Domestic Violence: On Real Victims

by Paul Elam on October 27, 2010

From A Voice for Men

For those of you who have read my short bio, you know that I became involved in men’s activism because of misandry in the mental health field, where I worked as an addictions counselor for 20 years.  The recent debate on this site between myself and a generic feminist took me back a few years to some very familiar arguments that were commonplace with my peers when I was counseling.

That feminist reminded me of the ideologues I used to work with. What he does not know, and doesn’t want to know about the subject could fill Lake Superior.  And despite his allegations of indifference, even sadistic enjoyment on my part about violence against women, his knowledge about me is equally lacking.

In the world of drug addicts and alcoholics, violence in the home is as common as lost jobs, DUI’s and a litany of other life problems.  And my experience in dealing with it leaves an impression in my mind vastly different than you see broadcast in public service announcements, and what you hear from gender activists that make their bread and butter from the problem.

Somewhere in all of us, I think, by virtue of systematic brainwashing, is the idea that domestic violence is epitomized by a frail and battered woman, quietly weeping and huddled in a dark corner. We have been trained, through the hypnotic repetition of misinformation, to conjure the image of male monster driven by the insatiable need for control, pummeling his wife or girlfriend because her independence threatens him.

Do such monsters exist? Certainly. I have spoken with many of them. Some are guilt ridden over their actions, some are sociopathic and unrepentant, rationalizing that their misdeeds are justified. All of them are wrong.

But of course to be fair, and more importantly truthful, my memory has no shortage of women who also fill the bill.  I have dealt with many who slapped, punched, kicked and clawed their partners out of anger and frustration, and just like a few of the men, out of the sick desire for dominance.  The only real difference between the two is that I found significantly less remorse in the women.  I have always attributed that to the fact that their violence was never taken as seriously as the men’s, and never as stigmatized by social taboo.  It didn’t make any of them less wrong.

But here’s the rub. The use of violence as a premeditated, ongoing tool to maintain primacy in a relationship was always an infinitesimally small percentage of what I saw in the people I worked with.  It was the extreme exception that somehow (read feminism) achieved inculcation into public consciousness as the norm, with a male in the role of perpetrator.

From working with countless families affected by the problem, I can tell you what domestic violence really is.  It’s a couple, one or both of them drunk, escalating a fight till it gets physical.  It’s two desperate, our of control people, clawing at each other out of fear and rage.  It’s impulse, reckless dysfunction that as many times as not has the two people in the bedroom enjoying make up sex not long after it is over, and then building the tension between them till it happens again.

It is people who cannot or will not manage conflict in a way that is peaceful, and it does not belong to one sex over the other any more than it belongs to one hair color over the other.

In fact, if you want to understand who is at most risk for violence in the home, take an equally hard look at poverty and drugs, especially alcohol. Looking at anything else first, especially the sex of perpetrators and victims, is fruitless. Unless, of course, there happens to be a buck in it for you or you have a political ax to grind.

In fact, if you want to know the real truth, we have screwed up the whole concept of perpetrators and victims when it comes to domestic violence.  What I witnessed over two decades of dealing with the realities on the ground gave me a completely different view than you find in coffee house conversations.

When it comes to domestic violence, the real perpetrators are adults and the real victims are children.

And until we start to understand this, and act on it in good faith, we will achieve nothing more than further pitting men and women against each other, and leaving more children devastated in the wake of their battles.

Children who witness violence between their parents are traumatized by it.  And I mean that in the literal sense. I have spoken with countless couples that recounted their battles with each other, sometimes sadly, but often as dispassionately as two people talking about playing checkers.  They even laughed, together, at the absurdity of their actions.  And let’s face it, rather than being there to arrange escape and protection plans, they were there trying to figure out how to stay together and solve problems.

Talking to their children was vastly different.  That is where I saw the most, and the most genuine, tears.  Usually, all it took was a question.

“What is it like for you when Mom and Dad fight?”

Many of them, when hearing this simple question, which neither parent had likely ever asked, were overcome in a swell of raw, unyielding pain. They often struggled to steady their quivering lips, and fight back tears as they talked. Others just walled off, keeping their eyes down, shrugging their shoulders and forbidding me to enter the world of their pain.

Many of them, though, did tell me their stories.  I got to hear how they covered their heads with pillows at night, trying to block out the noise.  Others learned to escape in their own minds, retreating into fantasy. Still others tried to intervene, to become the only adult in the house, and to protect one parent from the other.   And yes, they were often trying to protect their fathers.

As I did my job and dug into their lives, I found the real legacy of their parent’s actions. It came in the form of school failure, fighting, drug use, thoughts of suicide, social withdrawal, hopelessness, despair and anger.

Anger.

And it was an anger they were destined to carry with them; baggage to be hefted and lugged into their adult lives, tainting their image of themselves and others; wrecking their chances to trust the likes of love or put stock in the notion of family. A gift from Mom and Dad in the form of scars.

I didn’t blame them for being angry.  When I heard their stories I was angry, too. Sometimes I wanted to grab both parents and smack them myself. But mostly I just sat and watched as they pointed at each other and cast blame.

You know, we put a lot of effort into finding a solution to domestic violence.  And we put a great deal of energy into supposedly helping the victims of this social malady.  As well we should.

It is the contention of many MRA’s, and we are right to think so, that we need to de-gender the problem.  We point to the fact that women are, as often as men, the initiators of violence. We lament the fact that social services all but deny the existence of male victims. Again, rightfully so.

But if we are ever to understand and redress the difficulties we face over this problem, I contend that we need to take a more somber and sober look at who is really paying the price for all of it.

And we need to understand that parents with children who have repeated violence in the home are abusing them, literally wrecking their futures, regardless of anything as trivial as who hit who first, or who got the biggest bruise.

What we have now is a system that only takes the petty squabble between two immature people and elevates it to the national level.  We have turned our collective understanding of domestic violence into a macrocosm of a childish, vindictive, marital spat, ever seeking someone to blame for being the real problem.

And it underscores the importance of organizations like S.A.V.E. and DAHMW, run by people who are more interested in solving the problem than in simply pointing fingers.

I hope, and I certainly encourage other MRA’s, that as we continue quest of cutting though all the garbage science and concocted factoids about domestic violence, that we make it a point to remind people that we are not engaged in a pissing match with women, or even necessarily with feminists. We are really trying to educate a woefully ignorant public about who pays the price for all these lies.  I know that wrongly accused men do pay, and it is a horrible injustice, but the real sacrificial lambs are our sons and daughters. They never asked for any of this.

And as I read back through the debate, I found myself at fault for failing to more adequately bring that to the table.  If there was ever any doubt about whether or not the debate was worth it in my mind, at least that much has been resolved.

I won’t make the same mistake again.

Vote on this article at Reddit HERE.

{ 54 comments… read them below or add one }

IurnMan83 October 27, 2010 at 16:20

As I did my job and dug into their lives, I found the real legacy of their parent’s actions. It came in the form of school failure, fighting, drug use, thoughts of suicide, social withdrawal, hopelessness, despair and anger.

Anger.

Wow. So. Very True. Nothing more I can say.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0
CashingOut October 27, 2010 at 16:50

Many of them, though, did tell me their stories. I got to hear how they covered their heads with pillows at night, trying to block out the noise. Others learned to escape in their own minds, retreating into fantasy. Still others tried to intervene, to become the only adult in the house, and to protect one parent from the other. And yes, they were often trying to protect their fathers.

As I did my job and dug into their lives, I found the real legacy of their parent’s actions. It came in the form of school failure, fighting, drug use, thoughts of suicide, social withdrawal, hopelessness, despair and anger.

Anger.

You hit the nail on the head. This article made me a bit misty eyed, I can relate to this a lot more than I would like to.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 0
SingleDad October 27, 2010 at 16:55

I agree with you Dr. Paul, abuse in the house is felt the most by children. And, I would add that children suffer the most from divorce.

With male/female long term relationships being, as I can see, nearly impossible in our society, the West, I cannot avoid the conclusion that bringing a child into this society is child abuse.

I speak with the experience of seeing every day what it is doing to my son.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 0
Lovekraft October 27, 2010 at 17:39

Divorce is very damaging to children. It is like having the floor pulled out from under you. With a divison emerging between your kind, and others with complete homes.

When I reached adulthood, I blatantly sought out firsthand explanations from my parents, and others who would have been involved at the time. For my mother’s sake, I pulled my punches, but essentially told her that I cannot associate with her family due to subtle urging by them that I renounce my father and … what? Become some pawn, victim, toy? F-that!

I then required this: Confession or Compensation. Either this baby-boomer generation wake up and admit their lifechoices affected their children detrimentally, or cover it up and compensate financially for lost years.

This hasn’t happened, nor is it likely to ever happen. Sadly, my generation was passed over in light of feminist family-destroying policies, but this site, and sites like A Voice For Men, are clearing out the underbrush and presenting clear choices to couple who choose to have children: clear up your damaged psyches, or be ready later in life to either Confess or Compensate for your failure.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0
WOW October 27, 2010 at 18:05

The major problem is that abuse is a one sided debate perpetuated by radical feminists. Invite men (not blind white knights) into the debate if we all want to end/decrease domestic violence/abuse. Men’s voices need to be heard. Women’s behaviour ALSO needs to be exposed and corrected if you really want to fix the issue of partner abuse (DV).

We’ll never fix the issue of DV if women (via feminist indoctrination) do not accept that they are 50% part of the problem.

Men’s behaviour is exposed every minute of everyday…men get it…women don’t!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 0
WOW October 27, 2010 at 18:06

How many boys would say Hallelujah if someone, anyone, actually acknowledged that the females they deal with on a regular basis are not all sugar and spice. And that many are emotionally and “socially” abusive towards boyfriends but always get the free pass because of their gender.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 0
Shawn P October 27, 2010 at 18:20

Brought tears to my eyes too.
Much to relate to here, but 1 thing is certain, I aint never gonna let such happen to my Kids !!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
Traveller October 27, 2010 at 18:25

“I know that wrongly accused men do pay, and it is a horrible injustice, but the real sacrificial lambs are our sons and daughters. They never asked for any of this.”

So men are not really sacrificed?
Or they asked for it?

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 22
Paul Elam October 27, 2010 at 18:42

@ Traveller

You cannot be seriously asking that question, or can you?

criolle johnny October 27, 2010 at 18:55

On the subject of D/V, a study was mentioned by Carey Roberts today:
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2010/10/27/stacy-bannermans-domestic-violence-hoax/

He mentioned a study by Richard Heyman of State University of New York – Stony Brook. I’ve been able to locate the name of said study, I think:
“Treating intimate partner violence in military families”, but I’ve been unable to locate a link to this study.
The ratio of FEMALE SOLDIER initiated violence (4.4%) as opposed to
MALE SOLDIER initiated (2.5%) revealed in this study is particularly interesting.

Can anyone locate this study?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 6
codebuster October 27, 2010 at 19:48

Thank you Paul, this is perhaps the most important post that I have seen on the DV debate. Everything else pales into insignificance. With mainstream debates focusing on two immature (adult) parties arguing their own perspectives, the real victims never got air-time. Why?

1) Children do not get in our faces. They don’t know how to raise conscious wareness regarding their plight;
2) Children do not know how to lobby politicians or the media to voice outrage at the injustices perpetrated against them;
3) Children do not go on marches to take back the night;
4) Children don’t know how to assert their rights. They don’t know how to seek protection in dv shelters;
5) Abused children must bear their pain in silence, because when they no longer have their parents to protect them, they have no way of being heard.

And of course, children go on to become adults who are likely to repeat what they first learned from their parents.

Feminist pigs are granted free reign to peddle their own agenda, built on a foundation of lies, without opposition from anyone. And we’ve been buying into it.

Commonsense tells us that chivalry and the “never-hit-a-woman” taboo, in conjunction with romantic movies where women routinely slap men for drama and effect will easily offset physical size and strength in the majority of cases. Just because those idiot feminists set the terms of the debate does not mean that we should be obliged to follow through. Let their solipsism and their self-indulgence show them up as the most obnoxious, most selfish, repugnant and repulsive human beings to which human history has ever born witness.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 0
Licorne Negro October 27, 2010 at 20:47

@Traveller
I think that Mr. Elam said that, although men suffers from DV and divorce and have no one for them in most cases, they are at least adults, and can cope better with that.
Men ARE sacrificial lambs in the altar of feminism. Men ARE victims of abuse, both by women and by society (government, media et all). But, men CAN unite and make their voices heard, men CAN fight back, or at least go their own way and get off of this feminist bullshit.
Children, on the other hand, don’t have how to protect themselves. I myself, as a son of an feminist, abusive (and clinically schizophrenic) single mother can say: Children, being dependent on adults, are completely at mercy of this corrupt system.
That is not that men don’t suffer. But kids have it worse.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 0
Licorne Negro October 27, 2010 at 20:48

@Paul Elam
If I interpreted you wrongly, please, tell me.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Paul Elam October 27, 2010 at 21:32

If I interpreted you wrongly, please, tell me.

I was just about to thank you for joining the choir of people who actually read and understood what I was saying.

You are right on the money, sir.

BoxANT October 27, 2010 at 22:28

My mother came from an abusive family, both parents drunks (both eventually died from it), and she can still vividly recall the horror stories (even now that she is in her 50s, it still effects her). However, it was her mother who was truly violent (when drunk), and it was her father who took the brunt of the physical abuse.

The real victims are the children, and studies have shown the traumatic events in early childhood have *lifelong* consequences on health and brain development that are basically irreversible. There are very few things that make me burn with rage, but child abuse is one of them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
fondueguy October 28, 2010 at 00:02

The statement that the kids are the biggest victims is true.

But I see nothing wrong with digging down and focusing on male victim compared to female victims. The argument has alot of merit and even if your not thinking about bigger ideas like how to help get rid of DV as much as can be done. Your still standing by important principles and you would he helping people.

Its not short sighted, especially in a culture like this, and such a “pissing contest” would have such a broad impact as it should. Male victims, men’s rights and dignities are all very worthy causes to be devoted to If nothing else.

However, I could agree with the point that the biggest victims of DV in general are simply the children. I can also agree with what codebuster was saying; that the MRM doesn’t have to fight on feminists entirely terms (where the focus is which gender is worse) but actually try to help fix the problem using the truth. But we do have to ask ourselves would we be so focused on DV if it had not been for feminist… A huge part of the reason we care so much about DV for the time being is about equity which I’m ok with.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2
Paul Elam October 28, 2010 at 00:24

@ Fondueguy

Good post and I agree with you. Certainly most MRA’s, myself being no exception, do well to focus a lot on the gender divide.

I just think that sometimes it really is best point dispassionately to the people who feminists have always hurt most, children, and make make some fence sitters rethink their position.

thehermit October 28, 2010 at 01:02

We’ll never fix the issue of DV if women (via feminist indoctrination) do not accept that they are 50% part of the problem.

The biggest problem with this is that physical abuse is mostly male. Women use other methods, and they are Grand Masters at emotional and verbal abuse.
In many cases they are practicing it for years, tormenting their partners, before the man slaps them in the face first. It’s all about hurting someone who you were in love once (or you are still in love). So it is always a two side game.

Now, the physical abuse is easy to prove and criminalise. The others- what women love to practice- are not so. But even when a women attacks you physically, i’m not sure there will be visible signs of it, just because an avg man is much stronger then an avg woman.

As i said, it’s easier for the society to criminalize men, and continue believing that women are only victims. Hypocrisy again.

Feminists know that, and keep lying.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2
Coastal October 28, 2010 at 01:47

OT:

Femihag: paternity testing removes from women a ‘powerful instrument of choice’

http://tinyurl.com/2vps6re

…oh, by the way, The Speccie is a nominally conservative mag.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3
Philip October 28, 2010 at 03:49

Very true about the kids suffering Paul, the poor kid with his head under the covers reminds me of my niece crying about my slut sister.

At my sisters bbq we run out of larger (shock horror) so i offer to walk to the local shop. The niece (she was 6 or 8) insists on coming with me, a bit of nice company i thought.
Half way there she starts to sob ” i’m scared, uncle”
“hey dont be scared with me” i said
“No, on a weekend” niece said
“What do you mean” im worryed now
“Saturday nights, mom brings strange men home and i cant sleep because of the noise, and im scared”
I got vision of my sister being blasted on booze kicking baby sitter out then banging guy’s. My poor nice hearing it all and worrying that her mom will fall into a drunken sleep, then some guy will burst into her room.
Shit like that just makes me want ooooooo do some damage or something.
Dont worry though my niece is fine (18 now) and as far as i know she is not the tough slut her mother is. My influence made sure of that and last christmas she told me i was like the dad she never had (i was floored).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
Philip October 28, 2010 at 03:51

Fuck that smiley should be eight and Bracket 8) should be 8 ) …….shit

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
POIUYT October 28, 2010 at 04:01

Perpetual experience of violations and abuses to their person and standing, encountered by children, by men and even by women, that this article points to, as a consequence of feminism, stems more than from the genders themselves, as from the political majorities social sentiment of femaleism that is institutionaly enforced by the inexorable State, at the point of a gun.

We, as a genderist, a sexist and a discriminatory society, have accepted the femaleist social and cultural model which suggests that all other members of families and of other personal and impersonal relations, everywhere and everytime, rightly stand lower in status, lower in level and always inferior in footing to the woman, whatever her behaviour, conduct, character or circumstance.

Now how in these inherently conflict ladden and attuned circumstances, can any child, any man or any woman for that matter, find a place of peace, happiness, security, personal safety, stability or mere consistency to exist from ?

When looked at from these universal values, universal ethics and universal morals points of view, we can easily see that the innocent individuals’ problems in this society, originate in the absurdities, bigotries, conceits, inconsistencies, delusions and paradoxes of this societies gender obsessed culture. And all these things go well beyond feminism into the very malign fabric of the polity willfully chosen by all and sundry as a social code of conduct.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Augenblick October 28, 2010 at 04:48

Woman Kills Baby For Interrupting Farmville Session
A 22 year-old woman from Jacksonsville, Florida has pleaded guilty to killing her baby son over a game of…Farmville.

http://jacksonville.com/david-hunt/2010-10-27/story/jacksonville-mom-who-shook-baby-interrupting-computer-game-pleads-2nd

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4
zed October 28, 2010 at 06:09

How about a follow-up article, Paul – On Real Perpetrators, Real Enablers, and UN-real Victims?

Once again, the server glitched on me and I lost a killer comment I had just written. (I really need to start copying every comment to notepad before I hit submit) The muse has flown, so I won’t be able to recreate it entirely. I’m going to rewrite at least the message of what I was trying to say, however, because I think it is important that we widen our focus in discussing these issues.

I get your point about the relentless propaganda machine. However, I guess I am not one of the “us” you mention, because the images and ideas you describe are not part of my thinking. I must be one of “them.” I am strangely unmoved by phrases like “the real victims” or invocations of “won’t someone think of THE CHILDREN?” The argument of the False Rape Accusation deniers is that “the real victims” of false rape accusations are those poor women who have been raped who will now “feel unsafe” to report it. Never mind those irrelevant men and boys who have had their lives ruined. It is very possible to play on emotions about a problem as a way of avoiding have to actually deal with it.

Regardless of who the addict is in a family system, they require enablers to allow the system dynamic to continue. The propaganda machine you describe certainly does define classes of worthy victims and unworthy victims.

When is violence not violence? Well, obviously this culture believes when it is committed by a worthy victim (in almost all cases a woman) against an unworthy victim (a male of any age.)

When Mary Winkler murdered her husband in cold blood by shooting him the back with a shotgun, then tearing the phone out of the wall and watching him bleed to death, I suppose it can be argued that his 3 daughters were “the real victims.” They certainly have to live with that occurrence in their lives, and without a father to protect them from their homicidal mother. He is dead – little more than a footnote to the story, now.

But who ripped them out of the safety of living with their grandparents and put them back under the control of this homicidal woman?

The blindness caused by fanatical devotion to the cult of the moral mother prevents anyone who even tries to do something for “the real victims” from being able to do anything other than experience their guts twisting with outrage.

If we can’t get men, judges in particular but also all the rest of the “us” that you mention, to become able to recognize female violence for what it is, the only thing we can do is stand by and observe and document the problem in impotent outrage.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2
Kathy October 28, 2010 at 07:06

“The biggest problem with this is that physical abuse is mostly male. Women use other methods, and they are Grand Masters at emotional and verbal abuse.
In many cases they are practicing it for years, tormenting their partners, before the man slaps them in the face first”

Very well said, the hermit.

Women are very adept at goading.. They push and they push…until the guy cracks. Verbal and emotional abuse are just as bad as physical abuse.

” Now, the physical abuse is easy to prove and criminalise. The others- what women love to practice- are not so. But even when a women attacks you physically, i’m not sure there will be visible signs of it, just because an avg man is much stronger then an avg woman.”

Very true..

So hard for the poor guy.. Not to mention he will most likely cop flak from other men too.

It’s a catch twenty two situation.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 14
C.B. October 28, 2010 at 07:49

Paul, thank you so much for this thoughtful essay.
You are correct domestic violence is certainly not only “men hitting women”. Men are more often than not the ones who are physically attacked by their romantic partners, and in general; most men I know would never dream of physically attacking anyone, let alone a woman, without the most extreme provocation or in defense, this is not weakness this is maturity and being an adult.
Sadly, so many women and girls today feel that it is ok to physically, verbally, emotionally, etc. attack and abuse the males in their life, with no fear of repercussions and no remorse for their actions, this is EVIL plain and simple. There is no excuse or reason for this behavior or for the thought processes/excuses behind it, you and other MRA’s are fighting against such things and anyone who cares about the welfare of their family and our future generations needs to join the fight, this is destroying us from the inside.
You are also most correct when you point out that the real victims of domestic violence are children. Children do not have the capacity to understand what is going on when their parents fight, especially if said fighting involves violence of any kind.
I grew up with a father who abused my mother and each of his children (2 boys & 2 girls) in varied ways and it affected each of us in profound and unique ways. Thankfully each of us has been able to deal with our issues and not hate and abuse others because of someone else’s behavior.
And not having a good father in our lives growing up and as adults is a huge hole that each of us would love to have filled, nothing replaces a father in the life of a child. Having a bad father drove home to me how invaluable that relationship is, father and child, and not to hate all men for one person’s problems.
Thank you so much for what you are doing and for this essay.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
zed October 28, 2010 at 08:27

You are also most correct when you point out that the real victims of domestic violence are children. Children do not have the capacity to understand what is going on when their parents fight, especially if said fighting involves violence of any kind.

I grew up with a father who abused my mother and each of his children (2 boys & 2 girls) in varied ways and it affected each of us in profound and unique ways.

I believe, very strongly, that if we as men want to address the real issues that we need to stay out of ruts of thinking which are so well worn that they are easy to slip into, and very difficult to stay out of.

In our culture today, there is a lot of encouragement to “dog-pile on the bad man”, or “the bad dad.” Not only does that ignore the phenomenon of female violence like this –

so many women and girls today feel that it is ok to physically, verbally, emotionally, etc. attack and abuse the males in their life, with no fear of repercussions and no remorse for their actions

but it isolates a moment in time and tries to sever it from any ties to either past or future.

Probably the most important point I’m trying to make is that every single one of these “bad dads” was at some point in time “a children” himself. It is well known that family violence, like alcoholism, runs in families. The incredible lie that it is randomly distributed across the entire population of males is an evil lie within a huge body of evil lies. Most people who engage in Domestic Violence grew up in homes which were domestically violent.

So, the little boy who grew up in a violent home – whether that violence was at the hands of his mother or his father – has the same difficulties with personal boundaries that a girl who grows up in such a home has. Those children do not understand personal boundaries because their parents had none, and violated the boundaries of the children as standard operating procedure. Thus, when they grow up they are always “leaking” past other people’s boundaries, and allowing others to “leak” past theirs.

If we wish to actually do something about this situation – instead of simply wringing our hands and lamenting it – the question must be asked, discussed, and resolved if possible: “at what point in time does a man cross that invisible boundary between being “a children”, and therefore a “real” (or “worthy”) victim, to no longer being real (or worthy) and having no role available to him other than “designated perp?”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
fondueguy October 28, 2010 at 09:37

“at what point in time does a man cross that invisible boundary between being “a children”, and therefore a “real” (or “worthy”) victim, to no longer being real (or worthy) and having no role available to him other than “designated perp?”

Its good too look into peoples past, their situation, and why they do it but lets not blur the lines between victim and perpetrator too much. There’s still personal responsibility when your an adult.

But because when male victims are unhelped it hurts more than just them its even more important for people to not ignore male adult victims.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
thehermit October 28, 2010 at 09:41

It’s a catch twenty two situation.

I was in it, so i know it well.

Paul is right about children, because they normally love both parents. The shock is coming when they see people who they love are fighting each other.
Then again a question comes to mind: How is it than women [generally] are labelled as better parent than men?Let’s have a look on family courts decisions. If they are so damn good, why it does not hold them back from starting fights, when they know exactly, that the children will suffer from it?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
zed October 28, 2010 at 10:09

but lets not blur the lines between victim and perpetrator too much. There’s still personal responsibility when your an adult.

Once again, what is that magic line that men cross into “adult” that women do not? Where is it? When do they cross it? When they do, is there a table with the label “Dump all your childhood baggage here” , so that they can sally forth into adulthood unencumbered by it?

Was there help for men 2-3 generations ago to “deal with their issues” as C.B. received, or were they just told to “shut up” “man up” and “take it like a man!”?

Trust me, fondueguy, if you make one mis-step in your life, other men will be saying “lets not blur the lines between victim and perpetrator too much” and be as quick to join the lynch mob as anyone. The whole process looks entirely different – depending on which end of the rope you are on.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
Eincrou October 28, 2010 at 11:54

I appreciate your recent posts, Zed, because I have the same problem with emotional appeals to the welfare of children. All manner of evil has already predicated upon it, and so the domain of potential policies that can be rationalized as “for the children” is infinite. Within this paradigm, a sensible and rational idea has no particular weight over bad ones. People’s hearts can be jerked any which way.

Surely, use it as a way to convince people of the cause, but in my own mind I can’t join the magical significance it seems to have. It is a thought process that is frozen in time. A child is a child now, and an adult is an adult now. Supposedly we care about children because of what they will become when they are adults, but I don’t see much good thinking in that direction or in the reverse.

Feminists/”liberals” have the market on emotional appeals totally cornered. I wouldn’t discourage anyone from trying, but emotion has no grounding and can move in any direction at any time.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
Paul Elam October 28, 2010 at 13:11

I understand well the sentiments of both Zed and Eincrou, but I don’t see them as applicable to what I have written here. In fact, if the mere existence of ideologues that push agendas by using “think of the children” ploys on society is considered a mandate to not think of them by rote, then we have an even bigger problem.

I say this from a pretty luxurious position. As a writer I have the luxury to simply draw on my own experiences and say things as I see them. That is what I did here. And across the board, it seemed to resonate with many, not near as much from an “Oh my God, save the children,” perspective, but just within the framework of their own life experience.

My intent here, and I will be arrogant enough to think I pulled it off, was not to motivate anyone to go on a campaign for the sake of the chillins’, but simply to add a curve ball to countering the dogma about domestic violence that we are faced with in this culture.

MRA’s, myself included, have almost adopted an “Oh yeah, what about women!” knee jerk response to the disinformation.

Totally understandable, but it often leads to, you guessed it, “Oh yeah, what about the men!”

See my debate with the manboob.

fondueguy October 28, 2010 at 14:25

“Trust me, fondueguy, if you make one mis-step in your life, other men will be saying “lets not blur the lines between victim and perpetrator too much” and be as quick to join the lynch mob as anyone. The whole process looks entirely different –depending on which end of the rope you are on.”

That logic can go both ways ie. the understanding, encouragement, and excuses will only go to women.

I already agree that for the sake of trying to put an end to DV we need to talk about it in a broader (and genderless) way. Talk about how men and women do it and talk about the connection between adultt DV to child development to.. adult DV. Basically talk about the family dynamics. In that process there is a blurring of victims and abusers but we can’t blur it too much because we don’t want to lessen personal responsibility. (There’s a good chance were just arguing semantics at this point especially since there are many levels to this, propaganda, the law, and counciling)

The question I can’t answer is how will talking about past abuse towards abusers effect the gender imbalances, at the onset of such talks. I would tread very carefully on that subject in DV as courts already recognize the victim complex of “battered” murderous bitches.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3
criolle johnny October 28, 2010 at 14:45

“physical abuse is mostly male”.
NO. Wrong, and demonstrated in study after study. Women initiate most incidents of domestic violence. They usually get the worst of it because most men are stronger. Then the White Knights enter the picture.
This is why I am trying to find a copy of the Heyman study.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
rob October 28, 2010 at 14:51

…for the sake of trying to put an end to DV

DV will never end – not ever.

The real issue becomes, how much DV can exist without ruining society, and, how much DV can we prevent without destroying the same society with our feeble attempts to “fix it.”

This is the only real way to end Domestic Violence.

PS. As a side note, I have now become so numb to claims of “abuse” of one sort or another, that it is not only women who claim that they were abused who are red-flagged as unsuitable… but also, I am not a big fan of abused men either – although I acknowledge such men exist, I am so thoroughly disillusioned and disgusted with the abuse industry and its enablers that they are only slightly less likely to be blown off by me if, like a woman, you instantly relate the turgid tale of your abuse to me. Sorry.

The fact is, lots of people in history had shitty lives and it didn’t affect them to the point of ruining their lives. Both of my parents grew up in a war, and for a significant part of their adolescent years, there parents were nowhere to be seen. Grandpa disappeared at the beginning of the war, and grandma disappeared about 2 years later. Funny thing, I’ve never heard either of my parents use their poor upbringing during the war as an excuse for being poor human beings. I’d suggest what they went through was worse than having to pull a pillow over your head because you heard mom and dad argueing.

I know there are effects from the DV situation, but how much of it is real, and how much of it is hyped, or rather “permitted” bad behaviour that receives social sanctioning? It’s pretty hard to tell when society says that if you’ve ever experienced a smidgeon of abuse, you can sit on the curb and wail like a baby.

Btw, after we “fix” Domestic Violence, I have a little problem with the moon rising and shining into my window… so, there is another battle to take on!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1
W.F. Price October 28, 2010 at 15:26

DV will never end – not ever.

The real issue becomes, how much DV can exist without ruining society, and, how much DV can we prevent without destroying the same society with our feeble attempts to “fix it.”

-rob

You’re absolutely right. Violence is going to happen no matter what laws we pass. The article you wrote is also spot on. We ought to stop separating the “domestic” from domestic violence and simply call it for what it is: just plain violence. If a man beats the crap out of a woman he lives with, arrest him just the same as you would some man who did it to a stranger on the street.

The weird thing about all these domestic violence laws is that they actually have the effect of making lesser forms of assault more serious and greater forms less serious in the context of DV.

For example, if a man were to walk up to some woman with whom he had no intimate or “domestic” relationship and give her a vicious beating, he’d probably get more time than he would if he did the same to a woman he lived with. This is because it’s more shocking, in a way. However, if a guy in some drunken family dustup engages in mutual shoving with a woman he lives with and the cops get involved he will face a much stiffer penalty than if he did the same with some random woman at a bar.

The entire body of policy surrounding DV is very strange, and is producing all sorts of twisted outcomes. What it’s doing is essentially encouraging a level of violence in certain parts of society, because women have the edge in low-level conflict due to legal favoritism, and only lose their advantage when a guy pulls out all the stops and really hurts them, hence the rise in murder-suicides since VAWA. If you really want to discourage people from beating their lovers, you’ve got to discourage the violence at all levels for all sides taking all things that contribute to it into account. And you’ve got to recognize that laws don’t change basic human behavior.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5
Eincrou October 28, 2010 at 15:54

I know there are effects from the DV situation, but how much of it is real, and how much of it is hyped, or rather “permitted” bad behaviour that receives social sanctioning?

I have wondered about this. Everywhere you look there is the message that ‘abuse’ at the hands of fellow humans is supposed to fuck people up, especially children, and maybe this creates the situation where abused people feel like they should play the part. It’s a paradox created by the desire to bring attention to extremely rare occurrences. If not for these ideas being implanted, how many people would think that they were supposed to be ruined by abuse (of any sort).

I haven’t ever suffered abuse at the hands of another person, but my own situation is significantly more devastating to the human spirit than the external problems that we’re told are destroying the lives of people who are supposedly otherwise fully functional humans.

Maybe this is why I have found myself to hold almost no interest in the drive to get people to acknowledge men as domestic violence victims, in equal measure as are women, who are in need of “resources.” I cannot compel myself to sympathize for people, men or women, whose source of anguish is external and can be eliminated as simply and as cheaply as leaving their partner.

Of course, government has made this impossible, especially when children are part of the relationship, but that is the solution that requires people to solve their own problems and forces them to consider their own role in maintaining their own misery.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
Traveller October 28, 2010 at 16:20

“You cannot be seriously asking that question, or can you?”

Did I sound joking or not serious?
I stay my point.

“real sacrificial lambs are our sons and daughters.”
Means other categories of people are not “real” sacrificial lambs.

“They never asked for any of this.”
Mean others could have instead asked for it.

It is irrelevant in this restrict circle of people it was easy understand what you were saying. But nonetheless your choice of words was poor in that paragraph.

My interpretation is the closest to your literal words from an impartial point of view.

I do not care someone could say “yes he wanted say so and so”, I can think that myself, like the others, because we know you.

But you are a writer and a communicator, and you can not rely on that. That paragraph had an untasteful rhetoric, if the article were taken alone, just imagine it published on a mainstram news site. Like when I read “women are the REAL victims of war”. It is never explicitly stated men are not victims, but the impression is present.

Sure, men could have “asked for it” when marrying in these times. But it is not so convincing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6
zed October 28, 2010 at 17:47

In fact, if the mere existence of ideologues that push agendas by using “think of the children” ploys on society is considered a mandate to not think of them by rote, then we have an even bigger problem.

And that was precisely the point I was making, Paul. Several years ago George Carlin had a tour/act he called “You’re all diseased.” In typical Carlin-esque humor he really trashed this “Won’t someone THINK OF THE CHILDREN” ploy which is used to wring compassion out of outrage-weary people like blood out of a turnip – “FUUUUCCCKKK the children”, he said.

A culture which aborts at least 1 out of every 3 babies, and 3 out of every 5 black babies, cannot be said in any way to value “THE CHILDREN.” The cold-blooded and cynical use of this mantra to enslave and peonize men, particularly fathers, is a short-term strategy being overused for its short-term effectiveness without concern for its longer-term effects – just like the junkie pursues the rush now and blocks out thinking about the shakes to come later.

When we have “THE CHILDREN” being used as a weapon against men – justifying everything from refusing to seat them next to men on airplanes, to saying ” THE CHILDREN are hungry. We need to butcher you so they can eat your liver. You can be satisfied to know that your death will be for THE CHILDREN” – it should not be surprising to see men adopt the attitude toward “THE CHILDREN” that women have – it isn’t “a child”, it is “a choice.” Oh, and BTW, I’ll “choose” to keep my liver, thank you for the offer, anyway.

It really is the old story of the boy who cried wolf playing out in our time. Eventually, the stupid boy did, indeed, push the villagers when they heard him cry “wolf” to NOT think that a wolf was close, but to think instead “liar.”

If we really are concerned about THE CHILDREN, then let’s stop using them as an all purpose, one-size-fits-all, excuse to dismiss the concerns, rights, and real damage being done to everyone else.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0
rob October 28, 2010 at 18:03

Besides, whose supposed to get them gold nuggets out of the goldmine?

Women?

Ha!

I’d still employ children! They are far more reliable!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
Paul Elam October 28, 2010 at 19:45

@ Zed

If we really are concerned about THE CHILDREN, then let’s stop using them as an all purpose, one-size-fits-all, excuse to dismiss the concerns, rights, and real damage being done to everyone else.

I couldn’t agree more, but I still maintain that this is not what I was doing. And I really can’t figure out how you came to that conclusion based on what I wrote.

I was writing about my own experience. And I wrote about it just as it was. No more, no less. My opinion based on that experience was, and still is, that children are a lot more harmed by fucked up parents than either one of the fucked up parents are harmed by each other, and they certainly have a lot less opportunity to protect themselves from the bullshit.

What would you have me do, refrain from writing about my experience whenever someone might confuse it with a “think of the chillin’s” ploy?

Yes, we have THE CHILDREN being used as weapons against men, and all the other shit rationalizations you mentioned.

THAT IS NOT WHAT I WAS DOING.

I agree with your objection, and your assessment of the problem, but you have read that problem into this article where it simply does not exist.

rob October 28, 2010 at 20:08

“It takes a village” — Shitlery

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
CM October 28, 2010 at 22:49

Posted this over at Reddit:

Well written, and fatherly. Apparently Rockefeller and the “Elites” targeted children with their feminist agenda. By instigating gender warfare between the male and female by tapping into female rebellion at every level in society and culture; effectively they have abducted the children and destroyed the family. Making the generations of children after feminism more and more immersed in a coma of immoral trauma and every day getting more licentious and materialistic.

Few escape…

The power the parents have over the child is vertiginous… And they inevitably must carry the burden of their vices on their own small shoulders… which is probably why the children often feel as if they are being attacked and think “it’s their fault” that the parents fight. Very very sad.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Robert October 28, 2010 at 23:09
Robert October 28, 2010 at 23:12
fondueguy October 29, 2010 at 02:39

“You’re absolutely right. Violence is going to happen no matter what laws we pass. The article you wrote is also spot on. We ought to stop separating the “domestic” from domestic violence and simply call it for what it is: just plain violence. If a man beats the crap out of a woman he lives with, arrest him just the same as you would some man who did it to a stranger on the street. The weird thing about all these domestic violence laws is that they actually have the effect of making lesser forms of assault more serious and greater forms less serious in the context of DV.”

You guys are 100% correct. You can tell from my first post that it was a slip up but I had obviously lost sight of what you guys are pointing out to have ever made that slip up.

You guys are also right about the problem of invoking “for the children” as a dogma.

I know nothing more than you guys about the implications or status of the children advocated by this article. I do believe that there is the intention to help severe the immediate association of the women and children. I’m talking about the concept of WaC as it pertains to health, food drives, DV, reproductive rights, mother’s vs father’s rights, the sinking of a ship and do on. We’d fare well in the long run to show the disconnect between women and the children (abortion, abuse, murder, bad boyfriend selection…).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
mgtow October 29, 2010 at 04:51

Prevention is better than cure.

Avoid marriage, cohabitation and children.

Problem solved.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
rob October 29, 2010 at 05:10

re: “The Best Interests of the Child”

I’m not sure how many of you are aware, but the US Supreme Court has made two landmark decisions stating that “The Best Interests of the Child” are most thoroughly achieved by parents and not the government:

2000 Supreme Court – Troxel et vir. v. Granville

1979 Supreme Court, Parham v. J.R.

It is pretty clear, and in direct opposition to the entire Abuse Industry, and most certainly in opposition to that fucking witch Shitlery’s ideas of “the village.” Don’t kid yourself either, that douchebag knows exactly what she is doing by calling children “indians on the reservation” with no rights, and therefore needing large rambling government bureaucracies with agents representing children’s interests separately from their parents.

These people are not simply misguided. They know exactly what the hell they are doing. Do you really think anything slips from a Presidential candidate’s mouth without a veritable army of researchers investigating things thoroughly first? They are aware of those Supreme Court decisions as well as we are… they just don’t give a shit.

The “best interests of the child” would likely best be served by taking the people who constantly screech about it, behind the shed for a medicine pill, and leaving the children firmly in the control of their parents, the people best suited – by Supreme Court decision x 2 – to serve the interests of their children.

(Btw – Parents = Children’s Best Interest, can quite easily be extended to Husbands = Wive’s Best Interest, as it works on the same general principle as parents to children.)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
rob October 29, 2010 at 07:12

Btw, regarding those two Supreme Court Decisions, you can tell from Schlafly’s piece, what the dialectical remedy is for the situation:

According to Schlafly, the Supreme Court has never heard a divorce/custody case.

The way then, to screw over the Abuse Industry’s charlatans is for a father to take his divorce/custody case all the way to the top, so that he can stand on those two precedents, and send the whole system into the shitter.

It doesn’t take massive lobby groups writing “calm and reasonable letters” to Nancy Pelosi and her criminal ilk, begging them for scraps from their luxuriously laden table. It takes someone angry enough to put the screws into the shysters and send them packing back to the rock they crawled out from.

If a man stood on those two Supreme Court Rulings, and pushed the issue, millions of men would be able to go after the government/family courts, and sue them into friggin’ oblivion.

Obviously, family courts have been directly violating the Supreme Law of the Land… if you or I were to do that, we would wind up jailed or sued into the poor-house. Why should our fearless leaders escape similar punishment?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Paul Elam October 29, 2010 at 08:20

@ Traveller

OK, Let’s take a look at my words, literally. And yours.

“real sacrificial lambs are our sons and daughters.”
Means other categories of people are not “real” sacrificial lambs.

Yes, precisely. Grown men (and women) don’t possess, in my opinion, near the same level of innocence, as would be explicitly defined by the term “sacrificial lamb,” in the situations I described in the OP.

And for good reason. The first is pretty clear when you look at the options for choice that the two groups have. Simply put, children don’t have real choices. Men do. And while a grown men are often treated with injustice, and deserve much better than they are getting, they are not the trapped targets that children are.

I told a good many men that I worked with that it was in there best interest to leave crazy violent wives and girlfriends. I was unable to give that advice to children. And given that much of the violence reported to me was either mutual or had been repeated over time, there almost always had been ample reason presented for them to leave.

I also mentioned false allegations from the women. Again, this is another situation where men have my utmost sympathy, and I have dedicated a fair amount of energy writing on this subject in the past. But I also know that the raving cunt that calls 911 to get her old man tossed in the can because she is pissed, and because she can, almost never does this in a sudden and shocking Jekyll and Hyde transformation. By the time something like this happens, he has long known he is with a crazy bitch.

Is it wrong? Sure. Has he enabled it by staying? Somewhat, at least, and at the expense of some of the innocence I would afford a child with no options.

“They never asked for any of this.”
Mean others could have instead asked for it.

In a word, absolutely. Anyone who stays in a violent relations is asking for trouble. And they almost always get it. It’s not the same thing as direct culpability, and it doesn’t mean they can’t be wronged, but you can’t get me to buy the notion that a grown man married for ten years to a women who has been drunk and out of control for the last five isn’t asking for trouble. Nor could you get me to sympathize with him much if he takes no action to remove himself and his children from that type of environment.

And yes, I know, just up and leaving with the children is a nuclear option fraught with anti male bias in the system he has to rely on to seek resolution. But one, it can be done. And two, many of them don’t even try. So there too we have an area, among many, where men have my support. But they also have my support for better choices.

To be honest, I think you are nit picking here, without much good reason to do so. And it represents something I think is really dangerous for men where it comes to volunteering for victimhood.

I look at it in the same way that I do men who get wiped out in a divorce by a shallow, gold bricking whore disguised as their wife, and then, with whatever solvency they are able to muster after the legal raping, they go out and find another gold bricking whore.

Are these guys innocent? Hardly.

Fidelbogen October 29, 2010 at 22:13

To portray children as the primary victims of DV is actually a very sharp political move. It co-opts the “best interest of the children” game away from the villains who have made such a vile scam of it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
continent October 29, 2010 at 23:29

I overheard a teachers union activist whimper to another person that they get better pay and benefits when the claim it’s for “the children”. So children have become universal pawns. But military pilots are reportedly told not to think women and “children” down there when they drop their bombs on the target. So it seems to depend on the objective.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Fidelbogen October 31, 2010 at 06:05

I overheard a teachers union activist whimper to another person that they get better pay and benefits when the claim it’s for “the children”.

Ah. . . something to whimper about indeed, I reckon! ;)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
TJ November 8, 2010 at 21:42

As a detective who has investigated thousands of domestic violence crimes for about 17 years, I found your observations well taken. Your description of the most likely scenario that escalates into domestic violence is spot on and your observation that it is in contradiction to the stereotyped image portrayed in advocacy literature is correct in my view.

Your description of children as true sacrificial lambs is correct also. It does not lessen the injustice of any other who may find themselves falsely accused to make that assertion any more than it diminishes the injustice of a defenseless innocent victim of violence to observe that the majority of domestic violence victims participated to a morally culpable degree in the escalation.

In my work I find two ongoing frustrations. One is the difficulty of sorting out after the fact exactly what happened in these homes. The other is the constant battle against the politization of these crimes by advocacy minded professionals in multiple agencies, the legislature and the public. Watching them try to conceptualize and then solve a problem is like watching a toddler with a rocket launcher.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: