Women At Least As Likely As Men to Commit DV

by Elusive Wapiti on September 12, 2012

Source.  Click here to enlarge

Have been looking for this chart (right) for a while to support my claims that women commit 70% of non-reciprocal DV. What once was lost to the sands of teh interwebz, has now been found.

From the accompanying text [page 3 of this pdf]:

Women are at least as likely as men to engage in partner aggression.[6] A recent Centers for Disease Control survey of young adults found that in cases of one-way partner aggression,  women were the instigators in 71% of cases [7] (see Figure 1 [8]). Fewer than one in five cases of female violence are explained by the woman acting in self-defense. [9,10]

In at least half of all cases, partner violence is mutual.[11] “Several studies, including large and nationally representative samples, have found that the most prevalent pattern is mutual  violence,” explains family researcher Murray Straus.[12]

In most cases, partner aggression does not escalate. [13,14] If the conflict does turn into a full-scale altercation, the woman is more likely to be injured. Nonetheless, males represent 38% of persons who suffer physical injury from partner aggression. [15]

Domestic violence rates vary depending on the couple’s marital status. Among intact married couples, partner violence rates are quite low—only 0.9/1,000. [16] But among separated couples, partner violence rates rise sharply to 49.0/1,000—a 50-fold increase.

References:

6 McDonald R. Estimating the number of American children living in partner-violent families. Journal of Family Psychology, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2006. http://smu.edu/experts/study-documents/family-violence-study-may2006.pdf

7 Whitaker DJ, Haileyesus T, Swahn M, Saltzman L. Differences in frequency of violence and reported  injury between relationships with reciprocal and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence. American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 97, No. 5, 2007.

8 Arehart-Treichel J. Men shouldn’t be overlooked as victims of partner violence. Psychiatric News Vol. 42, No. 15, August 3, 2007, page 31. http://pnhw.psychiatryonline.org/content/42/15/31.2.full

9 Follingstad D, Wright S, Lloyd S, and Sebastian J. Sex differences in motivations and effects in dating relationships. Family Relations, Vol. 40, 1991, pp. 51–57.

10 Carrado M, George MJ, Loxam E, et al. Aggression in British heterosexual relationships: A descriptive analysis. Aggressive Behavior, Vol. 22, 1996.

11 Whitaker DJ, Haileyesus T, Swahn M, Saltzman L. Differences in frequency of violence and reported
injury between relationships with reciprocal and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence. American Journal of Public Health, May 2007.

12 Straus MA. Gender symmetry in partner violence. In Lutzker JR, Whitaker DJ (eds.): Prevention of Partner Violence. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2008.

13 O’Leary K, Barling J, Aria I, et al. Prevalence and stability of physical aggression between spouses: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 57, 1989, pp. 263–268.

14 Feld S, Straus M. Escalation and desistance of wife assault in marriage. Criminology, Vol. 1, 1989. pp. 141–161.

15 Archer J. Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 126, No. 5, 2000, pp. 651–680.


About the author: EW is a well-trained monkey operating heavier-than-air machinery. His interests outside of being an opinionated rabble-rouser are hunting, working out, motorcycling, spending time with his family, and flying. He is a father to three, a husband to one, and is a sometime contributor here at Spearhead. More of his intolerable drivel is available at the blog The Elusive Wapiti.

{ 51 comments… read them below or add one }

Darryl X September 12, 2012 at 11:31

This is a great resource I always cite. From this publication in a refereed scientific journal and many other similar sources, women are responsible for approximately seventy-percent of domestic violence (intimate partner violence). Another important source is Lauren Zavrel (Harvard Univ 2007) who refines data concerning reciprocal violence and concludes that women initiate most reciprocal domestic violence, which means that men are just defending themselves in most reciprocal violence and it’s not really violence but defense of self or children.

From the figure and article above, approximately twenty-five-percent of couples report domestic violence. Of those that report domestic violence, fifty-one percent is nonreciprocal and forty-nine-percent is reciprocal. Of the nonreciprocal domestic violence, women are responsible for seventy-one percent and men are responsible for twenty-nine percent. Of the reciprocal domestic violence, most reports show that women are responsible for at least sixty-seven percent and men are responsible for less than thirty-three percent.

The volume of data and their objective analysis and publications and reports of them show conclusively that women are responsible for most domestic violence. Especially if you deemphasize or eliminate data concerning reciprocal domestic violence and men who are defending themselves or chldren against women who initiate. When data concerning “family” violence or violence by siblings or children against parents or children against their elders, the percent of women responsible goes way up. That is why I have concluded and written before that after all these data are put together, women are responsible for probably ninety-five percent of violence in families. My conclusion is supported by other researchers.

If you just take an abstract view of these data and apply them to statistics concerning custody, approximately two-thirds of children who are in custody of mothers are in abusive environments. And that is before you weight data concerning divorcing mothers and their greater probability for being abusive. Likely, many more children than two-thirds in custody of their mothers are in abusive environments. When other variables like presence of the mother’s boyfriend or new husband (with whom she is committing adultery) the incidence child abuse goes up even more. This from reports by organizations like the Heritage foundation.

Data regarding escalation of violence is important too. Feminists always complain that violence by men always escalates. But it seldom does. Violence by women, however, does often escalate. The most important reason for marriage and biological fathers is to protect children from mothers. Mothers are much more violent and dangerous than fathers. The other important reasons for biological fathers and marriage is to prevent waste of resources by mothers and women and to promote a stable infrastructure with which men may give their labor for advancing civilization and supporting a community. By promoting divorce for profit and kidnapping children and holding them hostage and exchanging the ransom with mothers and other women for votes and power and control, the governments are shooting themselves in the head because there is no longer any more incentive for men to provide their labor.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Opus September 12, 2012 at 11:39

I sometimes (to their surprise) ask men in a group, whether they have ever – in any way – assaulted a woman – ever. They all shake their heads.

I then ask them whether they have ever been assaulted by a woman – and not to make excuses of the sort ‘yeah, but I was asking for it’, or, ‘but it was not serious violence’, or the like. Most confess to being victims.

So, where are the Domestic Violence Shelters for Men?

One must either conclude, that men never complain, or that women fabricate their alleged injuries and alleged fears.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Darryl X September 12, 2012 at 12:16

@ Opus -

Concerning women’s (or doemstic violence) shelters, they started in the US around 1970. There are literally thousands in the US. There are 3,140 counties, parishes and districts in the US and there is at least one women’s shelter in each of these. (Although I cannot find a map of them for the US, there is one for Canada but I forgot the source – there is approximately one shelter for every 1,700 women in Canada.)

In 1996, President Bill Clinton received a report by whatever organization appropriates or manages federal funding of states for women’s shelters. The USDOJ Office on Violence Against Women (yes, there actually is such a thing – crazy, huh?) I think was the federal office involved. Anyway, that report showed that in the twenty-six years since women’s shelters first came into existence, the incidence of domestic violence against women had not declined.

No surprise there since most women at shelters are more abusive than their male partners. But the report also showed that although violence against women and murder of women by their male partners had not declined, murder of men by their female partners had declined precipitously. Studies of this phenomenon (you can Google them) showed that women’s shelters actually provided an alternative to violent women who would otherwise kill their male partners.

So women’s shelters actually helped save the lives of men. Even though it does nothing for women. Mostly because as we already know, women and not men are responsible for most domestic violence. So when feminists whine to Congress for more money to fund women’s shelters even though they do no good for women because women are not victims in most instances, those funds and women’s shelters actually save the lives of men (at least from murder by their female partners).

Not many if I recall correctly, only about ~72 men (and ~72 women – an equal number or almost equal) a year during the past forty years are actually killed by their female partners. But still it matters that the number has declined quite a bit. Thanks to women’s shelters. Of course these women’s shelters set men up to be defrauded and at least 6,000 men per year on average during the past forty years kill themselves because they lost their children and their financial security for life, at least they aren’t killed by their female partners.

So even though shelters protect men from being murdered by their female partners, they just set them up for horrible circumstances which promote their suicide and other fates (homelessness and prison). So in general, women’s shelters are evil because they do nothing to help women against violence but promote fraud and suicide and homelessness of men. You’d think our governments and legislators would care about these developments.

But they don’t because they profit from the fraud and death of these men. Women’s shelters not only fail to help women but actually and literally promote the extermination of men. That’s why Congress funds women’s shelters. To exterminate men under the false pretense of protecting women from violence against men. Our governments are literally exterminating innocent men at the behest of women in exchange for politcal power and control.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Bharatiyaa September 12, 2012 at 12:46

Just wanted to say I’ve read some of your previous blogs and in my part of the world, South Asia, sexual harrassement and assault does not go hand in hand with how “unfettered” female sexuality is. In our culture marriages are still arranged and dating is either forbidden or frown upon yet “eve teasing” (google it) is off the charts.

Also, regarding your post about Goddess worship, no need to look at ancient cultures. Our Hindu culture has kept goddess worship alive throughout the ages and its as strong as ever. The male gods and female goddessed do not compete for superiority but work hand in hand, often as married couples. They serve as archetypal role models to hundreds of millions of Hindus worldwide.

A male god only is just half the story, as is a solitary female goddess. Completion requires that spirituality, like nature, represent the dance of opposites.

Ultimately of course brahman (divine source) is genderless, neither male nor female, but it manifests in gendered forms as a reflection of nature; yin/yang, positive/negative electrical charges, etc.

I invite the readers to further explore this dynamic.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Undereagle September 12, 2012 at 13:19

Speaking of female fabrication, read these two pieces and tell me they don’t explain a great deal about what we already know. I won’t describe them because I want to make sure that it’s as obvious to everyone else as it is to me.

http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/11655.html

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/toanatj/articles/V002/37TOANATJ.pdf (read the section on grey v. white matter)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Opus September 12, 2012 at 14:13

@Darryl x

I had never thought of it that way round – that women’s shelters are actually a protection for men. I once had as a client, a woman who had killed her husband in his sleep with the usual (entirely unproven) assertion that he had been generally violent and that it was fear that caused her to knife him in the back. Had she gone to a shelter, he would probably still be alive.

It is my observation that the fear of ‘violent’ men is entirely self inflicted hysteria. Most male violence is against other men, but unlike women, I do not feel the need to attend self-defence classes – or perhaps I am just too indolent to do so. Women who attend self-defence classes are always aggressively instigators of physical attacks (as I have also observed).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price September 12, 2012 at 14:16

I had never thought of it that way round – that women’s shelters are actually a protection for men.

-Opus

I think one of the reasons they don’t allow boys over the age of 12 in them is that a lot of the psycho women in shelters (most of them are really not very functional women) would sleep with them and then accuse them of rape.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
numnut September 12, 2012 at 15:12

Thanks DarrylX
“because they profit from the fraud and death of these men. Women’s shelters not only fail to help women but actually and literally promote the extermination of men. That’s why Congress funds women’s shelters. To exterminate men under the false pretense of protecting women from violence against men. Our governments are literally exterminating innocent men at the behest of women in exchange for politcal power and control.”

Perhaps this is why “Black robed agents of satan” resonates so well with me.
They had not a care,but a cause,in my attempted destruction.

Gives the cops extra-Constitutional power also,and POWER LOVES MORE POWER.

The judges know full well what they do,and rejoice in their wickedness.
The prosecutors below contempt.
Subhuman scum.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Uncle Elmer September 12, 2012 at 15:22

“I invite the readers to further explore this dynamic.”

Me too. I like Bollywood dance videos too.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gilgamesh September 12, 2012 at 15:56

@ W.F. Price
Probably. Thomas Ball suggested the same thing in his manifesto.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gamerp4 September 12, 2012 at 16:09

Saved and Favorited for Future Analysis so that when i meet some loud feminists and engage them with my Analysis I MIGHT FUCK THEM UP with Price’s Priceless Article.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Geography Bee Finalist himself September 12, 2012 at 16:34

Too bad women still don’t receive equal or more severe legal punishment for committing DV though.

(Let’s face it, we all want chivalry to be dead and decomposed completely in the criminal justice system and subsequently replaced by better treatment for male offenders as payback for men getting the criminal justice screw job. I know I’m not the only one who feels this way.)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
keyster September 12, 2012 at 17:09

Women make .78 cents for every dollar a man makes too.
It’s true, because that’s what everyone keeps saying on TV.

This group of college professors did all the research that everyone always quotes: http://www.aauw.org/index.cfm

Totally credible you can rest assure.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Christina September 12, 2012 at 17:37

I don’t know why this claim that women are just as likely to commit DV is so widely shunned.

It’s not like a woman has a stable hormonal environment going on. At least for the most part, how a man behaved last week is probably how he’s going to behave next week given all other factors remain constant. Not so predictable with women.

If women were actually educated on how to behave, look for, and build boundaries in relationships instead of told to do whatever whenever however, they could seriously more than likely avoid men with abusive tendencies.

But men looking for women? How females behave today could be quite drastically different than next week.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
JFinn September 12, 2012 at 18:41

Child abuse is domestic violence(the worst kind.) Women commit more domestic violence than men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
American September 12, 2012 at 18:48

Very good article here Whelmer, and the comments are superior as usual.
I will add that what is also near “Perverse”, as far as American law enforcement in their handling of domestic violence in America, is their usage of “protocol perversions and semantics games” to hide the elevated levels of domestic violence in lesbian relationships from the public.
Who gave American law enforcement the authority to use “protocol perversions and semantics games” to manufacture the faulty and inflammatory rhetoric that lesbian women are never violent???
The Rise of American Gender-raunch, and their war on hetero-dominance is directly linked to their perversion of American law enforcement. Lets think this through here, If Gender-Raunch win, and hetero-sexuality is no longer the dominant form of relationships in the US ..what will America look like???

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
American September 12, 2012 at 18:57

The White Gender, Gender-raunch community will continue their hegemony of American Universities, as long as law enforcement continue to engage in “protocol perversions and semantics games” that serve to manufacture empowerment statistics for them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
American September 12, 2012 at 19:00

Federal Pork bloating is perverting Americas legal system.
American law enforcement is manufacturing statistics that empower the gender-raunch community because Gender-raunch is getting them federal pork bloating dollars to do it….BUT IS THIS CONSTITUTIONAL???

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
American September 12, 2012 at 19:06

Could anyone here Imagine what an American university would look like without Gender-raunch dominating the whole University???

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X September 12, 2012 at 19:30

@ numnut -

Yup. Black robed agents of satan resonates.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price September 12, 2012 at 19:37

@American

I know how you feel, and sympathize deeply, but the “gender raunch” term is best not beaten to death like that. After a certain point, it kind of starts to take on that “spam” flavor.

To the point: five comments in a row with “gender raunch” is four too many.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Darryl X September 12, 2012 at 19:39

@ Opus -

“I had never thought of it that way round”

Yeah, I was actually introduced to this development during a conversation I had with Murray Straus about four or five years ago. It was the silver lining I was looking for. I’m always looking for one of those. That no matter what is happening, God’s hand is in it and He is protecting me. No matter what these idiot feminists do, they aren’t really helping themselves but they are helping real and innocent men. As long as we abandon our expectations of excess and don’t give into their evil and sink to their level. If it weren’t for women’s shelters, I’d be dead now. (Dunno if that is necessarily a bad thing given the way things proceeded but I like to think there’s reason I’m still around – maybe my kids will actually not hate me and not think I abandoned them some day). This was a great post by EW. Classic stuff that helps define and describe our problem and maybe find a solution. Stuff that everyone in the MRM should know. Or at least maybe show things aren’t as bad as we think they are sometimes. Who woulda thought that women’s shelters might actually be a good thing for men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Rebel September 12, 2012 at 20:15

I tried a translator dictionary to no avail. I can’t find the meaning of the word “raunch”. Has anybody an idea of what that word means?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader September 12, 2012 at 20:18

Could anyone here imagine what the comments would look like without the term “gender raunch”?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Bharatiyaa September 12, 2012 at 20:22

American September 12, 2012 at 19:06

“Could anyone here Imagine what an American university would look like without Gender-raunch dominating the whole University???”

There needs to be Art of Living programs like this on every campus across the country so student can “discover their enlightened side” instead of mire in debauchery;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWy3iTq6Mag

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Men: Discontinued September 12, 2012 at 20:33

Agent Orange Files….

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Rebel September 12, 2012 at 20:51

Drop my question: I found the meaning.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Troll King September 13, 2012 at 00:23

Check out this link if you want to see how crazy most “normal” women are:

http://feministing.com/2012/09/12/not-oprahs-book-club-how-should-a-person-be/#comments

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
American September 13, 2012 at 04:07

I don’t believe the white gender-feminist establishment who dominate American Universities, and the “media construction machine”, want to eradicate the males as some have suggested.
I believe they just want to “Psychologically castrate” them, in order to ruthlessly harvest their labors.
Creating legions of broken / uneducated males who are kept in a perpetual state of “broken and divisiveness”, raised in a state of matriarchy, is good for the “Gender-feminist Establishment”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X September 13, 2012 at 12:17

@ American -

Yup. Psychologically castrate. But if that doesn’t work then they want to eradicate. The ones who don’t submit they will eradicate.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Tom936 September 13, 2012 at 13:13

The USDOJ Office on Violence Against Women (yes, there actually is such a thing crazy, huh?)

It is crazy.

I saw some of their biannual reports. Very scary stuff they are bragging about.

For example, the USDOJ OVW’s Arrest Program employs, by means of VAWA grants, the equivalent of 743 full-time employees (2009) including “victim advocates”, law enforcement officers, prosecutors, program coordinators, probation officers, legal advocatesm and court personnel. The purpose of the Arrest Program, directly quoted from their report: “implementing pro-arrest programs and policies”. You know who that means. But in case there was any doubt that men are the sole targets, read further down the list of goals: “preventing dual arrests and prosecutions”. In other words, it’s all to be aimed at men, never women. That’s the only anti-arrest item among their twelve goals.

That’s just the first VAWA grant on the USDOJ OVW’s report. The others look similar.

You can verify all this yourself at http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov/docs/2010-biennial-report-to-congress.pdf

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
perhaps September 13, 2012 at 13:18

*one of the reasons they don’t allow boys over the age of 12 in them is that a lot of the psycho women in shelters (most of them are really not very functional women) would sleep with them*

!2 years. Perhaps we could take (feminasties permitting) take inspiration from practice in antiquity and in case of divorce instead of assigning by default all children to the ex-wife, to assign those under 12 to the ex-wife and those over 12 to the ex-husband. That would seem an equitable division, with no need for child support either way, as both ex-partners will share *over time* the raising of the children. Where I am assuming that the 12-18 years tend to be each twice as expensive as the 1-12 years, but that could be adjusted.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
perhaps September 13, 2012 at 15:22

Just spotted two article about celbrity men being victims of brutal violence from their women partners and being ashamed to speak about it, until Roger Moore did it:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/007-sir-roger-moore-was-victim-of-domestic-violence-8130816.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/take-a-bow-sir-roger-moore-more-men-need-to-share-their-experience-of-domestic-violence-8134960.html

On the subject of domestic violenece and shelters, a moderately balanced view is by Erin Pizzey, who found the first women’s battered shelter, and who is a about protecting victims of any sex:

*Erin Pizzey, the founder of the first UK’s women’s refuge, said Mr Cameron was displaying a lack of understanding about the reality of family break-ups. “There are a lot of reasons why [fathers are] not with their children… not least that women won’t let them,” she said. Ms Pizzey said it was wrong to single out men, adding: “There is a vast mass of women who are equally as feckless as the men and we never talk about them.”*

*In 1971 I opened the first and only refuge/shelter for women and children running from domestic violence in Chiswick, London.
Of the first hundred women coming into the refuge, sixty two were as violent to their partners, and violent to their children.*

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
universe September 13, 2012 at 15:35

Every so often we need to be reminded of credible sources (CDC, for an ex. of one) that bring matters back down to earth so that they can be shouted from far above the rooftops (the webs) – women are the chief instigators and perpetrators of domestic violence. Reading this brings back memories of my activist days.

Good work, EW, and many thanks for your persistence in re-locating this data as illustrated alongside your opening remarks. Those familiar or not with this data need to see it given the times we live. Truths may be painfull but they are necessary.

In Canada, in the early 90s and it was learned sometime afterward in this period that the deKesseredy/Kelly study of DV willfully ommited similar conclusions -that men were in the majority receiving end of DV from their female spouses. Both researchers maintained their cover-up when confronted.

For some people, ideology and the portrayal of false image alone can lend to a sound night’s sleep and in no way is this limited to researchers only. For the many women, and I use this word with great generosity, who make their living off the fraudulence that is the DV industry – you are profitting from a lie at the expense of the many who are innocent of such matters. Shame is not enough a word to describe your obedience to fraud; vile contemptuous soul murdering parasites – are more apt and befitting singular and grouped monickers. You, the workers in the DV industry, who should know better, as this being your chosen profession, have had plenty of time and resourses to discover for yourselves the true nature of the issue you so proudly but falsely champion. Your robbing from the collective hood is coming to an end. Names on the public payroll will not be expunged. The time to meet and face your betters draws closer once your shelter from public scrutiny subsides. Feigned delusion or tears will not be a viable defense. Remorse will not be a word to fall upon as you’ve been repeatedly told of this data.
Rant to be revived at a latter period. I’m not in forgiving mode at the moment.

DarrylX – You’ve framed matters above in seldom considered perspectives. While they may be shocking for some to consider we’re on the path to full discovery. Your input may become de rigueur.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ray September 13, 2012 at 19:04

This is more verification that that Violence Against Women Act’s “gender based violence” paradigm is nothing more than the rationalization for a feminist hate movement’s witch-hunt of males as show in “Witch-Hunting Males” at Youtube, and as shown in “Los Misandry” at Youtube. Taxpayer funded VAWA is a gender feminist hate movement.
Witch-Hunting Males
http://tinyurl.com/65dpzwu

Los Misandry
http://tinyurl.com/27oh7cp

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
DirkJohanson September 13, 2012 at 21:34

Within the last six weeks, I’ve witnessed or heard first-hand accounts of six acts of violence, five of which were initiated by women, we well as one very credible claim of a false DV charge by a woman against a guy, as well as another possibly legitimate claim but where the husband was already asleep in bed by the time the cops arrived, so its unlikely to have been a very major incident.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X September 14, 2012 at 04:13

@ perhaps -

I’ve thought about this approach too. But then would you want to inherit the mess of a twelve year old girl or boy after a whoring mother and likely her adultering boyfriend or new husband raised them for years before? It’s just another expression of the woman making a mess and then handing it off to the man to fix. And usually messes like that can’t be fixed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
perhaps September 14, 2012 at 04:21

[women are the chief instigators and perpetrators of domestic violence.]

Perhaps, or at least they contribute as much.

A detail little known by men is that girl-on-girl violence is pretty common in schools, with extensive bullying, gangs, physical assaults, all of this rarely mentioned because girls are of course always innocent and sweet :-) .

Another little known detail is that since most “care” professions are now essentially offlimits to men, the vast majority of sexual and physical abuse against children and other vulnerable categories are committed by women, who as a rule get away with it as they are of course never thought of as potential abusers.

As to that whenever I see reports about the squalid behaviour of a significant minority of catholic priests (on in general preachers) as to molestations, I am always amazed that there is no discussion of the even more common and often nastier similar behaviour by nuns against girls and boys in the many, many schools and other care organizations run by nuns. Amazed but not surprised…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anon September 14, 2012 at 10:37

“The most important reason for marriage and biological fathers is to protect children from mothers. Mothers are much more violent and dangerous than fathers.”
-DarrylX (above)

I wish I had read that as a teenager. My mother was the one who spanked me (usually with an object, for those who keep statistics on such matters) as a way of enforcing discipline; she also struck me in the face on other occasions. Never when my father was present; never when we visited my grandparents, when her father was present.

All of the abuse in our family was perpetrated by my mother, who is now in her eighties, and who wants more attention and support. Would it surprise you to know that, as far as I’m concerned, she’s on her own?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X September 14, 2012 at 15:05

@ Anon -

Yes, my mother was that way too. I’ve heard similar reports from most men I know who will talk about it. Especially men who grew up in single mother households. But not necessarily. I get the impression a lot of PUA’s and gamers grew up in single-mother households. This observation is just anecdotal and not supported by any study or anything. Just an observation and I may be wrong if it were put to the test.

Abuse is not the same thing as discipline. Discipline is consistent, discrete, predictable, and makes sense and is in response to a child’s misbehavior within certain tolerances which can be measured repeatedly and assigned a term of error and if behavior falls outside those tolerances then there’s disicpline. Abuse is irrational and is an expression of the mother’s malignant narcissism, her addiction to power and control. Her solipsism. It is completely independent of a child’s behavior.

Much discipline by fathers today has been misrepresented by mothers and other women and the community as abuse. When in fact it is discipline. Yet even a mother’s violent abuse of her own children is not considered abuse. That’s why children even when they grow up in households with biological fathers (but especially when they don’t) are a mess because the fathers are not allowed to or are not there to discipline their children.

And worse, they are not their to protect them from the abusive mothers. (Check out some scientific literature about primates in general and behavior of females and their violent behavior – humans are primates.) Parents don’t have to be divorced for the father not to be around. They can still be married and if the mother interferes with the relationship enough, then the children are not going to develop properly and adopt civilized behavior (from their fathers). Children learn about civilized behavior not from their mothers but from their fathers. (Honestly, I’m not sure what children learn from their mothers.)

Anyway, what makes the behavior of mothers particularly creepy is what you’ve already described. They are not out of control. They don’t suffer mental illness. Their behavior is evil. It is completely deliberate. They abuse the children when no one is looking or at least when no one important is. And the mothers behave like angels when someone is looking. My mother used to beat the crap out of me for no reason – just completely lost it at any time for any reason or no reason at all.

Pounded me in the face with a closed fist more times than I can count. I have a broken front tooth and broken nose to prove it. But if my father was around, she wouldn’t dare lay a finger on me. She was all nice and civil. But if asked what happened to my tooth, oh he ran into the clothes pole. And while my father was looking away, she’d shoot me a threatening look as if to say that if I said anything, she’d beat me up again. A lot of guys might be thinking that this kind of behavior is uncommon, but it’s not. Just the opposite. It’s normal.

My grandmother was onto my mother though and her and my dad and my mom had it out one evening. She died a little while later. I think my mom killed her. But she is very deceiptful. No way to prove it. My grandmother read the Bible. My mother didn’t. We haven’t spoken in about thirty-one years.

My wife wanted to meet my mother. And I couldn’t object (that would make me controlling and abusive). She can do what she wants. I didn’t tell her anything about my mother. Didn’t poison her mind against her didn’t gossip. Nothing like that. Just told her that we don’t speak and if she wanted to meet her that’s her business. It didn’t take long for those two to conspire against me and my mother goaded my wife into divorcing me. Even testified for her in court against me in our divorce. She’s in her mid-eighties now and will die soon. When she does, she’s going to hell. Good riddance.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X September 14, 2012 at 15:35

@ perhaps -

“Another little known detail is that since most “care” professions are now essentially offlimits to men, the vast majority of sexual and physical abuse against children and other vulnerable categories are committed by women, who as a rule get away with it as they are of course never thought of as potential abusers.”

I’ve read about this particularly in the context of elder abuse. Also in the case of husbands who are either permanently or even temporarily disabled. Women abuse those who they feel are weak and can’t defend themselves. Including husbands who have learned never to hit a woman and won’t fight back against their wives to defend even themselves. Of course if they do fight back then their abusive so the wife wins either way. Anyway, women particularly like husbands who are disabled. Because then they can’t defend themselves. Children and elders are also good targets for abuse. Men tend not to abuse those weaker than them. They don’t physically abuse for the most part at all. When they do fight, they are defending themselves or at least picking a fight with someone their own size. Generally, they don’t pick on the elderly or children or women. Unless the woman has a knife or a gun. When the woman wins those fights, that she initiated the violence with a knife or gun (or skillet or stiletos or whatever) is irrelevant. He is the abuser.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X September 14, 2012 at 15:43

@ universe -

Thanks. I’ve been studying this stuff for about thirty-plus years and formally for about twenty-seven. And specifically domestic violence for about seven. My goal was to understand the what, how, where and when about domestic violence. But most importantly the why. The proximate mechanisms as well as the causal or evolutionary and cultural reasons for it. Our devolution into primitive social organizing is the product of feminism. Civilization can only be maintained by controling the wreckless and irrational behavior of women. Until about forty-four years ago in the US, practically every law was created in some way to mitigate the female psyche. Before that there was the Constitution, the Bible and other guidance going back to early Greek philosophers. Unless the excess and destruction by women can be stopped, the end of the world is imminent. Women and feminists are responsible for collapse of the entire global economy right now. The crash of the housing market to the insolvency of banks. Decline in manufacturing and GDP. Of course the end of families and the enslavement of men and children.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous September 14, 2012 at 17:35

My mother was the one who spanked me (usually with an object, for those who keep statistics on such matters) as a way of enforcing discipline

I do the spanking, too. What’s your point about this? That spanking is abusive? My husband spanks, to. Actually, he’s the one who taught me how to do it correctly.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anon September 14, 2012 at 23:33

@Anonymous –
The important part is that she never hit me when my father was around, because he was basically a decent man who never struck anyone. And by ‘discipline’ I mean enforcing an impossible standard of behavior for a young child. If you had met me at age 10, you would have noticed my eerily perfect imitation of adult behavior, as well as an almost complete lack of affect.

My parents are both alcoholics; I practiced a set of behaviors that are now referred to collectively as ‘hypervigilance’ to avoid punishment and to try to keep our family on an even keel. But it was my mother who abused me, and not just physically.

She is the ‘Princess’ daughter of a wealthy man who never quite got everything she wanted from my father, and so she chose to give free rein to her most selfish impulses, and lived her adult life as a malignant narcissist who tortured everyone in my family for decades.

On a separate note, Anonymous, you should look at yourself very carefully if you believe that casual violence against defenseless children is a good idea, as you so obviously do.

@Darryl X-
I’m so sorry that those things happened to you. I hope you’ve found some measure of relief from your pain in your research and in the constructive actions you take in your life to help others.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X September 15, 2012 at 04:44

@ Anonymous -

“I do the spanking, too. What’s your point about this? That spanking is abusive? My husband spanks, to. Actually, he’s the one who taught me how to do it correctly.”

No. That you’re a woman you can’t and shouldn’t do the spanking because you don’t know how and had to be taught by your husband. Women should stop trying to do important things like discipline children because they always fuck it up.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X September 15, 2012 at 05:33

@ Anonymous -

Women do not and really can’t be taught how or when to administer discipline. When a child does something that is practically wrong (say he screws up in school on a test because he made a mistake and added two and two and got five instead of four), a father administers discipline to teach the child. The problem with mothers and other women discipling children is that half the time, they administer discipline not because the child has done anything wrong (two plus two equals five) and to teach the child something (two plus two equals four). Women think that it is wrong for a child to offend her sensibilities and her feelings and her delusions. But that is not something that is wrong. But that is when mothers and other women discipline children half the time. So the children never develop a clear understanding of right and wrong. Offending a stupid woman’s delusions or lacking connection with reality is not wrong. But most women believe that it is. Two plus two does not equal five. But most women believe it does, or at least something other than four, whatever satisfies their ends at the time. It is an expression of extreme narcissism and abusive to impose her delusional interpretation of reality upon children and reinforce something that is wrong (two plus two equals five). Two plus two equals four. It always has and always will. Children learn this early in elementary school. But women seem to never learn this and believe that it equals five or whatever she wants it to equal. If a child contradicts a woman on her mistake that two plus two equals five, that offends the mother’s delusions, her screwed up belief system. And she disciplines the child. The child has not learned anything practical except that it is wrong to offend a woman’s delusional belief system and that if s/he does not start believing that two plus two equals five, s/he is going to get disciplined (which isn’t really discipline but abuse). Is it any wonder the economy is so screwed up today? Too many children learned from their mothers that two plus two equals five instead of four. And the fathers are not there to correct her. Women shouldn’t discipline children. They are not practically qualified to do that in most instances.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anon September 15, 2012 at 10:58

“It is an expression of extreme narcissism and abusive to impose her delusional interpretation of reality upon children … The child has not learned anything practical except that it is wrong to offend a woman’s delusional belief system…”
-Darryl X

Jeez, another news flash I need to send back in time to my teen self. I hope you boys are listening to this.

My dad disciplined me almost entirely by example, and mostly in areas where it would be physically dangerous to me to disobey, like how to safely use saws, hammers, drills and other tools. He never struck me.

I guess I should add one more word on spanking, the smack upside the head, and other such forms of discipline. I’ve never had to physically discipline any of my children, because they are bright, good kids. However, children can be very different. If a dad has tried every form of argument and persuasion, and is sober (!) and calm, and feels his obligation to society and to his children to make sure they will properly enter adulthood, and cannot meet his obligation without physical discipline, so be it. That’s his judgement to make, and his cross to bear if he fails.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X September 15, 2012 at 11:39

@ Anon -

“That’s his judgement to make, and his cross to bear if he fails.”

Yup. It’s not the mother’s or the government’s or the village’s business how a father disciplines his children. Unless there is a criminal problem. (Unfortunately, what our government defines as a crime has expanded considerably.) When drugs and alcohol are involved, things can get a little messed up. Or when there is a woman interfering. Women are the most common problem though. When I was with my kids, the biggest obstacle to administering consistent discipline was their mother. She is like a drug unto herself. And you can’t avod her like you can drugs and alcohol. She’s always imposing herself on any situation. So that she is the center of attention. When there needs to be discipline, the mother needs to stay out.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
universe September 16, 2012 at 20:40

DarrylX

Glad to see that you have found a forum to express your many years of study and of observations in this matter of family violence. Only, it is not so nice to read of your personal experiences, though. Perhaps the silver lining in all this is that what happened to you as a child from parental license or authority run amok led to such elongated study which may lead to bring about a full circle examination of family violence. And you may play a part in such matters.

My own experiences are fairly limited to a reluctant spanking (paternal) for wandering the neighbourhood far exceeding the curfew designed for an eight year-old and five year-old persistant brattiness meeting the dreaded wooden spoon (maternal). After learning of the occurances in other families I can count myself fortunate for the parents that I had. They were very patient in regard to administering corporeal punishment.

Other than through abstract communicative devices (comp./webs), in God speed I send the best possible wishes concerning the reckoning of your early indelible family experiences.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Fubsy September 20, 2012 at 00:35

American must be trying to coin a new term in the lexicon. Either that or he’s doing SEO for his upcoming “gender-raunch.com” website, where you can fulfill all your gender-raunch needs. More likely he’s got OCD, and posts here in between his 1001 daily hand washings…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X September 21, 2012 at 04:59

@ Fubsy -

I’ve included the term “gender-raunch” in my MRM lexicon. Along with lots of other colorful expressions I’ve learned on this and other MRM sites. Embrace the culture. LOL

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: