Re: Learned Helplessness, Spouse Abuse (long)

[Guest guest]

I, I dispute much of your list of sexist issues reinforcing domestic abuse, some of the points strongly so.

n a message dated 5/13/01 1:33:37 PM US Eastern Standard Time, ahicks@... writes:

Sexist aspects of violence (paraphrased), by Murray Straus:

"

1. Male authority. There is a presumption that males are superior.

In the face of a challenge to their authority, males often resort to physical violence to maintain or restore their positions.

A presumption by who? Males are superior in some areas, as are women. (I speak in the aggregate, allowing for individual exception.)

2. Compulsive masculinity. Physical aggressiveness is linked with the identity of being a "man." To be passive is to ve womanlike, a shameful trait in a "real" man.

Physical aggression in males is universal, and the result of evolutionary biology. This is why 90% or more of serial killers are male, and homicides of all sorts are infinitely more likely to be committed by males. It is also why violent crimes are largely the byproduct of males between the ages of 15-24.

3. Economic constraints. There are few alternatives for women seeking economic independence. Physical assaults are thus often tolerated because of women's lack of prospects outside of marriage.

This used to be true, but is largely not the case anymore, at least not insofar as it now takes two incomes to support a family well. Single parent males are often also in dire straits financially.

4. Burdens of child care. Women are given the primary responsibility for raising children. Occupational discrimination against women and the lack of other resources that would allow them to support their children independently lock women into marriage.

Women are not so much "given" this responsibility, as they voluntarily assume it. Career women married to career men, disproportionately opt to stay home with their young children. Evolution has hard-wired women (again, in the aggregate) to tend toward nurturing children. As an experiment, ride a subway sometime and watch when there is a baby or toddler in the car, and notice how many women and girls as compared to men and boys go ga-ga over the tike.

5. Myth of single-parent household. There is a widely held assumption that a woman alone cannot adequately raise her children.

I don't believe this is a myth. Children are best raised by both parents.

Raising children is a very demanding job, and having to shoulder it all alone is quite a bit to take on, whether male or female.

6. Preeminence of the wife role. Whereas men have a wide range of acceptable roles from which to select, women are expected to concentrate on becoming wives and mothers.

As you point out, not so much anymore.

7. Negative self-image. Women regard themselves as inferior and are thus tolerant of male aggressiveness.

Inferior to whom? Men? Women have different strengths than men do (in the aggregate).

8. Women as children. The husband is defined as the "head of the household," while the wife is presumed to be under his control, just like the children. In short, husbands are seen to have a moral right to discipline their wives as they do their children.

Only in fundamentalist Xian or highly conservative Muslim or Jewish households. Very few other modern women accept being treated like children.

9. Male orientation of the justice system. Justice in the United Sttes is run by males for males. Consequently, victimized wives can anticipate little help from the system, and offending husbands can aniticipate little trouble."73

This is largely false. In fact, women can get their significant others charged with domestic abuse for the most trivial of things, such as a shove.

I know this firsthand, as I have defended men against such accusations. But once a female has made her complaint, the prosecutors are like mad dogs, hellbent on making a criminal out of the guy.

Further, many complaints of rape are false. A study of the Fort Wayne, Indiana Police Dept over a ten year period found that the majority of women filing rape complaints eventually recanted. But it is an easy weapon to use against a man who has pissed one off. We have gone from one extreme (an era when women were not believed) to another, in which they have a great weapon of punishment and revenge.

Further, women are still far more likely to prevail in a custody battle, just because they are mothers.

In my view, men batter wives and girlfriends because males are more physically aggressive than women. (However, there are plenty of instances in which women initiate the violence, such as a slap in the face. This traditional response to a man's getting "fresh" would constitute domestic violence, and would be grounds to prohibit her from owning a gun in many jurisdictions.) Women will put up with it often because they value relationships and family very strongly, and it can take quite a bit to make them decide to end a marriage/relationship.

BTW, so-called Battered Wife Syndrome is largely bullshit. It is the product of a book written by a woman who undertook no scientific research, and relied on anecdotal evidence.

Finally, I stopped calling myself a feminist over 15 years ago, when I became convinced that much taught in Women's Studies courses, and in allied disciplines, is unscientific, unscholarly garbage. Things such as the Superbowl Sunday BS really gave me pause. (Ity was claimed by NOW and others in the Women's Studies field that emergency rooms were filled with battered wives on this day of purported celebration of male aggression, when men got all worked and went into fits of testosterone. In point of fact, there are no more admissions for domestic violence on that day than any other.)

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

I, I dispute much of your list of sexist issues reinforcing domestic abuse, some of the points strongly so.

n a message dated 5/13/01 1:33:37 PM US Eastern Standard Time, ahicks@... writes:

Sexist aspects of violence (paraphrased), by Murray Straus:

"

1. Male authority. There is a presumption that males are superior.

In the face of a challenge to their authority, males often resort to physical violence to maintain or restore their positions.

A presumption by who? Males are superior in some areas, as are women. (I speak in the aggregate, allowing for individual exception.)

2. Compulsive masculinity. Physical aggressiveness is linked with the identity of being a "man." To be passive is to ve womanlike, a shameful trait in a "real" man.

Physical aggression in males is universal, and the result of evolutionary biology. This is why 90% or more of serial killers are male, and homicides of all sorts are infinitely more likely to be committed by males. It is also why violent crimes are largely the byproduct of males between the ages of 15-24.

3. Economic constraints. There are few alternatives for women seeking economic independence. Physical assaults are thus often tolerated because of women's lack of prospects outside of marriage.

This used to be true, but is largely not the case anymore, at least not insofar as it now takes two incomes to support a family well. Single parent males are often also in dire straits financially.

4. Burdens of child care. Women are given the primary responsibility for raising children. Occupational discrimination against women and the lack of other resources that would allow them to support their children independently lock women into marriage.

Women are not so much "given" this responsibility, as they voluntarily assume it. Career women married to career men, disproportionately opt to stay home with their young children. Evolution has hard-wired women (again, in the aggregate) to tend toward nurturing children. As an experiment, ride a subway sometime and watch when there is a baby or toddler in the car, and notice how many women and girls as compared to men and boys go ga-ga over the tike.

5. Myth of single-parent household. There is a widely held assumption that a woman alone cannot adequately raise her children.

I don't believe this is a myth. Children are best raised by both parents.

Raising children is a very demanding job, and having to shoulder it all alone is quite a bit to take on, whether male or female.

6. Preeminence of the wife role. Whereas men have a wide range of acceptable roles from which to select, women are expected to concentrate on becoming wives and mothers.

As you point out, not so much anymore.

7. Negative self-image. Women regard themselves as inferior and are thus tolerant of male aggressiveness.

Inferior to whom? Men? Women have different strengths than men do (in the aggregate).

8. Women as children. The husband is defined as the "head of the household," while the wife is presumed to be under his control, just like the children. In short, husbands are seen to have a moral right to discipline their wives as they do their children.

Only in fundamentalist Xian or highly conservative Muslim or Jewish households. Very few other modern women accept being treated like children.

9. Male orientation of the justice system. Justice in the United Sttes is run by males for males. Consequently, victimized wives can anticipate little help from the system, and offending husbands can aniticipate little trouble."73

This is largely false. In fact, women can get their significant others charged with domestic abuse for the most trivial of things, such as a shove.

I know this firsthand, as I have defended men against such accusations. But once a female has made her complaint, the prosecutors are like mad dogs, hellbent on making a criminal out of the guy.

Further, many complaints of rape are false. A study of the Fort Wayne, Indiana Police Dept over a ten year period found that the majority of women filing rape complaints eventually recanted. But it is an easy weapon to use against a man who has pissed one off. We have gone from one extreme (an era when women were not believed) to another, in which they have a great weapon of punishment and revenge.

Further, women are still far more likely to prevail in a custody battle, just because they are mothers.

In my view, men batter wives and girlfriends because males are more physically aggressive than women. (However, there are plenty of instances in which women initiate the violence, such as a slap in the face. This traditional response to a man's getting "fresh" would constitute domestic violence, and would be grounds to prohibit her from owning a gun in many jurisdictions.) Women will put up with it often because they value relationships and family very strongly, and it can take quite a bit to make them decide to end a marriage/relationship.

BTW, so-called Battered Wife Syndrome is largely bullshit. It is the product of a book written by a woman who undertook no scientific research, and relied on anecdotal evidence.

Finally, I stopped calling myself a feminist over 15 years ago, when I became convinced that much taught in Women's Studies courses, and in allied disciplines, is unscientific, unscholarly garbage. Things such as the Superbowl Sunday BS really gave me pause. (Ity was claimed by NOW and others in the Women's Studies field that emergency rooms were filled with battered wives on this day of purported celebration of male aggression, when men got all worked and went into fits of testosterone. In point of fact, there are no more admissions for domestic violence on that day than any other.)

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

I, I dispute much of your list of sexist issues reinforcing domestic abuse, some of the points strongly so.

n a message dated 5/13/01 1:33:37 PM US Eastern Standard Time, ahicks@... writes:

Sexist aspects of violence (paraphrased), by Murray Straus:

"

1. Male authority. There is a presumption that males are superior.

In the face of a challenge to their authority, males often resort to physical violence to maintain or restore their positions.

A presumption by who? Males are superior in some areas, as are women. (I speak in the aggregate, allowing for individual exception.)

2. Compulsive masculinity. Physical aggressiveness is linked with the identity of being a "man." To be passive is to ve womanlike, a shameful trait in a "real" man.

Physical aggression in males is universal, and the result of evolutionary biology. This is why 90% or more of serial killers are male, and homicides of all sorts are infinitely more likely to be committed by males. It is also why violent crimes are largely the byproduct of males between the ages of 15-24.

3. Economic constraints. There are few alternatives for women seeking economic independence. Physical assaults are thus often tolerated because of women's lack of prospects outside of marriage.

This used to be true, but is largely not the case anymore, at least not insofar as it now takes two incomes to support a family well. Single parent males are often also in dire straits financially.

4. Burdens of child care. Women are given the primary responsibility for raising children. Occupational discrimination against women and the lack of other resources that would allow them to support their children independently lock women into marriage.

Women are not so much "given" this responsibility, as they voluntarily assume it. Career women married to career men, disproportionately opt to stay home with their young children. Evolution has hard-wired women (again, in the aggregate) to tend toward nurturing children. As an experiment, ride a subway sometime and watch when there is a baby or toddler in the car, and notice how many women and girls as compared to men and boys go ga-ga over the tike.

5. Myth of single-parent household. There is a widely held assumption that a woman alone cannot adequately raise her children.

I don't believe this is a myth. Children are best raised by both parents.

Raising children is a very demanding job, and having to shoulder it all alone is quite a bit to take on, whether male or female.

6. Preeminence of the wife role. Whereas men have a wide range of acceptable roles from which to select, women are expected to concentrate on becoming wives and mothers.

As you point out, not so much anymore.

7. Negative self-image. Women regard themselves as inferior and are thus tolerant of male aggressiveness.

Inferior to whom? Men? Women have different strengths than men do (in the aggregate).

8. Women as children. The husband is defined as the "head of the household," while the wife is presumed to be under his control, just like the children. In short, husbands are seen to have a moral right to discipline their wives as they do their children.

Only in fundamentalist Xian or highly conservative Muslim or Jewish households. Very few other modern women accept being treated like children.

9. Male orientation of the justice system. Justice in the United Sttes is run by males for males. Consequently, victimized wives can anticipate little help from the system, and offending husbands can aniticipate little trouble."73

This is largely false. In fact, women can get their significant others charged with domestic abuse for the most trivial of things, such as a shove.

I know this firsthand, as I have defended men against such accusations. But once a female has made her complaint, the prosecutors are like mad dogs, hellbent on making a criminal out of the guy.

Further, many complaints of rape are false. A study of the Fort Wayne, Indiana Police Dept over a ten year period found that the majority of women filing rape complaints eventually recanted. But it is an easy weapon to use against a man who has pissed one off. We have gone from one extreme (an era when women were not believed) to another, in which they have a great weapon of punishment and revenge.

Further, women are still far more likely to prevail in a custody battle, just because they are mothers.

In my view, men batter wives and girlfriends because males are more physically aggressive than women. (However, there are plenty of instances in which women initiate the violence, such as a slap in the face. This traditional response to a man's getting "fresh" would constitute domestic violence, and would be grounds to prohibit her from owning a gun in many jurisdictions.) Women will put up with it often because they value relationships and family very strongly, and it can take quite a bit to make them decide to end a marriage/relationship.

BTW, so-called Battered Wife Syndrome is largely bullshit. It is the product of a book written by a woman who undertook no scientific research, and relied on anecdotal evidence.

Finally, I stopped calling myself a feminist over 15 years ago, when I became convinced that much taught in Women's Studies courses, and in allied disciplines, is unscientific, unscholarly garbage. Things such as the Superbowl Sunday BS really gave me pause. (Ity was claimed by NOW and others in the Women's Studies field that emergency rooms were filled with battered wives on this day of purported celebration of male aggression, when men got all worked and went into fits of testosterone. In point of fact, there are no more admissions for domestic violence on that day than any other.)

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

No. Physical aggression of males is strongly reinforced in our culture, in the US of A. It is not universal to all cultures, or even all industrialized cultures. USA is #1! In this as in everything else, right? The ages are right, but lets not forget the SES, (Social Economic Status). Most violent crimes are committed by young males who have a lower SES, except spouse abuse seems to cut across all the class boundaries.

In every single culture, males are more violent than females. Men are the warrior class in nearly every community of peoples. They commit more homicides. And yes, SES plays a role, but the fact remains that young women in the same SES do not commit these crimes of violence at anything remotely like their male counterparts.

>>This is a personal issue for me.  I always worked, I do have a B.A., but nothing further than that.  We made the decision that I would stay home and take care of the kiddos and I've been out of the workforce for a few years now.  If I were to go back in now, I would be faced with clerical work or support work, which is a big reason why I'm going back to school.  If it came up today, I'd be smack in the middle of Welfare. <<

But this is exactly why women earn less than men. It is not because women are paid less for the same hours of the same work as men with the same skills and seniority. Women *opt to go on mommy track, and to take jobs that allow them to put children and home first, far more often than men do. I made that choice, and didn't graduate from law school until I was 37, precisely because it took me many years to finish college while raising three sons. That I'm now 44 and not earning a half million dollars a year as a partner in a major law firm is largely a result of my own choices. I still choose not to work 70 hours per week, because I want my grandchildren to know me as Gramma Mona who baby-sits them and kisses their owies, and not as some distant lawyer they seldom see.

>>As an experiment, leave a baby with it's father.  When no one is watching, see how he loves his baby when he is free to do so.<<

Of course this is true. But by and large, women are more patient with young children. Men do not opt to work in day-care centers, or to be kindergarten teachers, at nearly the rates women *choose to do so. Women feel an instinctive impulse to nurture and lavish affection on little ones. Men are far less delighted with them, particularly when the tots are not theirs. In virtually ever culture women are the primary nurturers of small children.

Something that universal can't have come about because, by some wild coincidence, every culture has imposed a role on women that they are no more suited to than are men.

>>I don't believe you are seriously ascribing to the idea that the children that are raised by a single parent are inadequately raised.  I certainly don't believe they are.  While I agree that it is a lot to take on (amen), it doesn't follow that children are necessarily best raised by both parents.  This is an individual family situation.<<

Children are best raised by two parents. That makes for optimal outcome.

From that it does not follow that children raised by single parents are raised poorly. But having both a mother and father figure is psychologically and financially beneficial. Indeed, some sociologists have concluded that part of the pathology among young black males results from the absence of father figures, which is why some African Americans have attempted to implement schools exclusively for black boys with an all-male teaching staff. (These schools have faced legal challenges for excluding black girls and female teachers.)

About the rape issue and women making false reports, I'll find the Fort Wayne study and post that, hopefully tomorrow.

>>Do you see a certain amount of violence as being normal, or justified?<<

<Thinking> Normal, yes, in the sense that at some point people can explode and not manage their anger in a way we would consider proper. Pushing, shoving, slapping are things some people do do when very angry, but not routinely or at a level that rises to a beating. I do not believe in initiating violence, but I accept that it is a human foible to sometimes violate that normative injunction. When a person (usually the male) has shoved or slapped, and this isn't some ongoing pattern of violence and intimidation, I don't think it is fair or just to brand him a wife beater, or give him a record for domestic abuse.

>>If you have a situation where the man shoves the women once, and she uses it as a "weapon," I would have to question that and also what led up to that.  What does that woman gain from, essentially, false reporting.<<

It isn't false reporting. A shove is a battery (or assault, depending on the jurisdiction and the word it uses to describe the behavior). I don't think getting the police and prosecutor's office involved is always the best way to manage a marital problem. Among other things, I recoil from women adopting the label of "victim" too easily, and rendering her SO a "batterer" for a relatively trivial physical contact.

Mind you, I have been actually battered, and so was my mother. Living in constant fear of being physically hurt is not a pleasant way to live. So I just can't relate to women who seek prosecution for a shove or slap from a partner who is not typically violent, and simply blew his cool rather mildly in the heat of an intense argument. That is not the same thing as living under the tyranny of the constant threat of physical violence.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

No. Physical aggression of males is strongly reinforced in our culture, in the US of A. It is not universal to all cultures, or even all industrialized cultures. USA is #1! In this as in everything else, right? The ages are right, but lets not forget the SES, (Social Economic Status). Most violent crimes are committed by young males who have a lower SES, except spouse abuse seems to cut across all the class boundaries.

In every single culture, males are more violent than females. Men are the warrior class in nearly every community of peoples. They commit more homicides. And yes, SES plays a role, but the fact remains that young women in the same SES do not commit these crimes of violence at anything remotely like their male counterparts.

>>This is a personal issue for me.  I always worked, I do have a B.A., but nothing further than that.  We made the decision that I would stay home and take care of the kiddos and I've been out of the workforce for a few years now.  If I were to go back in now, I would be faced with clerical work or support work, which is a big reason why I'm going back to school.  If it came up today, I'd be smack in the middle of Welfare. <<

But this is exactly why women earn less than men. It is not because women are paid less for the same hours of the same work as men with the same skills and seniority. Women *opt to go on mommy track, and to take jobs that allow them to put children and home first, far more often than men do. I made that choice, and didn't graduate from law school until I was 37, precisely because it took me many years to finish college while raising three sons. That I'm now 44 and not earning a half million dollars a year as a partner in a major law firm is largely a result of my own choices. I still choose not to work 70 hours per week, because I want my grandchildren to know me as Gramma Mona who baby-sits them and kisses their owies, and not as some distant lawyer they seldom see.

>>As an experiment, leave a baby with it's father.  When no one is watching, see how he loves his baby when he is free to do so.<<

Of course this is true. But by and large, women are more patient with young children. Men do not opt to work in day-care centers, or to be kindergarten teachers, at nearly the rates women *choose to do so. Women feel an instinctive impulse to nurture and lavish affection on little ones. Men are far less delighted with them, particularly when the tots are not theirs. In virtually ever culture women are the primary nurturers of small children.

Something that universal can't have come about because, by some wild coincidence, every culture has imposed a role on women that they are no more suited to than are men.

>>I don't believe you are seriously ascribing to the idea that the children that are raised by a single parent are inadequately raised.  I certainly don't believe they are.  While I agree that it is a lot to take on (amen), it doesn't follow that children are necessarily best raised by both parents.  This is an individual family situation.<<

Children are best raised by two parents. That makes for optimal outcome.

From that it does not follow that children raised by single parents are raised poorly. But having both a mother and father figure is psychologically and financially beneficial. Indeed, some sociologists have concluded that part of the pathology among young black males results from the absence of father figures, which is why some African Americans have attempted to implement schools exclusively for black boys with an all-male teaching staff. (These schools have faced legal challenges for excluding black girls and female teachers.)

About the rape issue and women making false reports, I'll find the Fort Wayne study and post that, hopefully tomorrow.

>>Do you see a certain amount of violence as being normal, or justified?<<

<Thinking> Normal, yes, in the sense that at some point people can explode and not manage their anger in a way we would consider proper. Pushing, shoving, slapping are things some people do do when very angry, but not routinely or at a level that rises to a beating. I do not believe in initiating violence, but I accept that it is a human foible to sometimes violate that normative injunction. When a person (usually the male) has shoved or slapped, and this isn't some ongoing pattern of violence and intimidation, I don't think it is fair or just to brand him a wife beater, or give him a record for domestic abuse.

>>If you have a situation where the man shoves the women once, and she uses it as a "weapon," I would have to question that and also what led up to that.  What does that woman gain from, essentially, false reporting.<<

It isn't false reporting. A shove is a battery (or assault, depending on the jurisdiction and the word it uses to describe the behavior). I don't think getting the police and prosecutor's office involved is always the best way to manage a marital problem. Among other things, I recoil from women adopting the label of "victim" too easily, and rendering her SO a "batterer" for a relatively trivial physical contact.

Mind you, I have been actually battered, and so was my mother. Living in constant fear of being physically hurt is not a pleasant way to live. So I just can't relate to women who seek prosecution for a shove or slap from a partner who is not typically violent, and simply blew his cool rather mildly in the heat of an intense argument. That is not the same thing as living under the tyranny of the constant threat of physical violence.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

No. Physical aggression of males is strongly reinforced in our culture, in the US of A. It is not universal to all cultures, or even all industrialized cultures. USA is #1! In this as in everything else, right? The ages are right, but lets not forget the SES, (Social Economic Status). Most violent crimes are committed by young males who have a lower SES, except spouse abuse seems to cut across all the class boundaries.

In every single culture, males are more violent than females. Men are the warrior class in nearly every community of peoples. They commit more homicides. And yes, SES plays a role, but the fact remains that young women in the same SES do not commit these crimes of violence at anything remotely like their male counterparts.

>>This is a personal issue for me.  I always worked, I do have a B.A., but nothing further than that.  We made the decision that I would stay home and take care of the kiddos and I've been out of the workforce for a few years now.  If I were to go back in now, I would be faced with clerical work or support work, which is a big reason why I'm going back to school.  If it came up today, I'd be smack in the middle of Welfare. <<

But this is exactly why women earn less than men. It is not because women are paid less for the same hours of the same work as men with the same skills and seniority. Women *opt to go on mommy track, and to take jobs that allow them to put children and home first, far more often than men do. I made that choice, and didn't graduate from law school until I was 37, precisely because it took me many years to finish college while raising three sons. That I'm now 44 and not earning a half million dollars a year as a partner in a major law firm is largely a result of my own choices. I still choose not to work 70 hours per week, because I want my grandchildren to know me as Gramma Mona who baby-sits them and kisses their owies, and not as some distant lawyer they seldom see.

>>As an experiment, leave a baby with it's father.  When no one is watching, see how he loves his baby when he is free to do so.<<

Of course this is true. But by and large, women are more patient with young children. Men do not opt to work in day-care centers, or to be kindergarten teachers, at nearly the rates women *choose to do so. Women feel an instinctive impulse to nurture and lavish affection on little ones. Men are far less delighted with them, particularly when the tots are not theirs. In virtually ever culture women are the primary nurturers of small children.

Something that universal can't have come about because, by some wild coincidence, every culture has imposed a role on women that they are no more suited to than are men.

>>I don't believe you are seriously ascribing to the idea that the children that are raised by a single parent are inadequately raised.  I certainly don't believe they are.  While I agree that it is a lot to take on (amen), it doesn't follow that children are necessarily best raised by both parents.  This is an individual family situation.<<

Children are best raised by two parents. That makes for optimal outcome.

From that it does not follow that children raised by single parents are raised poorly. But having both a mother and father figure is psychologically and financially beneficial. Indeed, some sociologists have concluded that part of the pathology among young black males results from the absence of father figures, which is why some African Americans have attempted to implement schools exclusively for black boys with an all-male teaching staff. (These schools have faced legal challenges for excluding black girls and female teachers.)

About the rape issue and women making false reports, I'll find the Fort Wayne study and post that, hopefully tomorrow.

>>Do you see a certain amount of violence as being normal, or justified?<<

<Thinking> Normal, yes, in the sense that at some point people can explode and not manage their anger in a way we would consider proper. Pushing, shoving, slapping are things some people do do when very angry, but not routinely or at a level that rises to a beating. I do not believe in initiating violence, but I accept that it is a human foible to sometimes violate that normative injunction. When a person (usually the male) has shoved or slapped, and this isn't some ongoing pattern of violence and intimidation, I don't think it is fair or just to brand him a wife beater, or give him a record for domestic abuse.

>>If you have a situation where the man shoves the women once, and she uses it as a "weapon," I would have to question that and also what led up to that.  What does that woman gain from, essentially, false reporting.<<

It isn't false reporting. A shove is a battery (or assault, depending on the jurisdiction and the word it uses to describe the behavior). I don't think getting the police and prosecutor's office involved is always the best way to manage a marital problem. Among other things, I recoil from women adopting the label of "victim" too easily, and rendering her SO a "batterer" for a relatively trivial physical contact.

Mind you, I have been actually battered, and so was my mother. Living in constant fear of being physically hurt is not a pleasant way to live. So I just can't relate to women who seek prosecution for a shove or slap from a partner who is not typically violent, and simply blew his cool rather mildly in the heat of an intense argument. That is not the same thing as living under the tyranny of the constant threat of physical violence.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

> I, I dispute much of your list of sexist issues reinforcing

domestic

> abuse, some of the points strongly so.

Excellent. One point I want to clarify before I respond to the rest

of this post is that these were written by a man in 1976 and I put

them out there for a starting point. I believe, in the main, that

they are factors that have a strong influence on spouse abuse in

America - but I also think that some things have changed since they

were written.

>

> n a message dated 5/13/01 1:33:37 PM US Eastern Standard Time,

> ahicks@s... writes:

>

>

> > Sexist aspects of violence (paraphrased), by Murray Straus:

> > "

> > 1. Male authority. There is a presumption that males are

superior.

> > In the face of a challenge to their authority, males often resort

to

> > physical violence to maintain or restore their positions.

>

> A presumption by who? Males are superior in some areas, as are

women. (I

> speak in the aggregate, allowing for individual exception.)

I think this was referring to the presumption of the males that were

doing the abusing and as a *very general* societal view. As much as I

don't agree with it, I do think that idea is *still* out there and

very strongly in some quarters.

Let's agree to speak of the " aggregate " unless otherwise noted in this

discussion. I was speaking of that also.

>

>

>

> > 2. Compulsive masculinity. Physical aggressiveness is linked

with

> > the identity of being a " man. " To be passive is to ve womanlike,

a

> > shameful trait in a " real " man.

>

> Physical aggression in males is universal, and the result of

evolutionary

> biology. This is why 90% or more of serial killers are male, and

homicides

> of all sorts are infinitely more likely to be committed by males.

It is also

> why violent crimes are largely the byproduct of males between the

ages of

> 15-24.

No. Physical aggression of males is strongly reinforced in our

culture, in the US of A. It is not universal to all cultures, or even

all industrialized cultures. USA is #1! In this as in everything

else, right? The ages are right, but lets not forget the SES, (Social

Economic Status). Most violent crimes are committed by young males

who have a lower SES, except spouse abuse seems to cut across all the

class boundaries.

>

>

> > 3. Economic constraints. There are few alternatives for women

> > seeking economic independence. Physical assaults are thus often

> > tolerated because of women's lack of prospects outside of

marriage.

>

> This used to be true, but is largely not the case anymore, at least

not

> insofar as it now takes two incomes to support a family well.

Single parent

> males are often also in dire straits financially.

Point taken about the single males supporting families, but this

situation is very rare in comparison to the group of single mothers

who are taking on the whole burden of child care. There are a number

of reasons why this is the much larger group, and one of them is the

simple fact that it is the woman who carries and delivers the child.

I know there are exceptions of women abandoning their children, but

much more often the case is reversed. The men can walk away and they

do.

To add to this situation, women still earn substantially less in the

workplace, in aggregate, than men do. Especially if their children

arrived before their education was completed. Most women have far

fewer options than men do outside of their marriages in the workplace.

This is a personal issue for me. I always worked, I do have a B.A.,

but nothing further than that. We made the decision that I would stay

home and take care of the kiddos and I've been out of the workforce

for a few years now. If I were to go back in now, I would be faced

with clerical work or support work, which is a big reason why I'm

going back to school. If it came up today, I'd be smack in the middle

of Welfare. So, it's a good thing that my guy is OK. No, it doesn't

feel good to me that this much of it rests on the caprice of another

person, but you can bet that this is faced daily by countless American

women.

>

>

> > 4. Burdens of child care. Women are given the primary

responsibility

> > for raising children. Occupational discrimination against women

and

> > the lack of other resources that would allow them to support their

> > children independently lock women into marriage.

>

> Women are not so much " given " this responsibility, as they

voluntarily assume

> it. Career women married to career men, disproportionately opt to

stay home

> with their young children. Evolution has hard-wired women (again,

in the

> aggregate) to tend toward nurturing children. As an experiment,

ride a

> subway sometime and watch when there is a baby or toddler in the

car, and

> notice how many women and girls as compared to men and boys go

ga-ga over

> the tike.

Oh boy. Here we have a real point of contention. Nurturing IS NOT

necessarily " hard-wired " into women as opposed to men. This is a

widely promulgated myth. This is learned. This is reinforced. This

is a society thing. I also have distanced from the feminists and this

is one of the reasons - while they have helped women make progress in

the world of work, they haven't helped men get into the labor of

childcare. The women just do double-duty. How typical.

As an experiment, leave a baby with it's father. When no one is

watching, see how he loves his baby when he is free to do so.

>

>

> > 5. Myth of single-parent household. There is a widely held

> > assumption that a woman alone cannot adequately raise her

children.

>

> I don't believe this is a myth. Children are best raised by both

parents.

> Raising children is a very demanding job, and having to shoulder it

all alone

> is quite a bit to take on, whether male or female.

I don't believe you are seriously ascribing to the idea that the

children that are raised by a single parent are inadequately raised.

I certainly don't believe they are. While I agree that it is a lot to

take on (amen), it doesn't follow that children are necessarily best

raised by both parents. This is an individual family situation.

>

>

> > 6. Preeminence of the wife role. Whereas men have a wide range

of

> > acceptable roles from which to select, women are expected to

> > concentrate on becoming wives and mothers.

>

>

> As you point out, not so much anymore.

Yet, women are still pushed in these directions. In the old days,

there weren't hardly any more options than this. Now, there are more,

but there is still a strong push toward the dream of family, kids,

etc.

>

> > 7. Negative self-image. Women regard themselves as inferior and

are

> > thus tolerant of male aggressiveness.

>

> Inferior to whom? Men? Women have different strengths than men do

(in the

> aggregate).

Well, I don't disagree with the fact you state here, but what he is

talking about are the women who are staying in these relationships.

There is *still* (believe it or not) a portion of women who are

blaming themselves for the bad things that happen to them. They feel

that they didn't handle the situation right, or that somehow they

could have averted it. This is sooooo ingrained (and in my view the

12-step stuff just exaserbates this). IMO, people who have a positive

self-image have a hard time relating to those who don't. I've gone

from one to the other, so I do know about it. And if I'd been beaten

up when I was drinking out of control, I would have blamed myself for

it and tried to figure out how I could do better the next time.

>

>

> > 8. Women as children. The husband is defined as the " head of the

> > household, " while the wife is presumed to be under his control,

just

> > like the children. In short, husbands are seen to have a moral

right

> > to discipline their wives as they do their children.

>

> Only in fundamentalist Xian or highly conservative Muslim or Jewish

> households. Very few other modern women accept being treated like

children.

Yeah, this one doesn't see so true in this day and age. But there are

some husbands who do feel this way and who do use it as part of the

rationalization for their abusive behavior.

>

>

> > 9. Male orientation of the justice system. Justice in the United

> > Sttes is run by males for males. Consequently, victimized wives

can

> > anticipate little help from the system, and offending husbands can

> > aniticipate little trouble. " 73

> >

>

>

> This is largely false. In fact, women can get their significant

others

> charged with domestic abuse for the most trivial of things, such as

a shove.

> I know this firsthand, as I have defended men against such

accusations. But

> once a female has made her complaint, the prosecutors are like mad

dogs,

> hellbent on making a criminal out of the guy.

I'm sure there are instances where they take it too far the other way,

but in the aggregate, no.

>

> Further, many complaints of rape are false. A study of the Fort

Wayne,

> Indiana Police Dept over a ten year period found that the majority

of women

> filing rape complaints eventually recanted. But it is an easy

weapon to use

> against a man who has pissed one off. We have gone from one extreme

(an era

> when women were not believed) to another, in which they have a great

weapon

> of punishment and revenge.

This is an interesting statistic here. Here are the stats I got in my

class:

Percent of rapes reported: 51% (This is from the NCVS, National Crime

Victimization Survey).

Percent of rapes designated " unfounded " : 15% Rapes can be determined

unfounded due to delay in reporting, intoxication of the victim, lack

of physical evidence or prior relationship with the offender.

Percent convicted of those that make it that far: 30%

Percent that do time: 17%

Some weapon. This crime is also vastly underreported because women

know that they will be made victims a second time by the criminal

justice system, not to mention the hassle and embarrasment. I

understand that they can't now use a woman's prior sexual history

against her in rape cases and that is a big step in the right

direction. But rape is a crime that is *routinely* gotten away with.

>

> Further, women are still far more likely to prevail in a custody

battle, just

> because they are mothers.

I agree that this situation exists and can be very unfair. My husband

did lose custody of his daughter in an extremely ugly case. But I

don't think that overall this is much support for the idea that women

in general get a fair shake in the criminal justice system.

>

> In my view, men batter wives and girlfriends because males are more

> physically aggressive than women. (However, there are plenty of

instances in

> which women initiate the violence, such as a slap in the face. This

> traditional response to a man's getting " fresh " would constitute

domestic

> violence, and would be grounds to prohibit her from owning a gun in

many

> jurisdictions.) Women will put up with it often because they value

> relationships and family very strongly, and it can take quite a bit

to make

> them decide to end a marriage/relationship.

Aggression and violence is a culturally legitimized activity in the

US. Men don't *have* to do it and are not, in my view, compelled by

their biology alone to use violence. There is a hell of a lot of

cultural teaching that goes into it as well.

It does take women quite a bit to make them decide to leave an abusive

relationship - but one factor that you can't ignore in conscience is

that there very well may be much fewer options for her out there,

especially since she will most likely be shouldering the burder of

childcare in addition.

>

> BTW, so-called Battered Wife Syndrome is largely bullshit. It is

the product

> of a book written by a woman who undertook no scientific research,

and relied

> on anecdotal evidence.

And I wasn't basing my viewpoint on hers. This " Syndrome " was

" discovered " in the early 70s, when in fact the first shelters began

to open and hotlines were available for women who were beaten. Before

then, well, the problem just didn't exist.

> Finally, I stopped calling myself a feminist over 15 years ago, when

I became

> convinced that much taught in Women's Studies courses, and in allied

> disciplines, is unscientific, unscholarly garbage. Things such as

the

> Superbowl Sunday BS really gave me pause. (Ity was claimed by NOW

and others

> in the Women's Studies field that emergency rooms were filled with

battered

> wives on this day of purported celebration of male aggression, when

men got

> all worked and went into fits of testosterone. In point of fact,

there are

> no more admissions for domestic violence on that day than any

other.)

>

> --Mona--

Well, I won't judge all feminism by NOW getting it wrong on the Super

Bowl Sunday thing...this is a huge area of debate in itself.

Do you see a certain amount of violence as being normal, or justified?

If you have a situation where the man shoves the women once, and she

uses it as a " weapon, " I would have to question that and also what led

up to that. What does that woman gain from, essentially, false

reporting. I think what you are talking about there really is an

exception in this area of discussion - although on an individual level

I don't put anything past human beings to do to one another.

[Guest guest]

> I, I dispute much of your list of sexist issues reinforcing

domestic

> abuse, some of the points strongly so.

Excellent. One point I want to clarify before I respond to the rest

of this post is that these were written by a man in 1976 and I put

them out there for a starting point. I believe, in the main, that

they are factors that have a strong influence on spouse abuse in

America - but I also think that some things have changed since they

were written.

>

> n a message dated 5/13/01 1:33:37 PM US Eastern Standard Time,

> ahicks@s... writes:

>

>

> > Sexist aspects of violence (paraphrased), by Murray Straus:

> > "

> > 1. Male authority. There is a presumption that males are

superior.

> > In the face of a challenge to their authority, males often resort

to

> > physical violence to maintain or restore their positions.

>

> A presumption by who? Males are superior in some areas, as are

women. (I

> speak in the aggregate, allowing for individual exception.)

I think this was referring to the presumption of the males that were

doing the abusing and as a *very general* societal view. As much as I

don't agree with it, I do think that idea is *still* out there and

very strongly in some quarters.

Let's agree to speak of the " aggregate " unless otherwise noted in this

discussion. I was speaking of that also.

>

>

>

> > 2. Compulsive masculinity. Physical aggressiveness is linked

with

> > the identity of being a " man. " To be passive is to ve womanlike,

a

> > shameful trait in a " real " man.

>

> Physical aggression in males is universal, and the result of

evolutionary

> biology. This is why 90% or more of serial killers are male, and

homicides

> of all sorts are infinitely more likely to be committed by males.

It is also

> why violent crimes are largely the byproduct of males between the

ages of

> 15-24.

No. Physical aggression of males is strongly reinforced in our

culture, in the US of A. It is not universal to all cultures, or even

all industrialized cultures. USA is #1! In this as in everything

else, right? The ages are right, but lets not forget the SES, (Social

Economic Status). Most violent crimes are committed by young males

who have a lower SES, except spouse abuse seems to cut across all the

class boundaries.

>

>

> > 3. Economic constraints. There are few alternatives for women

> > seeking economic independence. Physical assaults are thus often

> > tolerated because of women's lack of prospects outside of

marriage.

>

> This used to be true, but is largely not the case anymore, at least

not

> insofar as it now takes two incomes to support a family well.

Single parent

> males are often also in dire straits financially.

Point taken about the single males supporting families, but this

situation is very rare in comparison to the group of single mothers

who are taking on the whole burden of child care. There are a number

of reasons why this is the much larger group, and one of them is the

simple fact that it is the woman who carries and delivers the child.

I know there are exceptions of women abandoning their children, but

much more often the case is reversed. The men can walk away and they

do.

To add to this situation, women still earn substantially less in the

workplace, in aggregate, than men do. Especially if their children

arrived before their education was completed. Most women have far

fewer options than men do outside of their marriages in the workplace.

This is a personal issue for me. I always worked, I do have a B.A.,

but nothing further than that. We made the decision that I would stay

home and take care of the kiddos and I've been out of the workforce

for a few years now. If I were to go back in now, I would be faced

with clerical work or support work, which is a big reason why I'm

going back to school. If it came up today, I'd be smack in the middle

of Welfare. So, it's a good thing that my guy is OK. No, it doesn't

feel good to me that this much of it rests on the caprice of another

person, but you can bet that this is faced daily by countless American

women.

>

>

> > 4. Burdens of child care. Women are given the primary

responsibility

> > for raising children. Occupational discrimination against women

and

> > the lack of other resources that would allow them to support their

> > children independently lock women into marriage.

>

> Women are not so much " given " this responsibility, as they

voluntarily assume

> it. Career women married to career men, disproportionately opt to

stay home

> with their young children. Evolution has hard-wired women (again,

in the

> aggregate) to tend toward nurturing children. As an experiment,

ride a

> subway sometime and watch when there is a baby or toddler in the

car, and

> notice how many women and girls as compared to men and boys go

ga-ga over

> the tike.

Oh boy. Here we have a real point of contention. Nurturing IS NOT

necessarily " hard-wired " into women as opposed to men. This is a

widely promulgated myth. This is learned. This is reinforced. This

is a society thing. I also have distanced from the feminists and this

is one of the reasons - while they have helped women make progress in

the world of work, they haven't helped men get into the labor of

childcare. The women just do double-duty. How typical.

As an experiment, leave a baby with it's father. When no one is

watching, see how he loves his baby when he is free to do so.

>

>

> > 5. Myth of single-parent household. There is a widely held

> > assumption that a woman alone cannot adequately raise her

children.

>

> I don't believe this is a myth. Children are best raised by both

parents.

> Raising children is a very demanding job, and having to shoulder it

all alone

> is quite a bit to take on, whether male or female.

I don't believe you are seriously ascribing to the idea that the

children that are raised by a single parent are inadequately raised.

I certainly don't believe they are. While I agree that it is a lot to

take on (amen), it doesn't follow that children are necessarily best

raised by both parents. This is an individual family situation.

>

>

> > 6. Preeminence of the wife role. Whereas men have a wide range

of

> > acceptable roles from which to select, women are expected to

> > concentrate on becoming wives and mothers.

>

>

> As you point out, not so much anymore.

Yet, women are still pushed in these directions. In the old days,

there weren't hardly any more options than this. Now, there are more,

but there is still a strong push toward the dream of family, kids,

etc.

>

> > 7. Negative self-image. Women regard themselves as inferior and

are

> > thus tolerant of male aggressiveness.

>

> Inferior to whom? Men? Women have different strengths than men do

(in the

> aggregate).

Well, I don't disagree with the fact you state here, but what he is

talking about are the women who are staying in these relationships.

There is *still* (believe it or not) a portion of women who are

blaming themselves for the bad things that happen to them. They feel

that they didn't handle the situation right, or that somehow they

could have averted it. This is sooooo ingrained (and in my view the

12-step stuff just exaserbates this). IMO, people who have a positive

self-image have a hard time relating to those who don't. I've gone

from one to the other, so I do know about it. And if I'd been beaten

up when I was drinking out of control, I would have blamed myself for

it and tried to figure out how I could do better the next time.

>

>

> > 8. Women as children. The husband is defined as the " head of the

> > household, " while the wife is presumed to be under his control,

just

> > like the children. In short, husbands are seen to have a moral

right

> > to discipline their wives as they do their children.

>

> Only in fundamentalist Xian or highly conservative Muslim or Jewish

> households. Very few other modern women accept being treated like

children.

Yeah, this one doesn't see so true in this day and age. But there are

some husbands who do feel this way and who do use it as part of the

rationalization for their abusive behavior.

>

>

> > 9. Male orientation of the justice system. Justice in the United

> > Sttes is run by males for males. Consequently, victimized wives

can

> > anticipate little help from the system, and offending husbands can

> > aniticipate little trouble. " 73

> >

>

>

> This is largely false. In fact, women can get their significant

others

> charged with domestic abuse for the most trivial of things, such as

a shove.

> I know this firsthand, as I have defended men against such

accusations. But

> once a female has made her complaint, the prosecutors are like mad

dogs,

> hellbent on making a criminal out of the guy.

I'm sure there are instances where they take it too far the other way,

but in the aggregate, no.

>

> Further, many complaints of rape are false. A study of the Fort

Wayne,

> Indiana Police Dept over a ten year period found that the majority

of women

> filing rape complaints eventually recanted. But it is an easy

weapon to use

> against a man who has pissed one off. We have gone from one extreme

(an era

> when women were not believed) to another, in which they have a great

weapon

> of punishment and revenge.

This is an interesting statistic here. Here are the stats I got in my

class:

Percent of rapes reported: 51% (This is from the NCVS, National Crime

Victimization Survey).

Percent of rapes designated " unfounded " : 15% Rapes can be determined

unfounded due to delay in reporting, intoxication of the victim, lack

of physical evidence or prior relationship with the offender.

Percent convicted of those that make it that far: 30%

Percent that do time: 17%

Some weapon. This crime is also vastly underreported because women

know that they will be made victims a second time by the criminal

justice system, not to mention the hassle and embarrasment. I

understand that they can't now use a woman's prior sexual history

against her in rape cases and that is a big step in the right

direction. But rape is a crime that is *routinely* gotten away with.

>

> Further, women are still far more likely to prevail in a custody

battle, just

> because they are mothers.

I agree that this situation exists and can be very unfair. My husband

did lose custody of his daughter in an extremely ugly case. But I

don't think that overall this is much support for the idea that women

in general get a fair shake in the criminal justice system.

>

> In my view, men batter wives and girlfriends because males are more

> physically aggressive than women. (However, there are plenty of

instances in

> which women initiate the violence, such as a slap in the face. This

> traditional response to a man's getting " fresh " would constitute

domestic

> violence, and would be grounds to prohibit her from owning a gun in

many

> jurisdictions.) Women will put up with it often because they value

> relationships and family very strongly, and it can take quite a bit

to make

> them decide to end a marriage/relationship.

Aggression and violence is a culturally legitimized activity in the

US. Men don't *have* to do it and are not, in my view, compelled by

their biology alone to use violence. There is a hell of a lot of

cultural teaching that goes into it as well.

It does take women quite a bit to make them decide to leave an abusive

relationship - but one factor that you can't ignore in conscience is

that there very well may be much fewer options for her out there,

especially since she will most likely be shouldering the burder of

childcare in addition.

>

> BTW, so-called Battered Wife Syndrome is largely bullshit. It is

the product

> of a book written by a woman who undertook no scientific research,

and relied

> on anecdotal evidence.

And I wasn't basing my viewpoint on hers. This " Syndrome " was

" discovered " in the early 70s, when in fact the first shelters began

to open and hotlines were available for women who were beaten. Before

then, well, the problem just didn't exist.

> Finally, I stopped calling myself a feminist over 15 years ago, when

I became

> convinced that much taught in Women's Studies courses, and in allied

> disciplines, is unscientific, unscholarly garbage. Things such as

the

> Superbowl Sunday BS really gave me pause. (Ity was claimed by NOW

and others

> in the Women's Studies field that emergency rooms were filled with

battered

> wives on this day of purported celebration of male aggression, when

men got

> all worked and went into fits of testosterone. In point of fact,

there are

> no more admissions for domestic violence on that day than any

other.)

>

> --Mona--

Well, I won't judge all feminism by NOW getting it wrong on the Super

Bowl Sunday thing...this is a huge area of debate in itself.

Do you see a certain amount of violence as being normal, or justified?

If you have a situation where the man shoves the women once, and she

uses it as a " weapon, " I would have to question that and also what led

up to that. What does that woman gain from, essentially, false

reporting. I think what you are talking about there really is an

exception in this area of discussion - although on an individual level

I don't put anything past human beings to do to one another.

[Guest guest]

> I, I dispute much of your list of sexist issues reinforcing

domestic

> abuse, some of the points strongly so.

Excellent. One point I want to clarify before I respond to the rest

of this post is that these were written by a man in 1976 and I put

them out there for a starting point. I believe, in the main, that

they are factors that have a strong influence on spouse abuse in

America - but I also think that some things have changed since they

were written.

>

> n a message dated 5/13/01 1:33:37 PM US Eastern Standard Time,

> ahicks@s... writes:

>

>

> > Sexist aspects of violence (paraphrased), by Murray Straus:

> > "

> > 1. Male authority. There is a presumption that males are

superior.

> > In the face of a challenge to their authority, males often resort

to

> > physical violence to maintain or restore their positions.

>

> A presumption by who? Males are superior in some areas, as are

women. (I

> speak in the aggregate, allowing for individual exception.)

I think this was referring to the presumption of the males that were

doing the abusing and as a *very general* societal view. As much as I

don't agree with it, I do think that idea is *still* out there and

very strongly in some quarters.

Let's agree to speak of the " aggregate " unless otherwise noted in this

discussion. I was speaking of that also.

>

>

>

> > 2. Compulsive masculinity. Physical aggressiveness is linked

with

> > the identity of being a " man. " To be passive is to ve womanlike,

a

> > shameful trait in a " real " man.

>

> Physical aggression in males is universal, and the result of

evolutionary

> biology. This is why 90% or more of serial killers are male, and

homicides

> of all sorts are infinitely more likely to be committed by males.

It is also

> why violent crimes are largely the byproduct of males between the

ages of

> 15-24.

No. Physical aggression of males is strongly reinforced in our

culture, in the US of A. It is not universal to all cultures, or even

all industrialized cultures. USA is #1! In this as in everything

else, right? The ages are right, but lets not forget the SES, (Social

Economic Status). Most violent crimes are committed by young males

who have a lower SES, except spouse abuse seems to cut across all the

class boundaries.

>

>

> > 3. Economic constraints. There are few alternatives for women

> > seeking economic independence. Physical assaults are thus often

> > tolerated because of women's lack of prospects outside of

marriage.

>

> This used to be true, but is largely not the case anymore, at least

not

> insofar as it now takes two incomes to support a family well.

Single parent

> males are often also in dire straits financially.

Point taken about the single males supporting families, but this

situation is very rare in comparison to the group of single mothers

who are taking on the whole burden of child care. There are a number

of reasons why this is the much larger group, and one of them is the

simple fact that it is the woman who carries and delivers the child.

I know there are exceptions of women abandoning their children, but

much more often the case is reversed. The men can walk away and they

do.

To add to this situation, women still earn substantially less in the

workplace, in aggregate, than men do. Especially if their children

arrived before their education was completed. Most women have far

fewer options than men do outside of their marriages in the workplace.

This is a personal issue for me. I always worked, I do have a B.A.,

but nothing further than that. We made the decision that I would stay

home and take care of the kiddos and I've been out of the workforce

for a few years now. If I were to go back in now, I would be faced

with clerical work or support work, which is a big reason why I'm

going back to school. If it came up today, I'd be smack in the middle

of Welfare. So, it's a good thing that my guy is OK. No, it doesn't

feel good to me that this much of it rests on the caprice of another

person, but you can bet that this is faced daily by countless American

women.

>

>

> > 4. Burdens of child care. Women are given the primary

responsibility

> > for raising children. Occupational discrimination against women

and

> > the lack of other resources that would allow them to support their

> > children independently lock women into marriage.

>

> Women are not so much " given " this responsibility, as they

voluntarily assume

> it. Career women married to career men, disproportionately opt to

stay home

> with their young children. Evolution has hard-wired women (again,

in the

> aggregate) to tend toward nurturing children. As an experiment,

ride a

> subway sometime and watch when there is a baby or toddler in the

car, and

> notice how many women and girls as compared to men and boys go

ga-ga over

> the tike.

Oh boy. Here we have a real point of contention. Nurturing IS NOT

necessarily " hard-wired " into women as opposed to men. This is a

widely promulgated myth. This is learned. This is reinforced. This

is a society thing. I also have distanced from the feminists and this

is one of the reasons - while they have helped women make progress in

the world of work, they haven't helped men get into the labor of

childcare. The women just do double-duty. How typical.

As an experiment, leave a baby with it's father. When no one is

watching, see how he loves his baby when he is free to do so.

>

>

> > 5. Myth of single-parent household. There is a widely held

> > assumption that a woman alone cannot adequately raise her

children.

>

> I don't believe this is a myth. Children are best raised by both

parents.

> Raising children is a very demanding job, and having to shoulder it

all alone

> is quite a bit to take on, whether male or female.

I don't believe you are seriously ascribing to the idea that the

children that are raised by a single parent are inadequately raised.

I certainly don't believe they are. While I agree that it is a lot to

take on (amen), it doesn't follow that children are necessarily best

raised by both parents. This is an individual family situation.

>

>

> > 6. Preeminence of the wife role. Whereas men have a wide range

of

> > acceptable roles from which to select, women are expected to

> > concentrate on becoming wives and mothers.

>

>

> As you point out, not so much anymore.

Yet, women are still pushed in these directions. In the old days,

there weren't hardly any more options than this. Now, there are more,

but there is still a strong push toward the dream of family, kids,

etc.

>

> > 7. Negative self-image. Women regard themselves as inferior and

are

> > thus tolerant of male aggressiveness.

>

> Inferior to whom? Men? Women have different strengths than men do

(in the

> aggregate).

Well, I don't disagree with the fact you state here, but what he is

talking about are the women who are staying in these relationships.

There is *still* (believe it or not) a portion of women who are

blaming themselves for the bad things that happen to them. They feel

that they didn't handle the situation right, or that somehow they

could have averted it. This is sooooo ingrained (and in my view the

12-step stuff just exaserbates this). IMO, people who have a positive

self-image have a hard time relating to those who don't. I've gone

from one to the other, so I do know about it. And if I'd been beaten

up when I was drinking out of control, I would have blamed myself for

it and tried to figure out how I could do better the next time.

>

>

> > 8. Women as children. The husband is defined as the " head of the

> > household, " while the wife is presumed to be under his control,

just

> > like the children. In short, husbands are seen to have a moral

right

> > to discipline their wives as they do their children.

>

> Only in fundamentalist Xian or highly conservative Muslim or Jewish

> households. Very few other modern women accept being treated like

children.

Yeah, this one doesn't see so true in this day and age. But there are

some husbands who do feel this way and who do use it as part of the

rationalization for their abusive behavior.

>

>

> > 9. Male orientation of the justice system. Justice in the United

> > Sttes is run by males for males. Consequently, victimized wives

can

> > anticipate little help from the system, and offending husbands can

> > aniticipate little trouble. " 73

> >

>

>

> This is largely false. In fact, women can get their significant

others

> charged with domestic abuse for the most trivial of things, such as

a shove.

> I know this firsthand, as I have defended men against such

accusations. But

> once a female has made her complaint, the prosecutors are like mad

dogs,

> hellbent on making a criminal out of the guy.

I'm sure there are instances where they take it too far the other way,

but in the aggregate, no.

>

> Further, many complaints of rape are false. A study of the Fort

Wayne,

> Indiana Police Dept over a ten year period found that the majority

of women

> filing rape complaints eventually recanted. But it is an easy

weapon to use

> against a man who has pissed one off. We have gone from one extreme

(an era

> when women were not believed) to another, in which they have a great

weapon

> of punishment and revenge.

This is an interesting statistic here. Here are the stats I got in my

class:

Percent of rapes reported: 51% (This is from the NCVS, National Crime

Victimization Survey).

Percent of rapes designated " unfounded " : 15% Rapes can be determined

unfounded due to delay in reporting, intoxication of the victim, lack

of physical evidence or prior relationship with the offender.

Percent convicted of those that make it that far: 30%

Percent that do time: 17%

Some weapon. This crime is also vastly underreported because women

know that they will be made victims a second time by the criminal

justice system, not to mention the hassle and embarrasment. I

understand that they can't now use a woman's prior sexual history

against her in rape cases and that is a big step in the right

direction. But rape is a crime that is *routinely* gotten away with.

>

> Further, women are still far more likely to prevail in a custody

battle, just

> because they are mothers.

I agree that this situation exists and can be very unfair. My husband

did lose custody of his daughter in an extremely ugly case. But I

don't think that overall this is much support for the idea that women

in general get a fair shake in the criminal justice system.

>

> In my view, men batter wives and girlfriends because males are more

> physically aggressive than women. (However, there are plenty of

instances in

> which women initiate the violence, such as a slap in the face. This

> traditional response to a man's getting " fresh " would constitute

domestic

> violence, and would be grounds to prohibit her from owning a gun in

many

> jurisdictions.) Women will put up with it often because they value

> relationships and family very strongly, and it can take quite a bit

to make

> them decide to end a marriage/relationship.

Aggression and violence is a culturally legitimized activity in the

US. Men don't *have* to do it and are not, in my view, compelled by

their biology alone to use violence. There is a hell of a lot of

cultural teaching that goes into it as well.

It does take women quite a bit to make them decide to leave an abusive

relationship - but one factor that you can't ignore in conscience is

that there very well may be much fewer options for her out there,

especially since she will most likely be shouldering the burder of

childcare in addition.

>

> BTW, so-called Battered Wife Syndrome is largely bullshit. It is

the product

> of a book written by a woman who undertook no scientific research,

and relied

> on anecdotal evidence.

And I wasn't basing my viewpoint on hers. This " Syndrome " was

" discovered " in the early 70s, when in fact the first shelters began

to open and hotlines were available for women who were beaten. Before

then, well, the problem just didn't exist.

> Finally, I stopped calling myself a feminist over 15 years ago, when

I became

> convinced that much taught in Women's Studies courses, and in allied

> disciplines, is unscientific, unscholarly garbage. Things such as

the

> Superbowl Sunday BS really gave me pause. (Ity was claimed by NOW

and others

> in the Women's Studies field that emergency rooms were filled with

battered

> wives on this day of purported celebration of male aggression, when

men got

> all worked and went into fits of testosterone. In point of fact,

there are

> no more admissions for domestic violence on that day than any

other.)

>

> --Mona--

Well, I won't judge all feminism by NOW getting it wrong on the Super

Bowl Sunday thing...this is a huge area of debate in itself.

Do you see a certain amount of violence as being normal, or justified?

If you have a situation where the man shoves the women once, and she

uses it as a " weapon, " I would have to question that and also what led

up to that. What does that woman gain from, essentially, false

reporting. I think what you are talking about there really is an

exception in this area of discussion - although on an individual level

I don't put anything past human beings to do to one another.

[Guest guest]

The old women's liberation movement said "I can do it. Just get out

of my way and let me try." The modern feminist movement seems

to be saying "Oh dear, I am a weak fragile creature who needs many

special privileges and favors to survive in the big bad world." Dunno

about anyone else, but I know which mindset I'd rather have.

I hear ya. When discussing it with someone who I think will understand the distinction, I call myself an equity feminist, as opposed to gender feminist. I do believe that there are psychological and emotional differences between women and men, and that women are more outwardly emotional and tend to communicate with greater comfort. You are an exception to the general rule that women are less gifted in the area of spatial relationships and mathematics than men, since you are an engineer. (The focus in aptitude with regard to education and employment ought always be on the individual, so clearly women such as yourself should not be foreclosed from your chosen profession merely because of group characteristics.)

But just because women are different in the aggregate, it does not follow that we eschew logical and so-called "linear" thinking. I know that when I board an airplane I want to know that someone such as yourself, male or female, has put all kinds of linear, logical thinking into the design and maintenance of the aircraft.

Much of the crap alleged to constitute women's "different ways of knowing" makes me crazy, since it is not much better than a repackaging of yesteryear's notions that females are too tender-hearted and emotional for the rough and tumble world of business, politics, law & etc. Why, applying all that energy to such endeavors might cause our uteruses to shrivel!

I'm a bit more typically female that you describe yourself, but it was true that when I raised my children I was pretty impatient with it. I got along with them better when they were older, and I could communicate intelligently with them. I preferred being buried in a book on, say, the social history of America than watching Sesame Street with my kids. To some extent, I'm more interested in doing childish things with my grandsons, but that is a by-product of a number of factors that led me to a flowering of a somewhat weak or latent maternal instinct in my early 40s.

Women do cry more easily and more often than men. Yes, we tend to be more nurturing of children than men. And this has exactly what implications for whether any one of us should be able to be an engineer, lawyer, doctor & etc? None that I can see. In fact, women might well make excellent doctors and lawyers, since we are less likely to adopt a coldly clinical approach, and our communication skills, both written and oral, tend to be stronger. So if we have the requisite smarts, there should be no problem with entry into these professions, or any other.

Near as I can see, the only areas from which we could sensibly be excluded are those that require upper body strength and the highest level of physical endurance. I really do want a very strong fireMAN coming after me if I am trapped in a burning building.

Ultimately, the gender feminists in Women's Studies programs are too often silly, and I'm not interested in being identified with silliness. The crowning wackiness for me was when my prof in a Women in Religion course said her class was to be called an "ovular," in order to reject the purportedly sexist word "seminar," with its roots in the term for male seed.

I ain't telling no one, no how, that I freakin' go to ovulars.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

The old women's liberation movement said "I can do it. Just get out

of my way and let me try." The modern feminist movement seems

to be saying "Oh dear, I am a weak fragile creature who needs many

special privileges and favors to survive in the big bad world." Dunno

about anyone else, but I know which mindset I'd rather have.

I hear ya. When discussing it with someone who I think will understand the distinction, I call myself an equity feminist, as opposed to gender feminist. I do believe that there are psychological and emotional differences between women and men, and that women are more outwardly emotional and tend to communicate with greater comfort. You are an exception to the general rule that women are less gifted in the area of spatial relationships and mathematics than men, since you are an engineer. (The focus in aptitude with regard to education and employment ought always be on the individual, so clearly women such as yourself should not be foreclosed from your chosen profession merely because of group characteristics.)

But just because women are different in the aggregate, it does not follow that we eschew logical and so-called "linear" thinking. I know that when I board an airplane I want to know that someone such as yourself, male or female, has put all kinds of linear, logical thinking into the design and maintenance of the aircraft.

Much of the crap alleged to constitute women's "different ways of knowing" makes me crazy, since it is not much better than a repackaging of yesteryear's notions that females are too tender-hearted and emotional for the rough and tumble world of business, politics, law & etc. Why, applying all that energy to such endeavors might cause our uteruses to shrivel!

I'm a bit more typically female that you describe yourself, but it was true that when I raised my children I was pretty impatient with it. I got along with them better when they were older, and I could communicate intelligently with them. I preferred being buried in a book on, say, the social history of America than watching Sesame Street with my kids. To some extent, I'm more interested in doing childish things with my grandsons, but that is a by-product of a number of factors that led me to a flowering of a somewhat weak or latent maternal instinct in my early 40s.

Women do cry more easily and more often than men. Yes, we tend to be more nurturing of children than men. And this has exactly what implications for whether any one of us should be able to be an engineer, lawyer, doctor & etc? None that I can see. In fact, women might well make excellent doctors and lawyers, since we are less likely to adopt a coldly clinical approach, and our communication skills, both written and oral, tend to be stronger. So if we have the requisite smarts, there should be no problem with entry into these professions, or any other.

Near as I can see, the only areas from which we could sensibly be excluded are those that require upper body strength and the highest level of physical endurance. I really do want a very strong fireMAN coming after me if I am trapped in a burning building.

Ultimately, the gender feminists in Women's Studies programs are too often silly, and I'm not interested in being identified with silliness. The crowning wackiness for me was when my prof in a Women in Religion course said her class was to be called an "ovular," in order to reject the purportedly sexist word "seminar," with its roots in the term for male seed.

I ain't telling no one, no how, that I freakin' go to ovulars.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

At 07:08 PM 5/13/01 -0400, you wrote:

>Finally, I stopped calling myself a feminist over 15 years ago, when I became

>convinced that much taught in Women's Studies courses, and in allied

>disciplines, is unscientific, unscholarly garbage. Things such as the

>Superbowl Sunday BS really gave me pause. (Ity was claimed by NOW and others

>in the Women's Studies field that emergency rooms were filled with battered

>wives on this day of purported celebration of male aggression, when men got

>all worked and went into fits of testosterone. In point of fact, there are

>no more admissions for domestic violence on that day than any other.)

I no longer call myself a feminist either, for similar reasons. If

pressed to label myself, I'd call myself an egalitarian.

In addition to the BS " facts " such as you noted above, I have a big

problem with " gender feminists " and their flaky paens to women's

gentle, intuitive, emotional, and social natures. What sweet

nurturing creatures women are, so empathetic!

Know something? I'm a leftbrained engineer. I'm not particularly

gentle. I don't trust intuition, because tracking it has taught me

that it's really just a fancy name for guessing. I don't go gaga over

babies, and am not very good at nurturing. And my social skills

in general are pitiful.

And ain't I a woman?

These new feminists are just as bad with their stereotypes as the

old ns. It's quite instructive to compare their modern cliche

with the old " angel in the house " cliche.

The old women's liberation movement said " I can do it. Just get out

of my way and let me try. " The modern feminist movement seems

to be saying " Oh dear, I am a weak fragile creature who needs many

special privileges and favors to survive in the big bad world. " Dunno

about anyone else, but I know which mindset I'd rather have.

[Guest guest]

At 07:08 PM 5/13/01 -0400, you wrote:

>Finally, I stopped calling myself a feminist over 15 years ago, when I became

>convinced that much taught in Women's Studies courses, and in allied

>disciplines, is unscientific, unscholarly garbage. Things such as the

>Superbowl Sunday BS really gave me pause. (Ity was claimed by NOW and others

>in the Women's Studies field that emergency rooms were filled with battered

>wives on this day of purported celebration of male aggression, when men got

>all worked and went into fits of testosterone. In point of fact, there are

>no more admissions for domestic violence on that day than any other.)

I no longer call myself a feminist either, for similar reasons. If

pressed to label myself, I'd call myself an egalitarian.

In addition to the BS " facts " such as you noted above, I have a big

problem with " gender feminists " and their flaky paens to women's

gentle, intuitive, emotional, and social natures. What sweet

nurturing creatures women are, so empathetic!

Know something? I'm a leftbrained engineer. I'm not particularly

gentle. I don't trust intuition, because tracking it has taught me

that it's really just a fancy name for guessing. I don't go gaga over

babies, and am not very good at nurturing. And my social skills

in general are pitiful.

And ain't I a woman?

These new feminists are just as bad with their stereotypes as the

old ns. It's quite instructive to compare their modern cliche

with the old " angel in the house " cliche.

The old women's liberation movement said " I can do it. Just get out

of my way and let me try. " The modern feminist movement seems

to be saying " Oh dear, I am a weak fragile creature who needs many

special privileges and favors to survive in the big bad world. " Dunno

about anyone else, but I know which mindset I'd rather have.

[Guest guest]

Hi,

I don't have time to respond completely to all you've written in

this post at the moment and will do so more fully later. I did want

to say that part of it is the chicken and egg thing - one of the

biggest reasons that I stayed home, and continue to stay home, is that

I can't make as much out there with my current skillset and education

as my husband can with his (and he didn't finish highschool, but does

have a GED). Right now, with 2 kids and one in diapers, by the time I

cover for childcare, commuting, additional taxes and incidental

working costs it isn't even economically feasible for me to work,

leaving all other factors aside. So now how much of this is a true

" choice " or " option " for me?

[Guest guest]

Hi,

I don't have time to respond completely to all you've written in

this post at the moment and will do so more fully later. I did want

to say that part of it is the chicken and egg thing - one of the

biggest reasons that I stayed home, and continue to stay home, is that

I can't make as much out there with my current skillset and education

as my husband can with his (and he didn't finish highschool, but does

have a GED). Right now, with 2 kids and one in diapers, by the time I

cover for childcare, commuting, additional taxes and incidental

working costs it isn't even economically feasible for me to work,

leaving all other factors aside. So now how much of this is a true

" choice " or " option " for me?

[Guest guest]

Interestingly, there used to be a law in Wisconsin that required every ladies' room to have a bed (because women were such weak, fragile creatures). Guess who got rid of it? Feminists.

I don't know who got rid of the law or precisely when, but Indiana used to have a truly inane and patronizing law. I know this because my mother ran into it when she went to Indianapolis in 1954 to meet my father's family.

The lot of them went out to dinner, and she sidled up to the bar in the restaurant with my Dad and sat on a stool, only to see everyone else exchanging nervous looks. My father pulled her aside and explained that, in the Hoosier state, women were not permitted to be seated at a bar.

She had always lived in Minnesota or Wisconsin, and never encountered such silliness in either of those two states.

--Mona__

[Guest guest]

Interestingly, there used to be a law in Wisconsin that required every ladies' room to have a bed (because women were such weak, fragile creatures). Guess who got rid of it? Feminists.

I don't know who got rid of the law or precisely when, but Indiana used to have a truly inane and patronizing law. I know this because my mother ran into it when she went to Indianapolis in 1954 to meet my father's family.

The lot of them went out to dinner, and she sidled up to the bar in the restaurant with my Dad and sat on a stool, only to see everyone else exchanging nervous looks. My father pulled her aside and explained that, in the Hoosier state, women were not permitted to be seated at a bar.

She had always lived in Minnesota or Wisconsin, and never encountered such silliness in either of those two states.

--Mona__

[Guest guest]

Interestingly, there used to be a law in Wisconsin that required every

ladies' room to have a bed (because women were such weak, fragile

creatures). Guess who got rid of it? Feminists.

>

> >Finally, I stopped calling myself a feminist over 15 years ago,

when I became

> >convinced that much taught in Women's Studies courses, and in

allied

> >disciplines, is unscientific, unscholarly garbage. Things such as

the

> >Superbowl Sunday BS really gave me pause. (Ity was claimed by NOW

and others

> >in the Women's Studies field that emergency rooms were filled with

battered

> >wives on this day of purported celebration of male aggression, when

men got

> >all worked and went into fits of testosterone. In point of fact,

there are

> >no more admissions for domestic violence on that day than any

other.)

>

> I no longer call myself a feminist either, for similar reasons. If

> pressed to label myself, I'd call myself an egalitarian.

>

> In addition to the BS " facts " such as you noted above, I have a big

> problem with " gender feminists " and their flaky paens to women's

> gentle, intuitive, emotional, and social natures. What sweet

> nurturing creatures women are, so empathetic!

>

> Know something? I'm a leftbrained engineer. I'm not particularly

> gentle. I don't trust intuition, because tracking it has taught me

> that it's really just a fancy name for guessing. I don't go gaga

over

> babies, and am not very good at nurturing. And my social skills

> in general are pitiful.

>

> And ain't I a woman?

>

> These new feminists are just as bad with their stereotypes as the

> old ns. It's quite instructive to compare their modern

cliche

> with the old " angel in the house " cliche.

>

> The old women's liberation movement said " I can do it. Just get out

> of my way and let me try. " The modern feminist movement seems

> to be saying " Oh dear, I am a weak fragile creature who needs many

> special privileges and favors to survive in the big bad world. "

Dunno

> about anyone else, but I know which mindset I'd rather have.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Interestingly, there used to be a law in Wisconsin that required every

ladies' room to have a bed (because women were such weak, fragile

creatures). Guess who got rid of it? Feminists.

>

> >Finally, I stopped calling myself a feminist over 15 years ago,

when I became

> >convinced that much taught in Women's Studies courses, and in

allied

> >disciplines, is unscientific, unscholarly garbage. Things such as

the

> >Superbowl Sunday BS really gave me pause. (Ity was claimed by NOW

and others

> >in the Women's Studies field that emergency rooms were filled with

battered

> >wives on this day of purported celebration of male aggression, when

men got

> >all worked and went into fits of testosterone. In point of fact,

there are

> >no more admissions for domestic violence on that day than any

other.)

>

> I no longer call myself a feminist either, for similar reasons. If

> pressed to label myself, I'd call myself an egalitarian.

>

> In addition to the BS " facts " such as you noted above, I have a big

> problem with " gender feminists " and their flaky paens to women's

> gentle, intuitive, emotional, and social natures. What sweet

> nurturing creatures women are, so empathetic!

>

> Know something? I'm a leftbrained engineer. I'm not particularly

> gentle. I don't trust intuition, because tracking it has taught me

> that it's really just a fancy name for guessing. I don't go gaga

over

> babies, and am not very good at nurturing. And my social skills

> in general are pitiful.

>

> And ain't I a woman?

>

> These new feminists are just as bad with their stereotypes as the

> old ns. It's quite instructive to compare their modern

cliche

> with the old " angel in the house " cliche.

>

> The old women's liberation movement said " I can do it. Just get out

> of my way and let me try. " The modern feminist movement seems

> to be saying " Oh dear, I am a weak fragile creature who needs many

> special privileges and favors to survive in the big bad world. "

Dunno

> about anyone else, but I know which mindset I'd rather have.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Interesting issue, how women identify with feminism today. Now these

are just the observations of an average Joe ...

Seems that many women no longer want to be identified with the term

" feminist " . I'm sure that doesn't mean the cause is finished.

Presumably, the ideas of some current feminist groups, and the

perceptions they foster, are not aligned with the average woman's

life.

I wonder, do you (women) feel that you've thereby lost a connection

with any kind of centralized " movement " ? Do you personally feel

suitably empowered now? I'm guessing you couldn't be satisfied with

the lack of progress of late - pay equity being one example. The

government's attempt to rectify pay equity here in Canada somehow

went quietly up in smoke some years ago.

Thinking back say, to the heroic campaigning of Gloria Steinem, she

was thought of by many as too radical, and yet looking back, her role

(and many others') was essential for the movement as a whole, and

intellectually indisputable as we look at it in hindsight. What I'm

getting at is, with any movement, there's probably a radical front,

but also a united majority with the same cause if not the same

methods. So what is the nature of the feminist united majority today?

[Guest guest]

Interesting issue, how women identify with feminism today. Now these

are just the observations of an average Joe ...

Seems that many women no longer want to be identified with the term

" feminist " . I'm sure that doesn't mean the cause is finished.

Presumably, the ideas of some current feminist groups, and the

perceptions they foster, are not aligned with the average woman's

life.

I wonder, do you (women) feel that you've thereby lost a connection

with any kind of centralized " movement " ? Do you personally feel

suitably empowered now? I'm guessing you couldn't be satisfied with

the lack of progress of late - pay equity being one example. The

government's attempt to rectify pay equity here in Canada somehow

went quietly up in smoke some years ago.

Thinking back say, to the heroic campaigning of Gloria Steinem, she

was thought of by many as too radical, and yet looking back, her role

(and many others') was essential for the movement as a whole, and

intellectually indisputable as we look at it in hindsight. What I'm

getting at is, with any movement, there's probably a radical front,

but also a united majority with the same cause if not the same

methods. So what is the nature of the feminist united majority today?

[Guest guest]

Interesting issue, how women identify with feminism today. Now these

are just the observations of an average Joe ...

Seems that many women no longer want to be identified with the term

" feminist " . I'm sure that doesn't mean the cause is finished.

Presumably, the ideas of some current feminist groups, and the

perceptions they foster, are not aligned with the average woman's

life.

I wonder, do you (women) feel that you've thereby lost a connection

with any kind of centralized " movement " ? Do you personally feel

suitably empowered now? I'm guessing you couldn't be satisfied with

the lack of progress of late - pay equity being one example. The

government's attempt to rectify pay equity here in Canada somehow

went quietly up in smoke some years ago.

Thinking back say, to the heroic campaigning of Gloria Steinem, she

was thought of by many as too radical, and yet looking back, her role

(and many others') was essential for the movement as a whole, and

intellectually indisputable as we look at it in hindsight. What I'm

getting at is, with any movement, there's probably a radical front,

but also a united majority with the same cause if not the same

methods. So what is the nature of the feminist united majority today?

[Guest guest]

I just wanted to share a little bit of exposure I've had to abused

women. My ex-wife worked at a women's shelter here in Toronto, whose

doors were open to any women (and children) in need of temporary

shelter from an abusive relationship.

Looking at the many women who passed through, I would have to say

that cultural background was the biggest indicator. The majority of

women were recent immigrants, many from Africa, some from India. What

the staff would say, in so many words, was that the women often just

didn't expect any better from their husbands; that male dominance was

the norm for them. And the pressures of making a new life in a

foreign land brings violence to a dangerous level, and only when

their lives are seriously threatened do some of the women make it out.

Just one snapshot. And I should point out that Toronto is very cosmopolitan.

[Guest guest]

> In a message dated 5/14/01 12:21:37 AM US Eastern Standard Time,

> ahicks@s... writes:

>

> In every single culture, males are more violent than females. Men

are the

> warrior class in nearly every community of peoples. They commit

more

> homicides. And yes, SES plays a role, but the fact remains that

young women

> in the same SES do not commit these crimes of violence at anything

remotely

> like their male counterparts.

Hi again,

My belief is that this is an issue with two parts. Part of it is

that, yes, males are in a very general sense, more aggressive. I

still think that America is special in this regard and places a high

value on violence to solve problems. It's a tradition...consider,

labor violence, racial conflict, Indian wars, feuds, lynch mobs,

organized crime...the list goes on and on of historical violence that

has become a part of our culture. My book goes into a segment on

" frontier tradition " and it is still a tradition to take the law into

one's own hands. Violence is THE way to sidestep accomodation and

America has the highest homicide rate of any industrialized nation, by

far.

>

> >>This is a personal issue for me.  I always worked, I do have a

B.A.,

> but nothing further than that.  We made the decision that I would

stay

> home and take care of the kiddos and I've been out of the workforce

> for a few years now.  If I were to go back in now, I would be faced

> with clerical work or support work, which is a big reason why I'm

> going back to school.  If it came up today, I'd be smack in the

middle

> of Welfare. <<

>

> But this is exactly why women earn less than men.

???? And how does this bolster your position? Why is it that it is

common and accepted that the woman will make all the sacrifices in the

job field for the kiddos?

It is not because

women

> are paid less for the same hours of the same work as men with the

same skills

> and seniority.

Really? I hate to be sarcastic here, but this happens ALL the time,

even leaving babies completely out of the picture. Not only are women

paid less for the same work, with the same seniority and etc., they

are *still* much less likely to get the higher paying traditionally

male dominated jobs. A blatant example of this happened on my last

job where a man was hired a full year after I was and was doing work

with far less responsibility than I had - yet he came in at a wage

that was 25% higher than my wage was. (Actually, this was another

chink in the AA wall, because I couldn't " turn it over " and fought it

instead).

When I was trying to figure out which avenue to take to improve our

current situation I looked seriously at the skilled trades, the

" trades. " These are things such as electrician, plumber, carpenter,

etc. The stats on these jobs are downright depressing. In 20 years

the percentage of women in these jobs changed less than one percent

and is now at just over 2%. This is the " concrete floor " as opposed

to the glass ceiling, which many women are now able to penetrate. The

reasons given for why these numbers are so bad are typical - that the

work requires strength and is dirty, etc. Yet at the same time, women

are frequently shunted into jobs such as medical aide where the work

is just as heavy and quite a bit dirtier. These jobs pay *hit for

wages and so do most office jobs and support jobs, although some of

them require quite a lot of skill.

Women *opt to go on mommy track, and to take jobs

that allow

> them to put children and home first, far more often than men do. I

made that

> choice, and didn't graduate from law school until I was 37,

precisely because

> it took me many years to finish college while raising three sons.

That I'm

> now 44 and not earning a half million dollars a year as a partner in

a major

> law firm is largely a result of my own choices. I still choose not

to work

> 70 hours per week, because I want my grandchildren to know me as

Gramma Mona

> who baby-sits them and kisses their owies, and not as some distant

lawyer

> they seldom see.

My " mommy track " came late in life and one reason we " chose " this

option is because it was the only practical choice to make. I had

expected to be back in the workforce quite awhile before now--until I

did the math on it. In all reality, this is the first time it truly

came home to me what I was facing. A *moderately* priced daycare in

my area costs $425 per child per month. Oh, and an extra $90.00 if

the child isn't potty trained. So right there, that is $940 per month

for full time child care. The cheapest in-home care I could find

around here was still $5.00/hour for 2 kids, but I wouldn't have put

my kids there if my life depended on it.

Yes, I could cover that working full time - with probably $600 - $700

left over. But with the tax bite, and other working costs I wouldn't

gain much and would lose the time with my kids. Actually, IMO, if

more people did the math I think more moms would stay home with their

kids.

Women having children has been an excuse to pay them less, but I don't

follow the logic there. Why does all of it fall to women? Is it all

because of choices she made in your view? Perhaps the ultimate

" choice " to make here is to remain childless?

>

> >>As an experiment, leave a baby with it's father.  When no one is

> watching, see how he loves his baby when he is free to do so.<<

>

> Of course this is true. But by and large, women are more patient

with young

> children. Men do not opt to work in day-care centers, or to be

kindergarten

> teachers, at nearly the rates women *choose to do so. Women feel an

> instinctive impulse to nurture and lavish affection on little ones.

I think this is just stereotypes that uphold the status quo. Women

don't have a corner on the market on patience, or maternal " instinct "

(an idea that is largely BS, everyone has to learn how to take care of

kids, mothers included). Men don't " opt " to work in daycare centers

because the pay is crap and they have far better options (along with

the cultural idea that " men don't do that. " ) Start giving those women

working there pay and status in our society and watch the males come

in droves.

Men are

> far less delighted with them, particularly when the tots are not

theirs.

This is the *HIGHEST* incidence of child abuse, but I don't follow how

this negates anything I'm saying.

In

> virtually ever culture women are the primary nurturers of small

children.

> Something that universal can't have come about because, by some wild

> coincidence, every culture has imposed a role on women that they are

no more

> suited to than are men.

No, this isn't what I'm getting at. There are many reasons why it is

more frequent for women to do the childraising. However, there are

different values put on it in various cultures. Here, you are

considered very low status if you engage in this. I remember I was at

a symposium about sustainable business. Another person came up to me

and asked me my profession. When I said (what do I say? Homemaker?

FT Mommy? Housewife? - all the words seem fairly inadequate and I

always want to duck my head), he actually turned on his heel and

walked away. Why is that? Garbage " Handlers " get more respect.

My own personal joke is that as my life has progressed my

responsibilities have increased exponentially, while my pay has

decreased to nothing.

And, I truly believe that if all people could follow their hearts,

they'd do some childraising, some earning, some of whatever. We are

really polarized here and have very defined and isolating roles.

>

> >>I don't believe you are seriously ascribing to the idea that the

> children that are raised by a single parent are inadequately

raised. 

> I certainly don't believe they are.  While I agree that it is a lot

to

> take on (amen), it doesn't follow that children are necessarily best

> raised by both parents.  This is an individual family situation.<<

>

> Children are best raised by two parents. That makes for optimal

outcome.

I've seen too many exceptions to this to allow it as a rule.

> From that it does not follow that children raised by single parents

are

> raised poorly. But having both a mother and father figure is

psychologically

> and financially beneficial.

Provided that they are both relatively stable, loving, etc., etc. If

they are not, well that changes the picture. And this example was

originally given in the context of why women (I am going to stick with

women here because they have shown that men DO leave) don't leave

abusive relationships. Some women would stay with an abuser because

of the myth that this situation was still better than what she could

provide on her own for her children. That needs to be seriously

questioned.

Indeed, some sociologists have

concluded that

> part of the pathology among young black males results from the

absence of

> father figures, which is why some African Americans have attempted

to

> implement schools exclusively for black boys with an all-male

teaching staff.

> (These schools have faced legal challenges for excluding black

girls and

> female teachers.)

Hmmmm, I'd be interested in finding the source for that. I read a

book a couple of years ago that totally convinced me that the " male

role model " desirability was a myth that can be taken way too far. I

can't remember the author at the moment however.

In fact, I can't think at all at the moment. I'm too tired and will

have to catch you tomorrow.

See you,

[Guest guest]

> In a message dated 5/14/01 12:21:37 AM US Eastern Standard Time,

> ahicks@s... writes:

>

> In every single culture, males are more violent than females. Men

are the

> warrior class in nearly every community of peoples. They commit

more

> homicides. And yes, SES plays a role, but the fact remains that

young women

> in the same SES do not commit these crimes of violence at anything

remotely

> like their male counterparts.

Hi again,

My belief is that this is an issue with two parts. Part of it is

that, yes, males are in a very general sense, more aggressive. I

still think that America is special in this regard and places a high

value on violence to solve problems. It's a tradition...consider,

labor violence, racial conflict, Indian wars, feuds, lynch mobs,

organized crime...the list goes on and on of historical violence that

has become a part of our culture. My book goes into a segment on

" frontier tradition " and it is still a tradition to take the law into

one's own hands. Violence is THE way to sidestep accomodation and

America has the highest homicide rate of any industrialized nation, by

far.

>

> >>This is a personal issue for me.  I always worked, I do have a

B.A.,

> but nothing further than that.  We made the decision that I would

stay

> home and take care of the kiddos and I've been out of the workforce

> for a few years now.  If I were to go back in now, I would be faced

> with clerical work or support work, which is a big reason why I'm

> going back to school.  If it came up today, I'd be smack in the

middle

> of Welfare. <<

>

> But this is exactly why women earn less than men.

???? And how does this bolster your position? Why is it that it is

common and accepted that the woman will make all the sacrifices in the

job field for the kiddos?

It is not because

women

> are paid less for the same hours of the same work as men with the

same skills

> and seniority.

Really? I hate to be sarcastic here, but this happens ALL the time,

even leaving babies completely out of the picture. Not only are women

paid less for the same work, with the same seniority and etc., they

are *still* much less likely to get the higher paying traditionally

male dominated jobs. A blatant example of this happened on my last

job where a man was hired a full year after I was and was doing work

with far less responsibility than I had - yet he came in at a wage

that was 25% higher than my wage was. (Actually, this was another

chink in the AA wall, because I couldn't " turn it over " and fought it

instead).

When I was trying to figure out which avenue to take to improve our

current situation I looked seriously at the skilled trades, the

" trades. " These are things such as electrician, plumber, carpenter,

etc. The stats on these jobs are downright depressing. In 20 years

the percentage of women in these jobs changed less than one percent

and is now at just over 2%. This is the " concrete floor " as opposed

to the glass ceiling, which many women are now able to penetrate. The

reasons given for why these numbers are so bad are typical - that the

work requires strength and is dirty, etc. Yet at the same time, women

are frequently shunted into jobs such as medical aide where the work

is just as heavy and quite a bit dirtier. These jobs pay *hit for

wages and so do most office jobs and support jobs, although some of

them require quite a lot of skill.

Women *opt to go on mommy track, and to take jobs

that allow

> them to put children and home first, far more often than men do. I

made that

> choice, and didn't graduate from law school until I was 37,

precisely because

> it took me many years to finish college while raising three sons.

That I'm

> now 44 and not earning a half million dollars a year as a partner in

a major

> law firm is largely a result of my own choices. I still choose not

to work

> 70 hours per week, because I want my grandchildren to know me as

Gramma Mona

> who baby-sits them and kisses their owies, and not as some distant

lawyer

> they seldom see.

My " mommy track " came late in life and one reason we " chose " this

option is because it was the only practical choice to make. I had

expected to be back in the workforce quite awhile before now--until I

did the math on it. In all reality, this is the first time it truly

came home to me what I was facing. A *moderately* priced daycare in

my area costs $425 per child per month. Oh, and an extra $90.00 if

the child isn't potty trained. So right there, that is $940 per month

for full time child care. The cheapest in-home care I could find

around here was still $5.00/hour for 2 kids, but I wouldn't have put

my kids there if my life depended on it.

Yes, I could cover that working full time - with probably $600 - $700

left over. But with the tax bite, and other working costs I wouldn't

gain much and would lose the time with my kids. Actually, IMO, if

more people did the math I think more moms would stay home with their

kids.

Women having children has been an excuse to pay them less, but I don't

follow the logic there. Why does all of it fall to women? Is it all

because of choices she made in your view? Perhaps the ultimate

" choice " to make here is to remain childless?

>

> >>As an experiment, leave a baby with it's father.  When no one is

> watching, see how he loves his baby when he is free to do so.<<

>

> Of course this is true. But by and large, women are more patient

with young

> children. Men do not opt to work in day-care centers, or to be

kindergarten

> teachers, at nearly the rates women *choose to do so. Women feel an

> instinctive impulse to nurture and lavish affection on little ones.

I think this is just stereotypes that uphold the status quo. Women

don't have a corner on the market on patience, or maternal " instinct "

(an idea that is largely BS, everyone has to learn how to take care of

kids, mothers included). Men don't " opt " to work in daycare centers

because the pay is crap and they have far better options (along with

the cultural idea that " men don't do that. " ) Start giving those women

working there pay and status in our society and watch the males come

in droves.

Men are

> far less delighted with them, particularly when the tots are not

theirs.

This is the *HIGHEST* incidence of child abuse, but I don't follow how

this negates anything I'm saying.

In

> virtually ever culture women are the primary nurturers of small

children.

> Something that universal can't have come about because, by some wild

> coincidence, every culture has imposed a role on women that they are

no more

> suited to than are men.

No, this isn't what I'm getting at. There are many reasons why it is

more frequent for women to do the childraising. However, there are

different values put on it in various cultures. Here, you are

considered very low status if you engage in this. I remember I was at

a symposium about sustainable business. Another person came up to me

and asked me my profession. When I said (what do I say? Homemaker?

FT Mommy? Housewife? - all the words seem fairly inadequate and I

always want to duck my head), he actually turned on his heel and

walked away. Why is that? Garbage " Handlers " get more respect.

My own personal joke is that as my life has progressed my

responsibilities have increased exponentially, while my pay has

decreased to nothing.

And, I truly believe that if all people could follow their hearts,

they'd do some childraising, some earning, some of whatever. We are

really polarized here and have very defined and isolating roles.

>

> >>I don't believe you are seriously ascribing to the idea that the

> children that are raised by a single parent are inadequately

raised. 

> I certainly don't believe they are.  While I agree that it is a lot

to

> take on (amen), it doesn't follow that children are necessarily best

> raised by both parents.  This is an individual family situation.<<

>

> Children are best raised by two parents. That makes for optimal

outcome.

I've seen too many exceptions to this to allow it as a rule.

> From that it does not follow that children raised by single parents

are

> raised poorly. But having both a mother and father figure is

psychologically

> and financially beneficial.

Provided that they are both relatively stable, loving, etc., etc. If

they are not, well that changes the picture. And this example was

originally given in the context of why women (I am going to stick with

women here because they have shown that men DO leave) don't leave

abusive relationships. Some women would stay with an abuser because

of the myth that this situation was still better than what she could

provide on her own for her children. That needs to be seriously

questioned.

Indeed, some sociologists have

concluded that

> part of the pathology among young black males results from the

absence of

> father figures, which is why some African Americans have attempted

to

> implement schools exclusively for black boys with an all-male

teaching staff.

> (These schools have faced legal challenges for excluding black

girls and

> female teachers.)

Hmmmm, I'd be interested in finding the source for that. I read a

book a couple of years ago that totally convinced me that the " male

role model " desirability was a myth that can be taken way too far. I

can't remember the author at the moment however.

In fact, I can't think at all at the moment. I'm too tired and will

have to catch you tomorrow.

See you,