* the
    ones that I wonder *how* they could possible have developed in *our*
    home!

    It's well-understood by psychologists, Herb (check this out with your
    relatives) that parents have "more influence/control" only during a
    child's earliest years.  As the child moves into the teen years, the
    peer group has the most influence/control.
    
    						=maggie

    No, you interpreted it correctly, you weren't supposed to say "ouch".
    
    
    I'm not sure I'd put much stock in Acquinas, Herb...ask Mez if you'd
    like a hair-curling quotation or two. :-)  And the other famous
    proponent, John Watson, never actually got a chance to test the
    hypothesis (just as well, considering) so perhaps we should return the
    Scots verdict of "not proven"?
    
    Remember that both Erickson and Piaget emphasised the ability of
    individuals to "rebuild" their cognitive and affective framework in
    response to life experiences even, in Erickson's case, in middle age.
    
    The reductionistic and mechanistic behaviorist model has never been
    shown to explain the complex processes we see as personality;  to say
    we should look to the parents to explain the criminal pathology of
    Montreal is only valid if we can predict certain behaviors from looking
    at familiy pathologies and of course we cannot do anything of the kind.
     
    						=maggie

 Herb-

 .26 was a dumb note. Please accept my apologies.

 I disagree that we should ignore the role of "society" and only concentrate on
the possible contributions to his behavior by his family life.

>    (I also know that if my remarks are considered laughable, then there is
>    no point in making any more)

 That was a bad choice of words on my part. It just struck me that your 
statement was fundamentally off the mark. It may even turn out that you were 
correct. I should not have written .26- it was written under lousy 
circumstances, and benefitted no one.

 The Doctah

    <--(.25)
    
�    I disagree about whether the validity is contingent upon predictability.
�    (on the other hand, I think there is a kind of "statistical a posteriori
�    predictability" in the sense that one can predict that the background
�    of "dysfunctional adults", will include dysfunctional parents.
    
    You're certainly at liberty to disagree, Herb, but I'd be surprised to
    learn that you could find any reputable support for your position.  
    
    "Statistical a posteriori predictability" is, I think, more usually
    called "hindsight".  It does no good to find dysfunctional parents in
    the backgrounds of dysfunctional adults because we can find "normal"
    parents in the backgrounds of other dysfunctional adults and
    dysfunctional parents in the backgrounds of "normal" adults.  What
    possible good does that do after the fact?
    
�    I gather from your interest in 'taking up the discussion' that you hold
�    some other perspective about the importance of parenting in the
�    developmental process?
    
    I'm not really interested in "taking up the discussion" as such...it
    just seemed to me as though some balance was needed.  Parents are
    important but not critical:  children raised with good surrogates do
    just fine, as the Israeli experience (among others) can attest.  I
    would point out that to overemphasise the influence of the parents
    diverts appropriate attention from other, inimical social forces.  Just
    as the hoopla over Noriega and drugs diverts public attention from the
    increasing shift of wealth and power toward the already-rich.  
    
    						=maggie

    	This is a story I've told in =wn= before, so bear with me if it
    	sounds familiar.  :-)
    
    	When my son was around 2 and 1/2 years old, he was in pre-school
    	during the day while I went to college and worked two part-time
    	jobs.  We were living on our own, and were very happy (and were
    	still breast-feeding, actually.)
    
    	One day, Ryan came home from pre-school and gave me a very strange
    	look before announcing to me that he had learned (from the kids at
    	pre-school, I assume) that "Girls don't have muscles."  
    
    	The message was, essentially, that his Mommy was a girl and was
    	thus inferior to his 2 and 1/2 year old male self (according to
    	the kids at school.)  Furthur, if girls didn't have muscles, then
    	why should he do anything I asked him to do?   I mean, without
    	muscles, what could *I* possibly do to him if he *refused* to obey?
    
    	We went round the block with this "attitude" for about a week 
    	(during which time my hand made connection with his training-
    	panted bottom more than once.)
    
    	At the end of the week, he made the pronouncement that "Mommies
    	have muscles" and we went back to normal.  :-)
    
    	I tried to remove the rest of the prejudice that was given to him
    	by his pre-school friends, but I'm sure that they poured more ideas
    	into his head (about women) than I ever heard repeated at home.
    
    	At this point in his life, he's more enlightened (having been
    	raised by me) than he might not have been otherwise, but I still
    	occasionally see attitudes in him that I *know* he got from our
    	culture at some point in his life (possibly as early as 2 or 3
    	years old, like the "muscles" idea.)
    
    	Kids don't live in a vacuum.  They can hear/pick_up cultural
    	attitudes about women at almost any age.

    Certainly not all misogynists go about killing women. Some only beat us
    up. Some only psychologically abuse us. Still, women do actually die in 
    alarming numbers because they are women. Am I saying this guy didn't
    have a screw loose? Not at all - he probably virtually *rattled* when
    he walked. However:
    
    1. I submit that a family in which sexism exists is by definition
    dysfunctional.
    
    2. Many parents (some of whom are in this very conference) will tell
    you that raising non-sexist children in a sexist society is nearly
    *impossible*. I submit that the presence of a television set in the
    household (which children can actually *watch*) brings sexism in all
    its "glory" right into the kids' baliwick - and trashes any thought of
    raising a non-sexist child. 
    
    3. Pure conjecture: if this guy's father abused *him*, I would be
    willing to be that the mother was also abused - and certainly not
    treated in a (for lack of a better term) non-sexist manner.
    
    4. The Don't Get Me Started Department (I taught Jr. Hi. for 14 years -
    I figure I dealt with 3-5000 kids in that time)   Yes, the parents have
    the most influence they will ever have when the child is young. I
    shudder to think what's going to happen with the current young'uns
    whose parents are abdicating their responsibility at this crucial time.
    (I am not talking about so-called "working mothers" here; I am talking
    about parents who are there physically, but do nothing along the lines
    of dealing with the child. In fact, the "working moms" may be doing the
    best job, if they spend time guiding the kids when they're with 'em.)
    Guidance, not time together, is the important factor. [See? I told you
    not to get me started.]
    
    --DE
    

    RE: .32
    
    WIth all due respect, Herb - all the examples you gave of various
    crackpots were indeed valid, as Your Garden Variety Crackpot. However,
    none of them specifically killed women BECAUSE THEY WERE WOMEN.
    
    This guy had a different slant on crackpottedness. So I'll go along
    with your example of Hitler - as one who spotlighted (in SPADES) the
    already-existing anti-Semitism; and Lepine as one who spotlights (in
    SPADES) already-existing misogyny.
    
    --DE
    

    Just a nit, but wasn't John Wayne Gacy the guy in Chicago with
    the bodies buried under his house?
    

    Yes, actually, Norwood IL a suburb
    

    I'll give you Gacy - with reservations. The boys were killed to protect
    his inability to deal with his sexuality, I believe - so it's really
    an aspect of the situation. 
    
    Speck....I'm not so sure. It's never been said, to my knowledge,
    exactly why he picked on the women he chose.
    
    In both cases, fer sure, it's the less powerful being at the mercy of
    the criminal. 
    
    --DE
    

    to continue the rathole...
    
    as I recall Speck selected only young nurses...something about the
    uniform, his experiences, etc.  but they were all women.  Horrible
    brutal murders too.  There was another serial murderer in the Chicago
    area not too long before that, can't remember the guy's name (brown?)
    who buried the women alive in the sands of Lake Michigan.  ick!
    
    and of course we can't forget our stalking New Bedford killer of the
    prostitutes.  And the one in Seattle (Green River killer) and the
    one currently haunting Rochester NY.  I'm sure there are others.
    
    Why?  thats the question.  What leads people to such hatred and 
    violence?  Are more folks 'closer to the brink' today than in
    decades/centuries gone by?  or is it just easier to murder and
    not get caught these days?   And what can we as women do about it
    since we tend to be, more often than not, the victims of such
    insanity?
    
    crazy world...
    
    
    deb
    

    
    Herb,
    I agree the *individuals* are to blame, have the problems, are
    sick, or whatever.  But there seem to be MORE and more of these
    individuals.  Why?  If, as you say its parental, and we all know
    child abuse is on the rise, then can we expect even MORE of this
    type of 'insanity'?  Certainly not all kids raised in dysfunctional
    homes grow up to be killers.  Why do some?  Since its becoming
    more of a society problem, and less 'just another crazy' what can
    we do about it?  Would funding daycare, restructuring welfare so 
    that working makes more sense, encouraging education, rewarding
    ambition in inner city slums, etc help?  Certainly getting rid
    of drugs will help, but that's not the only cause/problem.
    
    What can society do to help elimate these crazies?  I can't sit
    here and say, well its a particular person's particular genetic/
    envrionmental/parental problem....all the while more and more
    crime occurs.  It has to be attacked some how.  
    
    Sorry if you have addressed this , i don't remember all the
    40 previous replies.  And its not a simple solution.  and
    its not a single focus....but there must be some things which
    can be started to help solve some of the 'ills' of the country.
    
    deb
    

    
    
    According to Ellen Goodman, violence against women increased 20%
    from 1980-1989.
    
    
    

	At 5am this morning I was blearily listening to an advert about
	an upcoming special on violence against women.  They flashed on
	one man who said, "I didn't know it was wrong to hit her."  And
	on how society is not protecting women who seek protection.  In
	one (Missouri?) county alone, 12 women were killed by estranged
	husbands/lovers IN ONE MONTH -- women who had court orders that
	the abusive man be kept away from them.

	One woman had her husband convicted of beating her, and asked
	that she be notified when he got out of jail so she could take 
	precautionary measures against his threats to kill her.  He was
	released on an 8-hour work furlough.  She was not notified.  He
	killed her during that furlough.

	It seems as though society, the courts, and the media do little
	to protect women's lives.  I think they often belittle a woman 
	who fears for her (and possibly her children's) life by patting
	her on the hand, handing her a piece of paper and saying "there
	there, honey, now you'll be OK."  The media downplays violence
	against women because it's nothing new, nothing sensational.  I
	know there are wonderful organizations, women's shelters, and
	individuals who do all they can to give support to women seeking
	help, but the majority of women who need help don't always seek
	it.  They don't know it's out there.  They don't realize they're
	worthy enough to be treated with respect and non-violence.

	I hope this special (I need to find out when it's on) opens some
	eyes.

	Carla

    Someone quoted to me a statistic from a recent issue of the Boston
    Globe (sorry I can't be more specific) that 21 women are killed every
    month in massachusetts by a lover or husband.
    
    Yikes.
    
    -Jody
    

    re .44 -
    
    I think the reference is to Bella English's column in the Globe
    last week, in which she stated that every 22 days in Massachusetts
    a woman is killed by husband or boyfriend.

    That's what I get for listening to second hand news.  It's still too
    many women dying from the ones who theoretically love them (kind of
    funny what people do in the name of "love"....)
    
    -Jody
    

How many women kill their husbands?

We just had a woman in Colorado go to prison for 44 years because she put
a contract out on her husband.  (Evidently he was a policeman, beat her, 
and threatened to kill her......she decided she would get to him first.)

She did, and she paid.  Was she justified in killing him?  Even considering
the fact that she repeatedly asked for help from the police and didn't
get it?


kath

    re .46 -
    
    You're darned right it's too many! A woman and a third per month
    too many, just about...!

    re 13.564, Ed-
    
    Have you read this topic? (thanks for redirecting us, Jody).
    
    Lets look at Carla's .43-
    
      >	an upcoming special on violence against women.  They flashed on
      >	one man who said, "I didn't know it was wrong to hit her."  And
      >	on how society is not protecting women who seek protection.  In
      >	one (Missouri?) county alone, 12 women were killed by estranged
      >	husbands/lovers IN ONE MONTH -- women who had court orders that
      >	the abusive man be kept away from them.
      >
      >	One woman had her husband convicted of beating her, and asked
      >	that she be notified when he got out of jail so she could take 
      >	precautionary measures against his threats to kill her.  He was
      >	released on an 8-hour work furlough.  She was not notified.  He
      >	killed her during that furlough.
      >
      >	It seems as though society, the courts, and the media do little
      >	to protect women's lives.
    
    I read Nancy's statement in 13.563 as an expression of purpose; as a
    bitter statement that if the NRA's commercial really is so distorted as
    Deb reported in 13.561, then a change is called for...and upon what
    grounds?  That violence is done to women by the men who know them, nd
    its just as big, if not a bigger, problem than that of assault by
    strangers.
    
    You are objecting to being "lumped into" that category?  If the shoe
    doesn't fit, don't wear it.  But the problem still exists, and don't
    allow your personal offense at other men's smearing your rep, to
    prevent us from recognizing and fighting the problem.  This is NOT
    stereotyping; this is a REAL problem.
    
    DougO

.43>	an upcoming special on violence against women.

	My correction:  Segments on this subject are being telecast on
	NBC Nighly News with Tom Brokaw, and then again on NBC News at
	Sunrise every day this week.

	It's highly disturbing.  Supposedly "successful" men who admit
	they have a need to control their wives/girlfriends, and if it
	isn't accomplished verbally they resort to physical means.  At
	least that's what last night's segment focused on.

	Carla

    
    What get me about the last few replies is that it seems so
    contrary to how I was brought up.
    I was always taught that it is simple unacceptable to be violent
    to a woman, even if she is violent to me. 
    
    Perhaps my mistake was in assuming we were all taught the same thing.
    
    								Hank
    

    Re: .52

    > What get me about the last few replies is that it seems so
    > contrary to how I was brought up.
    > I was always taught that it is simple unacceptable to be violent
    > to a woman, even if she is violent to me. 
    
    You know, Hank, I've been thinking the same thing.

    As a kid, I was always being told, that no matter what girls might
    do, boys did not *ever* hit them.

    We also were instructed to take care of girls, and show courtesies
    (like opening doors, holding chairs).

    Funny, now that I think of it.................it was almost always
    our mothers and female teachers who inculcated us in these social
    graces.

      Alan

    From "The Ten O'Clock News" on WGBH (Boston)

    I think the odds go something like this:
    
        A woman is twice as likely to be assaulted by someone she knows
        as by a stranger.
        
        One in three women will experience a physical abuse in a 
        relationship at some point in their lives.
        

                                        cathy
                                        

    I think that children raised in abusive households, or in neighborhoods
    or families that had men abusing women in them verbally or physically,
    may not have learned the same lessons - or they may have learned them
    from teachers and so forth about "female strangers" - women they are
    not close to or do not know well - but may have absorbed a completely
    different lesson for women in relationships with men just from their
    surroundings.
    
    -Jody
    

    RE: Boys not hitting girls, no matter what
    
    I think part of the problem may be that women in recent years have
    gotten "uppity". We are developing, showing, and taking pride in
    our own strength and abilities. We open doors for ourselves. [NO!
    I don't want to get into that again!] But boys were always taught
    that you not only don't hit girls, you "take care" of them. Now
    girls (women) are saying "We don't need taking care of - we want 
    equal partnership." 
    
    Some of the violence may be a reaction to that -the kind of thinking
    that goes "Oh, so you want to be equal, eh? Well, you'll never be
    as strong as I am!" (*smack* *whap*) This may be on a psychological
    level that never gets verbalized - but more than once I witnessed
    domestic "discussions" in which the only way the man could express
    his anger and frustration was to threaten to hit his wife. I can
    imagine that men with less self control would not simply threaten.
    
    Women are killed all the time by the men who are or were their
    partners. I bet you could find the stats quoted in this file at least
    2 years ago. And still, nothing is done.
    
    --DE
    

    re: boys being taught not to hit girls...
    
    I would imagine that many men who hit women were taught as boys not to
    hit girls.  One thing that I have been thinking about is why boys are
    taught that it is not o.k. to hit girls but it is o.k. to hit other
    boys?  Hitting someone, regardless of their gender, is a violent act
    and a violation of the other person's physical and perhaps emotional
    being.  Given these life lessons, maybe at some point, say, after a
    boy/man has committed too much violence against other boys/men it just
    becomes easy to cross the line and commit violence agains girls/women,
    even though at some point in life they were taught that this isn't o.k.
    
    The above is something that I've been pondering.  The theory is not
    based on any statistic, body of research, but comes out of my belief
    that violence begets violence.  
    
    Laura
    

    	RE: .58  Mike Z.
    
    	> If men and women are equal,         and
	> if it is Ok for a man to hit a man, then
	> is it Ok for a man to hit a woman?
    
    	Who says it is "Ok" for a man to hit a man, though???  Is it ok
    	if my 6'3" son walks up to you and clobbers you (or anyone else?)
    
    	Perhaps that is where our society has gone so fundamentally wrong
    	in the first place - (in the assumption that casual violence is an
    	acceptable behavior among civilized people at all!)
    

    The "kids' lessons on hitting" entries made me think back. I grew up in
    an atypical, university centered community. WE were taught (or decided
    ourselves) that nobody should hit others, or inflict physical pain
    (except is extrordinary circumstances). Not that we were free of
    dominance games (especially intellectual dominance!), but physical
    dominance was established by "Marquis of Queensberry" style wrestling,
    pain free. If someone _hit_ you in public, the most humiliating
    retaliation was to _pay no attention_.
    
    Of course, this all refers only to BOYS, I am not saying we didn't have
    sexual stereotypes (understand, I am talking about relatively ancient
    history). I don't think anyone suggested we shouldn't hit girls,
    because it would never occur to us to do so; nor would it occur to us that
    they would want to hit any boy OR girl, or wrestle anyone for
    dominance. Yet most people were on pretty equal footing when it came to
    mental competition (compared to norms of the day). And come to think of
    it, my judo class (circa age 12) was quite thoroughly co-ed, and that
    didn't seem odd to us.
    
    I can see I'm starting to just wax nostalgic.
    
    	- Bruce

 re: Hank

 I also was taught never to hit girls. Of course, I was also taught to avoid 
fighting with boys as well. And I grew up in a home where no abuse ever 
occurred. I've never seen a man hit his wife. It has never occurred to me to 
strike a woman, even when they had me at the end of my rope. 

 The Doctah

    re .62 
    Well, you want people to accept If 1 and If 2 as hypothetical truths.
    Most of the replies have been uneager to accept If 2 as true, even
    hypothetically.  (Are you talking about prize fighting?!)
    
    Is it "perfectly acceptable and legal for one man to strike another
    man, as hard as he can," regardless of the sizes of the two men
    involved?  I don't think so -- generally, a big guy beating up on a
    little guy is not viewed as perfectly acceptable.
    
    So, my hypothetical answer to this hypothetical question would be:  it
    would be OK in the _same_ cases as it is OK to hit a man, as long as
    the woman is 1) as strong as the man hitting her and 2) able-allowed
    -encouraged to hit back.  My editorial comment here is that when a man
    strikes a woman in the real world, it is NOT usually under such
    egalitarian hypothetical circumstances.
    
    I would also say (hypothetically) that there should be an If 4 in your
    argument, if it is to be symmetric:  about a woman hitting a man.
    
    Of course, my stance is that there are a *tiny* number of cases in
    which I would say it is OK to hit another person, so all of this is
    purely hypothetical.  I haven't seen much violence in my life and I
    like it that way.
    Pam

.64>	Another would be a fistfight in a bar.  

	Excuse me, since when is this a "perfectly legal and acceptable"
	example?

	Acceptable by whose standards?

	Carla

    And, since the combatants have to answer to a judge, how can it be
    legal?
    
    I'm not sure what you're trying to get at, Mike.  The number of times a
    man is "unfairly" tried for hitting a woman who is both as strong as
    him and started the fight is probably pretty small.  What is the point
    of discussing this?  For me, there's a limit to how interested I am in
    completely hypothetical "how far DO you take your beliefs in equality"
    questions, when there are larger issue at stake in the real world.
    
    For instance, the number of times a man is NOT TRIED AT ALL for hitting
    a woman who is weaker than him and did not start the fight is probably
    pretty large.  
    
    Pam

    RE: .58
    
    (Regardless of whether we believe *any*body should be hitting
    *any*body...)
    
    1. Men and women are NOT equal.
    
    2. It's *already* OK for a man to hit a woman. It happens all the time.
    
    --DE
    

    
    >>What is the point of discussing this?  For me, there's a limit to how 
    >>interested I am in completely hypothetical "how far DO you take your 
    >>beliefs in equality" questions, when there are larger issue at stake in 
    >>the real world.
      
    Exactly.  The question isn't really even about the legality of one man
    hitting another man.  In simplistic terms it shouldn't be "legal" for
    anyone to hit anyone else.   
    
    The question has to do with the fact that men tend to be far more violent 
    than women.  And I am not saying that all men are violent and all women are
    non-violent.
        
    Why is this?  What has caused it?  Is it just an issue of how boys are 
    raised/socialized?  Is it inherent in their nature?  Has there been 
    research done on this?  I would find it hard to imagine that some group
    someplace hasn't done research in this area.
    
    Laura
              

    
    Why are men more violent?
    
    Maybe because it's the only outlet society has allowed for
    their emotions. Or, to phrase it differently, maybe it's
    the result of a society that does not allow men to show
    their emotions. 
    
    							Hank

re: .70 "Why are men more violent?"

    ? Perhaps because enough of us "get away with it" often enough
      and because many times the results achieved were what the men
      wanted in that situation ?

    As compared with women being violent ... for a man it is viewed
    as "manly" while for a woman it is viewed as "abnormal" ...

    Society does not so much prevent men from showing their emotions
    or caused violence to be the right emotional outlet channel ...
    as it has "rewarded" that sort of behavior in men enough that it
    is seen as a viable alternative in cases where they expect not to
    be punished even when the results may not be ideally what is wanted.

  ~--e--~  Eagles_See_This_as_Simple_Conditioning_By_Reward_+_NOT_Punishment

.70>	Or, to phrase it differently, maybe it's the result of a society 
.70>	that does not allow men to show their emotions.

	How can you say that when the majority of the women in here have
	expressed a strong, vocal desire for men to show their emotions?

	Wouldn't it be slightly more accurate to say it's MEN who do not 
	allow other MEN to show emotions?

	Carla

.70>	Or, to phrase it differently, maybe it's the result of a society 
.70>	that does not allow men to show their emotions.

.71>	How can you say that when the majority of the women in here have
.71>	expressed a strong, vocal desire for men to show their emotions?

 Who was it that said that "society" was male? It was only a week or two ago.
It couldn't have changed that fast. :-)

 The women here, like the men here, are not necessarily representative of
society (though I suspect that the women of society would agree with the
majority of women here on this particular point).

 The Doctah

    
    Carla, regarding your sentence about "men who do not."..
    I'm not sure. I remember my mother telling me things like
    men don't cry, that I should suffer disappointment silently,
    endure pain without letting it show, don't let others know when
    I'm down, etc. And yes, it was certainly reinforced by other
    males when I was growing up. Strangely enough, it was also
    reinforced even more by the girls I knew growing up. Any sign of
    weakness relegated one to wimp status in school and severely
    hampered a boys ability to get a date. Hence my use of
    the word society.
    
    Ps. Hi Dawn. Nice to see you baaaaack. :-)
    
    								Hank 

    RE: last two (Hiya Hank!)
    
    Even though women may have ideas along these lines, too, isn't the
    pressure from the men around a man not to be weak (i.e., "faggy"
    "womanlike", a "pussy") much greater? Never having been a guy, I don't
    know, but isn't the peer pressure from the guys fairly heavy?
    
    I mean, if a fella were to cry in front of a male friend (barring a death
    in the family or some other tremendous tragedy), would not the reaction
    be a sort of embarrassed silence? Shuffling of feet until the poor
    fellow "got himself together"? And not a hug, or putting an arm around
    the shoulders?
    
    --DE
     

    I gotta fly with the eagle on this one. I do believe that one of the
    reasons men are violent is because it works. And it works for enough
    men enough times that our culture accepts it. The violence isn't
    just physical. Look at the way a lot of business operates with back
    stabbers and folks willing to step on the backs of their co-workers
    to get to the top. Remember the book "Winning by Intimidation"?

    To answer the environment/heredity question. I quoted from a study
    in one of the rape notes about rape and violence free societies that
    do exist. It is our CULTURE that makes men violent. It is their
    physiology that gives men the advantage over women in a physical
    confrontation. Our culture then enforces that by turning a blind eye
    to violence towards females that belong to the male who attacked
    them. What a man does to *his* women is his business as far as the
    law was concerned until very recently.

    On the brighter side: given the way we are raised and the acceptance
    of violence by our society it's amazing the number of men who turn
    out to NOT be beasts that victimize those who are weaker. That tells
    me that it's not in their nature and it's not inevitable. liesl

    It has been my experience (and research supports the conclusion)
    that men are less facile verbally than women are.  I can certainly
    argue rings around *any* of the men in my life when there is a
    disagreement.  Most of them have been at least as intelligent as
    I am, so it isn't a question of intellect.  Therefore, when a 
    confrontation is in progress, the male is more likely to be frustrated 
    and feel he is losing the argument *because of his inability to
    express his feelings/arguments clearly*.  This frustration is what 
    can lead to the lashing out that results in violence.  So I can 
    understand what drives it, even though I don't tolerate or condone
    it.
    
    On the subject of women also sending the message to men that they
    shouldn't express all their feelings....This community is *very
    unusual* in the values that they bring to relationships and what
    they want from their men.  Most women, in an emergency, want to
    be able to 'go to pieces' and have the male in the situation take
    charge.  This is sexist, unfair, and doesn't even work much of the
    time, but nevertheless......even I have times when a crisis comes
    up and I *desperately* wish there were someone else to take over
    so I didn't have to be strong and unemotional.
    
    Alison

.78>	even I have times when a crisis comes up and I *desperately* 
.78>	wish there were someone else to take over so I didn't have to 
.78>	be strong and unemotional.

	Me too.  But instead of wishing for a man, I wish for my Mom!

	Carla

    re.78 on falling apart
    
    I've caught enough people in my time, that I have this egotistical
    expectation that _whoever_ is in my vicinity when my spool unwinds
    will want to help me re-wrap.  That such is often not the case makes
    for some truly bizarre 'war stories.' It's amazing what people can
    accomplish when faced with the inevitable ...
    
    I've been told that this is counter-survival, but I'm still here.
      
    Ann

    .78> Most women, in an emergency, want to be able to 'go to pieces' and have
    .78> the male in the situation take charge.  This is sexist, unfair, and
    .78> doesn't even work much of the time, but nevertheless......even I have
    .78> times when a crisis comes up and I *desperately* wish there were
    .78> someone else to take over so I didn't have to be strong and
    .78> unemotional.
    
    I suggest a slightly different slant on this. I think very few people
    of any sex want to take charge in a crisis for which they are not
    specially trained (and fear of displaying incompetence and actually
    making things worse is involved, too). I know that even when I act on
    my feeling that I ought to step forward, it is not because I _want_ to
    on an emotional level.
    
    There are probably a couple of gender based differences, though. First,
    I think men feel that they ought not admit to feeling powerless in
    general. Second, I think there are a number of sex-linked situations
    where men feel a particular obligation to be "competent," such as car
    breakdown, threatening strangers, etc.; this "obligation" is also
    heightened if a woman is affected, threatened. So the discomfort of a
    man who doesn't enjoy talking with spark plugs or acting tough can be
    acute.
    
    And I think Carla, in .79, is right on in mentioning Mom. The universal
    instinct is to hide under the bed and let a PARENT (or other
    responsible adult) slay the monster. Maybe men just feel more
    silly/guilty about this, or feel it at an earlier age, than women,
    Certainly confronting the fact that this approach is illusiary is a
    recurring aspect of growing older for everyone. I remember when my
    mother died feeling special pain around the impossibility of having her
    comfort me about my sadness. Since we were not especially close
    (geographically or emotionally), I'm sure this partly symbolized the 
    loss of the inner concept of the rescuing parent.
    
    But Gee, nobody will ever talk kids out of their certainty that
    independent responsibilty will be great when they get "grown up." I
    suppose without THAT illusion, few of us would even have the courage to
    try.
    
    		- Bruce

    Maybe I'm just not the norm, but the 22nd of November, and the 1st of
    December last year were two VERY bad stressful and over-emotional days
    for me...  All I wanted was to be hugged, and held, and cared about.
    I was falling to pieces, and so was the world around me. But I had to
    attempt to put up this front because it was expected of me to do so.

    I didn't want my Mom, I wanted the arms of a man around me, to just be
    able to sink down and cry my eyes out, and just be held, with strong
    arms.

    Talking to my mom was okay, but she couldn't hold me, and just let me
    cry out all the emotions I was feeling. I didn't have the arms to go
    around me, and hold me, but it was all I was yearning for, all that I
    needed to bring me back to this world of reality.

    As it was, I had to be the mom for another person, and had to be strong
    around her, and put up a wonderful front for her, because like Carla
    said... My daughter needed her "mom"...  but what about the mom, huh?

    I'm sorry, I read this topic, and all its' replies, and well, I guess
    maybe I'm the last woman on earth who will stand up and say, "There are
    times in my life that a woman, or even a mom will not do"...  There are
    times that I *need* to be held, and held, and held, and protected.

    I still survived, and I still walked on, but if I had just been held, I
    would have walked on probably a heck of a lot stabler than I did.

    I happen to think that men were made a tad bit stronger emotionally,
    and that there are times when that tad bit is needed, at least in 
    my life, that has been the case.  

    I'm personally glad that there are men out there that are willing to
    understand... and I'm sick of reading that woman are better, greater,
    more stronger and don't need them around. I for one can take out my own
    garbage, support myself (and my kids), be a nurse, father, mother,
    educator, lover, carer, etc, and I don't need a man to be all the
    above, but I think this world would be in bad shape if they weren't
    around!

    re: .78
    
    >>even I have times when a crisis comes
    >>up and I *desperately* wish there were someone else to take over
    >>so I didn't have to be strong and unemotional.
      
    I think that the word "emotional" is a loaded one.  Frequently it is
    used against women to prove that we can't make decisions in business,
    or whatever..."she's sooo emotional, it must be *that* time of month."
    Or whatever the reason is.
    
    Quite frankly, I think that anyone, male or female, in a crisis
    situation, can have their feelings about the crisis, express their
    feelings (be it yelling a bit to blow off steam, crying, retreating
    inward for some solice, etc.) and still be able to be "strong" and make
    decisions in that moment.  I do not understand the schism that says if
    we are feeling our feelings then we can't make a decision, or the
    decision will be wrong. 
    
    Laura
                               

    Regarding the base note I have on three seperate occasions since
    the Stuart story was disclosed heard men make jokes about it, like
    "I don't see what's so wrong with that", "Want to go for a car ride?",
    etc..  It was a heinous crime when it was thought a stranger
    did it, but now it seems like fodder for wife-hating jokes.  I don't
    know if this is just more of the hostility-against-one's-spouse
    that is often released through humor, or if they really think it
    is more justified since it was her husband.
    	Linda

    	RE: 889.84
    
    	Someone mentioned the same thing yesterday here in LJ02.
    	
    	Slightly off the topic (but not much). After the Challenger
    	disaster, I heard a rash of Christa McAulifffe jokes.
    
    	That's the way some people are, no matter what happens or
    	who gets hurt.
    
    	Scott

 I often think that people make jokes about things that they are afraid to
show their true feelings over.

 The Doctah

    	Doctah,
    
    	You probably hit the nail on the head.
    
    	Scott

	After the Challenger disaster, I heard many *Challenger* jokes...

	I've received the Charles Stuart jokes...

	I heard Natalie Wood jokes...

	I'm sure there were Rock Hudson jokes...

	I've heard jokes about a lot of things I don't consider comedy
material, but I have to agree with the Doctah on this one.  People joke
about things they are uncomfortable with.


					--D

    In re: .82    Is it so much a different point of view?
    
    That resonates strongly (at least in my mind) with what I was trying to
    say elsewhere. "Growing up" is many things, but one is accomodating
    the loss of the world-threat-danger-resolving parent. The replacement
    cannot be the SAME, but in some ways it can be better, since chosen
    (though always also worse, since not guarenteed). I assume we all need
    comfort along these lines until the end, and find it where we can.
    
    	- Bruce

    About the Charles Stuart jokes...
    
    On my second job, I have a boss who strikes me as a bit overly
    flirtatious, and somewhat crass. Definitely crazy. Last night he came
    up to me and told me one of the Charles Stuart jokes. Having seen so
    many over the net, I came back with one of the ones I heard.
    
    His honest response however, had a lot of personal feeling of pain to
    it that reminded me of his human qualities. He said, "I hope to God
    that Charles Stuart goes to hell. What he did was beyond sick." Its
    funny how frequently we dismiss the concepts of heaven and hell, or use
    them "in vain" or in jest. It cuts through to the heart of the matter
    when you speak of hell and really mean it.

	"Homicides of women are some of the most preventable homicides that
	there are,"  according  to Adams.  "There tend to be all sorts of
	warning signs or red flags.  Yet, often-times, people tend not to
	believe these signs.  It is safer to believe that men who batter
	their wives are crazy, are sick, deviant people.  We don't want to
	think we bear any resemblance to them."

          
    re .91 -
    
    Thanks for entering this. The article was about the first general
    account of "domestic abuse" (read wife/woman-battering/killing) that 
    I've seen since the Stuart case began.
    
    ALso from this article:
    
    "Specialists say there is a common perception--one that may have
    figured in the Stuart investigation--that domestic violence does
    not play a major role among members of the upper-middle class, such
    as the Stuarts.
    
    "In reality, however, 'men who are doctors, lawyers, ministers,
    psychologists--people you'd never dream of--are batterers,' ...
    What they have in common is a need to control their wife or lover,
    to maintain the upper hand in relationships. And they will use as
    much force as is necessary to assert that control.
    
    "'They don't look tough or swagger. They don't fit the popular image
    of batterer,' said Cambridge lawyer Chris Butler, who specializes
    in cases of battered women. 'They are just plain citizens like the
    rest of us who basically get along with their coworkers, who don't
    get hauled into court. But they beat their wives.'"
                                                                     
    The article also has an insert that summarizes 12 cases of wives
    slain in New England between February and November of 1989 (including
    the guy who fed his wife through the wood chipper). Why this insert
    is entitled *Spouses* slain in New England, I don't know!
    
    All this is consistent with the numerous males who were calling in
    to radio talk shows after Charles Stuart became the main suspect
    in the death of his wife, who "just couldn't believe" a husband
    would do something like that...                                
    
    And it makes you wonder: why do such men have to "maintain the upper
    hand" in relationships?
    
    Dorian
                                             

    re: .92 (Dorian)
    
    � And it makes you wonder: why do such men have to "maintain the
    �  upper hand" in relationships?
    
    Talk about your basic $64K question.  My guess is that it has
    something to do with that buzzphrase of the late 80's, "control
    issues".  I think many/most men have been raised to be "movers
    and shakers", "controllers of their own destines", and so on. I
    suspect that, in the face of a world that won't yield to their
    efforts to control it, they turn to what some have considered 
    vulnerable chattel - their wives or lovers.  
    
    I think the logical complement to your question, Dorian, is how
    can we change this need to "maintain the upper hand"?  I suspect
    that while the "answers" may be relatively simple, making the
    necessary changes will be something that challenges people for
    many years to come.
    
    Steve
    
    btw, this issue isn't one that's just intellectual for me: I was
    also raised with strict injunctions against striking women and
    have never hit a woman.  On the other hand, I have in my basement
    the remnants of what used to be the door to the guest room.  I 
    vividly remember the day when I destroyed it rather than hitting
    someone for whom I cared deeply.  My frustration at being unable
    to control her (or our relationship) had brought me to a point
    of what I can only call terrified rage.  (The terror lay in be-
    lieving that because hitting my wife was not an option, if I 
    couldn't get the anger/frustration out by punching out the door, 
    my only remaining avenue was self-destruction.)

>    And it makes you wonder: why do such men have to "maintain the upper
>    hand" in relationships?

 It has been my experience that both men and women are capable of attempting
to maintain the "upper hand" on a relationship. Whenever one or the other
dominates, society generally says "He's pussywhipped" or "She's a good wife."
There is an intrinsic double standard at work here. It's generally acceptable
for a man to dominate his wife. He's "just being a man." But when a woman
dominates her husband, he is looked upon as being less of a man, while the
women is called a "bitch" or a "shrew."

 The problem seems to come when there is contention about "who's wearing the
pants" in the family. Usually, the woman uses only psychological means to
manipulate her husband. Often, the man will retaliate in kind. However, when the
man feels that simple retaliation is not providing him with the requisite
control, he resorts to a more simplistic approach, one that has been used since
the times of homo erectus- physical force.

 Again, there exists a double standard. When a man beats his wife, it is still
viewed by many to be an acceptable means of gaining control over her. When a
woman beats her husband, he is viewed as miniscule, worthless, less than a man. 

 Perhaps someday both men and women will stop wanting to be in control of
the relationship. It doesn't seem likely to happen soon.

 The Doctah

    re .94 -
    
    You don't HAVE to do what society says.

>    You don't HAVE to do what society says.

 Good. I don't.

    I tuned into a show last night which seemed to be about men abusing the
    women they were involved with.  it was on a PBS station (not WGBH) and 
    I didn't watch it long enough to find out more (phone rang).  But I did
    take  some notes...
    
    They discussed a program/place for abusive men called EMERGE.  They
    discussed not only wife/SO physical abuse, but added other things to
    the list like namecalling, criticism, controlling all the money,
    isolating the woman, making her stay at home, and taking her keys as
    other forms of abuse.  They mentioned that sexism is the key to the
    problem, and that the violence begins with the devaluing of the women.  
    And that violence at home is often an attempt to control completely the
    women in their lives.
    
    Statistics included that:
    
    only half the men who even GET to EMERGE stop battering
    
    physical abuse occurs behind almost half the closed doors of america's
    homes.
    
    police spend almost a third of their time responding to domestic abuse
    calls
    
    Boston police repsond to calls for help in domestic abuse cases about
    1500 times a year.
    
    scary stuff....
    
    Anyone know more about EMERGE, or did they happen to catch the program?
    
    -Jody
    
    

		Heard something on the radio a few days ago about
    	an incident in Worcester where acid was thrown on a woman
    	while walking out of her house.  Has anybody heard anything
    	else about this?
    
    	(Wasn't there a scene in "Batman" where acid was thrown on a
    	 woman?)
    
    							nancy b.

    re:.98
    
    No, there was only a scene where was shown the scarred face of
    a woman who had acid sprayed on her face and the Joker attempted
    to do the same to another.
    
    --- jerry

    There was an article in the Sunday Globe about a DEC electrical
    engineer who was murdered in 1987 by two men hired by her husband
    who watched.  She was 7 months pregnant at the time.  He did it
    for her insurance policy worth $200K.
    	Linda

    
    RE:100
    >> ..a DEC electrical engineer who was murdered in 1987 by two men
    hired by her husband..>>
    
    You must be referring to SHARON JOHNSON, who was a DEC computer
    consultant in Amherst, Mass. ?
    
    She was said to have been kidnapped from a Manchester, N.H. mall and
    stabbed repeatedly by the hired killers at a construction site.
    
    One of the hired killers is a son of a New Hampshire police officer.
    
    The hired killers were paid $5,000.00 each for the job.
    
    The husband was not suspected nor arrested until 14 months after
    Sharon Johnson's brutal murder. 
    
    She had asked for separation at the time of her murder.
    
    Is that the same murder being referred to in .100 ?

    in re .101
    
    That is the same case.
    
    Bonnie

    A whole family (father, mother, son, and daughter) were horribly
    murdered about a hundred miles from my home friday night.  I knew the
    mother and the daughter (hadn't seen them in a few years, wasn't close
    to them, but do know the mother's family fairly well).  Evidently when
    they came home from a bible study class Friday night, there were
    several (3 known) men in the house robbing it.  Why these men did the
    things I am fixing to tell, I guess God will only know, but I have
    literally been sick everytime I think about it.  If you don't want to
    hear the gruesome details, please don't read any further.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    So far, the coroner has been able to tell that the little girl (9 years
    old) was raped and sodomized.  They fell like from the position of the
    bodies that the father and brother were tied and forced to watch the
    rape.  The brother was 12 years old.  The three of them were shot.  The
    father and son died of gun shot wounds.  The little girl was shot in
    the back 4 times, but died of smoke inhalation after they set the house
    on fire.  The father's ring finger had been cut off and his rings
    removed.  The mother was found in the master bedroom, her body was
    burned beyond recognition.  They believe a flammable liquid was poured
    on her and she was set on fire.  They also removed a bullet from her
    chest.  They have not been able to tell if she was raped.  I felt
    something I have never felt in my life when my mother called and told
    me this.  It was utterly unbelievable that someone could do something
    like this.  They have arrested 3 men, all in their 20's for this, so
    far.  They believe there may be more involved.  These three were caught
    because they stole the man's pickup truck and were caught with it and
    some of the family's personal belongings in the back of the truck.  In
    the paper, it showed the truck and it had 2 end tables, and 4 kitchen
    chairs in the back of it.  Why steal something like this????  They
    didn't take the tv, vcr, etc.  I don't understand this at all.  Of
    course, I don't understand how someone can do this at all!!!  I guess
    no one will.  I'm really having a hard time dealing with this.  I
    didn't sleep for 2 nights, I keep checking my doors to make sure
    they're locked, I'm afraid to come in the house once we've been gone,
    etc.  I woke up twice last night breathing really heavy, like I'd had a
    bad dream.  I keep thinking of the utter terror these 4 people must
    have felt in their last hour to hour and half of life.  Surely, at
    least one of these men that did this had to have a conscious!!  Can
    people be this evil???  I could use any support I could get right now. 
    I keep thinking of these people's family and what they must be feeling
    and experiencing now and how it will effect them for the rest of their
    lives.  The father had 2 sons from a previous marriage (they are
    grown).  His first wife died in an automobile accident, so these 2 boys
    lost both parents tragically and their step mother and their half
    brother and sister.  I could just cry (and I have) everytime I think
    about this.  Today is the first day I felt like I could enter this in
    here without just totally loosing it.  I do feel like it was probably
    better (this probably sounds awful) that all 4 of them died.  I can't
    imagine witnessing all this and then living to tell about it.  I don't
    think they would have been in their right mind.  BTW, the house also
    burnt to the ground.  They believe it was started by them setting the
    woman on fire.
    
    Virginia

 Whenever I hear about something like this happening, I can't help but feel that
no punishment is too severe for the perpetrators of such acts. I don't know
how to "deal with it." I believe you hit the nail on the head when you referred 
to the perptrators as being evil. I really think they are.

 The Doctah

    Ugh, what a horrible story!  Especially since it involves people that
    you knew.  I can understand how you feel.  You would probably feel
    better if you talk it out with someone you trust, maybe your
    minister/rabbi/whatever if you have a good relationship with one that
    you trust, or at least with a good friend or two, and sort out your own
    feelings of vulnerability and shock.   It's truly horrible, and you
    have every reason to be shocked and upset by these horrible events!
    
    As far as the "people" who committed this horrible act go, I don't
    consider creatures like that human beings anyways - who knows if such
    "people" have consciouses, or feel remorse, or any other normal human
    feelings??  They probably were looking for money and easy-to-hock
    things to get money for drugs or alcohol, or some other equally
    wonderful reason, and the poor victims came home during the robbery.
    
    Of course, it never hurts to make sure that your own home is reasonably
    secure, anyhow - door locks working, gargage door locked, etc.  If
    some "person" wants in badly enough, of course, any home can be broken
    into (any car, too), but you are safer taking a few precautions, and
    you will feel better, too.
    
    It is important to remember that the vast majority of people are good,
    decent, honest people like the poor victims, not scum like the
    murderers.  If this weren't so, humanity would have died out a long
    time ago!
    
    /Charlotte

    update to .103
    
    Yesterday's paper had a write up on the family, and it also stated that
    the family had been receiving threatening phone calls since around the
    start of the Holiday's.  The only one it really talked about was the
    little girl received one and the caller just said "I'm going to kill
    your Daddy."  The paper stated there were other calls, but the
    remainder of the family or the police would not go into it.  I'll keep
    you posted as I find out more.
    
    Virginia