SOB’s Grins & Grumps

Everything Between Heaven and Earth and Beyond

  • Copyrights and Contact

    Henric C. Jensen
    All images and Artwork are
    © 2006-2018 Henric C. Jensen
    Mail

  • August 2022
    S M T W T F S
     123456
    78910111213
    14151617181920
    21222324252627
    28293031  
  • Categories

  • Meta

  • Recent Posts

  • Archives

Posts Tagged ‘Domestic Violence’

On the Matter of Feminism and Domestic Violence

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on April 23, 2009


“- Please be aware that in the midst of a serious discussion on gender issues, posting cruel or mocking humor tends to escalate things and upset people.  What seems funny to you might seem very offensive to someone else, and in any case distracts from the seriousness of such a discussion.” (From a Group’s guidelines on how to conduct a discussion on the matter of f.i Feminism)

– The guide lines were updated after “The Sweet Pink Rules of Feminism” (posted below) was posted and resulted in one woman sarcastically attacking a man’s sources of statistics and generally belittling men who are abused by women and another man pointing out to her that sarcasm is a form of verbal abuse and that he would not feel safe with her given the level of prejudice she exhibits through that  use of sarcasm and belittling.

The addition to the guide lines of that Group was clearly made to make sure that status quo is maintained – i.e women remain innocent victims of male abuse, and men remain monstrous perpetrators of such abuse in the minds of people – women are not perpetrators, because she has never seen any men, in her practice as a doctor, that were abused by women. And if they exist, despite her professional experience that they don’t, (she used her professional experience as leverage – it’s a logical fallacy called “appeal to authority” in the discussion so people will be convinced as to why she is right and the men’s statistics is wrong…so it’s only fair that this is called into question – her professional opinion.) they (implied) do so in such a small number compared to the number of women abused by men as to be (implied) negligible.

What does the number have to do with anything? Men are abused by women – they just don’t tell her about it, probably because they instinctively know that she’s not safe, despite her profession.

The fact is that women abuse men just as much as men abuse women, the methods of abuse just look different, and in the case of physical abuse the severity of the damage will differ between the genders, generally due to difference in physical strength  – if a 200lb male boxer beats his 100lb photo model wife, she is likely to be both bruised and broken, but if a 100lb photo model beats her 200lb boxer husband, she isn’t likely to cause more than bruises, unless she uses an implement (skillet, lamp, baseball bat etc), which means that she (if he beats her) needs to visit a hospital, but he (if she beats him) probably won’t have to do more than put on a band-aid and take a couple of painkillers. This doesn’t mean that some men aren’t seriously injured by women in domestic violence situations – a baseball bat will kill also in the hands of a woman. Add to this that men rarely hit back if they are hit by a woman, because despite what feminism claims men are still raised with the value that one does not hit a smaller or weaker person.

The amount of physical damage doesn’t determine whether abuse has taken place or not – whether the victim had to seek out the emergency room or not is irrelevant to the question of if abuse has taken place. If I steal a $100 from someone I am just as guilty of theft as if I had stolen $100.000 from some one.

Domestic violence is not a gender issue – it’s a serious issue, and it needs to be dealt with, but it’s not a gender issue, it never was and it never will be. The victim’s gender is and should be irrelevant – however, in the mind of the general public this is not acceptable reasoning, all because of what Feminism have taught about men and about women throughout history.

The Sweet Pink Rules of Feminism

1. Feminism requires you to talk about “equality” for both sexes but some sexes are more equal than others.
2. God could be a womyn, but the devil is most certainly a man.
3. We’re equal to men, and this makes us morally superior to them.
4. We are equally capable of doing anything a man can do and men can’t do anything right.
5. We must scorn behavior which is associated with stereotypical masculinity while whooping with praise when the same behavior is exhibited by womyn.
6. We must demand that womyn be allowed into military combat because we’re equally capable of smashing-in the faces of vicious terrorists. But we also laugh at the idea that a husband could be the victim of a wife’s physical abuse because everyone knows that women are never violent.
7. We seek to stop “violence against womyn” but girl-on-girl violence and lesbians who batter their partners don’t bother us quite as much.
8. We attack the gender-stereotypes that portray womyn negatively as we gleefully embrace the ones that portray womyn positively. It’s customary to invert this rule for “you-know-who”.
9. Helping womyn succeed is not nearly as satisfying as seeing men fail.
10. “Power” in the hands of men is always destructive, selfish, tyrannical and harmful. This same “Power” in the hands of womyn is always democratic, nurturing, honest, good for the environment and good for humanity.
11. Men of quality support womyn’s equality but womyn never have to do anything to prove that they are “of quality”.
12. Finally, us feminists are absolutely not anti-male and that’s why we rarely have any positive things to say about those penis-having bastards.
13. Women are just as good at everything as men are, except for things at which women are better.
14. We feminists are equal to men, and that gives us the elevated authority to pass judgment upon them.
15. If you’re not female then your opinion doesn’t count, you sexist bastard.
16. Any criticism of feminism is a form of Hate-Speech. A feminist’s own speech is allowed to be as hateful as she wants it to be.
17. If somebody has the temerity to criticize the behavior of feminists, you should dismissively sneer that they’re attacking “strawfeminists”– absurdist caricatures who don’t exist. Feel free to resume your usual attacks on strawpatriarchs every day of the week.
18. The only feminist you are officially allowed to criticize is Valerie Solanas. That’s because a feminist has to literally advocate the extermination of half the planet before the rest of us start to wonder if she’s got a screw loose.
19. You have 10,000 years of grudges to seek vengeance for in your single lifetime.
20. Collective guilt and collective punishment are anathema to a society which fulfills the feminist goal of treating people as individuals, which is why us feminists must constantly intimate the collective guilt of men and suggest that they need collective punishment.
21. You must demand that a father shoulder half of any effort to raise “his” children as you simultaneously demand that a mother be granted automatic sole custody of “her” children after divorce.
22. Whether or not you feel “offended” is the central principle to how the world should be re-organized.
23. A feminist must say “Patriarchy” at least ninety-seven times per hour. The ten millionth time you say “Patriarchy” you will trigger a shower of confetti and receive a fabulous prize.
24. As a feminist, you are opposed to the spread of stereotypes. But don’t let that stop you from constantly stereotyping men as being an over-privileged class of dimwitted exploiters who always get everything they want.
25. Ovaries good, testicles bad.
26. We believe every woman should have unrestricted access to any kind of abortion, no questions asked. We also believe that abortion should be tightly restricted in China to prevent millions of potential girls from being robbed of their lives.
27. We feminists must demand aristocratic levels of deference while never behaving with aristocratic levels of gentility.
28. We must grouse continuously about traditionalist expectations of women while we conveniently forget to pay half the check on our dinner-dates.
29. Men avoid us because we’re too gosh-darned smart.
30. If a man works 60 hours a week to support a wife who cooks and cleans, the man is a lazy shit who exploits his wife.
31. If a woman works 60 hours a week to support a husband who cooks and cleans, the man is a lazy shit who exploits his wife.
32. If the majority of women do not call themselves feminists, the root problem lies with the majority of women and not with feminism.
33. We demand respect for all women and their diversity. That is why we dismiss, infantilize, mock or denigrate stay-at-home moms, traditionalist women, pro-life women, Republican women, Catholic women, Protestant women, Mormon women, Orthodox Jewish women, Muslim women who don’t object to hijab standards, Hindu women who don’t object to dowries, women who care about their weight, women who wear cosmetics, female researchers who study innate behavioral sex-differences, women who look forward to marriage, women who warn about giving birth after the age of 40, sorority sisters, cheerleaders, girls who like playing with dolls and any other woman who doesn’t slavishly dance to our tune. Except for them, we demand respect for ALL women and their diversity!4. Falsely accusing a man of rape is a great way of raising his consciousness.
35. If a teacher were to beat black boys more than white boys, we’d excoriate him for hateful discrimination. If the same teacher beat only boys, that’d be fine.

The above list may seem to be tongue-in-cheek – but it really is not. It very accurately depict the ATTITUDE towards men (and women) fostered by Feminism.

While there was a time when Feminism was needed to get rid of some very basic injustices and inequality between the genders, it has now come to a point where it is damaging both men and women, and have in fact created injustices and inequalities, and we now need to get rid of Feminism.

Feminism has created some rather weird concepts, that have snuck into how various societal institutions operate in regards to men:

When a woman is taken to hospital due to physical injuries that are clearly not accidental and domestic violence is suspected (which is the rule) it is assumed by the medical staff that the perpetrator is male – despite the fact that the perpetrator could just as well be another female or the result of a mutual/reciprocal violent situation where the assumed victim was the instigator or a voluntary fight with another female.

Evidence it taken of all the injuries automatically, to secure DNA and photographic evidence, and most often a rape kit is used to determine if a sexual assault occurred.

When a man is taken to the hospital due to physical injuries that are clearly not accidental, it is assumed that he was in a voluntary fight with another male, domestic violence is rarely suspected, and no evidence is secured unless the man requests this, no DNA or photographic evidence is secured, and there is no assumption of sexual assault – there are no rape kits made that works sufficiently for male victims of rape/sexual assault.

When the police is called out to a domestic violence situation they automatically assume that it is a male who has beaten a female – in fact the expression “domestic violence as ” is so strongly wired into the very fabric of society that when one thinks “domestic violence” the images that it conjures up are of a man beating his wife. There are no neutral words for domestic violence in Swedish – it’s called ‘wife-beating.’ The term “domestic violence” was coined by Erin Pizzey in her 1974 book Scream quietly or the neighbours will hear”. While she never intended it to connote or denote ‘male-on-female’ domestic violence exclusively – which is evidenced by the fact that she is the patron of of the charity Mankind Initiative and “has expressed her dismay at how she believes the issue [domestic violence] has become a gender-political football, and expressed an unpopular view in her book Prone to Violence that some women in the refuge system had a predisposition to seek abusive relationships. She also expressed the view that domestic violence can occur against any vulnerable intimates, regardless of their gender” – the term has nevertheless become synonymous with male-on-female domestic violence.

If one uses the term ‘domestic violence’ and is talking about a woman beating her husband, one has to qualify this or one’s audience will automatically think “husband beats wife”.

Police, social workers and medical professionals are trained to assume that all domestic violence is ‘male-on-female’ – they have no training in how to get a male to speak the truth about his injuries or even open up enough for the authorities to be able to establish what happened, so that he can be treated adequately. This of course leads to charges never being brought against his abuser, who can keep on with her (or his) abusive ways.

Medical professionals are trained to assume that if a woman seeks out psychological counseling for depression, anxiety, panic disorders etc., the reason is her husband, and that is basically the first question they will ask – they will also assume that she is lying about being abused to protect her husband, they are also trained to encourage the woman to leave her husband, and will pressure her, coerce and manipulate her (if she stays in ‘therapy’) in such a manner that they eventually get what they have been trained to do, or she ends the counseling.

This is all because of the skewed view of men (and women) that feminism has imprinted on Western Society in the last 30-40 years.

Half of you who found this blog entry using the criteria ‘domestic violence’ did so because you were looking for information on ‘husband beats wife’, and I think that perhaps half of those are rather pissed at me right now 😀 for daring to rock the pink boat of feminism.

Here are some numbers for you:

In Finland, in a 2007 survey among men and women, the researchers found that 60 % of the victims of domestic violence are women, 40% are men and in half of the cases where the man was the perpetrator, the victim was equally violent. 60 % of the safe houses’ visitors/clients are violent in situ or have been violent in their relationships.

In a report to the Irish Department of Health and Children (March 2002) Kieran MacKeown and Phillippa Kidd found – going back as far as 1975 in Canada, UK and the US – that the number of female-on-male perpetrators of domestic violence was higher or significantly higher than the number of male-on-female perpetrators of domestic violence.

The Blog “Dads and Things” which is citing this report, with a link to the report in its entirety, then goes on to say:

“The report is based on an examination of a good number of DV studies from all over the world.  It confirms what those with open and objective minds have known for decades: inter spousal violence is not a male monopoly.  It is at least as often committed by women as it is committed by men.

That the myth of men having a monopoly on that aspect of interpersonal violence persisted for so long in the face of so much evidence from reputable and even government sources is nothing less than evidence of the power of feminist propaganda promoted by people in thrall to an oppressive totalitarian ideology.”

In a Finnish online discussion about domestic violence the topic of female on male DV was discussed and the Feminist view was declared:

Discussion about domestic violence: “when the wife beats”

“It’s just a question of that in the marriage where it’s the woman who beats, the woman has taken on the male role between the partners. It’s a question of men’s power in society and the oppression of women which has forced itself in to the family in a way that differs from the usual.
It’s the same phenomenon in lesbian marriages. In those too there is domestic violence, it’s the perpetrator has taken on the male role in the society. This can occasionally happen also in heterosexual relationships”

“So the woman must first take on the male role before she hits? weirdly one managed to turn this thing too into men’s and male society’s fault..:”

“And I thought domestic violence was because the perpetrator was a little sick case, nervous, stressed, can’t deal with things, has few tools, so one tries to solve problems with violence. But it’s a male model? A real man model? Wow.”

“One must deny the explanations where the domestic violence is due to the perp’s psychiatric disorders. It’s a question of how, in society as a whole, men oppress women  as a group and the tool of that oppression is family and domestic violence. That’s why in Sweden it is forbidden to treat domestic violence with the help of therapy. The societal culture and societal structures are seen as the cause and as that which oppresses women.”

The last quote there, I can, as living Sweden vouch for – some 10 years back the then Minister of Equality, Margareta Winberg suggested, in all ernesty, that men should be obligated by law to pay a gender tax. That’s right, Swedish Feminists have so thoroughly indoctrinated Swedish Society that it is seen as an axiom that ALL men oppress ALL women, and therefore should be collectively penalized on the grounds of their gender. Fortunately the Proposition was voted down in Parliament, but it made it there and it was a serious Governmental Proposition. Which says a lot about just how Feminism have hi-jacked not only the gender debate, but Society in general.

Just a week ago the Hot line and Shelter Center for Men – the only one in all of Sweden – was closed down because of a lack of government grants – no Hot lines or Shelters for Women have ben closed. Interestingly enough the Shelter Center for Men didn’t just help some 50.000 men during its 3 years in existence, it also worked tirelessly among young men at risk and convicted perpetrators to prevent violence, domestic and otherwise from occurring or reoccurring in their lives.

Acknowledging that men are abused too and that women abuse too isn’t enough, especially not if we doctor the statistics in such a manner that they show that female-on-male violence is the exception to the rule of male-on-female violence or create legislation that discriminates one gender.

We have to move beyond the false premises of Feminism and realize, deep down, that  domestic violence is not a gender issue, that women and men are equally perpetrators and victims and that moving towards a thinking where victims of domestic violence are qualified not by their gender, but by the fact that they are victims, is a necessary measure if we are to land in an equal society. I believe that without a mutual acknowledgment of suffering (without dragging along the measure tape to see who has suffered the most) we cannot find reconciliation between the genders, and thus no true equality.

Somehow we have to move from ‘feminism’ (and its implied gender discrimination) to ‘equalism’ – where it doesn’t matter what gender a victim of sexism, violence and discrimination is, and where its our humanity that empowers us, not a perceived gender.

Posted in Domestic Violence, General Society | Tagged: , , , , | 3 Comments »

Domestic Violence against Men

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on June 19, 2007


If you want to find an example of ultra-successful brainwashing of the public by the media, you need look no further than the subject of domestic violence; though I have to admit that child abuse runs it a close second. If you ask the man-in-the-street what he thinks domestic violence is, he will probably tell you that it is men attacking women within the family. If you further ask him why he thinks this, he will tell you that he has heard it many times in TV news broadcasts, read about it in newspapers and magazines and has seen adverts about it on television.

 

Exactly! In a word he has been brainwashed and, sadly, he is by no means alone; he is in the company of his wife, his neighbours, his children’s teachers, his bank manager and countless politicians. They are all totally ignorant of the true facts about domestic violence. So where can these poor beleaguered souls discover the truth about this important problem which constantly batters their ears and eyeballs? The sad answer is, it’s all around them if only they use their eyes and their ears.In January 1999 the UK Government’s Home Office published the results of a survey into domestic violence. It was the biggest ever carried out anywhere in the world and involved more than 10,000 men and women. It was called Study 191 and it stated, quite categorically, that 4.2% of men and 4.2% of women perpetrate the crime of domestic violence. In other words they had discovered that men and women are equally violent.

Surprised? Don’t be. It’s nothing new and to my knowledge (and to anyone else’s who has researched the matter) it has been known for at least 30 years.”

The Oprah Winfrey Show. Four men describe how their wives hit them in the lower back with a pole, cracked them over the head or in the neck with a frying pan…the audience renews its laughter after each story. The men are part of a “PMS Men’s Support Group.”

Item. “Michael, 38, a construction worker and amateur rugby player, barricaded himself in a spare bedroom at nights to avoid beatings from his diminutive wife. During a three-year marriage he was stabbed, punched, kicked and pelted with plant pots. Despite his muscular, 15-stone [210 lbs] build, he was frightened to sleep for fear of attack. ‘Nobody would have believed me if I’d told them the constant bruising was from beatings by my wife. I still have the scars from where she tore at my flesh with her fingernails. The screams from my daughter as she witnessed the abuse will haunt me for the rest of my life.'”

Item. “Paul, 32, a former Royal Marine, said his wife, Claire, an advertising executive, could suddenly become like ‘a ferocious wild cat.’ The slightest thing would set her off. ‘She would pull me to the ground, kick me and pull large clumps of hair out of my head. I never fought back because she was a slightly built, petite woman.'”

Item. A 42-year-old British police officer, trained in tackling armed criminals (British police don’t carry guns), was twice hospitalized by his 5-foot wife. He didn’t report it. When asked why, he explained, “If I was to go up to my mates on the force and tell them my wife was regularly hitting me over the head and body with anything she could get her hands on, they would crease themselves [die laughing].”

Notice that all three of these examples are from the London Times. It is rare for equally reputable American papers to run a story in which men’s feelings and experiences about being battered are reported in their own words in such depth. Notice also that the wives are clearly weaker physically, and the men are not the passive, hen-pecked stereotype of a battered man. And note the men’s fear that if they reported this to the authorities, not only would they not be believed, they would be ridiculed (“my mates…would crease themselves”).


It really doesn’t matter from which part of the world such reports come – they are almost carbon copies of each other. Same issue, same pattern. Same invisiblization. Why? Because we are dealing with men. Men are somehow seen as ONLY the perpetrator of Domestic Violence, not as victims and survivors of Domestic Violence.

Men, in terms of Domestic Violence, are where women were 50 years ago. There are few if any Hot-lines, shelters or programs for recovery for men and boys who are victims of Domestic Violence. This is true for most democratic countries.

While female victims of Domestic Violence are likely to be believed, all in accordance with the doctrine that all men are potential perpetrators, and only questioned as to why they didn’t/don’t leave – male victims of Domestic Violence are most likely not believed or are ridiculed by society if they expose their spouses as perpetrators of Domestic Violence. More often than not they are met by questions like: “Ok, so what did you do to her, before she beat you with the frying-pan?” The answer to that question is most likely “I was trying to get her to calm down…”

Most men, if not all, are aware that they are most often physically stronger than women. This awareness plays a great role in why men do not strike back if attacked by a woman. Radical Feminist Propaganda or not – most men have been thoroughly conditioned that hitting a woman is cowardly and unmanly, and most men, also those who are abusive of women, see it as a failure when they strike. So, men do not strike back because to do so would be a failure, a weakness.

More often than not a beaten man will try and find excuses for his abusive mate. “She’s premenstrual…” “she’s had a rough day with the kids…” “her father just died…” “she had a fall-out with her sister…” especially if the abuse takes place in public. He might even accept the abuse as deserved or warranted for some behavior he has or has not engaged in. This way he frees himself from the idea that he “cannot be man enough and control his wife…” – this pattern is equal to the pattern of guilt that a female victim will display in response to abuse.

One pattern that is the same regardless of gender in domestic violence situations is the compartmentalizing the victims engage in to survive. Each instance of abuse is isolated from the previous instances, as if it happens for the first time – at the same time the victim is desensitizing him or herself in preparation for the next instance.

It is a double bind – if a man uses his greater strength to get out of an abusive situation he is seen as the perpetrator, and if he doesn’t use his greater strength, he is seen as weak and unmanly.

The ever vicious cycle of stereotype, violence, stereotype…

Shalom

Posted in US | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

To Serve and Protect…

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on June 8, 2006


“It’s fine to put an abuse victim into a new house, but short of a legal name change, abusers can and do still find their victims, with tragic results. And let’s face it, if abusers are having difficulty locating their victims, there are private eyes who can do it for them.[…]No, IMHO the only solution is to treat abusers like criminals (toughen penalties and enforcement procedures). Then as soon as an abuser is charged, issue an automatic restraining order with a copy to the local police department. Then if the order is not enforced, charge the police officers with aiding and abetting a known criminal.” From Shari’s Blog.

I believe that this is a problem EVERYWHERE. I agree with Shari, failing to protect an alleged abuse victim should be punishable by law. If you cannot trust the police, then who can you trust?

One reason so many people, regardless of gender, ‘fail’ to report domestic violence and abuse, is because they ‘know’ that it will change nothing. At best it will award them a ridiculing or disbelieving laugh at worst they will be even more traumatized by the attending law enforcement officers and social workers. Restraining orders have a life of their own – they are issued when there is no need whatsoever, at the mere word of someone, f.i in a custody battle, but they are not issued when there really is a need for them, i.e when the abuse victim is right there in front of the police, bruises and all.

And as Shari points out – enforcing them, in the cases where they are issued, seems to be almost impossible. So, yes, some sort of ‘immediate restraint’ should be available until the allegations has been thoroughly investigated and either confirmed, in which case the culprit should be taken into custody by the judicial system, or cleared, at which the fraudulent abuse victim should be taken into custody. – My suggestion is that the alleged abuser should be fitted with an electronic shackle, alternately put in house arrest for the duration of the investigation – yes, this will mean that some innocent people would have to endure restrictions in their life for a limited time, but with appropriate compensation – i.e the incarceration of the fraudulent accuser – he or she would not suffer unduly.

Also, providing abuse victims with new identities and new living arrangements and locations should be mandatory in all cases where the abuse is confirmed – and it should be punishable with jail time to disclose the identity or whereabouts of confirmed abuse victims.

All in all I think we need to hold the law enforcement officers and social workers more accountable for the fact that so many restraining orders doesn’t seem to work or are issued in error. It should mean something when you fail to Serve and Protect.

Shalom!

Posted in Abuse | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Categories of Violence…

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on June 6, 2006



In order to prevent violence – domestic and other wise – one needs to be aware of what actually constitutes violence. I hope that after reading this Blog Entry, you will see this Entry ties in with a previous Blog Entry “Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics“.We normally associate ‘violence’ with physical agression, and it is something we have learned is men’s way of expressing themselves. Thus deliberately or not assuming that if something is not physical and not done by men it can possibly not be violence.

Well, that is wrong.

There are at least seven independent catergories of ‘violence’, each of them as painful and as damaging to the Human Organism.

  1. Physical
  2. Emotional
  3. Verbal
  4. Social
  5. Spiritual
  6. Sexual
  7. Intellectual

Let’s look at them individually:

Physical – generally thought of as ‘violence’ due to physical aggression. While it is true that physical agression is part of physical violence, it is far from the only expression of it. Physical abuse makes up the main bulk of physical violence, and that contains more and not necessarily ‘violent’ expressions. Neglect in terms of food, clothing and shelter or overindulging in the same catergories. Neglect of medical needs or inducing medical needs – often detected as Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy (a manner of physical violence that is virtually unknown to be perpetrated by men). Drug (including nicotine) or alcohol use during pregnancy, is another form of physical violence/abuse that is unique to women, but VERY common. Withholding of physical intimacy such as cuddling, hugging, kissing and touching, forced physical intimacy such as cuddling, hugging, kissing and touching. Forced physical activity or demands that sports be practiced or not practiced – failure to take into account a person’s actual physical capacity in regards to work, sports, physical recreation etc. Any kind of derogatory/degrading/diminishing acts or words in regards to another’s physical appearance or capacity.

Emotional – emotional violence/abuse is very often coupled with Physical violence/abuse. Withholding of support, encouragement, failing to teachg life-skills such as how to set boundaries etc., inproper display of emotions, subjecting to embarrasment, ridicule, belittling, or ignoring someone. Yelling, screaming, name-calling, threats, refusal to communicate, lies, inaccurate information. Inducing Fear and Anger as a means to control. Any kind of derogatory/degrading/dimishing of another’s emotions, emotional status or emotional capacity and skills. Inappropriate education in regards to emotions, such as “Big boys don’t cry”, “Suck it up!” etc. Demanding affection or dictating how affectionis to be expressed. Nagging. Guilt-tripping, manipulation through black-mail, threats of divorce, deprivation of affection, visitation rights etc.

Verbal – Verbal violence is probably the one kind of violence that we practice the most, yet fail to see as violence. It ties in with Emotional violence/abuse. Yelling, screaming, name-calling, refusal to communicate, swearing at, ridiculing, belittling. Then there are the more ‘subtle variations’, often referred to as “conversational bullying” – words are twisted, made out to mean something different than originally intended etc., sarcasms, irony, white lies, logical fallacies. It is also Vebal violence/abuse to neglect to teach children how to express themselves healthily and properly and how to defend themselves against Verbal Violence. Nagging, not respecting a non-communication wish, demanding verbal communication, dictating expressions of affection.

Social – Social violence/abuse apart from being simple things, such as demanding control over another’s social interaction, where he/she can go or not go, who he/she can see, talk to, interact with in other ways, including demanding certain behaviour in social situations is also a combination of Emotional and Verbal violence executed in Public – such shaming or embarrasing someone in public, laughing at them or making fun of them, practical jokes, April’s Fool’s jokes, hazing. It is also Social Violence/abuse to neglect to teach children basic proper social codes for interacting healthily with others, setting boundaries and defend themselves against Social Violence/abuse. Any kind of derogatory/degrading/diminishing acts or words in regards to another’s social appearance, standing or conduct. Denying personal privacy, such as reading diaries, letters, journals, going through belongings, not knocking and waiting for permission to enter.

Spiritual – Any kind of forced spirituality or denial of spirituality is Spiritual Violence/Abuse. Using religion to control another. Any kind of use of Spirituality in order to manipulate or force another to act or believe in accordance with your belief, in cluding missionizing to people is Spirtual Violence/Abuse. Failing to give children proper GENERAL spiritual information so they can form their own opinion and spirituality is spiritual violence/abuse. Threats, manipulations, forced prayer, reading, practicing of religious rituals is Spirtual violence/abuse. Any kind of derogatory/degrading/diminishing acts or words in regards to another’s spiritual path, expressions and/or practice.

Sexual – any kind of unwanted, improper or coercive act or words that has sexual content, including not respecting personal privacy in regards to nudity is sexual violence/abuse. Neglecting to educate accurately and correctly about sexual matters, including procreation, falling in love, relationships, including GLBT issues, or failing to do so is Sexual violence/abuse. Shaming for sexual conduct, forcing abortion or denying abortion, discussing sexual matters improperly or displaying sexual acts/action out-side a proper educational context is sexual abuse. Any kind of derogatory/degrading/diminishing actions or words in regards to another’s sexuality including sexual capacity or orientation.

Intellectual – Any kind of depravation of accurate, correct information, imparting faulty information, manipulation of facts, witholding of information, manipulation through logical fallcies, any kind of derogatory/degrading/diminishing of another’s ideas, logical skills, intelligence, cognitive skills. Failure to provide proper intellectual stimulation corresponding to a child’s or adult’s needs or wants. Failure to encourage intellectual exploration and aquisition of knowledge in accordance with personal wishes.

I am sure there are more ways – but this in my mind covers the subject well.

To connect this to my Blog Entry “Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics” I am sure it becomes clear that if we remove physical violence due to physical aggression from the Female side of the equation (that wouldn’t be entirely true, but for the purpose of discussion we can do that) it still leaves women 6 3/4 major ways of being violent. Now you do the statistical math.

Shalom!

Posted in Violence | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics…

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on June 1, 2006


“but according to available statistics, the incidences of abused men are lower than those of abused women.” Holly, comment to Shari’s Blog.

True, statistically. The question is what does the statistician consider abuse? Is he/she counting incidents reported to the police or did he/she take an anonymous poll from a World-Wide statistically representative population? Or, worst case scenario – he/she only counted incidents that led to actual legal charges.

My guess is that he/she counted incidents reported to the Police and /or incident that led to legal charges.

This presents us with some real problems:

1. Violence is defined by the denominator ‘men’ – which means that ‘violence’= ‘what men would do/are most likely to do’. This means that actions that cause just as much damage, if not more, but does not fall within the category of ‘what men would do/are most likely to do’ does not register on the ‘violence-meter’ on our statistician’s chart. Subsequently it is not included in the statistics.

2. Women are women, which means they are less likely to ‘do what men do and/or are most likely to do’. They have their own array of ‘violent actions’ that differ from that of men. They even have a couple that are almost unknown to be practiced by men.

3. Men and boys are less likely to report incidents of domestic violence or abuse, especially if the perpetrator is a mother or a spouse.

4. Women are still seen as ‘untouchable’ or ‘incapable of being violent’, which means that men and boys who do report abuse or domestic violence are less likely to be believed.

Now, if we stop defining violence from thepoint of view of what men might do, and instead look at the results of any kind of negative treatment of people as children or in spousal relationships, and if men and boys reported as often as women and girls, and if the idea of women as non-violent saints was erradicated – we would most likely come up with a 50-50 ratio in terms of statistics.

Shalom!

Posted in Domestic Violence | Tagged: , | 2 Comments »

 
%d bloggers like this: