[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
Hold on a second, please. I thought that women were equal to men. That’s what we’ve been told these last 40-odd years. So why would women need “protection”?
[/QUOTE]
Ahem. Since I didn’t notice anyone else pointing this out :
A shotgun and the willingness to kill trumps an unarmed person with no place to run or dodge any time, whether the gunner is male or female. Switch genders and the result would have been the same.
Seeing as how I’ve told Carol Stream not to continue her discussion in this thread, I think it’s only fair to ask that people who wish to respond to her remarks in this thread also do so elsewhere. Note that this isn’t intended to be a rebuke to anyone who has posted thus far.
[QUOTE=DiosaBellissima]
I know this is totally off topic (well not totally, but you know), but are there shelters for battered husbands and children? I mean, I know the occurance is much less frequent and the necessity is probably much lower, but I’m just curious if such places exist?
[/QUOTE]
I know for a fact that there are indeed shelters for battered husbands too. There is one somewhere in Oklahoma that is run by the same orginization that I sheltered in some years back. My counselor mentioned it in passing, when talking about the stigma of being a battered spouse, she said it was much less palatable for a male, and that many of the males that showed up at the shelter for them had to learn not to feel shame, or less of a man because their spouse was abusive.
[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
Before this starts into a hijack, MY theory as to why we hear more about battered women, and why it was always seen as worse to hit women than men is simply because men tend to be PHYSICALLY stronger than women. Not all the time, but the majority.
Take my parents, for example. If my mother were to slap my father across the face, using all of her strength, she’d probably leave a pretty good bruise on his cheek. On the other hand, if my father were do the same, again, using all of his strength, my mother would probably end up with a dislocated and/or broken jaw, and probably lose most of her teeth.
[/QUOTE]
Good lord, not only am I agreeing with you, Guin, but I’m doing so in the Pit. Make a note in your journal. 
I’m six foot two, and..uh…pudgy. My wife is four foot eleven. I, however, am a devout pacifist ( much as I might rage with the pen here, I don’t believe in violence face to face in any form ). My wife, OTOH, is a 1st don Black Belt in Tae Kwon Do. When we fight verbally, she’s the one to throw pillows, slam her fists into the wall and so on.
Were she ever to lose control and beat me, I wouldn’t raise a hand to stop her. I’d run like hell, yeah- but hit back? Nope. As Guin pointed out, sheer physicality would mean I might harm her terribly, in a way she might or might not harm me.
I know that I would be arrested immediately for abusing her and thrown into jail, blood and injuries notwithstanding. -shrug- It is the way of the world. Abused husbands are but a tiny percentage next to abused wives/ female partners. Doesn’t mean they shouldn’t also have a safe place to go. Just means the entire law enforcement/judicial/ social attitude position is to arrest the male, and protect the female. Because the numbers justify this approach.I don’t agree with it, but I completely understand it.
I’ve no clue where the womens shelter is in my county, and I have friends who work in Social Service and have takena few injured women to the local hospital when I rode with the ambulance corps. We were never asked to transport someone to the shelter- it was done completely off the radar, by hospital persoonal
Cartooniverse
[QUOTE=Cartooniverse]
Abused husbands are but a tiny percentage next to abused wives/ female partners.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, estimates of the ratio of abused women to abused men tends to run anywhere from 3:1 to 1:1. For a host of reasons (from embarrassment to ineffectual injuries) the abuse of men is seriously underreported. I really doubt that men need shelter to help them avoid violent attacks because I suspect that the number of fatal woman-on-man abuse cases is as low as you expressed, but in terms of raw numbers, women are quite likely to be physically abusive, even if somewhat (not massively) less frequently than men.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Actually, estimates of the ratio of abused women to abused men tends to run anywhere from 3:1 to 1:1. For a host of reasons (from embarrassment to ineffectual injuries) the abuse of men is seriously underreported. I really doubt that men need shelter to help them avoid violent attacks because I suspect that the number of fatal woman-on-man abuse cases is as low as you expressed, but in terms of raw numbers, women are quite likely to be physically abusive, even if somewhat (not massively) less frequently than men.
[/QUOTE]
Do you have some reliable cites for these numbers? Genuinely curious, not just making a cite-attack. These numbers really surprise me, and I wonder if they’re defining “abused” differently from how I’d define it.
Daniel
I have no idea at all how reliable this site is at all-
Martin S. Fiebert (California State University, Long Beach), has compiled a list (mentioned in Wikipedia) of studies from which he estimates that woman-on-man physical abuse is actually higher than man-on-woman abuse: REFERENCES EXAMINING ASSAULTS BY WOMEN ON THEIR SPOUSES OR MALE PARTNERS: AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY. In the early 1980s, I saw more than one study (long since forgotten as to author, sponsor, or publication) indicating that women accounted for 35% of assaults on spouses.
I have no particular vested interest in pushing any particular number (which is why I noted the rather large range of 3:1 to 1:1). I have no idea how sound Dr. Fiebert’s methodology is and, as I noted, regardless the number of assaults, the number of fatal assaults (or assaults resulting in serious injury) is skewed heavily toward male aggressors. I just figured that it should be noted that physical aggression (even if impotent) is not uniquely male.
[QUOTE=DiosaBellissima]
Guin, I fully agree on the strength thing- I don’t see how anyone could disagree, really. Of course, I also think we hear about battered women more often than battered men because or society has a stigma against men getting “beaten up by a girl.” I’d imagine it’s much more rare for a man to come forward (and be taken seriously) about such abuse than a woman.
Which is why I was curious about the shelter thing.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, it’s both things. The previous Spanish government made sure to get male cops trained in “domestic violence”, precisely to avoid the case where a guy goes to say “my wife just hit the crap out of me with a metal prybar” and gets laughed at.
The current Spanish government wrote a law about “gender violence” which sent the Academies of the Spanish Language into hissy fits.
Spanish doesn’t use “gender” to refer to people. Words have male or female genders. People are of the male or female sex. The RAES considered this to be a stupid (for innecesary) direct copy from English.
Referring all the time to abuse of a woman by a man leaves out all the cases of same-sex couples, parents on kids, kids on parents, woman on man, roommates, etc etc. The idea should be to prevent and heal the consequences of abuse in general… not “just” beatings of a woman by her man.
While point #2 can be construed as “not the business of a linguistic authority”, the fact is that right now a man who’s beaten by his woman or a daughter beaten by her mother get a lot less protection than a woman beaten by her man; the perps also face much lower punishments and don’t get counseling and whatnot which has been put in place for the wifebeaters. So maybe it wasn’t the business of a linguistic authority but nobody said good writers can’t double up as concerned citizens.
During the previous government’s mandate, there were a couple cases on TV about guys as accusers (in Spain most cases where the victim ends up in the hospital or worse, as well as any which are seen as unusual, is shown on TV… from US TV you’d think there’s no domestic violence over there, IME and YMMV and all). One of them had been put up in a “middle house” normally used by immigrants, migrant field hands, etc; I don’t remember about the other one. So while there weren’t, and AFAIK aren’t, houses specifically for battered males in Spain, the government agencies and NPOs dealing with these problems were able to find alternatives.
Caritas (catholic church) and the Red Cross are the biggest NPOs both for migrants of all kinds and for battered spouses, here. They work closely with the workers’ unions to get or increase qualifications of their charges, too.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
I have no particular vested interest in pushing any particular number (which is why I noted the rather large range of 3:1 to 1:1). I have no idea how sound Dr. Fiebert’s methodology is and, as I noted, regardless the number of assaults, the number of fatal assaults (or assaults resulting in serious injury) is skewed heavily toward male aggressors. I just figured that it should be noted that physical aggression (even if impotent) is not uniquely male.
[/QUOTE]
I’d no idea the numbers were that close. I suspect that Andrew Dworkin just crossed you off of her Christmas Basket List. :rolleyes: Or, would have if she were still alive…
What’s the most reliable method of protecting oneself from one’s abusive stalking ex-SO? A gun.
Who’d be more likely to be convicted of murder if they protected themselves in this way, a man or a woman? (And before you even waffle, remember that society is set up to always believe the woman about abuse, so men that are being abused are even accused of being the abuser by the woman!)
So on a person-to-person basis, I’d say that males need shelter more than women if they are being physically abused because society will not condone fighting back (without or without a weapon.) OTOH, while I’m not sure that even the percentage prevalence of physical abuse is different between the genders, I readily believe that males are more likely to couple physical abuse with stalking behavior, so the percentage of women needing shelters is higher.
I think the women needing shelter part has a lot to do with (a) their lower earnings, (b) a tendency among men towards lethal abuse, and most of all © the need to get the children away from these men. Bringing the kids along complicates matters considerably, since they have to be fed, clothed, and supervised.
Aren’t men in need more likely to make use of garden-variety homeless shelters? I thought those were more dangerous for women; they have a reputation for not being terribly safe, anyway, and for harboring petty thieves. My MIL chose a battered women shelter over a homeless facility for that reason.
[QUOTE=wring]
only if you believe that 1 +3 is identical to 4.
[/QUOTE]
Are women the 1 or are men the 3?
[QUOTE=Will Repair]
Are women the 1 or are men the 3?
[/QUOTE]
The 1 is clearly a phallic symbol, representing the male, whereas the 3 implies mammaries, representing the female.
And I disagree with those who suggest that the locations should be secret. “Security through obscurity” is not effective in the long run. The security of the location should not be dependent on people not knowing where it is. For one, it’s really hard to keep that kind of thing secret. If the phone company could accidentally print the address, how many people have access to it? From the linked story, it appears that the security was: a single locked door. If the locations were actually secure, with multiple doors, ideally operated by remote from inside, then people would be much safer. Plus it would obviate the danger that you’d have to completely up and move the shelter when the location did get out.
These stories, no matter the victim’s sex or gender, make me ill.
And what do you bet some moronic judge will give custody to the dad?
Poor kid. We are such an interesting species. :mad: 
[QUOTE=iamthewalrus(:3=]
And I disagree with those who suggest that the locations should be secret. “Security through obscurity” is not effective in the long run. The security of the location should not be dependent on people not knowing where it is. For one, it’s really hard to keep that kind of thing secret. If the phone company could accidentally print the address, how many people have access to it? From the linked story, it appears that the security was: a single locked door. If the locations were actually secure, with multiple doors, ideally operated by remote from inside, then people would be much safer. Plus it would obviate the danger that you’d have to completely up and move the shelter when the location did get out.
[/QUOTE]
It’s already difficult to convince many women to leave their abusers and go to a shelter. How much more difficult will it be if they become super-high-security prisons (in the eyes of the typical abused woman (and don’t think abusers won’t play this aspect up to their victims if it were to happen)).
[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
So you agree that men and women are not equal.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, Sparky.
Men have a penis, women have a vagina.
/Kindergarden Cop
:rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Giraffe]
Seeing as how I’ve told Carol Stream not to continue her discussion in this thread, I think it’s only fair to ask that people who wish to respond to her remarks in this thread also do so elsewhere. Note that this isn’t intended to be a rebuke to anyone who has posted thus far.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry, I missed this.
Feel free to ignore my last comment.
[QUOTE=Eva Luna]
I know where the one in my hometown is, because my mom used to run an emergency social services referral program. A few years ago we wanted to go there to donate some clothing and bed linens, and they were VERY cagey about even letting us leave the stuff on the front step. It took a lot of talking on Mom’s part before they would even let us make a direct donation rather than donating through the affiliated larger social service agency, but we were adamant that we wanted the stuff to go directly to the shelter.
Finally, they decided that the two 5’1" women standing on the front step, one of whom knew all the details of their referral procedures, were not a threat.
[/QUOTE]
Regrettably those procedures are necessary. Poisoning/tainting food or other items is a common trick for these bastards.
Also, I am sorry to say, two 5’1" women can be a very serious threat. There are so many female enablers of these men, sisters, mothers, friends, girlfriends, etc…, they are willing to do their dirty work for them.
I remember one female enabler who was married to a pedophile, my husband caught them 3 months from his release from prison. He had intercepted letters, in code, that indicated she had been adopting children for his use when he got out. They had described detailed sexual encounters in these letters. She was rounding up victims for him. They met, via a pen pal program that links inmates up with people on the streets (not sponsored by the prison).
Shocking though it is, she was never prosecuted, and although the inmate was held in prison longer, my husband had to justify himself to the legislative oversight committee in charge of prisons on why he continued to ban her from visiting, labeling her an accomplice. She had written her state rep who informed the committee that there was no conviction and to label her an accomplice is unconstitutional.
Hubby won in the end, because, thank god, there is still sense in government.
[QUOTE=Elenfair]
What do we have to do?
[/QUOTE]
Heads on pikes might work, but the practice seems to have gone out of fashion.