"Men are, by a huge margin, the sex responsible for violent, sexual and other serious crime. The economic cost of this ‘masculine excess’ in delinquency is staggering - to say nothing of its emotional toll. Why is the social shaping of masculinity not an urgent policy issue?"
Don't give me the old bromide that testosterone did it! That is an excuse! A denial of self-responsibility! A claim that protects violent men from being held accountable. Both men and women suffer because of these brutes!
"Of the one-third of a million people in England and Wales found guilty of an indictable offence in the 12 months ending June 2012, 85% were men. The more violent the crime, the more men predominate. From a unique table deep in the quarterly Ministry of Justice Criminal Justice Statistics Bulletin for England and Wales we learn that males were 88% of those found guilty of violence against the person, and more than 98% of those committing sexual offences."
Just as the women of Turkey, dressed from head to toe in heavy gabardine in 100 degree F weather, to conceal their bodies because men couldn't control their impulses to rape, so, men of many countries continue to think they are entitled to use and abuse women. Doesn't that sound sophomoric to you? How can anyone claim they can't control their natural urges? If men were subject to such impulses, doesn't that imply those who can't exist as less human than the gentler ones? More like beasts than Homo sapiens.
You appear to be generalizing from a study in Sweden.
It could be, because there's a social standard against men hitting women. A woman hitting a man is a lot less likely to do serious damage, because of less average strength.
However, much more of the severe injury from physical abuse is suffered by women than men. If you have a study questioning that, it would be interesting to see.
There's a reason why there are battered women's shelters and few if any battered men's shelters.
Actually, the reason that there aren't battered men shelters is for an entirely different reason, and Erin Pizzey can say more on that. She has written many books and I'm sure she's probably on youtube also. She opened one of the first women's shelters in the world.
Ćenek, During the Crusades, the men left Europe carrying the flag of Roman Catholicism, and plundered their way to the Holy Lands where they committed horrendous crimes. Women remained behind, managed the farms, businesses, enterprises and cared for children and elderly and the responsibilities of the home. They were good managers and the reports from those terrible years were that businesses flourished.
When the men returned, they wrested control of family, farm, business from the women, some with brutal force. Many women were beaten, children suffered, businesses did not flourish.The economic history of this period was dismal. Many women were forced out of their homes, some without their children. There was a woman in Brugge, Belgium, Margeurite, who was the sole heir to her father's prosperous wool and flax farm. She opened her estate to women and children needing a home, food, health care, and training to support themselves. She took in very badly nourished women and children and restored them through good nutrition. She taught them physical hygiene as well as how to perform the tasks of skilled trades. The women and children were able to leave the safety and security of Margeurite's home and became self-sufficient. Many of those women went out on a mission of their own, opening women and children's shelters from Turkey to Spain. This was the beginning of the béguinage movement. Margeurite was put in a wicker basket and burned to death for heresy/
I didn't know that Joan. Obviously Pizzey was way after that movement (in the late 60's I believe)
I know that many people count convents as refuges for women but I do not for obvious reasons. Even though Margeurite's establishments were religious based it seems like they represented unparalleled freedom for their time period.
The statistics on serious domestic violence - going to the hospital because of domestic violence - are skewed about 6 to 1, women to men. See http://www.xyonline.net/sites/default/files/Kimmel,%20Gender%20symm...
What I said is accurate, according to this article.
Also, far more men than women kill their spouses.
The idea that violence done by women to men is underreported is not supported by evidence, according to this article.
In response to the notion that men would be too ashamed or humiliated to call the police or go to the hospital if they were beaten by their wives, available empirical evidence suggests a very different picture: Men who are assaulted by intimates are actually more likely to call the police, more likely to press charges, and less likely to drop them.
Well it's been a while since I read her books and I want to be careful not to misrepresent her. But Pizzey described how as part of caring for these abused women and children she discovered that there was just as many men but that they didn't have a place.
As a feminist who was trying to make real change in the world, she opened a shelter for men. This was apparently very unpopular to the point where after a series of threats and her family dog was killed she fled with her family to Canada.
Obviously there are shelters for men and boys. But the ratio is closer to 1:100 than 1:6. And I wonder why this is - I do not believe that everyone wanting to open a male shelter is being threatened, but perhaps there it isn't as easy to get funding.
Obviously there are shelters for men and boys. But the ratio is closer to 1:100 than 1:6.
Battered women's shelters are emergency housing and often unpleasant places to stay. They are a last resort for women who can't afford a better place. A hotel room is a much nicer escape.
Men have more money to buy a hotel room if they need to get away. The women tend to be dependent, unpaid workers at home without access to much money. Probably especially true of battered women.
A woman hitting a man is a lot less likely to do serious damage, because of less average strength.
That's true, Luara, and a Sacramento woman knew it.
She went to prison for poisoning several men.
Ted, I have no doubt that women abuse men, physically, mentally and emotionally. Men tend to use physical power, women tend to use verbal power. Both can be abusive and the emotional damage can be devastating. That said, violence of any sort in a family is a symptom of dysfunction. It doesn't define what is not working, but something in the relationship is not working to create effective and efficient team work.
I've told the story before of my experience at a boys ranch, when, after training of the boy, mother and father in problem solving and conflict resolution, the mother felt she was loosing control. She shot her husband in full view of their son. Blood splattered everywhere. Fortunately, the bullet didn't hit any vital organs, but it surely struck a rich blood supply.
The father realized he was dealing with more than anger, he was dealing with mental illness. He and the son left the home and created a new life that was healthy for both of them. They had no control over her, and he filed an assault charge against her; the court dealt with her situation.
I find no fault with the Swedish study.
"The concept that women use violence only in self-defense is not true – women are capable of using it aggressively as well."
"behaviour ranging from punching, kicking and pushing to strangleholds and threats at gunpoint."
"between 8 and 11 percent of male victims reported that they had also been perpetrators of violence
"We do not know in detail what led women to use violence in aggression," she explained.
"More women (30 percent) than men still reported that they had acted in self-defense,
"men were most likely to maintain that they had reacted to insults or humiliation."
"female victims of domestic violence suffered from more severe health effects than men"
"women were more likely to report depression, anxiety and difficulty sleeping.
"Ten percent also reported experiencing suicidal thoughts"
"Because men are often bigger and stronger, they do not feel as threatened by physical violence on the part of their female partners"
"Women were also more likely than men to have been the victims of sexual abuse"
"with 10 percent of women reporting they'd been sexually abused by their partner, compared to 3.5 percent for men."
In my research, "Toward a Theory of Family Violence, its antecedents, treatment and prevention", I looked at the role of violence when faced with problems and conflicts. By learning how to manage anger, use life skills and effective communication, violence was reduced and partners claimed to have happier lives with less tension and reduced urges to violence.
Hey Joan......It is so true, without men the world would be a much more peaceful place....I do believe that we need more women in high office who are more rational and less aggressive...I do think that testosterone has something to do with it...Although some men have so much more control than others...Your point can be proven just by the number of men in our prison facilities....So you have no argument with me.....
Joan, after becoming an atheist, I've become much more aware of the evil that's been perpetrated on many women by many men.
The few years I spend talking to people on the site "Life After Mormonism" started opening my eyes, especially about how bad Mormonism is to women. It's bad for all genders, but especially non-straight people, and women more than men.
Atheist Nexus has opened my eyes to the problem much more, and you have been the one that's opened them the widest Joan.
Let me be very clear, I value the different qualities of maleness and femaleness. Males do not have to become more feminine, their strength lies in their union with females. Females do not have to become more masculine, their strength lies in their union with males. Violence is the destroyer of union. That is also true between parent and child. Violence has no place in the family scene.