WHY I spank boys, not girls
Randy
In article <4u2vpu$6...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, on 4 Aug 1996 16:05:18 -0400,
chery...@aol.com, Cheryl1955 says
:I realize it is inconsistent with the new orthodoxy. But, boys are
:different in many important ways from girls. Boys grow up to fill our
:prisons, batter our women, engage in behavior that fills our hospitals and
:medical providers' offices, and teach women and girls that they are on
:this planet to be subservient to men and boys. Well, I'm sorry, but I'm
:not going to let me children grow up to go out into the world and continue
:those destructive, patriarchal roles.
: Until we find a way to do something about the horrible side-effects
:of testosterone, it is imperative that we take steps to promote respect
:for female authority. And, like it or not, spanking is one way to get
:boys to respect female authority. I agree that boys who are beaten by men
:become resentful and hardened by it. But, boys react completely
:differently when fairly and reasonably spanked by a woman.
: Please don't tell me that because I'm a Feminist that I somehow
:believe that boys and men are "less than human." I love my sons every bit
:as much as I love my daughter. But, there are differences, both because
:of what our culture teaches them and because of the harmful side-effects
:of testosterone, between boys and girls and they way they should be
:raised. Until girls and women are far less vulnerable to the violence of
:men in this world, girls must be raised to believe that they are in
:complete control of their bodies, and that no one may touch them without
:their consent. And until men learn to treat women with respect, boys need
:to be raised to respect female authority. A properly administered
:spanking can have a profound impact on the way young males view women.
:Don't we all welcome the day when young men will look at women with
:deference and respect rather than with predatory eyes?
No, but I will welcome the day when people, young and old, male and
female, relate with one another within a context of mutual respect
and cooperation which, btw, would be inconsistent with the submission
or yielding (one to another) that is deference. No human should
prey on another (female or male), and I wouldn't exclude children.
Randy Cox
The NoSpan King Page
http://www.cei.net/~rcox/nospan.html
Tami
rc...@cei.net (Randy) wrote:
>In article <4u2vpu$6...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, on 4 Aug 1996 16:05:18 -0400,
>chery...@aol.com, Cheryl1955 says
>
>:I realize it is inconsistent with the new orthodoxy. But, boys are
>:different in many important ways from girls. Boys grow up to fill our
>:prisons, batter our women, engage in behavior that fills our hospitals and
>:medical providers' offices, and teach women and girls that they are on
>:this planet to be subservient to men and boys. Well, I'm sorry, but I'm
>:not going to let me children grow up to go out into the world and continue
>:those destructive, patriarchal roles.
Yes, boys and girls are different, but not in the ways you've
mentioned. Men batter our women? Yes, but what you fail to mention and
probably don't even know is that women batter men in almost equal
numbers according to some statistics. Engage in behavior that fills
our hospitals and doctor's offices? Yes, as do women. You perhaps
don't know that studies have shown that it is women who are more prone
to be physically abusive to our children?
It is admirable to not want to continue to allow children to grow up
in destructive patriarchal roles, but growing up in destructive
matricidal roles is not an improvement, just a change.
Sexism is not something that is confined to men against women, but
something found in both genders against the other. You, unfortunately,
are a female sexist and make me ashamed to share the title "woman"
with you.
>: Until we find a way to do something about the horrible side-effects
>:of testosterone, it is imperative that we take steps to promote respect
>:for female authority. And, like it or not, spanking is one way to get
>:boys to respect female authority. I agree that boys who are beaten by men
>:become resentful and hardened by it. But, boys react completely
>:differently when fairly and reasonably spanked by a woman.
Have you ever stopped to think that what you consider to be the
"horrible side-effects of testosterone" could be as much if not more
the result of way male children are raised?
>: Please don't tell me that because I'm a Feminist that I somehow
>:believe that boys and men are "less than human." I love my sons every bit
>:as much as I love my daughter. But, there are differences, both because
>:of what our culture teaches them and because of the harmful side-effects
>:of testosterone, between boys and girls and they way they should be
>:raised. Until girls and women are far less vulnerable to the violence of
>:men in this world, girls must be raised to believe that they are in
>:complete control of their bodies, and that no one may touch them without
>:their consent. And until men learn to treat women with respect, boys need
>:to be raised to respect female authority. A properly administered
>:spanking can have a profound impact on the way young males view women.
Uh, yeah, like, "Damn, you're a bitch and I bet they're all like you
so I hate women." Now, before I'm accused of slipping a flame into
this, you should know why I wrote that part. Of the men I've known who
had a serious problem with women, all of them, every single one, had a
domineering, controlling mother who displayed the same attitudes and
lack of respect for men that Cheryl does. Usually their mothers grew
up with terrible, often abusive fathers. The women never broke the
cycle, they instead passed it on to their sons.
This is not to say that having such a mother dooms you to this role,
just as having the equivalent father wouldn't.
>:Don't we all welcome the day when young men will look at women with
>:deference and respect rather than with predatory eyes?
If you do not see the men who look at women with respect, then I am
truly sad for you Cheryl.
And you think that you can teach boys not to touch other people
without their consent by spanking them and not girls, by showing them
that there is no fairness for them, that they will be singled out and
targeted?
What you are proposing is not female authority, but tyranny.
>
>No, but I will welcome the day when people, young and old, male and
>female, relate with one another within a context of mutual respect
>and cooperation which, btw, would be inconsistent with the submission
>or yielding (one to another) that is deference. No human should
>prey on another (female or male), and I wouldn't exclude children.
Well said Randy.
>
>Randy Cox
>The NoSpan King Page
>http://www.cei.net/~rcox/nospan.html
>
While I am not completely anti-spanking, I am *completely* against the
sexism which the original poster has shown. My best advice to Cheryl
is that she should seek serious professional help ASAP, before she
continues the cycle of violence which she is apparently trapped in.
I am proud to be a feminist, but I don't believe that being a feminist
should equal having such hatred, distrust and lack of belief in men.
Cheryl has shown just that with statements such as; Boys grow up to
fill our prisons, batter our women, engage in behavior that fills our
hospitals and medical providers' offices, and teach women and girls
that they are on this planet to be subservient to men and boys [as an
aside to Cheryl, I think more women teach girls to be this way than
men teaching them]; horrible side-effects of testosterone; boys who
are beaten by men become resentful and hardened by it. But, boys
react completely differently when fairly and reasonably spanked by a
woman [as an aside to Cheryl, so when men do it it's beating, when
women do it, it's justified?];
ab
I am putting together a panel for a discussion on temper tantrums. If
your child has temper tantrums and if you have caught some tantrums on
tape or would be willing to tape such tantrums , I would like to speak
to you about apearring on the panel. Please e-mail me at this address
so that I can give you the details. Thank You. ADAM
Diane
In article <4u37g3$c...@ren.cei.net>, rc...@cei.net says...
>
>In article <4u2vpu$6...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, on 4 Aug 1996 16:05:18
-0400,
>chery...@aol.com, Cheryl1955 says
>
>:I realize it is inconsistent with the new orthodoxy. But, boys are
>:different in many important ways from girls. Boys grow up to fill our
>:prisons, batter our women, engage in behavior that fills our hospitals and
>:medical providers' offices, and teach women and girls that they are on
>:this planet to be subservient to men and boys. Well, I'm sorry, but I'm
>:not going to let me children grow up to go out into the world and continue
>:those destructive, patriarchal roles.
>:of testosterone, it is imperative that we take steps to promote respect
>:for female authority. And, like it or not, spanking is one way to get
>:boys to respect female authority. I agree that boys who are beaten by men
>:become resentful and hardened by it. But, boys react completely
>:differently when fairly and reasonably spanked by a woman.
>:believe that boys and men are "less than human." I love my sons every bit
>:as much as I love my daughter. But, there are differences, both because
>:of what our culture teaches them and because of the harmful side-effects
>:of testosterone, between boys and girls and they way they should be
>:raised. Until girls and women are far less vulnerable to the violence of
>:men in this world, girls must be raised to believe that they are in
>:complete control of their bodies, and that no one may touch them without
>:their consent. And until men learn to treat women with respect, boys need
>:to be raised to respect female authority. A properly administered
>:spanking can have a profound impact on the way young males view women.
>:deference and respect rather than with predatory eyes?
>
SPANKING ANYONE. I don't think spanking encourages respect for anyone,
regardless of if it's mom or dad.
Robert Johnson
Cheryl:
I think it would be better for both you and your sons if you got some counseling to come to
terms with your deep seated dislike of men. It sounds to me as if you are going to create in
your sons the same distrust and dislike for women that you have for men.
By the way, regarding your continued haranguing about 'testestone'. As a feminist I'm sure
you would go off the chart if I were to come on here and characterize women as acting if they
were 'on the rag' or blaming PMS for their actions. I feel the exact same way when you go
off on men (or even worse, young children) because they have too much testesterone. Wow,
talk about stereotyping!
Get a grip!
Robert Johnson
> >In article <4u2vpu$6...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, on 4 Aug 1996 16:05:18 -0400,
> >chery...@aol.com, Cheryl1955 says
> >
> >:I realize it is inconsistent with the new orthodoxy. But, boys are
> >:different in many important ways from girls. Boys grow up to fill our
> >:prisons, batter our women, engage in behavior that fills our hospitals and
> >:medical providers' offices, and teach women and girls that they are on
> >:this planet to be subservient to men and boys. Well, I'm sorry, but I'm
> >:not going to let me children grow up to go out into the world and continue
> >:those destructive, patriarchal roles.
> >
> >: Until we find a way to do something about the horrible side-effects
> >:of testosterone, it is imperative that we take steps to promote respect
> >:for female authority. And, like it or not, spanking is one way to get
> >:boys to respect female authority. I agree that boys who are beaten by men
> >:become resentful and hardened by it. But, boys react completely
> >:differently when fairly and reasonably spanked by a woman.
> >
> >: Please don't tell me that because I'm a Feminist that I somehow
> >:believe that boys and men are "less than human." I love my sons every bit
> >:as much as I love my daughter. But, there are differences, both because
> >:of what our culture teaches them and because of the harmful side-effects
> >:of testosterone, between boys and girls and they way they should be
> >:raised. Until girls and women are far less vulnerable to the violence of
> >:men in this world, girls must be raised to believe that they are in
> >:complete control of their bodies, and that no one may touch them without
> >:their consent. And until men learn to treat women with respect, boys need
> >:to be raised to respect female authority. A properly administered
> >:spanking can have a profound impact on the way young males view women.
> >:Don't we all welcome the day when young men will look at women with
> >:deference and respect rather than with predatory eyes?
> > Much snipped..........
LaVonne Carlson
> SPANKING ANYONE. I don't think spanking encourages respect for anyone,
> regardless of if it's mom or dad.
Thank you, Diane. Your opinion is backed by research in child
development and research specific to the practice of spanking.
LaVonne
Randy
In article <4u3ijh$e...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, on 4 Aug 1996 21:26:09 -0400,
ptrf...@aol.com, PtrFamili says
(cut)
>.... So possibly there could be sound factual reasons for
>treating boys and girls differently in regard to corporal punishment,
>based upon differences in biology.
What might those sound factual reasons be?
>Now that the facts are out of the way, I can move on to my opinions. I
>believe that parents make a big mistake when they discipline their boys
>but not their girls. Too often boys are punished just for being boys, for
>being loud and rambunctious. Boys are less able to control themselves
>physically, e.g. sitting quietly at a desk for hours at a time.
(cut)
Could it be that behavior has anything at all to do with how one
is reared? Does a childrearing method influence behavior? I thought
that was what we were arguing about. It occurrs to me almost
immmediately that boys and girls behave differently because they are
treated differently. We do treat them benevolently or malevolently
before they are capable of 'behaving'. Why conclude so quickly that
we treat them benevolently or malevolently because of the way they
behave, without sharing more of the responsibility for the outcome.
If we all continued to believe that boys need more brutal treatment
than girls and that both sexes of children need more brutal treatment
than their parents we will continue to be as baffled by the outcomes.
There be clues here. ;)
(cut)
>This example from my own upbringing has convinced me that the exercise of
>parental authority is just as important for girls as it is for boys.
>Steady and consistent discipline from an early age is the best
>preventative action, but that discipline needs to be continued and
>reinforced at every age, both for girls and for boys.
"just as important for girls"... I agree.
"Steady and consistent"... I agree.
preventive action... I agree
"continued and reinforced at every age, both for girls and for boys."
... I agree, and would add, at the end, 'and for men and for women'.
It' the authority thing, the system winners and losers, dominants and
submissives that I don't agree with. Cooperation demonstrates
superiority (like that word don't we?) over competition. Win - win
is favored by anyone who has experienced losing and considers the
chance of losing again as equal or greater. Those that consider the
chance of winning as greater than equal intend to exploit some flaw
in our society or some advantage of size and strength. I'd like to
change that.
Angelk1959
>:I realize it is inconsistent with the new orthodoxy. But, boys are
>:different in many important ways from girls. Boys grow up to fill our
>:prisons, batter our women, engage in behavior that fills our hospitals
and
>:medical providers' offices, and teach women and girls that they are on
>:this planet to be subservient to men and boys. Well, I'm sorry, but I'm
>:not going to let me children grow up to go out into the world and
continue
>:those destructive, patriarchal roles.
Umm...Cheryl, as a woman, I find this horribly offensive and sexist. I am
sick of women going around blaming the evils of the world on the other
gender.
Women can be violent too. I had a friend that was an abused husband. His
wife would hit him with frying pans, rake her nails down parts of his
body, verbally slice him to ribbons, etc. We were all *so* happy when she
finally left him; however, the damage was done. It's almost 15-20 years
that he's been rid of her and I don't think he will ever be able to feel
safe around unattached, straight women.
If women aren't violent, why are there support groups for battered
lesbians?
If men are the reason our prisons are full, then how do you explain the
overcrowding in women's prisons? (I'll give you a hint, they aren't all
in there for killing abusive partners...in fact, that's the exception to
the rule.)
No Cheryl, I intend to and have been raising my boys to respect ALL
people, regardless of the external packaging. My son James can see
something good in everyone and was the only kid to make friends with a
disturbed boy in his class two years ago in kindergarten.
The boy had lived in a string of homeless shelters as his mother tried to
keep things going after her boyfriend (and father of 3 of her children)
abandoned her. Because the city of Malden distributes homeless kids
throughout the system to keep any one school from being overburdened, this
kid ended up in James's classroom. The kid was angry, frustrated and
confused because for 4 out of 5 years, he didn't have a "home" and his mom
worked her butt off to try and stay off of welfare.
This kid would jump out of his seat and start hitting kids. The teacher
was at a loss until James walked up to him one day and said, "I can see
your heart and it's really good inside. Can you let that come out so we
can be friends?" It worked. James was the only kid that could sit with
him and play with him. When this kid's mother finally got section 8 and
could move to a "home," James told him he would miss him, but he really
should let other kids see his heart so they could be friends too.
Last we heard, this kid was starting to flourish. Maybe if more people
like James asked people to let their good out, we wouldn't need to be
spewing sexist garbage about hormones and blame and just start building on
the good.
*************
Rev. Karla Marie-Catherine (Hailer) Shapiro, ULC
James (7) and Micah's (4) mom
Reiki Master
"It was only time, and time was just a magazine,
and it cost two dollars, and you only had a dollar,
and that was life, and life was just a magazine,
and who the hell believed what they read anyway?"
--Kinky Friedman
Peter Korecek
In article <4u2vpu$6...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, on 4 Aug 1996
16:05:18 -0400, chery...@aol.com, Cheryl1955 says
>
>I realize it is inconsistent with the new orthodoxy. But,
>boys are different in many important ways from girls. Boys
>grow up to fill our prisons, batter our women, engage in
>behavior that fills our hospitals and medical providers'
>offices, and teach women and girls that they are on this planet
>to be subservient to men and boys. Well, I'm sorry, but I'm
>not going to let me children grow up to go out into the world
>and continue those destructive, patriarchal roles.
[snip]
> Please don't tell me that because I'm a Feminist that I
>somehow believe that boys and men are "less than human." I
Well, it's not necessarily because you're a feminist... <gd&r>
>love my sons every bit as much as I love my daughter. But,
>there are differences, both because of what our culture teaches
>them and because of the harmful side-effects
>of testosterone, between boys and girls and they way they
>should be raised. Until girls and women are far less
>vulnerable to the violence of men in this world, girls must be
>raised to believe that they are in complete control of their
>bodies, and that no one may touch them without their consent.
Definitely.
>And until men learn to treat women with respect, boys need
>to be raised to respect female authority. A properly
>administered spanking can have a profound impact on the way
>young males view women. Don't we all welcome the day when young
>men will look at women with deference and respect rather than
>with predatory eyes?
>
<flame>
Deference? I DON'T THINK SO! You don't sound like a feminist,
you sound like an old-fashioned "women should be ladies and men
should be gentlemen" type.
</flame>
Seriously...check out the book _Growing Up Free_ by Letty Cottin
Pogrebin (it's about feminist parenting). Especially Chapter 13
(Managing Freedom: Rewards and Restraints).
"In either case, parents seem to use three basic disciplinary
techniques to regulate children's behavior:
1. Power assertion--spankings, beatings, deprivation, denial
of privileges.
2. Love withdrawal--acting upset or hurt, yelling, implying
'If you're bad, I won't love you.'
3. Teaching--praise, criticism, reasoning, discussion,
explanation of consequences.
Traditionalists tend to discipline girls with the teaching
approach and boys with the two punishment techniques.
[...]
"For the most part, it is children who are punished least and
reasoned with most who are the more moral human beings--and more
often than not, that means girls. Conversely, boys, the
more-punished sex, turn out to be the more violent, corruptible
adults.
"...Boys, who are rewarded most for achievement and punished
most for failure, grow up to sacrifice morality for the
'success' they've been bullied to seek. Of course, they will be
less moral if their actions are motivated by fear of detection
and punishment. And of course, girls will be more moral if they
have been taught, not terrified, into good behavior."
You're contributing to the very problem you're trying to
prevent.
Obligatory criticism of copyrighted material: Good book.
Pete
Susan Ramirez
> >In article <4u2vpu$6...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, on 4 Aug 1996 16:05:18 -0400,
> >chery...@aol.com, Cheryl1955 says
Large quantities of inflammatory garbage, including:
> >: Until we find a way to do something about the horrible side-effects
> >:of testosterone, it is imperative that we take steps to promote respect
> >:for female authority. And, like it or not, spanking is one way to get
> >:boys to respect female authority. I agree that boys who are beaten by men
> >:become resentful and hardened by it. But, boys react completely
> >:differently when fairly and reasonably spanked by a woman.
In article <32053002...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, ta...@ix.netcom.com
(Tami ) wrote:
> You, unfortunately,
> are a female sexist and make me ashamed to share the title "woman"
> with you.
No, she's a troll. The more you argue with her the happier she'll be.
Susan Ramirez Mombat to Phoebe, 3.11,
ram...@frii.com & Simon "the Jabberwock, my son/
the jaws that bite, the claws that catch", 8 months
Am struggling with lightning. Please excuse delays.
Edward J. MacLennan
>>:I realize it is inconsistent with the new orthodoxy. But, boys are
>>:different in many important ways from girls. Boys grow up to fill
our
>>:prisons, batter our women, engage in behavior that fills our
hospitals and
>>:medical providers' offices, and teach women and girls that they are
on
>>:this planet to be subservient to men and boys. Well, I'm sorry, but
I'm
>>:not going to let me children grow up to go out into the world and
continue
>>:those destructive, patriarchal roles.
>>: Until we find a way to do something about the horrible
side-effects
>>:of testosterone, it is imperative that we take steps to promote
respect
>>:for female authority. And, like it or not, spanking is one way to
get
>>:boys to respect female authority. I agree that boys who are beaten
by men
>>:become resentful and hardened by it. But, boys react completely
>>:differently when fairly and reasonably spanked by a woman.
>>: Please don't tell me that because I'm a Feminist that I somehow
>>:believe that boys and men are "less than human." I love my sons
every bit
>>:as much as I love my daughter.
This has got to be the most disturbing post I have ever read on this
subject. I can't believe what I'm reading her. Have I got this
straight? You have one daughter and at least two sons. You believe
that because of testosterone, you must spank your sons, but not your
daughter, to teach them to "respect female authority". That may well
be the immediate result, but have you thought about the long-term
effects? Your sons see you hit them, but not their sister (who may
well have broken the same rule before). I don't see healthy respect as
the eventual outcome. I see boys who will come to believe that somehow
being male means being less good, valued, wonderful, respectable than
being female. That there is something innately wrong with being a boy.
I see boys who will eventually decide that brutalization is the normal
way for males to be treated by females, and come to expect it. I see
boys who may even decide that women are people to be feared or avoided,
rather than respected. Do you really want your sons to think that
women are *better than* men? We're not, you know. Not better or
worse, just different in a wonderful way. Do you want your sons to
respect women? Then treat them fairly and equally, and that means not
setting different standards just because of their gender. Spanking
them ,but not their sister, for the reasons you stated, is *sexism*,
pure and simple.
Phan
Steven A. Santos
On 5 Aug 1996 12:13:11 GMT, rc...@cei.net (Randy) wrote:
>In article <4u3ijh$e...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, on 4 Aug 1996 21:26:09 -0400,
>ptrf...@aol.com, PtrFamili says
>>... Boys are less able to control themselves
>>physically, e.g. sitting quietly at a desk for hours at a time.
>(cut)
>Could it be that behavior has anything at all to do with how one
>is reared? Does a childrearing method influence behavior? I thought
>that was what we were arguing about. It occurrs to me almost
>immmediately that boys and girls behave differently because they are
>treated differently.
I hate to put yet another opinion in hear, but ptrfamili DOES
have a valid point. Nature vs. Nurture, which is more important?
Their is a growing opinion among pediatricians that boys and girls
muscle structure develops diffidently. According to this theory, boys
bones grow before their muscles do stretching their muscles. Since
young boys generally have a smaller percentage of fatty tissue in
their bodies that can take up the slack, it leaves them feeling like
they need to move allot (being "rambunctious"), helping their muscles
grow, getting rid of that feeling. Girls on the other hand, have more
fatty tissue that takes up the slack, so while they feel the need to
move, its not as pressing a need as it is in boys. Girls bodies may
be telling them to move, but not as much as a boys body is telling him
to. That's nature. (if your interested in hearing about this in more
detail, email me, I'd be happy to go further into it for you.)
Girls have been working to control that impulse, so in later
years, when they don't have enough fatty tissue to take up the slack,
they have learned the self control not to give in to that impulse.
Boys on the other hand, have either learned to control it, or
developed enough fatty tissue to compensate for it. (Their are other
things that can come of it, but its too lengthy to go into right now.)
that's nurture.
>If we all continued to believe that boys need more brutal treatment
>than girls and that both sexes of children need more brutal treatment
>than their parents we will continue to be as baffled by the outcomes.
>There be clues here. ;)
What I have never understood is why as adults, we expect
things from children (like sitting still for hours at a time) the go
directly against what their physical body needs to develop (IE gross
motor movement). I understand less why in some cases, we use brutal
treatment to get children to go against what their bodies are telling
them they need. I mean, we don't spank them because their bodies are
telling them they are hungry and to eat, why do we punish them when
their bodies tell them to move? The last time any of our bodies felt
the kind of need to move around that children feel, we were in our
teens, and chances are we didn't sit more than 45 minutes before we
walked to our next class, getting the gross motor activity our bodies
told us we need. The 45 minute wait was probably quick enough for our
teenage bodies too, where children's bodies cant wait that long.
Yes, I am a teacher, yes I expect my preschoolers to sit still
for 5 or 10 minutes for circle. Yes, when I teach my Jr high class I
expect them to sit during most of the class time, but I don't expect a
jr high school class to sit still for 2 hours with no gross motor
movement, let alone younger kids.
>"just as important for girls"... I agree.
>"Steady and consistent"... I agree.
>"preventive action"... I agree
>"continued and reinforced at every age, both for girls and for boys."
>... I agree, and would add, at the end, 'and for men and for women'.
>It' the authority thing, the system winners and losers, dominants and
>submissives that I don't agree with. Cooperation demonstrates
>superiority (like that word don't we?) over competition. Win - win
>is favored by anyone who has experienced losing and considers the
>chance of losing again as equal or greater. Those that consider the
>chance of winning as greater than equal intend to exploit some flaw
>in our society or some advantage of size and strength. I'd like to
>change that.
Randy, do you believe that their is any need for authority, or
do you believe cooperation can completely replace it?
>Randy Cox
-Steven Santos, E.M.T.
cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu
LaVonne Carlson (carl...@maroon.tc.umn.edu) wrote:
: Cheryl1955 wrote:
: >
: > Until girls and women are far less vulnerable to the violence of
: > men in this world, girls must be raised to believe that they are in
: > complete control of their bodies, and that no one may touch them without
: > their consent.
: And boys need to realize they have complete control of their bodies as
: well. They do not learn that by being nonconsentually hit as little
: children, whether that hitting is done by a male or a female.
Cheryl treats child sexual abuse as if it were something which
happens only to girls. But a boy is sexually abused for every 1.7 girls
who are sexually abused (Doheny, 1989). If we need to stop spanking
girls in order to avoid giving them the message that they have no right
to say "no" to people touching their "private zone" in ways they hate,
surely the same should apply to boys as well.
: > And until men learn to treat women with respect, boys need
: > to be raised to respect female authority. A properly administered
: > spanking can have a profound impact on the way young males view women.
: I'll bet it does. There are correlations between spanking and the way
: the victim views the spanker--there are correlations between spanking
: and domestic abuse (both batterer and victim).
Straus (1983), writing about the results of the 1975 National
Family Violence Survey, found that for both women and men the more
physical punishment a respondent experienced as a child, the higher the
probability that they had assaulted their spouse in the previous twelve
months. Most spanked children do not grow up to become spousal abusers,
but childhood corporal punishment is a well-established risk factor. In
this study, even respondents who were "only" physically punished once or
twice had significantly elevated rates of spousal abuse when compared
with respondents who were not physically punished.
: Could these little boys
: learn to hate that woman who so freely hits them? Especially if this
: women only hits her male children?
It is hard to imagine not feeling resentment when growing up in a
family in which you get physically punished but your opposite sex
siblings do not, simply because of their sex. One wonders how Cheryl,
and the several others who have come forward to express support for her
"spank boys only" philosophy, would feel if they grew up female in a
household in which Daddy routinely spanked them with their pants down but
never spanked any of his sons. What if this hypothetical Daddy justified
his behavior by rationalizing that "girls need to learn deference towards
men" or some such? One can argue about "patriarchy" forever, but this
won't mean a thing to a small child who only knows that their sex makes
them an acceptable target for parental violence. Raising boys, or girls,
in such an atmosphere cannot hope to contribute to greater harmony
between women and men a generation down the road.
: "When I was a powerless little boy,
: this woman hit me--I'll grow up to hit and disrespect women?" Puts an
: interesting twist on the positive correlation between spanking and
: domestic abuse, doesn't it?
In Deborah Tannen's book "You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men
in Conversation," Tannen summarizes a study of videotapes of pairs of
girls and pairs of boys interacting with each other. When adults viewed
the tapes, there was a sharp gender difference, among the viewers, in how
the girl pairs vs the boy pairs were viewed. Female viewers tended to
view the girls as darling but thought the boys had a bad attitude and
needed to be disciplined. Male viewers more often thought the boys
delightful imps but viewed the girls as saccharine little goody-goodies.
Since women still do most of the childcare for children of both sexes,
this would seem to indicate a special extra burden which growing boys may
carry, which may lead to long-term emotional issues and resentments
against women later in life. This might suggest that equal sharing of
childrearing duties will benefit males in the long run.
: > Don't we all welcome the day when young men will look at women with
: > deference and respect rather than with predatory eyes?
: Deference, Cheryl? Deference? I do not want men to look at me or my
: female children with deference. I want to be treated with respect by
: both men and women--I want my children to be treated with respect. And
: in turn--I want them to treat others--both men and women--respectfully.
Yes. Respect is for equals. Deference is for inferiors to
display towards superiors. Those who believe in gender equality favor
mutual respect between the sexes. Male deference towards females is for
a matriarchal society, not an equal society. As someone said earlier,
matriarchy is not an improvement over patriarchy, just different.
: LaVonne
Chris
REFERENCES
Doheny, Kathleen. 1989. "Sexual Abuse: When Men Are The Victim," _Los
Angeles Times_ Jan. 10, part V, p. 1.
Straus, Murray A. 1983. "Ordinary Violence, Child Abuse, and
Wife-Beating: What Do They Have In Common." In _The Dark Side Of
Families: Current Family Violence Research_, ed. D. Finkelhor, R.J.
Gelles, G.T. Hotaling, and M.A. Straus, pp. 213-234. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Marguerite Petersen
In article <4uej7j$d...@carbon.cudenver.edu>,
<cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu> wrote:
>Cheryl1955 wrote:
>>
>> Predictably, the forces of patriarchy have rallied to condemn Feminist
>> ideas.
Forces of patriarchy? Now *that's* really a laugh. :-) I was a
feminist before you were even born, I would bet. And YOUR ideas
could hardly be construed to be anything *near* "feminist" ones.
The flames I've gotten would curl your hair. Some of you have
>> expressed "pity" for my two sons, supposedly being raised by a "man
>> hating" woman.
Well, apart from your protestations to the contrary, your *actions*
speak louder than your words.
Frankly, you have displayed as little understanding of my
>> family as you have of Feminist issues. I dearly love my sons. I dearly
>> love men. But, I do recognize that the world as it is is not the way it
>> should or could be. We can raise a better, more enlightened generation.
>> And I believe we have a duty to do so.
I'm glad that you love your sons *and* that you love men. BUT,
certainly there is a more appropriate way of showing this love than
by being abusive toward them. I DO believe it is important to raise
a better, more enlightened generation but *really*, do you honestly
believe that you will accomplish this by beating them into submission?
And as for the men who have
>> expressed such hostility and anger toward me, I do recognize that there
>> are definitely things that men are better at than women. For example, men
>> are far more successful at committing suicide than are women. So, rather
>> than wasting your energy debating issues you don't understand, why don't
>> you stick with what you are good at.
Such love and compassion you express in the above. And perhaps those
very men who DO commit suicide were raised by a woman such as yourself.
> You say that you "dearly love men," and then in the same paragraph
>make an incredibly ugly comment about how men should stick to what we are
>good at: committing suicide. And then you wonder why so many of us don't
>"understand" you. The trouble is, Cheryl, that there are a lot of us out
>here, women as well as men, who understand you all too well.
>
> Listen to yourself! This is hate speech you are giving us. If
>you doubt it, imagine how you would feel if a man said, "I do recognize
>that there are definitely things that women are better at than men. For
>example, women are far more successful at contracting breast cancer than
>men. So why don't all you dizzy broads stick to what you are good at." A
>man who talked like that would be a misogynist. You, Cheryl, are a
>misandrist. You are part of the problem of sexism, not part of the
>solution.
Agreed, 100%!
>Chris
Marg
--
Member PSEB Official Sonneteer JLP SoL
pet...@peak.org http://www.peak.org/~petersm
The Internet has Faster Karma - John Sechrest
cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu
Cheryl1955 wrote:
>
> Predictably, the forces of patriarchy have rallied to condemn Feminist
> expressed "pity" for my two sons, supposedly being raised by a "man
> family as you have of Feminist issues. I dearly love my sons. I dearly
> love men. But, I do recognize that the world as it is is not the way it
> should or could be. We can raise a better, more enlightened generation.
> expressed such hostility and anger toward me, I do recognize that there
> are definitely things that men are better at than women. For example, men
> are far more successful at committing suicide than are women. So, rather
> than wasting your energy debating issues you don't understand, why don't
> you stick with what you are good at.
You say that you "dearly love men," and then in the same paragraph
make an incredibly ugly comment about how men should stick to what we are
good at: committing suicide. And then you wonder why so many of us don't
"understand" you. The trouble is, Cheryl, that there are a lot of us out
here, women as well as men, who understand you all too well.
Listen to yourself! This is hate speech you are giving us. If
you doubt it, imagine how you would feel if a man said, "I do recognize
that there are definitely things that women are better at than men. For
example, women are far more successful at contracting breast cancer than
men. So why don't all you dizzy broads stick to what you are good at." A
man who talked like that would be a misogynist. You, Cheryl, are a
misandrist. You are part of the problem of sexism, not part of the
solution.
Chris
elizabeth frantes
cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu wrote:
>
> Cheryl1955 wrote:
> Chris
Chris, it is highly probable you just got trolled.
eaf
cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu
Marguerite Petersen (pet...@kira.peak.org) wrote:
: In article <4uej7j$d...@carbon.cudenver.edu>,
: <cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu> wrote:
: >Cheryl1955 wrote:
: >>
: >> Predictably, the forces of patriarchy have rallied to condemn Feminist
: >> ideas.
: Forces of patriarchy? Now *that's* really a laugh. :-) I was a
: feminist before you were even born, I would bet. And YOUR ideas
: could hardly be construed to be anything *near* "feminist" ones.
On a lark, I went back and reread the threads about Cheryl1995
spanking only her sons and not her daughter to look at the gender of her
critics. The people who clearly and unequivocally criticized her
philosophy were:
Women-
Marguerite Peterson (pet...@kira.peak)
Tami (ta...@ix.netcom.com)
LaVonne Carlson (carl...@maroon.tc.umn.edu)
Robin E. Cooks (reco...@ix.netcom.com)
Orenda (ore...@nexusprime.org) stated that she didn't believe one
should spank only boys, but was otherwise lukewarm in her criticism,
spending the rest of her note criticizing Cheryl's critics for not
knowing enough details about precisely how she spanks her sons and only
her sons.
Men-
Tom Slater (of...@dial.pipex.com)
Steve K. (tso_ispf@nyc. pipeline.com)
Chris (cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu)
So, even if we don't count Orenda, Cheryl has gotten more public
criticism from *women* than from men! What is Cheryl's response to her
critics? Does she address any of the issues any of us have raised? No.
She dismisses her mostly-female critics as "the forces of Patriarchy" (!)
If Cheryl's propensity for physically punishing only her sons and
never her daughters constitutes a "Feminist idea," one wonders why net
feminists are not rallying around her. Interestingly, one of Cheryl's few
clear supporters, "randm...@aol.com," just recently posted a note on the
alt.sex.spanking newsgroup identifying herself as "into" spanking teenaged
boys. With "supporters" like that, who needs critics, eh?
Chris
Donna L. Cornwell
cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu wrote:
> So, even if we don't count Orenda, Cheryl has gotten more public
> criticism from *women* than from men! What is Cheryl's response to her
> critics? Does she address any of the issues any of us have raised? No.
> She dismisses her mostly-female critics as "the forces of Patriarchy" (!)
You can count me in as a feminist and a flaming critic of Cheryl. I just
figured that she was a troll and didnt' respond. Anyone have any indication
that she is a real person?
----------------------------------------------------------------
Donna
the SUBurban Nightmare
Tami
After reading this, I decided to check dejanews. She's only had 4
articles, all related to the subject of spanking in either
alt.parenting.spanking or misc.kids. I think that's our answer.
Tami
Orenda
Tami wrote:
>
> "Donna L. Cornwell" <dcor...@mitre.org> wrote:
>
> >cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu wrote:
> >
> >> So, even if we don't count Orenda, Cheryl has gotten more public
> >> criticism from *women* than from men! What is Cheryl's response to her
> >> critics? Does she address any of the issues any of us have raised? No.
> >> She dismisses her mostly-female critics as "the forces of Patriarchy" (!)
I publicly disagreed with her. I just said no one can fairly
call her a child abuser when she has said that she RARELY spanked her
sons. ( spanked, not beat up.... no abuse here to the normal population
) We are supposed to be adults, can't we just disagree ?? She didn't
attack anyone until she was attacked. ( and I thought it was a pretty
clever comeback, directed at the MEN.) ( reread it Chris )
> >
> >You can count me in as a feminist and a flaming critic of Cheryl. I just
> >figured that she was a troll and didnt' respond. Anyone have any indication
> >that she is a real person?
> >----------------------------------------------------------------
> >Donna
> >the SUBurban Nightmare
>
> After reading this, I decided to check dejanews. She's only had 4
> articles, all related to the subject of spanking in either
> alt.parenting.spanking or misc.kids. I think that's our answer.
>
> Tami
We seem to be in the middle of a Tam/mi/y epidemic here. ;-)
Until Nov. I had no posts at all in the newsgroups. Some people
just lurk. The fact that she's only posted 4 times just shows that this
is something she felt she had to address, not that she's a troll. ?Right
?? You started somewhere, didn't you ? You didn't just leap into
a dozen newsgroups and post away, did you ?? I think a lot of people
just intend to lurk and then get affected by what's being discussed and
jump in. I started with just one ng.... maybe she has too. She's been
posting to this group for over a month. I'm willing to think she's real.
I may think she's mixed up on some things, but that doesn't make
her a monster. We don't know enough to say that. That was the point I
was trying to make. I have been on the recieving end of these flamers
and I know it ain't pretty. ( and very often terribly and diliberately
inaccurate )
Orenda
Tami
Orenda <ore...@nexusprime.org> wrote:
>Tami wrote:
>>
>> "Donna L. Cornwell" <dcor...@mitre.org> wrote:
>>
>> >cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu wrote:
>> >
>> >> So, even if we don't count Orenda, Cheryl has gotten more public
>> >> criticism from *women* than from men! What is Cheryl's response to her
>> >> critics? Does she address any of the issues any of us have raised? No.
>> >> She dismisses her mostly-female critics as "the forces of Patriarchy" (!)
>
>
> I publicly disagreed with her. I just said no one can fairly
>call her a child abuser when she has said that she RARELY spanked her
>sons. ( spanked, not beat up.... no abuse here to the normal population
>) We are supposed to be adults, can't we just disagree ?? She didn't
>attack anyone until she was attacked. ( and I thought it was a pretty
>clever comeback, directed at the MEN.) ( reread it Chris )
You think it's clever to tell men that all they're good at is killing
themselves and then tell men to go do what they're best at?????
I really pity you if you cannot find any other reason that men are
good. You know, from previous posts of yours, I thought you were a
christian, but I guess I'm wrong because I wouldn't think a christian
would profess such a hateful attitude. I hope you never have to learn
through the suicide of a male near to you why saying such a thing is
so terrible.
>
>
>> >
>> >You can count me in as a feminist and a flaming critic of Cheryl. I just
>> >figured that she was a troll and didnt' respond. Anyone have any indication
>> >that she is a real person?
>> >----------------------------------------------------------------
>> >Donna
>> >the SUBurban Nightmare
>>
>> After reading this, I decided to check dejanews. She's only had 4
>> articles, all related to the subject of spanking in either
>> alt.parenting.spanking or misc.kids. I think that's our answer.
>>
>> Tami
>
>
>
> We seem to be in the middle of a Tam/mi/y epidemic here. ;-)
>
> Until Nov. I had no posts at all in the newsgroups. Some people
>just lurk. The fact that she's only posted 4 times just shows that this
>is something she felt she had to address, not that she's a troll. ?Right
>?? You started somewhere, didn't you ? You didn't just leap into
>a dozen newsgroups and post away, did you ?? I think a lot of people
>just intend to lurk and then get affected by what's being discussed and
>jump in. I started with just one ng.... maybe she has too. She's been
>posting to this group for over a month. I'm willing to think she's real.
Well, Orenda, the problem seems to be that you look at *one* side of
an issue and stop there. My basis was 4 articles, all on one issue,
all inflammatory.
>
> I may think she's mixed up on some things, but that doesn't make
>her a monster. We don't know enough to say that. That was the point I
>was trying to make. I have been on the recieving end of these flamers
>and I know it ain't pretty. ( and very often terribly and diliberately
>inaccurate )
>
>Orenda
>
Orenda, once again (and you have such a talent for ignoring the posts
that point this out), we can base our conclusions on what the lady
wrote. That's what we did.
WRT flames, from what I've seen, you've not only been on the receiving
end, you've been on the giving end too.
Tami
elizabeth frantes
Donna L. Cornwell wrote:
> You can count me in as a feminist and a flaming critic of Cheryl. I just
> figured that she was a troll and didnt' respond. Anyone have any indication
> that she is a real person?
I concur.
"Cheryl1955" is indeed a troll.
Lt Torres: Captain, I just reconfigured the sensors to alert us to
trolls.
CPT JaneWay: Thank you, Belanna. Some of those trolls can be
really clever in their disguises . . .
NEEP-ertNEEP-ertNEEP-ert
Torres: There it goes! It works! Looks just like an enemy\warship,
doesn't it? Until you look closely . . .
Paris: Shall I arm the photon torpedoes, Captian?
Torres: Paris, you bonehead--
Janeway: I'll handle this, Belana. Paris, you bonehead, did you
sleep through the Academy lectures on troll theory?
Tuvok: Perhaps my colleague does have an unusually ossified
cranial structure--so as the resident over-educated smart-ass,
allow me to explain to the bonehead that the use of any weapons
or any sort of negative energy only feeds the trolls. They were
named after a particularly noxious form of humanoid first discovered
on
Earth when the Internet became popular. For reasons still not
completely understood, even by me, such entities require the energy
that come form hostility and anger directed at them in their varuious
disguises. There are two ways to defeat them:
1. Reveal their true identity.
2. Ignore them.
Kim: Shall I open a hailing frequency?
Janeway: No, Harry, let's just pretend we didn't see it.
Hell, we're not the universe's police force.
eaf
Orenda
Tami wrote:
>
> Orenda <ore...@nexusprime.org> wrote:
>
> >Tami wrote:
> >>
> >> "Donna L. Cornwell" <dcor...@mitre.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> >cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> So, even if we don't count Orenda, Cheryl has gotten more public
> >> >> criticism from *women* than from men! What is Cheryl's response to her
> >> >> critics? Does she address any of the issues any of us have raised? No.
> >> >> She dismisses her mostly-female critics as "the forces of Patriarchy" (!)
> >
> >
> > I publicly disagreed with her. I just said no one can fairly
> >call her a child abuser when she has said that she RARELY spanked her
> >sons. ( spanked, not beat up.... no abuse here to the normal population
> >) We are supposed to be adults, can't we just disagree ?? She didn't
> >attack anyone until she was attacked. ( and I thought it was a pretty
> >clever comeback, directed at the MEN.) ( reread it Chris )
>
> You think it's clever to tell men that all they're good at is killing
> themselves and then tell men to go do what they're best at?????
She was being sarcastic, something that a lot of other people (
including me) on this newsgroup do. I overheard someone tell someone
else once " I hope that when thee returns to they kennel, thy mother bits
thee." You have to pay attention to what is being said. Let someone
call you a child abuser, and see how calm you remain.
> I really pity you if you cannot find any other reason that men are
> good. You know, from previous posts of yours, I thought you were a
> christian, but I guess I'm wrong because I wouldn't think a christian
> would profess such a hateful attitude. I hope you never have to learn
> through the suicide of a male near to you why saying such a thing is
> so terrible.
> >
I am a christian. Doesn't mean that people don't get under my
skin, or that I have to set myself us as being better than someone else.
I didn't say I wanted them to go and kill themselves, I said I thought
her creativity deserved some points. And two years ago on Mother's Day,
my son's father put a 45 to his head and blew his brains out. So, thanks
for hoping to spare me that, but it's a little too late. It did one
positive thing. Hopefully it will keep me from ever trying to kill
myself again, because now I know first hand how devastated you leave
everyone you leave behind.
> >
> >> >
> >> >You can count me in as a feminist and a flaming critic of Cheryl. I just
> >> >figured that she was a troll and didnt' respond. Anyone have any indication
> >> >that she is a real person?
> >> >----------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >Donna
> >> >the SUBurban Nightmare
> >>
> >> After reading this, I decided to check dejanews. She's only had 4
> >> articles, all related to the subject of spanking in either
> >> alt.parenting.spanking or misc.kids. I think that's our answer.
> >>
> >> Tami
> >
> >
> >
> > We seem to be in the middle of a Tam/mi/y epidemic here. ;-)
> >
> > Until Nov. I had no posts at all in the newsgroups. Some people
> >just lurk. The fact that she's only posted 4 times just shows that this
> >is something she felt she had to address, not that she's a troll. ?Right
> >?? You started somewhere, didn't you ? You didn't just leap into
> >a dozen newsgroups and post away, did you ?? I think a lot of people
> >just intend to lurk and then get affected by what's being discussed and
> >jump in. I started with just one ng.... maybe she has too. She's been
> >posting to this group for over a month. I'm willing to think she's real.
>
> Well, Orenda, the problem seems to be that you look at *one* side of
> an issue and stop there. My basis was 4 articles, all on one issue,
> all inflammatory.
The point is, she posted on something she obviously feels
strongly about. Our kids. Gets my passion flowing every time. And let
someone say I mistreat them ??? People who don't know me? You know,
maybe her father was abusive.... ( Not an excuse, but then she'd be the
perfect "poster child" for the anti-spank campaign ) Trouble is, no one
wants to try to know anyone, they just want to pass instant judgement.
It was her opinion. And did you notice she said she's rarely
spanked her sons ? And she says they love and respect her. It's just
wrong to make such strong statements, hurtful statements, based on 4
letters, I don't care how imflammatory they are. Telling me that's the
christian attitude ??? We are supposed to help people with problems, not
crucify them without benifit of more than ng posts.
> >
> > I may think she's mixed up on some things, but that doesn't make
> >her a monster. We don't know enough to say that. That was the point I
> >was trying to make. I have been on the recieving end of these flamers
> >and I know it ain't pretty. ( and very often terribly and diliberately
> >inaccurate )
> >
> >Orenda
> >
> Orenda, once again (and you have such a talent for ignoring the posts
> that point this out), we can base our conclusions on what the lady
> wrote. That's what we did.
>
> WRT flames, from what I've seen, you've not only been on the receiving
> end, you've been on the giving end too.
>
> Tami
I didn't see anyone doing anything but commenting on how abusive
she was because she only spanked the boys. If she only spanked him one
time, no matter how little actual pain was involved, you still don't
think you would call her abusive just based on her beliefs ??
I'm tired, spent the entire day with a sick friend, and my
daughter is in a neck brace, and want to read something a little nicer
before I retire.
Orenda
Tami
Orenda <ore...@nexusprime.org> wrote:
>Tami wrote:
>>
>> You think it's clever to tell men that all they're good at is killing
>> themselves and then tell men to go do what they're best at?????
>
>
> She was being sarcastic, something that a lot of other people (
>including me) on this newsgroup do. I overheard someone tell someone
>else once " I hope that when thee returns to they kennel, thy mother bits
>thee." You have to pay attention to what is being said. Let someone
>call you a child abuser, and see how calm you remain.
Considering the sexist tone of her other posts, the sarcasm fades.
>
>> I really pity you if you cannot find any other reason that men are
>> good. You know, from previous posts of yours, I thought you were a
>> christian, but I guess I'm wrong because I wouldn't think a christian
>> would profess such a hateful attitude. I hope you never have to learn
>> through the suicide of a male near to you why saying such a thing is
>> so terrible.
>> >
> I am a christian. Doesn't mean that people don't get under my
>skin, or that I have to set myself us as being better than someone else.
> I didn't say I wanted them to go and kill themselves, I said I thought
>her creativity deserved some points. And two years ago on Mother's Day,
>my son's father put a 45 to his head and blew his brains out. So, thanks
>for hoping to spare me that, but it's a little too late. It did one
>positive thing. Hopefully it will keep me from ever trying to kill
>myself again, because now I know first hand how devastated you leave
>everyone you leave behind.
Suicide has also touched my life. While I feel for you there, I also
feel that because of your experience, it should give you a better
eyesight on the problems of suicide.
Orenda, in my response to her, I addressed the fact that she is
carrying way too much bitterness and she needs help.
> It was her opinion. And did you notice she said she's rarely
>spanked her sons ? And she says they love and respect her. It's just
>wrong to make such strong statements, hurtful statements, based on 4
>letters, I don't care how imflammatory they are. Telling me that's the
>christian attitude ??? We are supposed to help people with problems, not
>crucify them without benifit of more than ng posts.
Lots of kids who are abused love and respect their parents. Look at
you, what you said you were like til you left the home. Isn't there a
*possibility* that this is what her kids are like?
As for a christian attitude and me, honey, I never made any claims
about my religion, so you struck out there. As far as that goes
anyway, I never crucified her. I never flamed her. I responded, and
that's about it.
>> >
>> Orenda, once again (and you have such a talent for ignoring the posts
>> that point this out), we can base our conclusions on what the lady
>> wrote. That's what we did.
>>
>> WRT flames, from what I've seen, you've not only been on the receiving
>> end, you've been on the giving end too.
>>
>> Tami
>
>
> I didn't see anyone doing anything but commenting on how abusive
>she was because she only spanked the boys. If she only spanked him one
>time, no matter how little actual pain was involved, you still don't
>think you would call her abusive just based on her beliefs ??
ORENDA WILL YOU RESPOND TO THE NEXT LINE PLEASE??????
Do you know that there are ways to abuse children which don't involve
physical pain?
ORENDA WILL YOU RESPOND TO THE NEXT LINE PLEASE??????
I am NOT nor did I say she was abuse NOR did I get upset over her
spanking only her son, but rather that she spanked them based ONLY on
their gender and didn't spank her daughter based ONLY on her gender.
Why do you keep ignoring that?
>
> I'm tired, spent the entire day with a sick friend, and my
>daughter is in a neck brace, and want to read something a little nicer
>before I retire.
>
>Orenda
>
I have a funny feeling that the posts to you would be nicer if you
would respond to what people are trying to say to you instead of
repeating the same thing over and over.
It's not that she spanks only her sons.
It why.
She spanks them because they're boys.
She doesn't spank her daughter.
She doesn't spank her because she's a girl.
That's wrong, that's abusive and she's hurting them emotionally.
Tami
L Jean Camp
I couldn't resist this concatenation.
Jean
Maybe
Why I circ Dr. Ferber, not girls?
Lise Mendel
Answer in 25 words or less, and be sure to include relevant vaccination
information. Bonus points for working in circ and BF
--
Lise Mendel
Mommy to Abigail (5/9/93) and Dorothy (10/19/95)
http://www.access.digex.net/~catalyst/
I reserve the right to repost e-mailed flames wherever it amuse me to
Angelk1959
>You can count me in as a feminist and a flaming critic of Cheryl. I just
>figured that she was a troll and didnt' respond. Anyone have any
indication
>that she is a real person?
FWIW She has an account with but no personal profile on AOL.
Angelk1959
> I'm tired, spent the entire day with a sick friend, and my
>daughter is in a neck brace, and want to read something a little nicer
>before I retire.
Might I suggest you try reading cute things they say or do instead of this
topic next time.
BTW, while I wouldn't want you to discontinue the above actions, try
living on a day to day with a darling, wonderful child with a long term,
managable kidney disease. Try feeding him steroids daily and cytoxan (a
horrible, horrible drug that makes me shudder just thinking about it) to
help force his body into remission. Yes Orenda, try doing that and
fighting a medical system every step of the way for your child. See how
long you can keep that up and *still* try to be nice to people like you
who just don't get it.
You don't answer questions, start flames and call people names. Then,
when you get caught at it, you turn around and plead "I know what abuse
is" "I just wanted to read something a little nicer" "The evil cohorts
don't understand sarcasm."
Well I got news for you Orenda...I'm sick of it. You have choices in
life, just like the rest of us. You didn't have to read this thread
before retiring YOU CHOSE TO. If you didn't like it...tough. Next time
read a fairy tale. Don't give us crap because you had it rough because
let me tell you, a lot of us have it rough. We all have our crosses to
bear and our choices to make. Just like I'm choosing to respond at 12:30
am instead of sleeping. That's my choice and it's my responsibility. But
honestly, I'm sick of your whining justifications for bad actions.
I'm sorry you had misery in your life, but we all have. Maybe my son's
father hasn't blown his brains out...but he's done other things that can
be considered cruel and abusive without lifting a hand to me. Maybe I
wasn't abused as a kid, but my self esteem was destroyed along the way by
an a****** weilding a knife with the intention of raping an innocent 15
year old girl.
You want something pleasant, go rent the Care Bears or some romantic
comedy and get the hell off this topic because it's not nice from either
side. You want to make a point, quit putting up smoke screens and answer
some questions with honesty and integrity. Take some responsibility for
YOUR actions. I sure as hell try to take responsibility for mine.
Oh, and for the record, I don't care what religion you are. You could be
a Zoastrian and I'd still feel the way I do right now. Don't hide behind
a religious shield and the next time you feel like publishing a sarcastic
little Sunday School Diatribe, be prepared for me to come back with the
scholarly research I've been doing for years in the religious field. I
may be a Pagan, but I'm a well educated one.
peter
I think that this woman who would only spank a son and not a
daughter is symbolic of a problem which exists in all of society.
I think that in general people think that a fitting punishment
for a male is pain. For example if a male says something that
isn't right what is the generaly agreed upon appropriate
response? You punch him in the face. Need I remind you of the
old "Don't you talk about my moma like that". I am a guy and
all of my guy friends, myself included, definitely go around life
having to watch what we say because we know that as males, we can
get beaten up for what we say. I don't think that woman have this
same feer. I can't tell you how many times woman have been with
us who would start mouthing off to strangers and we would have to
tell them to chill out because the people that you are yelling at
are not going to touch you, they will kill us GUYS. I think that
this woman's sexist approach to the punishment of her children
simply comes from society norms which basicly dictates protection
for woman when it comes to violence, but an open season for men.
It kind of is not her fault but the fault of a society which
allowed this stereotype. Don't get me wrong, I still think that
she is an asshole.
Tami
w...@bridge.net (peter) wrote:
I agree and understand with what you're saying about society's
attitude towards men, women and punishment. Personally, I too am
careful about "mouthing off" out of fear of just how long is that
person's arm reach :}
However, I don't think what you're seeing with this woman is simply
society's attitude about punishment. I think she has a very big
problem with men. She made statements about " horrible side-effects
of testosterone" not *once* but *twice*. She made it clear that she
thinks that men are at fault for all of the problems in society. She
made a "joke" about men having the highest rate of suicide.
I think she has an emotional problem that she needs to seek help for.
This goes way beyond society's attitude towards men and punishment.
Tami
Tammy
Angelk1959 wrote:
>
> >You can count me in as a feminist and a flaming critic of Cheryl. I just
> >figured that she was a troll and didnt' respond. Anyone have any
> indication
> >that she is a real person?
>
> FWIW She has an account with but no personal profile on AOL.
>
> Rev. Karla Marie-Catherine (Hailer) Shapiro, ULC
> James (7) and Micah's (4) mom
> Reiki Master
Yeah so what?" When I first got my computer and was AOL I was on it for about 4 months
before I even knew about a personal profile and never did do one for myself, did one for
my husband though. And anyone looking me up based on just my e-mail address would have
got his profile anyway and still not known anything about me. So what's that got to do
with anything?
Tammy
--
Ferengi Rule Of Acquisition # 285:
" No good deed ever goes unpunished"
Quark
" The Collaborator"
Tami
Tammy <ta...@nexusprime.org> wrote:
>Angelk1959 wrote:
>>
>> >You can count me in as a feminist and a flaming critic of Cheryl. I just
>> >figured that she was a troll and didnt' respond. Anyone have any
>> indication
>> >that she is a real person?
>>
>> FWIW She has an account with but no personal profile on AOL.
>> *************
>>
>> Rev. Karla Marie-Catherine (Hailer) Shapiro, ULC
>> James (7) and Micah's (4) mom
>> Reiki Master
>
>
> Yeah so what?" When I first got my computer and was AOL I was on it for about 4 months
>before I even knew about a personal profile and never did do one for myself, did one for
>my husband though. And anyone looking me up based on just my e-mail address would have
>got his profile anyway and still not known anything about me. So what's that got to do
>with anything?
>
>Tammy
>
Tammy, it's just a comment and even qualified with "FWIW" (for what
it's worth). Why are you so critical?
Tami
KAGE
elizabeth frantes wrote:
>
Yes, and in reviewing this little vignette, I'm reminded that it was
Janeway that got them lost in the first place...
> Donna L. Cornwell wrote:
> > You can count me in as a feminist and a flaming critic of Cheryl. I just
> > figured that she was a troll and didnt' respond. Anyone have any indication
> > that she is a real person?
>
--
T E L E V O X I N T E R N E T P H O N E A C T I V E
:: ::> ::::> ::::> :::::> Father, Veteran, Republican
:: ::> ::> ::>::> ::> 11th Armored Cav Regiment (Blackhorse)
::::> ::::::>::> ::>::::> Current Bosnia Casualty Count:
:: ::> ::> ::>::> ::>::> 9 KIA, 8 WIA, (3 crippled for life)
:: ::>::> ::> ::::> :::::> 1 Gang Raped
""""""""""""""""""""""""""" ka...@e-z.net
"Will to a higher level of honor . . . "
G E T O U R T R O O P S O U T O F B O S N I A N O W ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Tony the Tiger
peter (w...@bridge.net) wrote:
: I think that this woman who would only spank a son and not a
: daughter is symbolic of a problem which exists in all of society.
: I think that in general people think that a fitting punishment
: for a male is pain. For example if a male says something that
: isn't right what is the generaly agreed upon appropriate
: this woman's sexist approach to the punishment of her children
: simply comes from society norms which basicly dictates protection
: for woman when it comes to violence, but an open season for men.
: It kind of is not her fault but the fault of a society which
: allowed this stereotype. Don't get me wrong, I still think that
: she is an asshole.
With all due respect to Peter, I would point out that the "society
norms" he invokes are far from universal. True, there is at least
a partial taboo against punching women. But all too many people
(and not all of them male) believe that it's okay for a man to
slap or even punch a woman who is "mouthing off," particularly if
he is her husband or lover. Wife-beating may now be illegal (and
many police departments have, commendably, educated their rank
and file in sensitivity to domestic abuse), but too many people
still wink at it.
From time to time we see posts in the spanking-related newsgroups
from people who claim to spank only boys, or only girls. While
I suspect most of these posters are trolls (i.e. writing for
titillation and attention), I'm afraid many parents, including
some non-spankers and infrequent spankers, really do treat
one sex more harshly than the other. Both forms of sexism
are equally lamentable.
Angelk1959
Let's see, someone asked:
<snip>
>> > Anyone have any indication
>> >that she is a real person?
I respond:
>> FWIW She has an account with but no personal profile on AOL.
And Tammy with a y says:
> Yeah so what?" When I first got my computer and was AOL I was on it for
>about 4 months
>before I even knew about a personal profile
Tammy, what climbed up your butt and died? Someone asked a question, I
gave an answer, you saw my name and got antagonistic.
<Snicker snack>
>So what's that got to do with anything?
>Tammy
It answered a question someone asked...along with a For What It's Worth
(FWIW), that's what it has to do with anything.
Of course, what should I expect from someone that has a .sig that
reads:"Ferengi Rule Of Acquisition # 285:' No good deed ever goes
unpunished' Quark"
You're right...I did a good deed and you can't let it go unpunished.
*************
Rev. Karla Marie-Catherine (Hailer) Shapiro, ULC
James (7) and Micah's (4) mom
Reiki Master
"It was only time, and time was just a magazine,
Anthony Trainor
[Small Change got snipped on...]
Orenda <ore...@nexusprime.org> wrote in article
<32101A...@nexusprime.org>...
>
> I didn't see anyone doing anything but commenting on how abusive
> she was because she only spanked the boys. If she only spanked him one
> time, no matter how little actual pain was involved, you still don't
> think you would call her abusive just based on her beliefs ??
Orenda.
She only spanks her boys because they are boys. She's beating them
to soften their personalities and teach them to be subservient to women.
She said this. This is not your "responsible spanking." This is abusive
behaviour. To a certain extent, why you do something can be more
important than how you do it.
> I'm tired, spent the entire day with a sick friend, and my
> daughter is in a neck brace, and want to read something a little nicer
> before I retire.
: WWWWHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHH !!!
: Another bit of sarcasm soars once again over the head of a
: cohort. Guess they can dish it out, but just can't take it.
: Opinions are great. Everyone should get one. ( what is that
: line about how opinions are like assholes ? Everyone has one and
: most of them stink ??)
I do hope that's nice enough.
> Orenda
sors immanis Trakka rex sedet in vertici
et inanis -==(UDIC)==- caveat ruinam
Pontiac Dragon
peter
ta...@ix.netcom.com (Tami ) wrote:
First of all I really don't think that you need to fear very much
from violence based upon the fact that you are a women. You may
yourself personaly fear from it, but in actuality what I am
saying is that it is an unjustified fear. Finally, the point
that I had made has nothing to do with what is behind this woman
spanking her boys. My statment only says that in our society if
you have a problem with a male, then you punish them through
pain/violence. This is completly in line with what this woman is
doing. Though the problems that she feals she has with her boys
may be twisted, psyco, ect., she none the less has what she feels
is a problem with her male children, and thus a punishment of
pain is carried out. I guess what I am saying is that I don't
think that she would be spanking her little daughters if the
roles were reversed.
Debbie O'Leary
w...@bridge.net (peter) wrote:
>
>
>First of all I really don't think that you need to fear very much
>from violence based upon the fact that you are a women. You may
>yourself personaly fear from it, but in actuality what I am
>saying is that it is an unjustified fear.
Are you kidding? I have been the victim of violence from several
different men. The fear for women is not unjustified! I have received
counseling and feel like I've gotten over the trauma my attackers left
behind. But there are those women who have not had the benefit of
counseling and the support of friends and family. Their fear of men is
left festering and becomes displaced to their children. True that we
don't have to worry about most strangers getting into fist fights with
us, although it does happen. The violence we face is usually from those
that claim they love us :(
Debbie
peter
Debbie O'Leary <dol...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>w...@bridge.net (peter) wrote:
>>
>>
>>First of all I really don't think that you need to fear very much
>>from violence based upon the fact that you are a women. You may
>>yourself personaly fear from it, but in actuality what I am
>>saying is that it is an unjustified fear.
>Are you kidding? I have been the victim of violence from several
>different men. The fear for women is not unjustified! I have received
>counseling and feel like I've gotten over the trauma my attackers left
>behind. But there are those women who have not had the benefit of
>counseling and the support of friends and family. Their fear of men is
>left festering and becomes displaced to their children.
****************************************************************************************
****************************************************************************************
What do you do, go for the stud muscular type? Always passed up
the nice guy nerdy type who couldn't hurt a sole? So how many
men did these guys hurt before they hurt you? Are you the type
who doesn't care when your boyfreind kicks the crap out of other
guys, but gets all upset when he kicks the crap out of you? If
these guys kicked the crap out of you, they probably had been
kicking the crap out of other people for a long time and you knew
about it and you did not care!
***********************************************************************************
************************************************************************************
True that we
>don't have to worry about most strangers getting into fist fights with
>us, although it does happen.
************************************************************************************
************************************************************************************
OK, there it is. I have a big problem with this last sentence.
Is that what you would call it, a fight? It doesn't reach a
level of seriousness in your mind by were you would refer to it
as a possible attack? Men are not attacked, they get into
fights? How would you like it if I refered to a wife beating as
a fight? This is a big problem that I have with women! They
think that the violence that affects them is real serious and
stuff. You know, they refer to it as abuse, batery, attacks,
ect.. But when they refer to the kind of violence that affects
men, it is refered to as fighting!!!!!!! Fuck you , you ignorant
bitch. If you don't see violence against men as something more
serious than fighting, then why should I care that you got into a
couple of fights with some of your boyfreinds. Hey you probably
deserved it anyway!!!! Anyway, not to get detoured by your
stupidity, do you reallize that by you saying the incredibly
stupid line above, you are actually agreeing with me? The threat
outside in the general public is what I was refering to. So you
agree that men are in greater danger out in the general public
(of course you refer to the danger as mere fighting but that is
another story) and thus you agree with my initial post, but you
don't even know it. So then another point to realize here is
that if you did not choose men that would beat the shit out of
you, then you as a women could lead a relatively safe life, which
most women do. Hey the fact that you pick stud muscle boys is
your own fault, try the quite nerdy type next time. And the type
of violence that men face is unavoidable, it is in the external
world that is out of his control. So I ask you, who has the
greater problem with violence? So what the fuck are the
feminists talking about. In fact where are the feminists, they
have been run out of this news group!!!! Femi Nazis where are
you I need you to spell check and comment on this last passage of
mine.
****************************************************************************************
*****************************************************************************************
The violence we face is usually from those
>that claim they love us :(
**************************************************************************************
**************************************************************************************
Hey it is like I said above, at least you have the power to
change that situation. For men to change their situation they
would have to avoid society. This is why I feel that violence
against men is far more serious a problem then the violence women
are facing today. Does the term violence against men even exist?
This shows you just how serious the prolem of violence against
men is, when the term violence against men does not exist. I
want you to realize miss that I don't expect you to understand
everything that I am writing here. I usually use my respons to
postings as a substrate with which to get ideas out to the
general public. See ya. Peter.
Tammy
peter wrote:
<snipped >
>... Fuck you , you ignorant
> bitch. If you don't see violence against men as something more
> serious than fighting, then why should I care that you got into a
> couple of fights with some of your boyfreinds. Hey you probably
> deserved it anyway!!!! Anyway, not to get detoured by your
> stupidity,
> <snipped>
>......... So what the fuck are the
> feminists talking about. In fact where are the feminists, they
> have been run out of this news group!!!! Femi Nazis where are
> you I need you to spell check and comment on this last passage of
> mine.
><snipped>
> I
> want you to realize miss that I don't expect you to understand
> everything that I am writing here. I usually use my respons to
> postings as a substrate with which to get ideas out to the
> general public. See ya. Peter.
Not if we see you first Peter. The kind of language in this response just shows a lack
of imagination or intelligence, I don't know which. I don't know about the REST of the
general public but MY vote is for you to keep your ideas where they belong, in the
gutter.
Tammy
--
Ferengi Rule Of Acquisition # 285:
" No good deed ever goes unpunished"
Quark
" The Collaborator"
Angelk1959
Peter writes:
>What do you do, go for the stud muscular type? Always passed up
>the nice guy nerdy type who couldn't hurt a sole?
I believe the spelling is soul not sole. Sole is the bottom of a shoe or
a fish.
Are you saying that there is no such thing as a gentle muscular stud type
and no such thing as a violent nice guy nerdy type? If so, then your
reality check just bounced. I have been held at knife point by a nerdy
type in an attempt to rape me (no, he wasn't a nice guy). Many of my MIT
nerd friends are nice guys with weird sexual tastes. Some of the
gentlest, sweetest men I have ever met are large body builder and biker
types. I'd go out with Richard (6'4" a seventh degree black belt and a
pro wrestler) any time because I *know* he respects those around him over
some of my "nice guy nerdy" friends any day that lack major social skills.
>So how many
>men did these guys hurt before they hurt you? Are you the type
>who doesn't care when your boyfreind kicks the crap out of other
>guys, but gets all upset when he kicks the crap out of you? If
>these guys kicked the crap out of you, they probably had been
>kicking the crap out of other people for a long time and you knew
>about it and you did not care!
No, that is not me. I can not speak for Debbie, only for myself.
Statistically it takes a woman 7 attempts before they successfully leave
an abusive relationship because the victim can excuse the abuser since
they often have other "good" qualities (when he's not drinking... he
promised it wouldn't happen again... he's good with the kids... etc.,
etc.)
Just because someone is an abuser does not mean they "kick the crap" out
of others on a regular basis. Not all abusers are from low economic
groups that do mostly manual labor and abuse liquor and drugs as well.
Many abusers come from higher socio-economic groups and do not "kick the
crap" out of people on a regular basis as you seem to think.
>>True that we
>>don't have to worry about most strangers getting into fist fights with
>>us, although it does happen.
>
>OK, there it is. I have a big problem with this last sentence.
>Is that what you would call it, a fight? It doesn't reach a
>level of seriousness in your mind by were you would refer to it
>as a possible attack? Men are not attacked, they get into
>fights? How would you like it if I refered to a wife beating as
>a fight? This is a big problem that I have with women! They
>think that the violence that affects them is real serious and
>stuff. You know, they refer to it as abuse, batery, attacks,
>ect.. But when they refer to the kind of violence that affects
>men, it is refered to as fighting!!!!!!!
No, she said that women tend not to get into physical fights. She also
did not say that fighting wasn't serious...you did.
It is not to say that women don't fight. When someone takes a swing at me
in a bar, it is a fight and it is also assault and battery. If the same
person takes a swing at me because I cooked a steak instead of chicken, it
is an unprovoked attack as well as abuse.
>Fuck you , you ignorant
>bitch.
Nice language...you kiss your mother with that mouth or do you keep a
spare in your pocket?
>If you don't see violence against men as something more
>serious than fighting, then why should I care that you got into a
>couple of fights with some of your boyfreinds. Hey you probably
>deserved it anyway!!!!
No one deserves to be hit. Period. Even if I start a verbal battle in a
bar, I don't deserve to be hit. If someone takes a swing at me, I am
morally and legally only able to reply with enough force to stop the
attack. Otherwise you have crossed the line between self-defense and
assault.
>Anyway, not to get detoured by your
>stupidity, do you reallize that by you saying the incredibly
>stupid line above, you are actually agreeing with me? The threat
>outside in the general public is what I was refering to. So you
>agree that men are in greater danger out in the general public
>(of course you refer to the danger as mere fighting but that is
>another story) and thus you agree with my initial post, but you
>don't even know it.
No, she is not agreeing with you. You never said anything about men being
in more danger, you said women perceive themselves to be in more danger.
Debbie points out that it's more than a perception. As a woman who has
been the victim of violent crime more than once over the course of my 37
years on this planet, I tend to agree with her. It's why I have taken
self defense classes and plan on taking Tang Soo Do as soon as I have
enough money saved up to be able to do so.
Just a question for you. When was the last time you heard of a man being
raped by a woman? Yes, men can sodomize men, with or without consent, but
women are often physically smaller and not as strong as the person who
raped them.
>So then another point to realize here is
>that if you did not choose men that would beat the shit out of
>you, then you as a women could lead a relatively safe life, which
>most women do.
How do you do this? Do you walk up to someone and say, "Gee, your a stud
muscle type...do you hit your girlfriends?" More often than not, hitting
doesn't happen until you are into the relationship and the first time is
almost always "explainable."
>Hey the fact that you pick stud muscle boys is
>your own fault, try the quite nerdy type next time.
Who said Debbie goes out with stud muscle types other than you? What's
the matter, jealous of Lucky, Fabio, Steve Sandalis and the soloflex guys?
>And the type
>of violence that men face is unavoidable, it is in the external
>world that is out of his control. So I ask you, who has the
>greater problem with violence? So what the fuck are the
>feminists talking about. In fact where are the feminists, they
>have been run out of this news group!!!! Femi Nazis where are
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
ah...it's a Rush "ditto head 'cause I can't think for myself" kind of
troll.
>you I need you to spell check and comment on this last passage of
>mine
>Hey it is like I said above, at least you have the power to
>change that situation. For men to change their situation they
>would have to avoid society.
Gee, I think an anger management class would do wonders for you. Of
course, if you removed yourself from society I can't see how it would be a
great loss based on your posts.
>This is why I feel that violence
>against men is far more serious a problem then the violence women
>are facing today. Does the term violence against men even exist?
Yes it does. I have friends that were beaten by their wives and have been
working with folks to try and establish a support net for such men.
>This shows you just how serious the prolem of violence against
>men is, when the term violence against men does not exist.
You said the term violence against men didn't exist....not Debbie.
> I
>want you to realize miss that I don't expect you to understand
>everything that I am writing here. I usually use my respons to
>postings as a substrate with which to get ideas out to the
>general public.
No, I see your postings as the work of a deranged, maladjusted social nerd
that is jealous of not being a buff stud type since you seem to be so much
against them.
>See ya. Peter.
I hope not.
*************
Rev. Karla Marie-Catherine (Hailer) Shapiro, ULC
James (7) and Micah's (4) mom
Reiki Master
"Oh the moral of this story is that one can never tell
what will be in store for you on the local grocery shelves.
And sometimes to get to break the rules
when someone breaks your heart
and if you are lucky, maybe love will fall into
your shopping cart."
---Christine Lavin
Tami
w...@bridge.net (peter) wrote:
>Debbie O'Leary <dol...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>
>>w...@bridge.net (peter) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>First of all I really don't think that you need to fear very much
>>>from violence based upon the fact that you are a women. You may
>>>yourself personaly fear from it, but in actuality what I am
>>>saying is that it is an unjustified fear.
>
>>Are you kidding? I have been the victim of violence from several
>>different men. The fear for women is not unjustified! I have received
>>counseling and feel like I've gotten over the trauma my attackers left
>>behind. But there are those women who have not had the benefit of
>>counseling and the support of friends and family. Their fear of men is
>>left festering and becomes displaced to their children.
>****************************************************************************************
>****************************************************************************************
>What do you do, go for the stud muscular type? Always passed up
>the nice guy nerdy type who couldn't hurt a sole? So how many
>men did these guys hurt before they hurt you? Are you the type
>who doesn't care when your boyfreind kicks the crap out of other
>guys, but gets all upset when he kicks the crap out of you? If
>these guys kicked the crap out of you, they probably had been
>kicking the crap out of other people for a long time and you knew
>about it and you did not care!
Peter, what a load of crap. First, not all abusers are the "stud
muscular type". Hell, if they were, I guess we could just avoid a lot
of problems by avoiding them or in the first place, right?
My ex husband never beat *anyone* before we were married. He'd never
been in a fight. Sad to say, I was his first, but you can bet your ass
that didn't last long.
Peter, I get the feeling you have some issues to work out. Good luck.
>***********************************************************************************
>************************************************************************************
>True that we
>>don't have to worry about most strangers getting into fist fights with
>>us, although it does happen.
>************************************************************************************
>************************************************************************************
>OK, there it is. I have a big problem with this last sentence.
>Is that what you would call it, a fight? It doesn't reach a
>level of seriousness in your mind by were you would refer to it
>as a possible attack? Men are not attacked, they get into
>fights? How would you like it if I refered to a wife beating as
>a fight? This is a big problem that I have with women! They
Too bad you're so caught up in blaming women that you can't see the
simple facts: Any attitudes you find in one gender, you'll find in the
other.
>think that the violence that affects them is real serious and
>stuff. You know, they refer to it as abuse, batery, attacks,
>ect.. But when they refer to the kind of violence that affects
Peter, you seem to be the really violent type yourself. This response
has been nothing but pure aggression.
>men, it is refered to as fighting!!!!!!! Fuck you , you ignorant
Pot, kettle, black.
>bitch. If you don't see violence against men as something more
>serious than fighting, then why should I care that you got into a
>couple of fights with some of your boyfreinds. Hey you probably
>deserved it anyway!!!! Anyway, not to get detoured by your
>stupidity,
Or your own?
>do you reallize that by you saying the incredibly
>stupid line above, you are actually agreeing with me? The threat
>outside in the general public is what I was refering to. So you
>agree that men are in greater danger out in the general public
>(of course you refer to the danger as mere fighting but that is
>another story) and thus you agree with my initial post, but you
>don't even know it. So then another point to realize here is
>that if you did not choose men that would beat the shit out of
>you, then you as a women could lead a relatively safe life, which
>most women do.
And what about the men Peter. <gasp!> Why Peter, are you trying to be
the ignorant ass now? Did you not know that men are battered by their
wives also? Why, some claim the numbers are nearly as high as for
women! Are you now saying that if these men didn't pick women who
would beat the shit out of them, then the men could lead relatively
safe lives?
Along the same vein, are you also saying that if men stayed away from
violent people (because if women should just *know* which *men* are
going to be violent, then men should just *know* which *men* are going
to be violent)?
>Hey the fact that you pick stud muscle boys is
>your own fault, try the quite nerdy type next time. And the type
And Peter, what happens when your stupid logic fails and your nerdy
type IS the abuser? I just cannot believe someone is so unenlightened
that they believe you can decide who will abuse or not based on body
type. Get real.
>of violence that men face is unavoidable, it is in the external
It is also unavoidable that women will face violence at some time or
another.
>world that is out of his control.
Bullshit. You are so stupid Peter and you show it here. Women are
attacked and raped _all_the_time_ in the external world. Open your
eyes to something that affects more than just men.
>So I ask you, who has the
>greater problem with violence? So what the fuck are the
>feminists talking about. In fact where are the feminists, they
>have been run out of this news group!!!! Femi Nazis where are
>you I need you to spell check and comment on this last passage of
>mine.
>****************************************************************************************
>*****************************************************************************************
>The violence we face is usually from those
>>that claim they love us :(
>
>**************************************************************************************
>**************************************************************************************
>Hey it is like I said above, at least you have the power to
>change that situation. For men to change their situation they
>would have to avoid society. This is why I feel that violence
>against men is far more serious a problem then the violence women
>are facing today. Does the term violence against men even exist?
I think you can only realistically say it doesn't if you're a total
isolationist.
>This shows you just how serious the prolem of violence against
>men is, when the term violence against men does not exist. I
Says who?
>want you to realize miss that I don't expect you to understand
>everything that I am writing here.
Peter, you're showing yourself to be a misogynist ass.
>I usually use my respons to
>postings as a substrate with which to get ideas out to the
>general public. See ya. Peter.
>
Peter, if you think this post had any ideas in it, you're delusional.
All it had was more of that violence you were complaining about.
>
Tami
Any idiot can face a crisis - it's this day-to-day living that wears you out.
- Anton Chekhov
Ken Laing
Debbie O'Leary wrote:
>
> w...@bridge.net (peter) wrote:
> >
> >
> >First of all I really don't think that you need to fear very much
> >from violence based upon the fact that you are a women. You may
> >yourself personaly fear from it, but in actuality what I am
> >saying is that it is an unjustified fear.
>
> Are you kidding? I have been the victim of violence from several
> different men. The fear for women is not unjustified! I have received
> counseling and feel like I've gotten over the trauma my attackers left
> behind. But there are those women who have not had the benefit of
> counseling and the support of friends and family. Their fear of men is
> don't have to worry about most strangers getting into fist fights with
> that claim they love us :(
towards
men by women occurs in about equal numbers as violence towards women by
men.
Check out http://www.vix.com/pub/men/battery/battery.html.
So taking the violence against men by those they love into account
and your admission that men have more to worry about getting into
what you call "fist fights" with strangers on the whole you would say
that men have more to worry about violence then women do. Is that right?
I am also intrested why when it is directed at women you call it
"violence"
and when it is directed at men you down play it to "fist fighting"
Is this perhaps betraying a prejudice?
Ken
--
...........................................................................
It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare; it is
because
we do not dare that they are difficult. -Seneca
Debbie O'Leary
Ken Laing <K...@Canadas.net> wrote:
>Debbie O'Leary wrote:
>> Are you kidding? I have been the victim of violence from several
>> different men. The fear for women is not unjustified! I have received
>> counseling and feel like I've gotten over the trauma my attackers left
>> behind. But there are those women who have not had the benefit of
>> counseling and the support of friends and family. Their fear of men is
>> left festering and becomes displaced to their children. True that we
>> don't have to worry about most strangers getting into fist fights with
>> us, although it does happen. The violence we face is usually from those
>> that claim they love us :(
>The men have to worry about this too!
I *never* said they didn't. I responded only to the fact that the
original poster said that women didn't have to fear violence -- and
*that* is a ridiculous statement. Every one of us should probably fear
violence because there are many violent people out there.
>So taking the violence against men by those they love into account
>and your admission that men have more to worry about getting into
>what you call "fist fights" with strangers on the whole you would say
>that men have more to worry about violence then women do. Is that right?
I do fear that my son will face violence! But, that is not the issue I
was addressing (see above).
>
>I am also intrested why when it is directed at women you call it
>"violence"
>and when it is directed at men you down play it to "fist fighting"
>Is this perhaps betraying a prejudice?
I think your question betrays prejudice. I think fist fighting *is*
violence. Your assumption that I'm "downplaying" fist fighting is putting
words into my post.
Debbie
Diane
In article <321A1D...@Canadas.net>, K...@Canadas.net says...
>
>Debbie O'Leary wrote:
>>
>> w...@bridge.net (peter) wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >First of all I really don't think that you need to fear very much
>> >from violence based upon the fact that you are a women. You may
>> >yourself personaly fear from it, but in actuality what I am
>> >saying is that it is an unjustified fear.
>>
>> different men. The fear for women is not unjustified!
>>The violence we face is usually from those that claim they love us :(
>The men have to worry about this too! Many studies have shown violence
>towards
>men by women occurs in about equal numbers as violence towards women by
>men.
>Check out http://www.vix.com/pub/men/battery/battery.html.
>
>So taking the violence against men by those they love into account
>and your admission that men have more to worry about getting into
>what you call "fist fights" with strangers on the whole you would say
>that men have more to worry about violence then women do. Is that right?
>
>I am also intrested why when it is directed at women you call it
>"violence"
>and when it is directed at men you down play it to "fist fighting"
>Is this perhaps betraying a prejudice?
>
> Ken
I have to add my opinion here. First of all, it is ALL violence, no matter
what form it takes on. That said, I think the fear that women feel is
different than what men may feel. In general men are much stronger than
women. I know there are some women who are stronger than some men, but in
general men are stronger. So when a woman is in a scary situation, she
knows that there is little chance she can overpower the man. To know that
all a man has to do is grab you and you can struggle and fight and kick and
it does no good, that is scary. My husband and I playfight sometimes. He
can grab both my arms with one hand and I can't get lose no matter how hard
I try. And that's just playing; I can't imagine if we were ever REALLY
fighting. Thank God I don't have to worry about that. But anyway, if a man
is in a situation where he has to fight with another man, there is a good
chance he is a strong as the other man. Also, the reasons men fight are
usually (sometimes?) avoidable. If a man is mugged, he can just hand over
his wallet (not fair, i know, but can avoid the fight). A lot of women fear
the type of attack that leads to rape. She can't just hand over what he
wants and avoid any struggle.
Now, I don't go around fearing men. I love men. I think they are
wonderful, with the exception of the violent ones. However, i have been in
many situations that would not even happen with other men. Once I was with
a group of friends at someone's house. I went to use the phone and was
followed by this male "friend". He got me down immediately and tried to get
my pants down. He was strong and there was no way I could push him off of
me. BTW, i am not a weak woman; I am rather strong for a female. He was
determined, but when some of the other friends called for us because they
were leaving, he had to let me go. I didn't tell anyone about it. I can
still remember the fear I felt. It's nothing like the fear I felt when
faced with a "fist fight" (yes, girls have them too). I know some men are
abused by their wives and i think that is awful. But I don't think it's
fair to say that men have more to worry about violence. A woman doesn't
have to do anything to make a man try to rape her. He doesn't even have to
have a weapon; he IS the weapon most times. I bet that when most women are
out somewhere and are feeling afraid, they are probably afraid that a man
will attack and RAPE her, not just take her money. I don't know if I can
make you understand the difference between the two. Maybe if you think of
it as if everytime you are alone somewhere you fear that a woman twice as
strong as you are will hold you down and beat you up and humiliate and cuss
you and twist your body around and finally cut off your penis. Do you think
that if that could easily happen at anytime (if the majority of women were
that strong), do you think you would be more fearful of that kind of attack
or of a "fist fight"? But you will never truly know that fear because it is
pretty unlikely.
Anyway, I know that most men are not like that, but there are a lot of them
out there. They look nice, they act nice, they talk nice, they even go by
the name of friend. A woman never knows what man is likely to attack her or
when. Yet we manage to live our lives without appearing fearful all the
time. Yes, we love men. we trust some men. But there is almost always an
underlying fear when we are near men we do not know enough to trust. I do
not wish that fear on anyone.
-Diane
Debbie O'Leary
Alright, Peter, I'll respond to your extremely biased and close-minded
response to a subject you know nothing about -- me! But, I must say, for
you to get so furious with me because I said I was a victim of violence
indicates to me you need as much counseling as the woman who would only
spank her son.
>w...@bridge.net (peter) wrote:
>>I wrote:
I have been the victim of violence from several
>>different men. The fear for women is not unjustified!
>What do you do, go for the stud muscular type?
Their physiques have nothing to do with their tendency for violence. I am
a tall woman, and both men who abused me were shorter than me. The other
who violated me was a stranger -- I certainly *didn't* choose him!
So how many
>men did these guys hurt before they hurt you?
None, they were afraid of other men, that's why they felt so confident
hurting women.
Are you the type
>who doesn't care when your boyfreind kicks the crap out of other
>guys, but gets all upset when he kicks the crap out of you?
I don't like violence of any type. But, since you have this predisposed
view of women, you probably won't hear that.
If
>these guys kicked the crap out of you, they probably had been
>kicking the crap out of other people for a long time and you knew
>about it and you did not care!
Nope -- see above. But, this is a good example of how judgmental you are.
>True that we
>>don't have to worry about most strangers getting into fist fights with
>>us, although it does happen.
>OK, there it is. I have a big problem with this last sentence.
>Is that what you would call it, a fight?
I call it a fight when both people are actively involved. I did fight
back with one of these men and got a few good punches in. I consider that
a fight. When I was laying in bed asleep and got punched repeatedly in
the head while sleeping, I consider that an attack. Doesn't matter if the
person is male or female. Get it??
[snipped the rest of your name-calling]
>The violence we face is usually from those
>>that claim they love us :(
>
>Hey it is like I said above, at least you have the power to
>change that situation.
And I did.
For men to change their situation they
>would have to avoid society. This is why I feel that violence
>against men is far more serious a problem then the violence women
>are facing today. Does the term violence against men even exist?
Yes it does. And I'm terribly sorry for any violence *men or women* face.
I don't subscribe to violence and I do everything I know how to stop it.
We can start with our children.
Debbie
peter
ta...@ix.netcom.com (Tami ) wrote:
>w...@bridge.net (peter) wrote:
**************************************************************************************
**************************************************************************************
Well I think that in fact women don't want to avoid the problems,
but in actuality want to be beaten, which explains the fact that
women go for the "badboy" type. For example they have found a
definite conection between male athletes and violence, which may
be why athletes are so popular with the ladies. This has been
results that have been splatered all over the news the past year
or so. And in fact many magazine articles have been dedicated to
the question of why do women prefer the badboy type. And
unfortunately, the bad boy type is invariably the stud muscular
type. Which is why I assume that the guy who beat her was a
stud/muscular type. Hence, if women truly wanted to stop the
violence against them in the home, they should start to consider
the nerdy shy type. Sure, this type doesn't gaurentee that the
guy will not be violent, but the rate of violence from this type
of male is far less than from the badboys.
***************************************************************************************
***************************************************************************************
>My ex husband never beat *anyone* before we were married. He'd never
>been in a fight. Sad to say, I was his first, but you can bet your ass
>that didn't last long.
>Peter, I get the feeling you have some issues to work out. Good luck.
>>***********************************************************************************
>>************************************************************************************
>>True that we
>>>don't have to worry about most strangers getting into fist fights with
>>>us, although it does happen.
>>************************************************************************************
>>************************************************************************************
>>OK, there it is. I have a big problem with this last sentence.
>>Is that what you would call it, a fight? It doesn't reach a
>>level of seriousness in your mind by were you would refer to it
>>as a possible attack? Men are not attacked, they get into
>>fights? How would you like it if I refered to a wife beating as
>>a fight? This is a big problem that I have with women! They
>Too bad you're so caught up in blaming women that you can't see the
>simple facts: Any attitudes you find in one gender, you'll find in the
>other.
******************************************************************************************
******************************************************************************************
I am not so sure that I agree when you say that any attitude
that you find in one gender you will find in the other. I don't
think that most men would agree with the divorce laws that most
women support. Anyway, so you agree that this person is not
taking violence that males face seriously? You seem to say that
this women, and in fact most women do not take violence against
males seriously, but at the same time consider violence against
females a serious situation. And your point goes on further to
say that men are the same way. I think that this is what you are
saying. The problem is that you are barely saying anything, but
I will assume that this is what you are intending to say. To
which I reply that I agree. The only difference is that men are
not the ones speaking out against violence, but women are. If
men began to speak out the same contradictions, I would be saying
the same thing to them. So I think that you have missunderstood
my intention here. So then now I would like to ask that you
comment on this matter, now that we have taken your antifeminist
seaking missle out of the equation.
**********************************************************************************
*********************************************************************************
>>think that the violence that affects them is real serious and
>>stuff. You know, they refer to it as abuse, batery, attacks,
>>ect.. But when they refer to the kind of violence that affects
>Peter, you seem to be the really violent type yourself. This response
>has been nothing but pure aggression.
*****************************************************************************************
*****************************************************************************************
How is that? I am just speaking opinions. I have never once
made any inferences that would lend itself that I was a violent
type. Seems like you wish that I was the violent type because
then that would be your best argument against me. No I am not
the violent type and in fact am speaking out against violence of
all kinds, more than I can say for you. You have already seemed
to state that you agree that women don't consider violence
against men all that serious, and hence you are a violent type.
Oh no there it is again the Freudian defense mechanism of
projection? Seems to happen alot with feminazis. I guess it is
one of their tactics hehehehehehe.
**********************************************************************************
**********************************************************************************
>>men, it is refered to as fighting!!!!!!! Fuck you , you ignorant
>Pot, kettle, black.
>>bitch. If you don't see violence against men as something more
>>serious than fighting, then why should I care that you got into a
>>couple of fights with some of your boyfreinds. Hey you probably
>>deserved it anyway!!!! Anyway, not to get detoured by your
>>stupidity,
>Or your own?
>>do you reallize that by you saying the incredibly
>>stupid line above, you are actually agreeing with me? The threat
>>outside in the general public is what I was refering to. So you
>>agree that men are in greater danger out in the general public
>>(of course you refer to the danger as mere fighting but that is
>>another story) and thus you agree with my initial post, but you
>>don't even know it. So then another point to realize here is
>>that if you did not choose men that would beat the shit out of
>>you, then you as a women could lead a relatively safe life, which
>>most women do.
>And what about the men Peter. <gasp!> Why Peter, are you trying to be
>the ignorant ass now? Did you not know that men are battered by their
>wives also? Why, some claim the numbers are nearly as high as for
>women! Are you now saying that if these men didn't pick women who
>would beat the shit out of them, then the men could lead relatively
>safe lives?
*******************************************************************************************
*******************************************************************************************
Yeah, I knew that, but I thought that this is a point that
feminazis and men disagree on. In fact it is a point tht I
thought I would usually have to argue with a person like you.
OK, my response to your statement is as follows. Probably it is
harder to determine which woman is likely to be violent because
women are conditioned not to be agresive in our society, i.e., to
hide it. But even if he could, men still have the violence
potential from the general outside world, a place in which a
womans threat is far diminished.
***********************************************************************************
***********************************************************************************
>Along the same vein, are you also saying that if men stayed away from
>violent people (because if women should just *know* which *men* are
>going to be violent, then men should just *know* which *men* are going
>to be violent)?
*****************************************************************************************
*****************************************************************************************
Yes!! That is a good way for men to remain safer. If they could
stay out of bars and stuff, sure. But violence against men can
happen anywhere and is hard to avoid. Men can be attacked in
broad daylight in the middle of a crowded park, and no one would
step in to help, in fact everyone would probably go home and say
that they saw a fight in the park, as if nothing out of the
ordinary, or socialy unacceptable, took place. If a woman was
attacked there would probably be hundreds of people there to help
which is probably why this rarely happens in the first place.
*****************************************************************************************
*****************************************************************************************
>>Hey the fact that you pick stud muscle boys is
>>your own fault, try the quite nerdy type next time. And the type
>And Peter, what happens when your stupid logic fails and your nerdy
>type IS the abuser? I just cannot believe someone is so unenlightened
>that they believe you can decide who will abuse or not based on body
>type. Get real.
******************************************************************************************
******************************************************************************************
Hey look, most women are attracted to the assholes of our
society, the badboys, you know. You see articles that disscuss
this phenomona all the time. The articles are even in womens
mags. And all that I am saying is that maybe since women are
choosing these "badboys" , who usually are the stud muscular
type, as lovers, that is why they are getting beaten up by them.
So in fact women are not choosing the nerdy type, according to
popular belief, so your point that a nerdy type could be violent
is moot. Anything wrong with that logic?
********************************************************************************
********************************************************************************
>>of violence that men face is unavoidable, it is in the external
>It is also unavoidable that women will face violence at some time or
>another.
>>world that is out of his control.
>Bullshit. You are so stupid Peter and you show it here. Women are
>attacked and raped _all_the_time_ in the external world. Open your
>eyes to something that affects more than just men.
**************************************************************************************
**************************************************************************************
Well in fact the statisics are that approx. 100,000 women are
raped each year. Compare that with the fact that each year there
are approx. 1.1 million agravated assaults, of which the victims
are mostly men, and you will then realize that in fact rape is a
rarely occuring crime, i.e. woman are NOT raped all_the_time.
And then realize that the 1.1 million stat is for assaults of a
particularly bad kind, the aggravated kind, and then you realize
that if you would consider just assaults of any kind, then the
number must be close to 5 or so million assaults a year, of which
the victims are mostly men. Compare that with 100,000 rapes per
year and you arrive at the conclusion that rape is a relatively
rare crime, i.e., not an extremely threatning crime to society,
and women alike.
******************************************************************************
******************************************************************************
>>So I ask you, who has the
>>greater problem with violence? So what the fuck are the
>>feminists talking about. In fact where are the feminists, they
>>have been run out of this news group!!!! Femi Nazis where are
>>you I need you to spell check and comment on this last passage of
>>mine.
>>****************************************************************************************
>>*****************************************************************************************
>>The violence we face is usually from those
>>>that claim they love us :(
>>
>>**************************************************************************************
>>**************************************************************************************
>>Hey it is like I said above, at least you have the power to
>>change that situation. For men to change their situation they
>>would have to avoid society. This is why I feel that violence
>>against men is far more serious a problem then the violence women
>>are facing today. Does the term violence against men even exist?
>I think you can only realistically say it doesn't if you're a total
>isolationist.
******************************************************************************************
******************************************************************************************
I don't remain in isolation, and I truly don't think that I have
ever heard the words "the problem of violence against men" ever
mouthed, except from the various mens groups which are beginning
to pop up. And this is another point to make in my argument that
violence against men is a more serious problem than violence
against women. The argument being that violence against men is
not even considered a problem and thus any attempt to battle it
does not have the support of the society in which we live. But
on the other hand, the support for violence against women has
tremendous backing from the general puplic.
*******************************************************************************
********************************************************************************
>>This shows you just how serious the prolem of violence against
>>men is, when the term violence against men does not exist. I
>Says who?
>>want you to realize miss that I don't expect you to understand
>>everything that I am writing here.
>Peter, you're showing yourself to be a misogynist ass.
**********************************************************************************
***********************************************************************************
What because I think that one women is stupid means that I think
that all women are stupid? I am telling her that I don't expect
her to understand all that I have written. You are the one who
thought that I implied that since she was a woman that she would
not understand. No, what I meant was that based on her
commentary and the intellectual capacity that I thought she
displayed, I felt that she may not understand some of the subtle
comments that I had made. So the fact that you immediatly took
bad words directed toward a woman as bad words directed toward
women implies to me that you are actually a man hater. Note that
there is no word that I can use to describe you that would be
equivalent to misogynist, so all I can say is male hater. Note,
there it is again the Freudian defense mechanism of projection!!!
You see, you are actually a man hater, which I proved by showing
that you take any bad comment that a male makes toward a female
as a bad comment directed at all of women kind, and saw that
quality in me. That is using the Freudian defense mechinsim
known as projection!! Are you ok?
***************************************************************************************
*************************************************************************************
>>I usually use my respons to
>>postings as a substrate with which to get ideas out to the
>>general public. See ya. Peter.
>>
>Peter, if you think this post had any ideas in it, you're delusional.
>All it had was more of that violence you were complaining about.
***********************************************************************************
***********************************************************************************
I don't know, I guess you view a man yelling at a women as
violence, or something. I don't see the violence. So then what
we have is you, a person who feels that violent acts against men
is not that serious of a crime, but the mere yelling of a man to
a woman is a violent act. Man if that is not a doulble standard,
I don't know what is heheheheheheheeh. And also, yeah, I do
think that my post had some good ideas, and the fact that you did
not have very much to say to counter them only reinforces this
belief of mine. So respond to this post, and try to stick to my
comments and try to leave the personal cuts out of it, if you
can. Every personal cut you make is symbolic of just how much
you can't respond to what I have said. Good day :). See I left
you with a smiley face :). hehehehehehehe
*******************************************************************************
******************************************************************************
Tami
w...@bridge.net (peter) wrote:
And what of all the men who are panting after women who don't want
them? What of all the men who are beaten by their S.O.'s?
Please don't add words that I didn't write. I agree that her words
indicated a lack of understanding. Period.
> And your point goes on further to
>say that men are the same way. I think that this is what you are
>saying. The problem is that you are barely saying anything, but
>I will assume that this is what you are intending to say. To
>which I reply that I agree. The only difference is that men are
>not the ones speaking out against violence, but women are. If
Men don't speak out against violence? You sure you feel comfortable
speaking for all men?
>men began to speak out the same contradictions, I would be saying
>the same thing to them. So I think that you have missunderstood
>my intention here. So then now I would like to ask that you
>comment on this matter, now that we have taken your antifeminist
>seaking missle out of the equation.
"antifeminist seaking missle" Care to translate that into english? And
if you've missed the fact that I've commented on this, maybe you
should reread.
>**********************************************************************************
>*********************************************************************************
>>>think that the violence that affects them is real serious and
>>>stuff. You know, they refer to it as abuse, batery, attacks,
>>>ect.. But when they refer to the kind of violence that affects
>
>>Peter, you seem to be the really violent type yourself. This response
>>has been nothing but pure aggression.
>*****************************************************************************************
>*****************************************************************************************
>How is that? I am just speaking opinions. I have never once
>made any inferences that would lend itself that I was a violent
>type. Seems like you wish that I was the violent type because
>then that would be your best argument against me. No I am not
>the violent type and in fact am speaking out against violence of
>all kinds, more than I can say for you. You have already seemed
More than you can say for me? Yeah, right, coming from the guy who
doesn't even indicate he knew that men are the subject of domestic
violence at a rate almost equal to that of women.
>to state that you agree that women don't consider violence
No, if you think I've "seemed" to say this, them you're imagining
things. One particular woman didn't take this seriously enough. Unlike
you, I wouldn't attempt to speak for everyone of my gender.
>against men all that serious, and hence you are a violent type.
ROFLMAO. Disagreeing doesn't make one violent. However, your verbal
abuse *does* make *you* violent.
>Oh no there it is again the Freudian defense mechanism of
>projection? Seems to happen alot with feminazis. I guess it is
>one of their tactics hehehehehehe.
Typical defense of the wounded little boy who's afraid to attempt to
say anything of import.
>**********************************************************************************
>**********************************************************************************
>>>men, it is refered to as fighting!!!!!!! Fuck you , you ignorant
>
>>Pot, kettle, black.
>
>>>bitch. If you don't see violence against men as something more
Ah, see here Peter? You don't think that saying to her "fuck you, you
ignorant bitch" isn't abusive? No, you've already said you don't.
Well, people like you are as much a part of the problem as anything
else. You really have no right to complain about *her* not
understanding.
What, you have a problem with intelligent, well informed individuals?
Peter, your problem is that you're so completely stuck in the role of
being the sexist ditto-head, you keep lumping people into categories.
>OK, my response to your statement is as follows. Probably it is
>harder to determine which woman is likely to be violent because
>women are conditioned not to be agresive in our society, i.e., to
>hide it. But even if he could, men still have the violence
>potential from the general outside world, a place in which a
>womans threat is far diminished.
Actually, men are conditioned not to be violent towards women, too.
Remember the admonishment every little boy hears from his parents -
Hitting girls is wrong. You left that out of your scenario.
>***********************************************************************************
>***********************************************************************************
>>Along the same vein, are you also saying that if men stayed away from
>>violent people (because if women should just *know* which *men* are
>>going to be violent, then men should just *know* which *men* are going
>>to be violent)?
>*****************************************************************************************
>*****************************************************************************************
>Yes!! That is a good way for men to remain safer. If they could
>stay out of bars and stuff, sure. But violence against men can
>happen anywhere and is hard to avoid.
Same for women.
>Men can be attacked in
>broad daylight in the middle of a crowded park, and no one would
>step in to help, in fact everyone would probably go home and say
>that they saw a fight in the park, as if nothing out of the
>ordinary, or socialy unacceptable, took place. If a woman was
>attacked there would probably be hundreds of people there to help
>which is probably why this rarely happens in the first place.
I disagree. The likelihood of people walking away or calling for help
is probably not determined by the gender of the victim, but rather by
the area, the crime rate, etc.
Have you seriously never heard of cases where crowds *watched* while
women were raped?
>*****************************************************************************************
>*****************************************************************************************
>>>Hey the fact that you pick stud muscle boys is
>>>your own fault, try the quite nerdy type next time. And the type
>
>>And Peter, what happens when your stupid logic fails and your nerdy
>>type IS the abuser? I just cannot believe someone is so unenlightened
>>that they believe you can decide who will abuse or not based on body
>>type. Get real.
>******************************************************************************************
>******************************************************************************************
>Hey look, most women are attracted to the assholes of our
>society, the badboys, you know.
Hey look, most men are attracted to the assholes of our society, the
bad girls, you know.
>You see articles that disscuss
>this phenomona all the time. The articles are even in womens
>mags.
Ah, there's your problem, you read women's magazines too much.
>And all that I am saying is that maybe since women are
>choosing these "badboys" , who usually are the stud muscular
>type, as lovers, that is why they are getting beaten up by them.
>So in fact women are not choosing the nerdy type, according to
>popular belief, so your point that a nerdy type could be violent
>is moot. Anything wrong with that logic?
Yeah, it's faulty. The point that the nerdy types can be violent is
absolutely true, therefore, it cannot be moot.
>********************************************************************************
>********************************************************************************
>>>of violence that men face is unavoidable, it is in the external
>
>>It is also unavoidable that women will face violence at some time or
>>another.
>
>>>world that is out of his control.
>
>>Bullshit. You are so stupid Peter and you show it here. Women are
>>attacked and raped _all_the_time_ in the external world. Open your
>>eyes to something that affects more than just men.
>**************************************************************************************
>**************************************************************************************
>Well in fact the statisics are that approx. 100,000 women are
>raped each year. Compare that with the fact that each year there
>are approx. 1.1 million agravated assaults, of which the victims
>are mostly men, and you will then realize that in fact rape is a
>rarely occuring crime, i.e. woman are NOT raped all_the_time.
>And then realize that the 1.1 million stat is for assaults of a
>particularly bad kind, the aggravated kind, and then you realize
>that if you would consider just assaults of any kind, then the
>number must be close to 5 or so million assaults a year, of which
>the victims are mostly men. Compare that with 100,000 rapes per
>year and you arrive at the conclusion that rape is a relatively
>rare crime, i.e., not an extremely threatning crime to society,
>and women alike.
Take the 100,000 *reported* rapes, add the unreported ones, add in
women being assaulted and only a sicko could say it's rare.
So, IOW, you're asking if the phrase exists and then you answer the
question in the positive yourself.
>And this is another point to make in my argument that
>violence against men is a more serious problem than violence
>against women. The argument being that violence against men is
>not even considered a problem and thus any attempt to battle it
>does not have the support of the society in which we live. But
>on the other hand, the support for violence against women has
>tremendous backing from the general puplic.
>*******************************************************************************
>********************************************************************************
>
>>>This shows you just how serious the prolem of violence against
>>>men is, when the term violence against men does not exist. I
>
>>Says who?
>
>>>want you to realize miss that I don't expect you to understand
>>>everything that I am writing here.
>
>>Peter, you're showing yourself to be a misogynist ass.
>**********************************************************************************
>***********************************************************************************
>What because I think that one women is stupid means that I think
>that all women are stupid? I am telling her that I don't expect
>her to understand all that I have written. You are the one who
>thought that I implied that since she was a woman that she would
>not understand.
Yeah, and I'll just ignore all your other comments throughout the
post, right? Riiiight.
>No, what I meant was that based on her
>commentary and the intellectual capacity that I thought she
>displayed, I felt that she may not understand some of the subtle
>comments that I had made.
Peter, in your rush to judge and condemn, did you EVER pause to think
that maybe, just MAYBE, some people don't think about things in the
same way you do because they haven't been exposed to the issues. And
again, have you *ever* stopped to think that maybe, POSSIBLY, if you
discussed the issues with the person and EDUCATED them instead of
calling them an ignorant bitch, that you might actually TEACH people
something they didn't know, rather than teaching them that you're just
a huge jerk and completely alienating them from both you and any
opinion that resembles yours?
>So the fact that you immediatly took
>bad words directed toward a woman as bad words directed toward
>women implies to me that you are actually a man hater. Note that
ROFLMAO. Nice try.
Let's see, you're saying you have words directed at "a" woman. But
your actual words tell a different tale. In your last post, I found
the following words of yours:
>What do you do, go for the stud muscular type
Assuming she was hit because she chose to. Typical misogynistic
bullshit.
> Fuck you , you ignorant bitch.
General hatred but using the term bitch, which shows great disrespect
for women.
>If you don't see violence against men as something more serious
>than fighting, then why should I care that you got into a couple of
>fights with some of your boyfreinds. Hey you probably deserved it
>anyway!!!!
Blaming the victim. Typical misogynistic bullshit.
>So then another point to realize here is that if you did not choose
>men that would beat the shit out of you
Insisting she chose a man to beat her. Again, blaming the victim and
again, typical misogynistic bullshit.
>Hey the fact that you pick stud muscle boys is your own fault
Blaming the victim again.
And I must point out that when I stated that my ex hit me, and he
*wasn't* the "stud muscle boy", you *completely* ignored it. You seem
to be focusing on this one.
>Femi Nazis
Ah, yes, the Rush Limbaugh wanna be. I'm sure that everyone who calls
women feminazis for either being uniformed (which was her biggest sin,
if you can call it that...face it Peter, you just *way* over reacted)
or disagreeing with them is actually just absolutely wonderful men
with much, much respect, they just show it in a different way.
<sarcasm>
>there is no word that I can use to describe you that would be
>equivalent to misogynist, so all I can say is male hater. Note,
Hey, if you want to naively call me a man hater because I've pointed
out the obvious fact that you're a misogynist, that's your problem.
>there it is again the Freudian defense mechanism of projection!!!
>You see, you are actually a man hater, which I proved by showing
>that you take any bad comment that a male makes toward a female
>as a bad comment directed at all of women kind, and saw that
>quality in me. That is using the Freudian defense mechinsim
>known as projection!! Are you ok?
Are you now that I've shown this to be incorrect?
>***************************************************************************************
>*************************************************************************************
>>>I usually use my respons to
>>>postings as a substrate with which to get ideas out to the
>>>general public. See ya. Peter.
>>>
>>Peter, if you think this post had any ideas in it, you're delusional.
>>All it had was more of that violence you were complaining about.
>***********************************************************************************
>***********************************************************************************
>I don't know, I guess you view a man yelling at a women as
>violence, or something. I don't see the violence. So then what
>we have is you, a person who feels that violent acts against men
>is not that serious of a crime,
Peter, now you're *really* delusional. You're confusing me and the
original person you responded to.
>but the mere yelling of a man to
>a woman is a violent act. Man if that is not a doulble standard,
>I don't know what is heheheheheheheeh. And also, yeah, I do
>think that my post had some good ideas, and the fact that you did
>not have very much to say to counter them only reinforces this
>belief of mine. So respond to this post, and try to stick to my
>comments and try to leave the personal cuts out of it, if you
ROFLMAO. Oh, shut up. Try to leave the person cuts out? You mean like
" Fuck you , you ignorant bitch." Peter, grow up, if you can't take
the heat, don't post the insults.
>can. Every personal cut you make is symbolic of just how much
>you can't respond to what I have said. Good day :). See I left
>you with a smiley face :). hehehehehehehe
ROFLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Well folks, there you have it. Peter is doing what we call a "Freudian
slip". Every person cut he makes is symbolic of just how much he can't
respond to what was said.
peter
>
>>I am also intrested why when it is directed at women you call it
>>"violence"
>>and when it is directed at men you down play it to "fist fighting"
>>Is this perhaps betraying a prejudice?
>I think your question betrays prejudice. I think fist fighting *is*
>violence. Your assumption that I'm "downplaying" fist fighting is putting
>words into my post.
No! Fist fighting comes under the heading of fighting which is
considered to be a mutually agreed upon thing, and thus not an
attack!!!!!!!!!!!! Yes it is a form a violence, but it is a form
where no one is considered the agressor, and hence no one is
punished. By calling attacks on men fist fighting, you are
saying that no one should be penalized for attacking a male!!! I
am not saying that you are doing this intentially, but maybe
subcontiously, induced by societal norms. After all, no one
would ever say that a male was attacked, but instead would say
"so and so got into a fight the other night". Two people who
fight are not penalized in our society very harshly, but attacks
do come with much stiffer penalties, therefore I think it proper
to call a guy who is attacked and tries to defend himself with
his fists, an attack, and not a fist fight. Do you agree?
Debbie O'Leary
w...@bridge.net (peter) wrote:
>>>I am also intrested why when it is directed at women you call it
>>>"violence"
>>>and when it is directed at men you down play it to "fist fighting"
>>>Is this perhaps betraying a prejudice?
>
>>I think your question betrays prejudice. I think fist fighting *is*
>>violence. Your assumption that I'm "downplaying" fist fighting is putting
>>words into my post.
>
>No! Fist fighting comes under the heading of fighting which is
>considered to be a mutually agreed upon thing, and thus not an
>attack!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry, I don't see it that way -- but, hey, I don't live in your world.
If a man attacks another man with his fists, I don't imagine the attacked
man curling up in a ball whimpering. I see him fighting back and it turns
into a fist fight. Not a socially acceptable thing by my standards --
ugly violence pure and simple. A woman who is attacked by a man doesn't
normally fight back (or at least I didn't, except on one occasion). So, I
don't see it turning into a fist fight. Violence still.
Yes it is a form a violence, but it is a form
>where no one is considered the agressor, and hence no one is
>punished.
Not my rules.
By calling attacks on men fist fighting, you are
>saying that no one should be penalized for attacking a male!!!
I am not saying any such thing! If you want to have a discussion you need
to listen. If not, go talk to yourself in a mirror!
I
>am not saying that you are doing this intentially, but maybe
>subcontiously, induced by societal norms. After all, no one
>would ever say that a male was attacked, but instead would say
>"so and so got into a fight the other night".
Untrue again!
Two people who
>fight are not penalized in our society very harshly, but attacks
>do come with much stiffer penalties, therefore I think it proper
>to call a guy who is attacked and tries to defend himself with
>his fists, an attack, and not a fist fight. Do you agree?
Sure. As long as you agree to quit putting words into my mouth.
Debbie
>
Angilion
In article <01bba1c0$47232920$b6a7...@tpgi.tpgi.com.au>, "Anthony Trainor"
<ltr...@tpgi.com.au> writes:
> Orenda <ore...@nexusprime.org> wrote in article
> <32101A...@nexusprime.org>...
##
## I didn't see anyone doing anything but commenting on how abusive
## she was because she only spanked the boys. If she only spanked him one
## time, no matter how little actual pain was involved, you still don't
## think you would call her abusive just based on her beliefs ??
Yes, because she is applying a punishment selectively, based solely on
a child's sex. *That* is the abuse, not necessarily the actual punishment.
# She only spanks her boys because they are boys. She's beating them
# to soften their personalities and teach them to be subservient to women.
# She said this. This is not your "responsible spanking." This is abusive
# behaviour. To a certain extent, why you do something can be more
# important than how you do it.
Well said!
[Cuts]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A WAR, | Prejudice can play no part in equality |
| IT'S NOT A CASE OF EITHER/OR! | |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Angilion (The Metaphorical Aardvark) email: ua...@cr47c.staffs.ac.uk |
| |
| I protest against the attempts to excessively censor the net |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Laing
Debbie O'Leary wrote:
> I think your question betrays prejudice. I think fist fighting *is*
> violence. Your assumption that I'm "downplaying" fist fighting is putting
> words into my post.
Perhaps you didn't mean to down play it. But then why did you use such
different terminology? Why didn't you say the fights women get into
instead of saying violence against women? To mean calling violence
against men fist fighting certainly is down playing it, it makes it
sound like something acceptable and mutual. Since you brought up spousal
abuse how do you thinkan abused women who feel if said she simply got
into fights with her husband?
Ken
--
...........................................................................
Is sloppiness in speech caused by ignorance or apathy ? I don't know and
I
don't care. -William Safire
Ken Laing
I don't really disagree with anything you said. My main point was that
Debbie's
arguments made it sound like only women were abused by their spouses and
seemed to imply by her use of the term "fist fights" instead of violence
that when men where victums
of violence it was something less serious that when women were. It is
unacceptable for women to be victums of violence and society accepts
that, so those who do are criminals.
Society tell us that is wrong to hit girls and by the omission says that
it is acceptable to hit boys. I don't know which gender is more likely
to be victums of violence. I certainly agree that out on the streets (as
opposed to a setting like prison that most of us don't have to worry
about, prison rape is a whole other issue) women have more to fear in
the way of sexual assault but as for other forms of violence I don't
know who is more likey to be attacted. Unfortunately due to societies
attitudes on these things attacts on men that arn't robberies are less
likely to be reported than attacks on women so I don't know what
statistics you could use to evaluate this.
Just a side point but if you are scared, I would suggest taking a
self-defense course
it will do a lot for your self-confidence. Size and strength are not
necessarily the
definitive criteria in being able to defend yourself.
Oh another side point but uou said you have a son so a little person
insight, you can take it for what it's worth. As an addult I am able to
avoid locals and crowds that typically accompany violent behaviour so it
really hasn't been a problem for me since I left grade school, but in
grade school you have no choice who your classmates are,
and as I said before violence among boys is only mildly discouraged - I
can particularly remember being jumped on my way home one night by three
guys because one of them thought I wrote something on a blackboard that
I didn't.
Ken
--
Ivan Gowch
(A random selection of some of the most ignorant and repulsively
reactionary tripe I've ever seen posted on a.p.s)
On Thu, 22 Aug 1996 03:30:36 GMT, w...@bridge.net (peter) wrote:
=>Well I think that in fact women don't want to avoid the problems,
=>but in actuality want to be beaten [...]
=>You have already seemed
=>to state that you agree that women don't consider violence
=>against men all that serious, and hence you are a violent type.
=>Oh no there it is again the Freudian defense mechanism of
=>projection? Seems to happen alot with feminazis. I guess it is
=>one of their tactics hehehehehehe.
=>Yeah, I knew that, but I thought that this is a point that
=>feminazis and men disagree on [...]
=> [...] But even if he could, men still have the violence
=>potential from the general outside world, a place in which a
=>womans threat is far diminished [...]
=>Men can be attacked in
=>broad daylight in the middle of a crowded park, and no one would
=>step in to help ... If a woman was attacked there would probably be hundreds
=>of people there to help which is probably why this rarely happens in the first place.
=>Hey look, most women are attracted to the assholes of our
=>society, the badboys, you know ... maybe since women are
=>choosing these "badboys" , who usually are the stud muscular
=>type, as lovers, that is why they are getting beaten up by them [...]
=> [...] Compare that with 100,000 rapes per
=>year and you arrive at the conclusion that rape is a relatively
=>rare crime, i.e., not an extremely threatning crime to society,
=>and women alike ... And this is another point to make in my argument that
=>violence against men is a more serious problem than violence
=>against women.
=> [...] Note, there it is again the Freudian defense mechanism of projection!!!
=>You see, you are actually a man hater, which I proved by showing
=>that you take any bad comment that a male makes toward a female
=>as a bad comment directed at all of women kind [...]
=>Man if that is not a doulble standard, I don't know what is heheheheheheheeh.
=> [...] Every personal cut you make is symbolic of just how much
=>you can't respond to what I have said. Good day :). See I left
=>you with a smiley face :). hehehehehehehe
Congratulaitons, Peter, I've seen some horse's patoots in my time, but
you rate right up there with the biggest assholes among them.
Have you had your rabies shot this year? Because you are one sick
puppy, my man...
--
==============================================================
| Ivan Gowch I dogmatize and am contradicted, |
| av...@torfree.net And in this conflict of opinion |
| And sentiments I find delight. |
| - Samuel Johnson |
==============================================================
Ron House
ta...@ix.netcom.com (Tami ) writes:
>w...@bridge.net (peter) wrote:
>>What do you do, go for the stud muscular type? Always passed up
>>the nice guy nerdy type who couldn't hurt a sole? So how many
>>men did these guys hurt before they hurt you? Are you the type
>>who doesn't care when your boyfreind kicks the crap out of other
>>guys, but gets all upset when he kicks the crap out of you? If
>>these guys kicked the crap out of you, they probably had been
>>kicking the crap out of other people for a long time and you knew
>>about it and you did not care!
>Peter, what a load of crap. First, not all abusers are the "stud
>muscular type". Hell, if they were, I guess we could just avoid a lot
>of problems by avoiding them or in the first place, right?
>My ex husband never beat *anyone* before we were married. He'd never
>been in a fight. Sad to say, I was his first, but you can bet your ass
>that didn't last long.
It is my personal observation that the previous poster is reflecting
a real phenomenon. I have personally witnessed about half a dozen
women marry obvious dead losers when they had the choice of a
reasonable guy at the time. Each and every one is now a 'victim' of
domestic violence that was utterly predictable - and predicted -
beforehand by everyone but themselves.
peter
I think it proper
>>to call a guy who is attacked and tries to defend himself with
>>his fists, an attack, and not a fist fight. Do you agree?
>Sure. As long as you agree to quit putting words into my mouth.
>Debbie
>>
OK, I agree not to put words in your mouth, not that I think that
I have, in the past, put words in your mouth. Hey, I don't even
know what it is we have even talked about in the past.. All that
I know is that you are a woman who is willing to agree that it is
possible for a man to be attacked, and should be afforded all of
the benefits which comes with this title. And even if the attack
appears to be a fist fight, it may still be, none the less, an
attack! Thus a man under these conditions should be afforded all
in the court of law that that a woman is entitled under similar
circumstance. Sure, for that I will agree not to put words in
your mouth. And let me say even furthermore that I am sorry if at
any point in any of our corespondences my verbiage became out of
line. I think I like you Debbie :). Hell, I think I even like
your name :). Peter.
Note that when Ithink I like someone, I sign my name :). Oh
yeah, and use alot of smile faces :).
peter
ro...@nrv.net (Diane) wrote:
********************************************************************************************
********************************************************************************************
Right, that is all that the men I represent are saying. It is
however the belief of many womens groups, as well as many women
and men, and unfortunately the moral fiber of the USA, i.e. the
court system, that violence against women or more severe of a
crime then violence against men. There is an important comment
to be made on the men who side with the womens groups on this
issue. They have to in many cases because if they don't there
could be serious damage done to their lives. Having read your
entire post already, I am sorry to say that you proceed to adopt
this same view. Let's go on and see how, shall we?
*******************************************************************************************
******************************************************************************************
That said, I think the fear that women feel is
>different than what men may feel. In general men are much stronger than
>women. I know there are some women who are stronger than some men, but in
>general men are stronger. So when a woman is in a scary situation, she
>knows that there is little chance she can overpower the man. To know that
>all a man has to do is grab you and you can struggle and fight and kick and
>it does no good, that is scary. My husband and I playfight sometimes. He
>can grab both my arms with one hand and I can't get lose no matter how hard
>I try. And that's just playing; I can't imagine if we were ever REALLY
>fighting. Thank God I don't have to worry about that. But anyway, if a man
>is in a situation where he has to fight with another man, there is a good
>chance he is a strong as the other man.
****************************************************************************************************
*****************************************************************************************************
So are you implying that violence against women is more severe a
crime than violence against men? What about a guy who is
attacked but is able to overpower the attacker? Hasn't this guy
been attacked none the less? Should size of the victim play any
part in the severity of the crime? But also men can be equaly as
powerless. What if a guy, not very big, is attacked by a bigger
guy who knows martial arts? What if a guy is attacked by say two
guys?
**********************************************************************************************
**********************************************************************************************
Also, the reasons men fight are
>usually (sometimes?) avoidable. If a man is mugged, he can just hand over
>his wallet (not fair, i know, but can avoid the fight).
*************************************************************************************************
*************************************************************************************************
Oh, you think so? Sure some violence against men may fit into
that scenereo, but there many other ones as well. First of all
what makes you think that the mugger will be that polite? A man
can be attacked for beeping his car horn at the wrong guy. A man
can be attacked for saying the wrong words to the wrong guy,
which leads to the question "Do males truley have freedom of
speech"? A male can be attacked because somebody doesn't like
the way he looks. And the list of the motives behind why men are
attacked goes on and on. Just look back to the LA riots where
men were beaten simply because they were men!!!!! How do I know
this? Simple, the proof is in the answer to the question "Were
any woman attacked during the LA riots?
***********************************************************************************
***********************************************************************************
A lot of women fear
>the type of attack that leads to rape. She can't just hand over what he
>wants and avoid any struggle.
****************************************************************************************
****************************************************************************************
Well I don't know how it is from where you are from, but in the
USA there is each year 100,000 reported rapes. Now of these
reported rapes some of these are false reports, and of coarse
there are also unreported rapes, so that we may say they balance
themselves out to some extent so let's just add say 50% to the
100,000 reported rapes and say that there are 150,000 rapes a
year in the USA. Something that happens at the mere rate of
150,000 instances a year is not something that I think you are
threatend by very much. Oh I know that this may come as a
shocking statement to you after all of the hype that the
feminists have given to rape. But the fact is that there are
only 100,000 reports of rape a year, and this is not a figure
that should make you fearful of rape. Consider this, there are
1.1 million reports of aggravated assaults each year in the USA.
Now that is something to fear. Of coarse of these 1.1 million
reports, nearly all the victims are male, but that is another
topic altogether.
*******************************************************************************
********************************************************************************
>Now, I don't go around fearing men. I love men. I think they are
>wonderful, with the exception of the violent ones. However, i have been in
>many situations that would not even happen with other men. Once I was with
>a group of friends at someone's house. I went to use the phone and was
>followed by this male "friend". He got me down immediately and tried to get
>my pants down. He was strong and there was no way I could push him off of
>me. BTW, i am not a weak woman; I am rather strong for a female. He was
>determined, but when some of the other friends called for us because they
>were leaving, he had to let me go. I didn't tell anyone about it. I can
>still remember the fear I felt. It's nothing like the fear I felt when
>faced with a "fist fight" (yes, girls have them too). I know some men are
>abused by their wives and i think that is awful. But I don't think it's
>fair to say that men have more to worry about violence.
************************************************************************************************
************************************************************************************************
Well, yes they do. Again, there are only about 150,000 rapes per
year in the US, of which most of the victims are women, and
there are literaly millions of assaults each year, of which the
victims are mostly men. So unless you want to argue that rape is
intrinsically a more horrible crime then say aggravated assault,
the conclusion that men are more threatend by violence follows.
In fact you have implied at least once that you felt that rape is
more horrible a crime than the violence then men face, which you
refered to as fist fighting.
*******************************************************************************
*******************************************************************************
A woman doesn't
>have to do anything to make a man try to rape her.
***************************************************************************
***************************************************************************
Are you saying that in general, men somehow provoke there own
attack? Hmmmmmmmmm, I hope you are not saying that.
*****************************************************************************
****************************************************************************
He doesn't even have to
>have a weapon; he IS the weapon most times. I bet that when most women are
>out somewhere and are feeling afraid, they are probably afraid that a man
>will attack and RAPE her, not just take her money.
************************************************************************************************
*************************************************************************************************
The rape statistics do not justify this fear!!!
*****************************************************************************************
***************************************************************************
I don't know if I can
>make you understand the difference between the two. Maybe if you think of
>it as if everytime you are alone somewhere you fear that a woman twice as
>strong as you are will hold you down and beat you up and humiliate and cuss
>you and twist your body around and finally cut off your penis. Do you think
>that if that could easily happen at anytime (if the majority of women were
>that strong), do you think you would be more fearful of that kind of attack
>or of a "fist fight"? But you will never truly know that fear because it is
>pretty unlikely.
***********************************************************************************************
***********************************************************************************************
The rape statistics do not justify this kind of fear!!!!!
************************************************************************************************
***********************************************************************************************
>Anyway, I know that most men are not like that, but there are a lot of them
>out there. They look nice, they act nice, they talk nice, they even go by
>the name of friend. A woman never knows what man is likely to attack her or
>when. Yet we manage to live our lives without appearing fearful all the
>time. Yes, we love men. we trust some men. But there is almost always an
>underlying fear when we are near men we do not know enough to trust. I do
>not wish that fear on anyone.
**********************************************************************************************
**********************************************************************************************
The rape statistics simply do not support your fear!!!!!
****************************************************************************
*****************************************************************************
>-Diane
peter
I quit, I am going to take my balls and go home!
Debbie O'Leary
ho...@helios.usq.edu.au (Ron House) wrote:
>It is my personal observation that the previous poster is reflecting
>a real phenomenon. I have personally witnessed about half a dozen
>women marry obvious dead losers when they had the choice of a
>reasonable guy at the time. Each and every one is now a 'victim' of
>domestic violence that was utterly predictable - and predicted -
>beforehand by everyone but themselves.
A lot of time this happens because these women have grown up in abusive
households. They are used to being treated this way, so when they are
abused by their husbands it feels "normal" to them. They have learned to
expect this treatment. These women don't enjoy being abused and do want
to get out of, they just don't know how to break the cycle. It's also a
result of low self-esteem. Debbie
LaVonne Carlson
Whether abuser or victim, I think the phenomenon goes much deeper than
simply "it feels normal." One of the often repeated justifications for
spanking children is love, and it is recommended to never to spank out
of anger. Reassure the child you love them, after the spanking hug the
child--all is forgiven--etc., etc. What is the message being conveyed?
Hitting is a sign of love.
It is surprising the little child who was spanked finds it acceptable to
grow up and either hit or be hit by the person most significant in his
or her life? Is it surprising that domestic abuse is more common among
children who were raised to believe hitting is an expression of love?
LaVonne
Diane
In article <4vj8be$f...@news.bridge.net>, w...@bridge.net
says...**************************
>So are you implying that violence against women is more severe a
>crime than violence against men? What about a guy who is
>attacked but is able to overpower the attacker?
>***************************************************************************
I think that violence against a man should be treated as seriously as
violence against a woman. I know that men can be overpowered by other men,
but most men can overpower most women. I am talking about FEAR here. Not
the judicial system. The system has got so many flaws it's pathetic. You
said that men have to fear more being attacked than women. I was trying to
show that that isn't true.
*******************
> Also, the reasons men fight are
>>usually (sometimes?) avoidable. If a man is mugged, he can just hand over
>>his wallet (not fair, i know, but can avoid the fight).
>***************************************************************************
>Oh, you think so? Sure some violence against men may fit into
>that scenereo, but there many other ones as well. First of all
>what makes you think that the mugger will be that polite? A man
>can be attacked for beeping his car horn at the wrong guy. A man
>can be attacked for saying the wrong words to the wrong guy,
>which leads to the question "Do males truley have freedom of
>speech"? A male can be attacked because somebody doesn't like
>the way he looks. And the list of the motives behind why men are
>attacked goes on and on. Just look back to the LA riots where
>men were beaten simply because they were men!!!!! How do I know
>this? Simple, the proof is in the answer to the question "Were
>any woman attacked during the LA riots?
>***************************************************************************
********
A woman can be attacked for the same reasons. I don't know how many women
were attacked during those riots.
>>Now, I don't go around fearing men. I love men. I think they are
>>wonderful, with the exception of the violent ones. However, i have been
>>in many situations that would not even happen with other men. Once I was
>>with
>>a group of friends at someone's house. I went to use the phone and was
>>followed by this male "friend". He got me down immediately and tried to
>>getmy pants down. He was strong and there was no way I could push him off
>>of
>>me. BTW, i am not a weak woman; I am rather strong for a female. He was
>>determined, but when some of the other friends called for us because they
>>were leaving, he had to let me go. I didn't tell anyone about it. I can
>>still remember the fear I felt. It's nothing like the fear I felt when
>>faced with a "fist fight" (yes, girls have them too). I know some men are
>>abused by their wives and i think that is awful. But I don't think it's
>>fair to say that men have more to worry about violence.
>***************************************************************************
>Well, yes they do. Again, there are only about 150,000 rapes per
>year in the US, of which most of the victims are women, and
>there are literaly millions of assaults each year, of which the
>victims are mostly men. So unless you want to argue that rape is
>intrinsically a more horrible crime then say aggravated assault,
>the conclusion that men are more threatend by violence follows.
>In fact you have implied at least once that you felt that rape is
>more horrible a crime than the violence then men face, which you
>refered to as fist fighting.
>***************************************************************************
Yeah, i do think it is more horrible. Have you ever been raped?
>A woman doesn't
>>have to do anything to make a man try to rape her.
>***************************************************************************
>***************************************************************************
>Are you saying that in general, men somehow provoke there own
>attack? Hmmmmmmmmm, I hope you are not saying that.
>***************************************************************************
**
No. A previous poster (you?) said that when he is out with a group and the
women are being mouthy and upset some guys, the guys come over and pick a
fight with the men. That is a very different situation than being in a
parking lot and being attacked for no reason. I know these guys didn't do
anything to deserve being attacked, but it's an avoidable situation. These
guys could have said "hey, we didn't start this. Why don't you beat up the
women?" I know that sounds ridiculous, but if they don't want to fight
these guys, they might be able to get out of it if they can push aside their
egos (I know i'll get attacked for that!).
> He doesn't even have to
>>have a weapon; he IS the weapon most times. I bet that when most women
are
>>out somewhere and are feeling afraid, they are probably afraid that a man
>>will attack and RAPE her, not just take her money.
**********************
>The rape statistics do not justify this fear!!!
I don't give a shit about statistics. What I know about is what happened to
me. I gave you one example, but it happened a lot more than that. Most
women have had the experience of being out with a guy (nerdy or studly,
doesn't make a difference) and the guy getting all over her and practically
raping her (if not raping her). THAT justifies my fear! Take your
statistics and stick them up your ass. If you have not had these
experiences, you will NEVER understand. I do not trivialize what men go
through; I know they have their own set of problems. Don't trivialize what
women go through just because the statistics don't justify it.
-Diane
Orenda
Ron House wrote:
about women making bad choices for mates:
>
> It is my personal observation that the previous poster is reflecting
> a real phenomenon. I have personally witnessed about half a dozen
> women marry obvious dead losers when they had the choice of a
> reasonable guy at the time. Each and every one is now a 'victim' of
> domestic violence that was utterly predictable - and predicted -
> beforehand by everyone but themselves.
This is very true. of course, men make bad choices even when
their buddies tell them that the woman is no good for them. I guess
that's why they say love is blind.
Orenda
Orenda
Debbie O'Leary wrote:
on picking bad mates:
> A lot of time this happens because these women have grown up in abusive
> households. They are used to being treated this way, so when they are
> abused by their husbands it feels "normal" to them. They have learned to
> expect this treatment. These women don't enjoy being abused and do want
> to get out of, they just don't know how to break the cycle. It's also a
> result of low self-esteem. Debbie
Sometimes it's because they are co-dependant and think that they
love this man so much they have the power to help him change into the
person he "really" is.
Orenda
cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu
LaVonne Carlson (carl...@maroon.tc.umn.edu) wrote:
: Whether abuser or victim, I think the phenomenon goes much deeper than
: simply "it feels normal." One of the often repeated justifications for
: spanking children is love, and it is recommended to never to spank out
: of anger. Reassure the child you love them, after the spanking hug the
: child--all is forgiven--etc., etc. What is the message being conveyed?
: Hitting is a sign of love.
: It is surprising the little child who was spanked finds it acceptable to
: grow up and either hit or be hit by the person most significant in his
: or her life? Is it surprising that domestic abuse is more common among
: children who were raised to believe hitting is an expression of love?
Camille Paglia suggests that at least some women in abusive
relationships keep returning after their partner hits them because, "they
are addicted to the apology." It might make an interesting study to see
if women who have a chronic pattern of returning to abusive men were more
likely to have been "spanked with love" as children. The pattern would
seem to reflect such early conditioning: first the hits, then the hugs.
It is often argued that women who seem incapable of leaving an
abusive relationship are suffering from "learned helplessness," and
perhaps they are. But the foundation for learning this kind of
dysfunctional behavior may be laid down a lot earlier in life then most
people think. If being hit and being hugged always went together while
growing up, it would make sense that one *could* become "addicted to the
apology"; the hit/hug cycle of the abusive relationship would closely
mirror the "loving" "responsible" spankings of childhood.
Chris
Ken Laing
Debbie O'Leary wrote:
>
> w...@bridge.net (peter) wrote:
>
> >>>I am also intrested why when it is directed at women you call it
> >>>"violence"
> >>>and when it is directed at men you down play it to "fist fighting"
> >>>Is this perhaps betraying a prejudice?
> >
> >>violence. Your assumption that I'm "downplaying" fist fighting is putting
> >>words into my post.
> >
> >considered to be a mutually agreed upon thing, and thus not an
> >attack!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Sorry, I don't see it that way -- but, hey, I don't live in your world.
> If a man attacks another man with his fists, I don't imagine the attacked
> man curling up in a ball whimpering. I see him fighting back and it turns
> into a fist fight. Not a socially acceptable thing by my standards --
> ugly violence pure and simple. A woman who is attacked by a man doesn't
> normally fight back (or at least I didn't, except on one occasion). So, I
> don't see it turning into a fist fight. Violence still.
We are told that the language that we use subtly influences our
thoughts on subjects, hence the need to use politically correct
language. In that light regardless of wether you intended it,
believe it or not you must admit that calling attacks on men
fist fighting while calling it voilence against women seems to be
implying that the later is worse. If men are more willing to fight
back that may be because they have been exposed to this violence all
their lives with being told it was acceptable. I remember a lot of the
"fist fights" I was compelled against my will into I didn't fight back,
even now if I can walkaway I will but I won't stand there and get beaten
anymore. Maybe if it was acceptable for little girls to be involved
in violence they would learn to defend themselves the same way you say
men can.
Ken
--
...........................................................................
Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all
others
because you were born in it. -G.B. Shaw
way...@erols.com
Boys get spanked more often because girls wait until their teens to get into trouble
whereas a boy gets into mischief alot younger.
way...@erols.com
way...@erols.com
way...@erols.com
Randy
In article <4vkvih$q...@carbon.cudenver.edu>, on 23 Aug 1996 19:08:01 GMT,
cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu, cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu says
> Camille Paglia suggests that at least some women in abusive
>relationships keep returning after their partner hits them because, "they
>are addicted to the apology." It might make an interesting study to see
>if women who have a chronic pattern of returning to abusive men were more
>likely to have been "spanked with love" as children. The pattern would
>seem to reflect such early conditioning: first the hits, then the hugs.
> It is often argued that women who seem incapable of leaving an
>abusive relationship are suffering from "learned helplessness," and
>perhaps they are. But the foundation for learning this kind of
>dysfunctional behavior may be laid down a lot earlier in life then most
>people think. If being hit and being hugged always went together while
>growing up, it would make sense that one *could* become "addicted to the
>apology"; the hit/hug cycle of the abusive relationship would closely
>mirror the "loving" "responsible" spankings of childhood.
Rudolf Dreikurs, M.D. (thirty years ago), wrote that children
have four possible "mistaken goals" behind their behavior: the
desire for undue attention, the struggle for power, the goals of
retaliation and revenge, and the fourth goal, used by the
completely discouraged child, is complete inadequacy.
A completely discouraged child becomes helpless and uses the
helplessness to avoid any effort where the *expected* failure
may be even more devastating. Whenever we find ourselves
saying, "It's no use. She's hopeless (helpless)," we can bet
that she feels that way too. She's saying, "Give up. It's
no use. I'm worthless and hopeless. Just let me alone."
This is a mistaken concept, of course, brought about through
a series of discouraging experiences. The child has learned,
through *experience*, that life is filled with impossible
obstacles and has become discouraged. "No child is ever
worthless!", wrote Dreikurs.
Spanking, for a child, is a discouraging experience. Instead
of arranging discouraging experiences, we must be arranging
experiences where she may discover her abilities. It's just
too risky to present children with the option to decide that
they would rather give up on worthiness than realize their
value.
Spanking is not the only demeaning experience a parent can
provide a child. I think that any child can descend into
complete inadequacy, though most don't. But, to combine the
risk that any child can learn helplessness, through experiences,
with the apparent risks in the experiences of physical violence,
seems, to me, to double the jeopardy for the child. I also think
that spanking children can contribute to "learned helplessness"
and, as far as adult abusers and adult victims of abuse, spanking
is positively correlated with those exact outcomes.
Randy Cox
The NoSpan King Page
http://www.cei.net/~rcox/nospan.html
Randy
In article <321DAD...@maroon.tc.umn.edu>, on Fri, 23 Aug 1996 13:09:23
+0000, carl...@maroon.tc.umn.edu, LaVonne Carlson says
cut
>It is surprising the little child who was spanked finds it acceptable to
>grow up and either hit or be hit by the person most significant in his
>or her life? Is it surprising that domestic abuse is more common among
>children who were raised to believe hitting is an expression of love?
Diane E. Stuart, Department of Family and Human Development, Utah
State University wrote:
"'Why doesn't my Mom make my Dad stop hitting her? If she loved
me, she'd make him stop. If she would do things the way he says to,
he wouldn't hit her. I get mad at my mom when she lets my Dad hit her.
If I tell anyone else, I'm afraid my Mom and Dad would be mad at me
and blame me.'
"This simple paragraph illustrates some of the dynamics that are
often found in domestic violent homes. These dynamics include:
1. Responsibility for abusive behavior is often erroneously
placed on the victim.
2. Children learn violent behavior. Sixty-five percent of
children in violent homes will grow up to be in violent
relationships.
3. When they don't get help, family members, including both
the abuser and the victim, are being controlled by the
violent behavior.
4. Fear is a strong element in violent relationships and it
affects all family members.
5. A violent episode is rarely an isolated occurrence. More
often than not, it will happen again. This is known as
the "cycle of violence."
"This 'cycle of violence' appears in two dimensions: within
a generational cycle, as indicated in #2 above, and within a
relationship cycle.
"The relationship cycle has three stages. The first stage
occurs as tension builds within the relationship. It may last
for a few hours or for many months. A major episode of violence
signals the second stage of the cycle, which may be triggered by
a seeming insignificant interaction or problem within the
relationship. The third stage is a period in which there is
sorrow and remorse. The abuser feels ashamed and guilty, and,
sometimes, promises that it will never happen again. As the
cycle continues, the abuse gradually escalates in frequency and
in intensity.
"Violence occurs in families from all social, racial, economic,
educational, and religious backgrounds. It occurs anywhere and
everywhere: in towns and cities, in neighborhoods and in outlying
rural countryside. And it happens in Utah.
"According to a fact sheet reviewed during the last legislative
session, there are each year in the state of Utah approximately
57,630 males who physically assault an intimate partner. Of the
144,075 Utah children growing up in abusive homes, 93,650 will
enter the abusive adult relationships unless help is received.
"Why does this cycle continue? Why do men batter and why do
women stay in abusive relationships? Probably for as many violent
relationships as there are, there are as many answers to these
questions. However, some surface more often than others.
"There appears to be at least four justifications that
batterer's give for their behaviors: loss of control, the abuse
was provoked, a denial that the injury ever happened, and/or the
spouse has failed in her obligations of a good wife. Many
abusers have negative feelings about themselves (resulting in
low self-esteem) and are confused about their feelings of
frustration, anger, power and control. They may not communicate
well, interpreting things differently and having unrealistic
expectations of others.
"The most frequent reasons for women to stay in violent
relationships are fear (for example, fear of him, fear of the
unknown, or fear for her children): economic dependence; blame
by others, or they blame themselves; social isolation; and low
self-esteem.
"Family violence can be prevented. As a family member, we can
recognize a tendency in our family toward violence, realize that
violence is not an acceptable way to solve problems, and we can
seek help. As a member of the community, we can support programs
that increase public awareness, teach skills, and help people
learn to express feelings in an appropriate manner. We can
encourage attempts to reduce violence, and we can support
treatment of abusers, both in and out of prison.
"Mom cannot make Dad stop hitting her. Not by herself. But
she can get help.
" Editor: J. Van Horn, Ph.D., CFLE, Professor, Rural Sociology
Dept. of Ag. Economics and Rural Sociology, Penn State College
of Agricultural Sciences, University Park, PA 16802
(814) 863-8646 Internet Address: JVAN...@PSUPEN.PSU.EDU
"February 26, 1993, Document Number: 285072480"
There are some dynamics, described above, of spouse abuse and
child abuse that are quite similar to the abusive treatment of
children (spanking in all its various frquencies and intensities).
I would expect that the outcomes are categorically similar, also,
though the correlational severities may be only directly
proportional. I mean that the more abusively a person is treated
in childhood, the more severe the losses of control, the negative
feelings about themselves (resulting in low self-esteem) and
confusion about their feelings of frustration, anger, and power.
"They may not communicate well, interpreting things differently and
having unrealistic expectations of others", and this outcome is
more likely to be worse in direct proportion to the intensity and
frequency of physically punitive treatment as a child. That means
that, though a child may not be 'abused', per the language of the
legislation prohibiting such treatment, and though a child may not
be spanked very frequently or very harshly, there is no evidence
that the child escapes the risk of negative outcome. However, the
evidence does suggest a correlation between no spanking in
childhood and a much lower representation among those in groups of
'outcome', universally considered negative.
Mark Evans
Debbie O'Leary (dol...@indiana.edu) wrote:
: Ken Laing <K...@Canadas.net> wrote:
: >Debbie O'Leary wrote:
:
: >> Are you kidding? I have been the victim of violence from several
: >> different men. The fear for women is not unjustified! I have received
: >> counseling and feel like I've gotten over the trauma my attackers left
: >> behind. But there are those women who have not had the benefit of
: >> counseling and the support of friends and family. Their fear of men is
: >> don't have to worry about most strangers getting into fist fights with
: >> us, although it does happen. The violence we face is usually from those
: >> that claim they love us :(
:
: >The men have to worry about this too!
: I *never* said they didn't. I responded only to the fact that the
: original poster said that women didn't have to fear violence -- and
: *that* is a ridiculous statement. Every one of us should probably fear
: violence because there are many violent people out there.
Depending on where they live women have between 1/2 and 1/20 of the
reason to fear violence than do men, simple fact.
Mark Evans
:
: >>>I am also intrested why when it is directed at women you call it
: >>>"violence"
: >>>and when it is directed at men you down play it to "fist fighting"
: >>>Is this perhaps betraying a prejudice?
: >
: >>I think your question betrays prejudice. I think fist fighting *is*
: >>violence. Your assumption that I'm "downplaying" fist fighting is putting
: >>words into my post.
: >
: >No! Fist fighting comes under the heading of fighting which is
: >considered to be a mutually agreed upon thing, and thus not an
: >attack!!!!!!!!!!!!
:
: Sorry, I don't see it that way -- but, hey, I don't live in your world.
: If a man attacks another man with his fists, I don't imagine the attacked
: man curling up in a ball whimpering. I see him fighting back and it turns
Sounds like you need to look at your own sexist attitudes and stereotypes.
: into a fist fight. Not a socially acceptable thing by my standards --
:
Mark Evans
Diane (ro...@nrv.net) wrote:
: > Ken
: women. I know there are some women who are stronger than some men, but in
: general men are stronger. So when a woman is in a scary situation, she
Irrelevent.
: knows that there is little chance she can overpower the man. To know that
: all a man has to do is grab you and you can struggle and fight and kick and
: it does no good, that is scary. My husband and I playfight sometimes. He
Again irrelevent, you ignore how a person things and feels also use
of weapons.
: can grab both my arms with one hand and I can't get lose no matter how hard
: I try. And that's just playing; I can't imagine if we were ever REALLY
: fighting. Thank God I don't have to worry about that. But anyway, if a man
: is in a situation where he has to fight with another man, there is a good
: chance he is a strong as the other man. Also, the reasons men fight are
You don't understand.
: usually (sometimes?) avoidable. If a man is mugged, he can just hand over
: his wallet (not fair, i know, but can avoid the fight). A lot of women fear
You assume that the movive of the attacker is simply robbery and material gain,
also you (sexistly) call it a "fight" rather than an "attack".
: the type of attack that leads to rape. She can't just hand over what he
: wants and avoid any struggle.
And you keep whineing about it, maybe you'd prefer to be beaten up or
stabbed.
: Now, I don't go around fearing men. I love men. I think they are
: wonderful, with the exception of the violent ones. However, i have been in
: many situations that would not even happen with other men. Once I was with
: a group of friends at someone's house. I went to use the phone and was
: followed by this male "friend". He got me down immediately and tried to get
: my pants down. He was strong and there was no way I could push him off of
: me. BTW, i am not a weak woman; I am rather strong for a female. He was
: determined, but when some of the other friends called for us because they
: were leaving, he had to let me go. I didn't tell anyone about it. I can
: still remember the fear I felt. It's nothing like the fear I felt when
: faced with a "fist fight" (yes, girls have them too). I know some men are
: abused by their wives and i think that is awful. But I don't think it's
: fair to say that men have more to worry about violence. A woman doesn't
: have to do anything to make a man try to rape her. He doesn't even have to
: have a weapon; he IS the weapon most times. I bet that when most women are
: out somewhere and are feeling afraid, they are probably afraid that a man
: will attack and RAPE her, not just take her money. I don't know if I can
A man don't have to do anything to get beaten up, he could just be waking down
a street, they attack might be from one person or a gang with gender being
irrelevent.
Mark Evans
:
: >It is my personal observation that the previous poster is reflecting
: >a real phenomenon. I have personally witnessed about half a dozen
: >women marry obvious dead losers when they had the choice of a
: >reasonable guy at the time. Each and every one is now a 'victim' of
: >domestic violence that was utterly predictable - and predicted -
: >beforehand by everyone but themselves.
: households. They are used to being treated this way, so when they are
: abused by their husbands it feels "normal" to them. They have learned to
: expect this treatment. These women don't enjoy being abused and do want
: to get out of, they just don't know how to break the cycle. It's also a
: result of low self-esteem. Debbie
At least as many men grow up in abusive households. (Unsurprisingly
violence within heterosexual monogamous co-habiting relationships
is NOT a function of gender) How do you think this affects these
men's behaviour to non-domestic violence directed against them?
Mark Evans
Diane (ro...@nrv.net) wrote:
: In article <4vj8be$f...@news.bridge.net>, w...@bridge.net
:
: >So are you implying that violence against women is more severe a
: >crime than violence against men? What about a guy who is
: >attacked but is able to overpower the attacker?
: >***************************************************************************
:
: I think that violence against a man should be treated as seriously as
: violence against a woman. I know that men can be overpowered by other men,
: but most men can overpower most women. I am talking about FEAR here. Not
Most people can overpower another, given a) willingness to do so, b) "advantage
of surprise".
: the judicial system. The system has got so many flaws it's pathetic. You
: said that men have to fear more being attacked than women. I was trying to
: show that that isn't true.
It is true everywhere on planet Earth, which place are you talking about.
At "best" men run twice the risk of women, at worst 20 times.
Mark Evans
Ron House (ho...@helios.usq.edu.au) wrote:
: ta...@ix.netcom.com (Tami ) writes:
:
: >w...@bridge.net (peter) wrote:
:
: >>What do you do, go for the stud muscular type? Always passed up
: >>the nice guy nerdy type who couldn't hurt a sole? So how many
: >>men did these guys hurt before they hurt you? Are you the type
: >>who doesn't care when your boyfreind kicks the crap out of other
: >>guys, but gets all upset when he kicks the crap out of you? If
: >>these guys kicked the crap out of you, they probably had been
: >>kicking the crap out of other people for a long time and you knew
: >>about it and you did not care!
:
: >Peter, what a load of crap. First, not all abusers are the "stud
: >muscular type". Hell, if they were, I guess we could just avoid a lot
: >of problems by avoiding them or in the first place, right?
:
: >My ex husband never beat *anyone* before we were married. He'd never
: >been in a fight. Sad to say, I was his first, but you can bet your ass
: >that didn't last long.
: It is my personal observation that the previous poster is reflecting
: a real phenomenon. I have personally witnessed about half a dozen
: women marry obvious dead losers when they had the choice of a
: reasonable guy at the time. Each and every one is now a 'victim' of
There is the factor that the former could be viewed as more "exciting"
than the latter.
: domestic violence that was utterly predictable - and predicted -
: beforehand by everyone but themselves.
If you play with fire you can get burned, but that does not stop
playing with fire being exciting...
Mark Evans
cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu wrote:
: LaVonne Carlson (carl...@maroon.tc.umn.edu) wrote:
:
: : Whether abuser or victim, I think the phenomenon goes much deeper than
: : simply "it feels normal." One of the often repeated justifications for
: : spanking children is love, and it is recommended to never to spank out
: : of anger. Reassure the child you love them, after the spanking hug the
: : child--all is forgiven--etc., etc. What is the message being conveyed?
: : Hitting is a sign of love.
:
: : or her life? Is it surprising that domestic abuse is more common among
: : children who were raised to believe hitting is an expression of love?
: Camille Paglia suggests that at least some women in abusive
: relationships keep returning after their partner hits them because, "they
: are addicted to the apology." It might make an interesting study to see
: if women who have a chronic pattern of returning to abusive men were more
: likely to have been "spanked with love" as children. The pattern would
: seem to reflect such early conditioning: first the hits, then the hugs.
:
: It is often argued that women who seem incapable of leaving an
: abusive relationship are suffering from "learned helplessness," and
: perhaps they are. But the foundation for learning this kind of
: dysfunctional behavior may be laid down a lot earlier in life then most
: people think. If being hit and being hugged always went together while
: growing up, it would make sense that one *could* become "addicted to the
: apology"; the hit/hug cycle of the abusive relationship would closely
: mirror the "loving" "responsible" spankings of childhood.
How do you explain why there are not far more men in such a situation?
Marie Kelly
>For example they have found a definite conection between male athletes
>and violence, which may be why athletes are so popular with the ladies.
What a load of hooey. I dare you to cite resources. You can't. And don't
say, "It's more common." Atheletes are generally admired and put into
the
spotlight. Computer programmers, for example, aren't. Therefore, if one
male
athlete beats his wife, of *course* it will cause more attention than if
ten
computer programmers do the same, merely because it will be more likely
to
be known to the general public.
Marie
Debbie O'Leary
>: If a man attacks another man with his fists, I don't imagine the attacked
>: man curling up in a ball whimpering. I see him fighting back and it turns
>
>Sounds like you need to look at your own sexist attitudes and stereotypes.
>
telling women they don't know what they're talking about, why don't you
inform us of *your* experiences. Otherwise, we can just keep accusing
each other of being sexist and stereotyping and not get anywhere. Debbie
Debbie O'Leary
ma...@leasion.demon.co.uk (Mark Evans) wrote:
>Ron House (ho...@helios.usq.edu.au) wrote:
>: It is my personal observation that the previous poster is reflecting
>: a real phenomenon. I have personally witnessed about half a dozen
>: women marry obvious dead losers when they had the choice of a
>: reasonable guy at the time. Each and every one is now a 'victim' of
>
>There is the factor that the former could be viewed as more "exciting"
>than the latter.
Well, I'm going to have to say it -- I think you need to look at your own
sexist views and stereotypes! Debbie
Ken Laing
Mark Evans wrote:
> Depending on where they live women have between 1/2 and 1/20 of the
> reason to fear violence than do men, simple fact.
I would suggest that you use 1:2 instead of 1/2. I read the latter as
one half (the difference is less for 1/20 though :) ). If you have
the stats to back this up that would be useful. I think you are
probably right I just like to have stats to offer people instead of
opinion when possible.
Ken
--
...........................................................................
No bird soars too high if he soars with his own wings. -William Blake
Ken Laing
In what situation, an abusive relationship? The numbers are about equal
(http://www.vix.com/pub/men/domestic-index.html). The male victims of
domestic
violence just don't get the support or recognition that the female
victims do.
*sarcasm on* Remember violence against men isn't nearly as serious as
violence
against women.
peter
It is just a fact, "badboys" are gobbled up by the female
population much more quickly than say the nerd, nice type. And
to say that many woman are being beaten by spouses is not a
reflection on all of men, but on all of the men that woman
choose.
Ken Laing
cs.indiana.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Debbie O'Leary wrote:
>
> ma...@leasion.demon.co.uk (Mark Evans) wrote:
> >Ron House (ho...@helios.usq.edu.au) wrote:
>
> >: It is my personal observation that the previous poster is reflecting
> >: a real phenomenon. I have personally witnessed about half a dozen
> >: women marry obvious dead losers when they had the choice of a
> >: reasonable guy at the time. Each and every one is now a 'victim' of
> >
> >There is the factor that the former could be viewed as more "exciting"
> >than the latter.
>
> Well, I'm going to have to say it -- I think you need to look at your own
> sexist views and stereotypes! Debbie
The point that is being made is the the stereotypes that are out there
are causing women to get into these situations when they may be
avoidable.
The bad boys are thought of as more exciting than the "dull" guys
who just act the way they should. Actually I have heard this argument
extend to saying that there may be a natural tendency for women to be
attracted to the more aggressive "bad boy" males as the would have
tended to be the better providers.
Take it for what you will but many believe the nice guy syndrom exists.
And if nice guys believe this exists you must expect them to get a bit
bitter when they see women go off with guys they think are total jerks
and then to complain that men are abusive assholes lumping these guys in
with the jerks.
There are lots of attitudes and stereotypes out there, generally there
is a reason for them. Denying them doesn't help but finding out the
truth behind them does. Also prejudging someone based on thesee
stereotypes is obviously wrong. Just becausea woman or a man is in an
abusive relationship does not mean they went out with an obviousd
asshole. but
it maybe cause for them to examine how they are choosing their mates.
Just my $0.02.
Ken
--
...........................................................................
A thick head can do as much damage as a hard heart. -H.W. Dodds
Eric V Conrad
In article <322220...@canadas.net>, Ken Laing <K...@Canadas.net> wrote:
>Mark Evans wrote:
>
>> Depending on where they live women have between 1/2 and 1/20 of the
>> reason to fear violence than do men, simple fact.
>I would suggest that you use 1:2 instead of 1/2. I read the latter as
>one half (the difference is less for 1/20 though :) ). If you have
>the stats to back this up that would be useful. I think you are
>probably right I just like to have stats to offer people instead of
>opinion when possible.
As I recall, Mark Evans is from down under (either Australia or New
Zealand), so his usage may differ from yours. In the United States,
the 1/2 is more common than 2:1, again in agreement with his usage.
In the United States, men are 3 times as likely to be murdered as
women. (This statistic is relatively constant and can easily be
checked in the usual almanacs if you like. Or go to the source:
Crime in the United States, published annually by the U.S. Department
of Justice.) Or you could consider serious crimes (assault, robbery,
rape, and murder). Don't have numbers in front of me, I believe it's
roughly 3 men to every women. (By all means look these things up
for yourself.)
For Canada, I think the relative murder rates are closer, roughly
3 men murdered to 2 women. There was a discussion of this about
a year ago after a (feminist) Canadian official told the women's
conference in Beijing that this relative rate was too low. Since
that could be changed essentially only either by murdering more men or by
reducing the murder rate for women while doing nothing about the murder
rate for men, some male chauvinists had the unmitigated gall to cry foul.
Feminists posting to soc.men were quite sympathetic to the Canadian
officials comment while simultaneously insisting that they were not
misandrists.
Eric
--
----
Feminist Folklore 101 -- Annual deaths in the U.S. due to anorexia...
150,000 women -- Gloria Steinem, The Revolution from Within
100 people -- National Center for Health Statistics
Diane
I'm sorry for the post about the crime rates. I forgot to delete this
newsgroup from the list. I didn't mean to post this here. Please
forgive me.
-Diane
Ken Laing
Imagine if you suggest that the rate was to high and that goverment
should
do something to provide equal protection for all their citizens
regardless of gender.
*Sigh* Maybe in my lifetime we will achieve equality (I am still young
:) ).
I wish I was around then. I would have complained to the relevant
goverment org she was from. I am after all a tax paying citizen and I
should have to listen to goverment officials telling me that I should be
murdered! (paricularly when we don't have capital punishment even for
violent crimes and my only crime is being male)
Ken
PS. If this was a published statement by her somewhere I would like to
see it.
Diane
This is taken from a (January 1994) release from the U.S. Department of
Justice:
The survey, conducted by the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice
Statistics, found approximately 2.5 million of the nation's 107 million
females 12 years old and older were raped, robbed or assaulted in a typical
year, or were the victim of an attempt to commit such a crime. Twenty-eight
percent of the offenders were intimates, such as husbands or boyfriends, and
another 39 percent were acquaintances or relatives.
In the FBI's annual publication, Crime in the United States (for 1994), I
found that if you add up all the murdered men (18,411), all the robberies
(it didn't specify how many were against men, so let's assume ALL of them
were against men, just for this purpose, eventhough it is not the case.
That means 619,000 robberies), and all the aggravated assaults (same for
robberies; it didn't specify how many were men. Total assaults was
1,119,950) it comes to 1,757,361 murders, robberies and assaults against men
for the year. That is 70 percent of the amount against women (according to
the JDBOJS). This does not include the 4894 women that were murdered and it
also doesn't count the burglaries, larceny-thefts, motor vehicle thefts, or
arson. Those aren't violent crimes and they didn't specify the percentages
of male or female victims anyway.
Eventhough I do not need statistics to justify my fears (my own experiences
are enough), I found these frightfully interesting.
The following was compiled by the majority staff of the Senate Judiciary
Committee (July 1990):
Every hour, 16 women confront rapists; a woman is raped every 6
minutes.
Every 18 seconds, a woman is beaten; 3-4 million women are battered each
year.
Since 1974, the rate of assaults against young women (20-24) has jumped
almost 50%. For young men, it has decreased.
Three out of four women will be victims of at least one violent crime
during their lifetimes.
A woman is 10 times more likely to be raped than to die in a car crash.
Only 50% of rapes are ever reported; of those reported, less than 40%
result in arrest.
One third of all domestice violence cases, if reported, would be charged
as felony rape or felonious assault.
Each year, more than one million women seek medical assistance for injuries
caused by battering.
The crime rate against women in the United States is significantly higher
than England's, nearly 4 times higher than Germany's, and more than 20 times
higher than Japan's.
Of the American women alive today, 25 million either have been, or will be,
raped at least once during their lives.
Last year, the number of women abused by their husbands was greater than
the number of women who got married.
In 1950, police caught 83% of all rapists; in 1988 police caught only
53% of them.
Nearly 50% of abusive husbands batter their wives when they are pregnant,
making them four times more likely to bear infants of low birth weight.
Of all those arrested for major crimes -- murder, rape, robbery, assault,
burglary, larceny theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson -- rapists are
the most likely to excape conviction.
If every woman victimized by domestic violence last year were to join hands
in a line, the string of people would span from New York to Los Angeles and
back again.
More than half of all homeless women are on the street because they are
fleeing domestic violence.
More than 40% of college women who have been raped say that they expect to
be raped again.
There were more women injured by rapists last year than marines wounded
by the enemy in all of World War II.
There are nearly three times as many animal shelters in the United States as
there are battered women's shelters.
Although campus studies suggest that 1,275 women were raped at America's
3 largest universities in 1989, only 3 of those rapes were reported to
police.
1 out of every 7 women currently attending college has been raped.
486,000 of the girls now attending high school will have been raped before
they graduate.
The average age of a rape victim is 18 1/2 years old.
Young women 16-19 years old are the most likely to be raped.
57% of college rape victims are attacked by dates.
Girls raped before age 18 are least likely to report the incident to the
police.
Girls aged 12-15 are the most likely to be raped by strangers.
Rape victims aged 12-19 are the least likely to receive hospital care.
Since 1974, the rate of assaults against young women (20-24) has jumped
48%. For men of the same age group, it has decreased 12%.
If I needed statistics, THAT would justify my fears!
This is by no means meant to be an attack on men. It's just meant to show
that women's fears are real. Think about your wives, your daughters, your
sisters and mothers. Don't trivialize this for them. Yes, men have reason
to fear for their safety as well. Why not stop trying to decide who has
MORE reason to worry and what statistics justify who's fear, and just agree
upon the fact that there are idiots and psychos out there who hurt PEOPLE.
We should be attacking the criminals, not each other.
Rich Payne
|I don't give a shit about statistics. What I know about is what happened to
|me. I gave you one example, but it happened a lot more than that. Most
|women have had the experience of being out with a guy (nerdy or studly,
|doesn't make a difference) and the guy getting all over her and practically
|raping her (if not raping her). THAT justifies my fear! Take your
|statistics and stick them up your ass. If you have not had these
|experiences, you will NEVER understand. I do not trivialize what men go
|through; I know they have their own set of problems. Don't trivialize what
|women go through just because the statistics don't justify it.
|
|-Diane
Damn hypocrites.
Where are the feminist goon squads attacking Diane for generalizing
from her experiences?
Damn hypocrites.
Continued at the end...
Diane (ro...@nrv.net) wrote:
: This is taken from a (January 1994) release from the U.S. Department of
: Justice:
Where are the feminist goon squads attacking Diane for generalizing
from her experiences?
Damn hypocrites.
Rich
--
peter
ro...@nrv.net (Diane) wrote:
>This is taken from a (January 1994) release from the U.S. Department of
>Justice:
> The survey, conducted by the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice
>Statistics, found approximately 2.5 million of the nation's 107 million
>females 12 years old and older were raped, robbed or assaulted in a typical
>year, or were the victim of an attempt to commit such a crime. Twenty-eight
>percent of the offenders were intimates, such as husbands or boyfriends, and
>another 39 percent were acquaintances or relatives.
This contradicts the stat that there are 100,000 reported rapes a
year.
>In the FBI's annual publication, Crime in the United States (for 1994), I
>found that if you add up all the murdered men (18,411), all the robberies
>(it didn't specify how many were against men, so let's assume ALL of them
>were against men, just for this purpose, eventhough it is not the case.
>That means 619,000 robberies), and all the aggravated assaults (same for
>robberies; it didn't specify how many were men. Total assaults was
>1,119,950) it comes to 1,757,361 murders, robberies and assaults against men
>for the year. That is 70 percent of the amount against women (according to
>the JDBOJS). This does not include the 4894 women that were murdered and it
>also doesn't count the burglaries, larceny-thefts, motor vehicle thefts, or
>arson. Those aren't violent crimes and they didn't specify the percentages
>of male or female victims anyway.
What the hell are you talking about. There are 1.1 milion
agravated assaults alone per year. Your numbers don't look
correct.
>Eventhough I do not need statistics to justify my fears (my own experiences
>are enough), I found these frightfully interesting.
>The following was compiled by the majority staff of the Senate Judiciary
>Committee (July 1990):
> Every hour, 16 women confront rapists; a woman is raped every 6
>minutes.
This contradicts the stat that each year there are 100,000
reported rapes!!!!
>Every 18 seconds, a woman is beaten; 3-4 million women are battered each
>year.
Well if that was true then there would be billions of men beaten
per year.
>Since 1974, the rate of assaults against young women (20-24) has jumped
>almost 50%. For young men, it has decreased.
What did they go from 3 per year up to 4.5 per year?
>Three out of four women will be victims of at least one violent crime
>during their lifetimes.
then men will experience 20 of them.
>A woman is 10 times more likely to be raped than to die in a car crash.
So?
>Only 50% of rapes are ever reported; of those reported, less than 40%
>result in arrest.
OK, then since there are 100,000 reported rapes a year, we may
conclude that there are a total of 200,000 rapes a year actually
occuring. Now that is such a small amout, as crimes go, that it
should not even be considered a problem. Why hell, I think that
there are more people struck by lightning a year.
>One third of all domestice violence cases, if reported, would be charged
>as felony rape or felonious assault.
>Each year, more than one million women seek medical assistance for injuries
>caused by battering.
Well then I guess a billion men do the same.
>The crime rate against women in the United States is significantly higher
>than England's, nearly 4 times higher than Germany's, and more than 20 times
>higher than Japan's.
OK
>Of the American women alive today, 25 million either have been, or will be,
>raped at least once during their lives.
If you say so
>Last year, the number of women abused by their husbands was greater than
>the number of women who got married.
OK
>In 1950, police caught 83% of all rapists; in 1988 police caught only
>53% of them.
OK
>Nearly 50% of abusive husbands batter their wives when they are pregnant,
>making them four times more likely to bear infants of low birth weight.
OK
>Of all those arrested for major crimes -- murder, rape, robbery, assault,
>burglary, larceny theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson -- rapists are
>the most likely to excape conviction.
Bullshit
>If every woman victimized by domestic violence last year were to join hands
>in a line, the string of people would span from New York to Los Angeles and
>back again.
This is getting funny
>More than half of all homeless women are on the street because they are
>fleeing domestic violence.
So?
>More than 40% of college women who have been raped say that they expect to
>be raped again.
So?
>There were more women injured by rapists last year than marines wounded
>by the enemy in all of World War II.
Bullshit
>There are nearly three times as many animal shelters in the United States as
>there are battered women's shelters.
OK
>Although campus studies suggest that 1,275 women were raped at America's
>3 largest universities in 1989, only 3 of those rapes were reported to
>police.
This is such bullshit
>1 out of every 7 women currently attending college has been raped.
>486,000 of the girls now attending high school will have been raped before
>they graduate.
That is over twice the actual rapes we calculated above
>The average age of a rape victim is 18 1/2 years old.
So?
>Young women 16-19 years old are the most likely to be raped.
So?
>57% of college rape victims are attacked by dates.
So?
>Girls raped before age 18 are least likely to report the incident to the
>police.
There tough shit I guess?
>Girls aged 12-15 are the most likely to be raped by strangers.
Do you think that boys have problems also?
>Rape victims aged 12-19 are the least likely to receive hospital care.
Whatever
>Since 1974, the rate of assaults against young women (20-24) has jumped
>48%. For men of the same age group, it has decreased 12%.
So?
>If I needed statistics, THAT would justify my fears!
Your stats are all wrong.
>This is by no means meant to be an attack on men. It's just meant to show
>that women's fears are real. Think about your wives, your daughters, your
>sisters and mothers. Don't trivialize this for them. Yes, men have reason
>to fear for their safety as well.
Why not stop trying to decide who has
>MORE reason to worry and what statistics justify who's fear, and just agree
>upon the fact that there are idiots and psychos out there who hurt PEOPLE.
>We should be attacking the criminals, not each other.
Because anytime that something is tried to be done to curb
violence, it is done with the intentions of effecting the
violence the affects woman. And all we are saying is, Hello,
since men are far more threatend by violence, why start with
woman? But I think that the reason is obvious, don't you? Hey
man you are one twisted chick! heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee