Female on Male Domestic Abuse through Cultural Lenses and Personal Theories

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Batou667:

Polarity27:
The post was framed as something of a public health question. I read probably more articles on public health and health psychology than any other subject as part of my work, and "who is the population and what are their *specific* needs" is Question #1 for any public health issue.

Ok, fair enough. If, as you say, this kind of subject matter is already very familiar to you then I can understand why you'd be inclined to dive straight into an analysis rather than feigning shock or shedding a couple of tears for the benefit of decorum.

This response fair baffled me. I'm supposed to cry to please you? Then I thought you might be talking about the links, which I didn't look at, I simply responded to the questions in the actual post. I really don't need them to know it's happening, though, and I've read more than a few posts by male victims that were very upsetting. Saying more would be exploitative of the people who went through these things, and I've too much respect for them to do that.

To the untrained peon (me) that looked rather like:
1) Men shouldn't use the support structures already in place, they ought to sweat and struggle from scratch, like us women had to.

Yeah, mea culpa on that one. See, this comes up a lot on posts about rape on feminist sites from men who are basically trolling. They care about the issue of male victims just long enough to play it like a trump card: why aren't you feminists starting programs and safehouses for men? It gets old and sounds like "you did the work even though we didn't do a god damned thing to help you, and now you get to do the work again, and we still won't do a god damned thing to help you". But, you know, those are trolls, and this post isn't that, so I was too reactive there.

Still, as this good site discusses (in "getting water from a rock") there are reasons why so many existing programs aren't set up to be co-ed, and a lot of them are still shoestring, local operations that still need local, community buy-in (which they do still sweat and struggle to get) to continue to exist. "You may need to build that" is still a true answer. It's not meant in meanness, and it's not only true for straight men. LGBTQ people are also facing the same "you need to build that" problem, because existing support structures often don't work that well for them either, because sometimes their needs are different and/or the volunteers aren't trained in how to support them. I'm on record all over the place here in saying how deplorable I find the US "health care" industry-- entirely too many different populations are having to build their own support structures because they otherwise wouldn't exist, and no, I don't think that's okay. But do you want a wishful answer or a pragmatic one?

And my points about patriarchy aren't blame-assigning, they're saying that all of these societal filters influence how people react to their own abuse and that of others, and they're also why there's comparatively little momentum for men to help other men. Why in the world do you need *me* to tell you that, though? How many times have you heard "man up" said to or around you in your life? Do you think American men, in general, think there's a problem with other men expressing "weakness"? The whole concept of "patriarchy" isn't "men's fault". (Why I really do prefer "kyriarchy") This is a worldview that is systemic; that means that it has so saturated its surroundings as to be largely self-perpetuating. Both men and women pass it on, most without knowing or meaning to, it's just what they were taught/what "is"/what they are expected to do/believe. Kind of the way Christianity has infiltrated the culture so thoroughly that we reproduce its memes and its language and its thinking reflexively, without second thought, unless we really make a point of interrogating our own thinking in an effort to root it out. I don't think there is a grand conspiracy of men cackling in back rooms about how they control the world. I do think there are ideas that are very entrenched in our culture that benefit a certain class of men to the extreme disadvantage of everyone who *isn't* that class of men-- and I think you're probably aware of a lot of those ideas on some level because you have to be, to be a man. You have to engage with (even if only to reject) notions of machismo, always displaying a facade of strength, etc. Do you think I'm wrong for thinking that influences how willing men are to support other men who have been victimized?

Also, your posts perhaps embodied the "opposition" to my point of view most strongly, so it's natural I'd address those points first. [edit] Also, you were the first to bring up my trigger-word of "patriarchy", so you were guaranteed a reply from me.

Another words, you needed a feminist to play dancing monkey to affirm opinions you already had. I've really, really tried not to do that, and to focus my answers on men and what men need. I get short-tempered and frustrated like everyone else, but my interest in feminism is in building a better world, because I do not and will not have children-- trying to be part of the creation of a fairer culture for everyone else's kids is the best thing I can leave behind when I pass.

Polarity27:

This response fair baffled me. I'm supposed to cry to please you?

Nononono. What I meant was that it struck me as incongruous that while other posters were saying "Wow, this is a thing? That's really bad" you were diving straight into a breakdown of it. But as you said, it's an area of expertise for you and so actually in hindsight really not that remarkable that this was the first angle you'd approach it from. My bad, basically.

See, this comes up a lot on posts about rape on feminist sites from men who are basically trolling. They care about the issue of male victims just long enough to play it like a trump card: why aren't you feminists starting programs and safehouses for men? It gets old and sounds like "you did the work even though we didn't do a god damned thing to help you, and now you get to do the work again, and we still won't do a god damned thing to help you".

Your point about pragmatism is a good one and one I hadn't really considered. (Thanks for the link, don't have time to give it due attention now but I'll keep it bookmarked.) What you were saying sounded a bit like, for example, a (black) racial civil rights group refusing to help an Asian because "We went through slavery, you didn't, make your own damn group" when actually they share a common need which could be met by just expanding the remit of the support group. But if it's a problem of bricks, mortar and money rather than petty divisiveness, then I really can't argue with that.

How many times have you heard "man up" said to or around you in your life? Do you think American men, in general, think there's a problem with other men expressing "weakness"? The whole concept of "patriarchy" isn't "men's fault". (Why I really do prefer "kyriarchy") This is a worldview that is systemic; that means that it has so saturated its surroundings as to be largely self-perpetuating. Both men and women pass it on, most without knowing or meaning to, it's just what they were taught/what "is"/what they are expected to do/believe. Kind of the way Christianity has infiltrated the culture so thoroughly that we reproduce its memes and its language and its thinking reflexively, without second thought, unless we really make a point of interrogating our own thinking in an effort to root it out.

I half agree here. Yes, entrenched and not necessarily helpful norms exist. But then again I don't think gendered language is necessarily sexist, and even sexism isn't always misogynistic. Take your example of the way Christianity is embedded in most of the Western and Anglophone world: if somebody sneezes and I say "bless you" that doesn't mean I'm strengthening the Christian cause or even implicitly supporting it, any more than using the word "Thursday" makes me a Viking. Some things are culturally embedded and innocuous precisely because they're benign. But that's probably a discussion for another thread.

Another words, you needed a feminist to play dancing monkey to affirm opinions you already had. I've really, really tried not to do that, and to focus my answers on men and what men need. I get short-tempered and frustrated like everyone else, but my interest in feminism is in building a better world, because I do not and will not have children-- trying to be part of the creation of a fairer culture for everyone else's kids is the best thing I can leave behind when I pass.

Quite the opposite actually, I was gravitating towards somebody who could not only tell me that I was wrong but why I was wrong. I assumed I was misreading a lot of your initial post and turns out that was more-or-less the case. Anyway, thanks for your responses!

I am going to share something that happened to me, along the lines of this thread.

One summer, a few years back, I had a female housemate with her live in boy-friend. My brother and sister also lived with us. I can honestly say that is was the worst summer I have ever had. After a few days of moving in the female got really emotional abusive towards my brother and I. It came to head when she starting stealing from us. Soon after that my brother left and chose to be homeless, rather than put up with her. I remember when I put my foot down, she attacked me and threaten me at knife point. I call the cops and do not press charges because I just wanted to be left alone. About a week later, it was about 1am and I was on the phone with my brother, just telling him how much it sucked living with her. She busts into my room with a hammer threatening me. So grabs me to keep me from leaving and tell her point blank, "let me go and I am out of here." My phone rings and she and her boyfriend jump me.

When the cops show-up I try to press charges, mind you i had a black eye and bite marks at this point in time and I hadn't thrown a single fucking punch in self-defense, the cops told me if I did that is wouldn't end well for me and refused to allow me to press charges. I was homeless for a month after that.

So yes female on male DV is a problem and jack all is being done about it.

dystopiaINC:

the first bold sounds suspiciously like the whole any man can be a rapist stuff a few years back.
image

That quote is from 1977. French died a few years back.

The bolded portion bears little resemblance to this quote. it's the difference between citing "the omnipresent threat of terrorism for Americans" and the claim "All Yemenis are terrorists."

In actuality, the vast majority of rapes are committed by a small proportion of the male population, and they are repeat offenders.

chaosord:
I am going to share something that happened to me, along the lines of this thread.

One summer, a few years back, I had a female housemate with her live in boy-friend. My brother and sister also lived with us. I can honestly say that is was the worst summer I have ever had. After a few days of moving in the female got really emotional abusive towards my brother and I. It came to head when she starting stealing from us. Soon after that my brother left and chose to be homeless, rather than put up with her. I remember when I put my foot down, she attacked me and threaten me at knife point. I call the cops and do not press charges because I just wanted to be left alone. About a week later, it was about 1am and I was on the phone with my brother, just telling him how much it sucked living with her. She busts into my room with a hammer threatening me. So grabs me to keep me from leaving and tell her point blank, "let me go and I am out of here." My phone rings and she and her boyfriend jump me.

When the cops show-up I try to press charges, mind you i had a black eye and bite marks at this point in time and I hadn't thrown a single fucking punch in self-defense, the cops told me if I did that is wouldn't end well for me and refused to allow me to press charges. I was homeless for a month after that.

So yes female on male DV is a problem and jack all is being done about it.

That is horrid! I see much of the problem with the law enforement in th is area for both male and female. There is nothing really to protect the victims and until there is actual victim protection, I do not see this situation improving. They expect you to be dead before they will take them in. It is madness.

I think something has been confused here.

I was talking about domestic abuse, not domestic violence.

While one can be within the other, the other is not wholly of the one.

One of the studies, which I'm sure someone will debunk due to something about peer review or a faulty thingy or whatever, suggest that women are far more likely to be emotionally abusive or verbally abusive then violently abusive.

It's all abuse though, and to me there is no difference between any form of abuse in level of wrongness.

Apparently though violent abuse is considered more important? I'm not sure I've read all that right.

Here's an interesting article that makes my stomach knot up a little bit.

http://www.salon.com/2010/11/24/women_more_violent/

Bentusi16:
I think something has been confused here.

I was talking about domestic abuse, not domestic violence.

While one can be within the other, the other is not wholly of the one.

One of the studies, which I'm sure someone will debunk due to something about peer review or a faulty thingy or whatever, suggest that women are far more likely to be emotionally abusive or verbally abusive then violently abusive.

It's all abuse though, and to me there is no difference between any form of abuse in level of wrongness.

Apparently though violent abuse is considered more important? I'm not sure I've read all that right.

Yes, Physical abuse is " more important" as it can result in murder, ICU, broken bones, miscarriages, stitches... So yes, it does take priority. The problem with "emotional abuse" is it is so varying in degree as to what is and what is not "emotional abuse." Is a woman being hit on by a guy in a club telling him" get lost loser" emotional abuse? Is it emotional abuse to tell a guy to " go F yourself" what exactly do you consider emotional abuse? What one person may consider abuse, another may not.

Lil devils x:

Bentusi16:
I think something has been confused here.

I was talking about domestic abuse, not domestic violence.

While one can be within the other, the other is not wholly of the one.

One of the studies, which I'm sure someone will debunk due to something about peer review or a faulty thingy or whatever, suggest that women are far more likely to be emotionally abusive or verbally abusive then violently abusive.

It's all abuse though, and to me there is no difference between any form of abuse in level of wrongness.

Apparently though violent abuse is considered more important? I'm not sure I've read all that right.

Yes, Physical abuse is " more important" as it can result in murder, ICU, broken bones, miscarriages, stitches... So yes, it does take priority. The problem with "emotional abuse" is it is so varying in degree as to what is and what is not "emotional abuse." Is a woman being hit on by a guy in a club telling him" get lost loser" emotional abuse? Is it emotional abuse to tell a guy to " go F yourself" what exactly do you consider emotional abuse? What one person may consider abuse, another may not.

So, from all studies, women tend not to physically abuse their partners; they're more likely to emotionally abuse them.

So by that logic, doesn't it stand to reason that female-on-male abuse is just plain out less important since it's less likely to involve physical altercations as male-on-female?

I'm not condemning the view, even if I privately dislike it; I'm just asking for honesty.

Lil devils x:

Bentusi16:
Apparently though violent abuse is considered more important? I'm not sure I've read all that right.

Yes, Physical abuse is " more important" as it can result in murder, ICU, broken bones, miscarriages, stitches... So yes, it does take priority. The problem with "emotional abuse" is it is so varying in degree as to what is and what is not "emotional abuse." Is a woman being hit on by a guy in a club telling him" get lost loser" emotional abuse? Is it emotional abuse to tell a guy to " go F yourself" what exactly do you consider emotional abuse? What one person may consider abuse, another may not.

This is the lens that skews our perceptions of abuse towards men (whether physical or emotional); one I commonly refer to as the Superman Paradox. It's not secret that men are raised differently and treated differently in our society then women. Often people blame this on the theoretical "patriarchy", without accepting the personal responsibility of perpetuating the status-quo they so loudly protest.

The varying levels of "emotional abuse" you may lobby at potential thick skinned douche bags are deemed inconsequential compared to one who hasn't developed that 'roll off the shoulder' reaction to emotional torment from others. Calling someone fat will affect each person differently depending on their own self image. It would affect me in the slightest, but it would affect a fat woman deeper. Is the damage inflicted upon her emotional well being on a personal level more important than the act you took? You're merely judging the severity of an action by it's outcome, not the action itself.

So too do we treat abuse and violence differently against men because it affects us to a lesser degree (on the whole), because we are the stronger of the two sexes physically, and we have been trained by society to deal with our emotional problems on an internal level. A punch will inflict different degrees of damage based on the aggressor and the receiver. While we do need to put more care into one based solely on a reactionary basis (after all, a few more stitches cost a few more dollars), that doesn't detract from the initial action being the same thing; someone took a swing at another person.

When we look at the differences between physical and emotional abuse, it's easy to play one off as more severe simply because we can visually determine the outcome of said abuse; someone has a bruise or a broken nose. But we cannot see the emotional scaring of internalized abuse. Until such time it manifests itself in unpredictable and sometimes ridiculous proportions. One only has to look at the most recent school shooting to see the tool of emotional abuse suffered by someone who never got the help they needed. And where has the blame gone for this? Everywhere one can deflect responsibility; guns, men, patriarchy, etc.

How many punches does someone need to take before they start swinging back? How many insults does someone need to suffer through before they start loading bullets into a gun?

Why did the woman need to reject a man hitting on her by calling him a loser? Why does the man need to go fuck himself? A simple 'no thank you' or 'I'm not interested' could have sufficed. I'm sure you will undoubtedly claim the men in question may be entirely unresponsive to polite disinterest, but I find it rather fascinating that the examples you provide do not give appropriate context for the rejection while attempting to question whether or not insulting the man could be considered emotional abuse. Here is a man elevating you to a desirable level, and your response is that he is not worth your time. How morbidly fascinating indeed.

Bentusi16:

Lil devils x:

Bentusi16:
I think something has been confused here.

I was talking about domestic abuse, not domestic violence.

While one can be within the other, the other is not wholly of the one.

One of the studies, which I'm sure someone will debunk due to something about peer review or a faulty thingy or whatever, suggest that women are far more likely to be emotionally abusive or verbally abusive then violently abusive.

It's all abuse though, and to me there is no difference between any form of abuse in level of wrongness.

Apparently though violent abuse is considered more important? I'm not sure I've read all that right.

Yes, Physical abuse is " more important" as it can result in murder, ICU, broken bones, miscarriages, stitches... So yes, it does take priority. The problem with "emotional abuse" is it is so varying in degree as to what is and what is not "emotional abuse." Is a woman being hit on by a guy in a club telling him" get lost loser" emotional abuse? Is it emotional abuse to tell a guy to " go F yourself" what exactly do you consider emotional abuse? What one person may consider abuse, another may not.

So, from all studies, women tend not to physically abuse their partners; they're more likely to emotionally abuse them.

So by that logic, doesn't it stand to reason that female-on-male abuse is just plain out less important since it's less likely to involve physical altercations as male-on-female?

I'm not condemning the view, even if I privately dislike it; I'm just asking for honesty.

No it does not because that would then be discounting the men that are being violently abused as well. The issue here is regards to " emotional abuse" is what exactly does that include? A guy that is in fear of his life, his property from a deranged female is JUST as important as a woman in the same situation. You don't simply discount it because it happens to one group less. By that Logic, it does not autmoatically put everything into the same catagory.

You have to look at the differnt levels of these things and determine which was actually abuse and which was not. What some would consider abuse, even physical abuse, others enjoy, such as "rough sex" Some people enjoy rough sex, while others think "OMG run for your life! They are going to kill me!" in the same situation. Much of this abuse IS situational and dependent on whether or not the parties involved consent to the activty taking place. We cannot blanket statement "this action is abuse", without proper context.

DevilWithaHalo:

Lil devils x:

Bentusi16:
Apparently though violent abuse is considered more important? I'm not sure I've read all that right.

Yes, Physical abuse is " more important" as it can result in murder, ICU, broken bones, miscarriages, stitches... So yes, it does take priority. The problem with "emotional abuse" is it is so varying in degree as to what is and what is not "emotional abuse." Is a woman being hit on by a guy in a club telling him" get lost loser" emotional abuse? Is it emotional abuse to tell a guy to " go F yourself" what exactly do you consider emotional abuse? What one person may consider abuse, another may not.

This is the lens that skews our perceptions of abuse towards men (whether physical or emotional); one I commonly refer to as the Superman Paradox. It's not secret that men are raised differently and treated differently in our society then women. Often people blame this on the theoretical "patriarchy", without accepting the personal responsibility of perpetuating the status-quo they so loudly protest.

The varying levels of "emotional abuse" you may lobby at potential thick skinned douche bags are deemed inconsequential compared to one who hasn't developed that 'roll off the shoulder' reaction to emotional torment from others. Calling someone fat will affect each person differently depending on their own self image. It would affect me in the slightest, but it would affect a fat woman deeper. Is the damage inflicted upon her emotional well being on a personal level more important than the act you took? You're merely judging the severity of an action by it's outcome, not the action itself.

So too do we treat abuse and violence differently against men because it affects us to a lesser degree (on the whole), because we are the stronger of the two sexes physically, and we have been trained by society to deal with our emotional problems on an internal level. A punch will inflict different degrees of damage based on the aggressor and the receiver. While we do need to put more care into one based solely on a reactionary basis (after all, a few more stitches cost a few more dollars), that doesn't detract from the initial action being the same thing; someone took a swing at another person.

When we look at the differences between physical and emotional abuse, it's easy to play one off as more severe simply because we can visually determine the outcome of said abuse; someone has a bruise or a broken nose. But we cannot see the emotional scaring of internalized abuse. Until such time it manifests itself in unpredictable and sometimes ridiculous proportions. One only has to look at the most recent school shooting to see the tool of emotional abuse suffered by someone who never got the help they needed. And where has the blame gone for this? Everywhere one can deflect responsibility; guns, men, patriarchy, etc.

How many punches does someone need to take before they start swinging back? How many insults does someone need to suffer through before they start loading bullets into a gun?

Why did the woman need to reject a man hitting on her by calling him a loser? Why does the man need to go fuck himself? A simple 'no thank you' or 'I'm not interested' could have sufficed. I'm sure you will undoubtedly claim the men in question may be entirely unresponsive to polite disinterest, but I find it rather fascinating that the examples you provide do not give appropriate context for the rejection while attempting to question whether or not insulting the man could be considered emotional abuse. Here is a man elevating you to a desirable level, and your response is that he is not worth your time. How morbidly fascinating indeed.

That is the issue here in regards to emotional abuse, how do you "measure it" when we can't even agree upon what it actually is, as for each person the damage done greatly varies. Some men may take a " get lost loser" rejection deeply and skew his view of women and never get over something like that, while at the same time, the guy walking around the bar asking every woman he sees" can I have a party in your mouth?" or " Niiii Tits" isn't phased a bit and would warrant a more severe reaction to make him stop harrassing the women in a horribly obnoxious manner.

That is what we have to look at here. It is a matter of respect for one another to solve these things, but we also have to view both sides of the story before we can determine what is " right" or " wrong."

I think escalation is the key word in regards to reporting and not reporting. A man hits a woman the first thing she thinks is probably fear especially since men are more often bigger and stronger than women. A woman hits a man the first thing you think for the average man is confusion and anger.

Another thing is it takes a bit of force or either sensitive skin to bruise, most women can't produce the force needed to cause a bruise. A man is more likely to leave a bruise after going off the handle than a woman purely because of the average strength difference between men and women. And of course someone will try to refute that with women power lifters or some shit.

dmase:
I think escalation is the key word in regards to reporting and not reporting. A man hits a woman the first thing she thinks is probably fear especially since men are more often bigger and stronger than women. A woman hits a man the first thing you think for the average man is confusion and anger.

Another thing is it takes a bit of force or either sensitive skin to bruise, most women can't produce the force needed to cause a bruise. A man is more likely to leave a bruise after going off the handle than a woman purely because of the average strength difference between men and women. And of course someone will try to refute that with women power lifters or some shit.

See, that's absolutely untrue.

Do you know any women? Tell them to slap you as hard as they can. Or punch you as hard as they can in the arm.

It is a -dangerous- myth that women cannot hurt men. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ArmorPiercingSlap <- This is a trope for a reason.

And it's exactly that kind of thinking that scares the hell out of me when it comes to issues like this. To me it sounds no different then 'he just gave her a little love tap' was used years and years ago to excuse the abuse of women by men.

Bentusi16:

dmase:
I think escalation is the key word in regards to reporting and not reporting. A man hits a woman the first thing she thinks is probably fear especially since men are more often bigger and stronger than women. A woman hits a man the first thing you think for the average man is confusion and anger.

Another thing is it takes a bit of force or either sensitive skin to bruise, most women can't produce the force needed to cause a bruise. A man is more likely to leave a bruise after going off the handle than a woman purely because of the average strength difference between men and women. And of course someone will try to refute that with women power lifters or some shit.

See, that's absolutely untrue.

Do you know any women? Tell them to slap you as hard as they can. Or punch you as hard as they can in the arm.

It is a -dangerous- myth that women cannot hurt men. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ArmorPiercingSlap <- This is a trope for a reason.

And it's exactly that kind of thinking that scares the hell out of me when it comes to issues like this. To me it sounds no different then 'he just gave her a little love tap' was used years and years ago to excuse the abuse of women by men.

I've been slaped and punched by women and didn't have a single mark, not for something as stupid as pinching someone's ass. In the end you don't react and you go on about your normal business like they aren't there or you leave. Men walking away from another man is cowardice in the eyes of your peers a man walking away from a woman is the only reasonable solution, it's not like someone is going to give you grief because you didn't turn around and give it back. Your armor piercing slap comment would actually GIVE reason for men to report the abuse, if someone is confused and not sure what to do in order to get retribution or stop the violence is call the authorities.

Hurting and causing visible manifestations of that are two different things. So given my personal experience, which you asked for mind you women don't leave marks when slapping or punching as much as men and they don't hurt very much. Getting hit by someone who doesn't fight and doesn't lift weights is like them pushing you. My point, when someone says hit me as hard as you can in my gut I can hit them hard enough to make the double up and feel it tomorrow ask me to swing in anger without thinking about it and getting ready... if I don't miss them first swing it's going to be from a position that feels more like a push. Thats why most fight devolve into wrestling matches on the ground someone using their hands in that way when they never have before is very unnatural for most especially since it's against are better nature.

Lil devils x:

DevilWithaHalo:
Bunch of snippage.

That is the issue here in regards to emotional abuse, how do you "measure it" when we can't even agree upon what it actually is, as for each person the damage done greatly varies. Some men may take a " get lost loser" rejection deeply and skew his view of women and never get over something like that, while at the same time, the guy walking around the bar asking every woman he sees" can I have a party in your mouth?" or " Niiii Tits" isn't phased a bit and would warrant a more severe reaction to make him stop harrassing the women in a horribly obnoxious manner.

That is what we have to look at here. It is a matter of respect for one another to solve these things, but we also have to view both sides of the story before we can determine what is " right" or " wrong."

That's a very good question, one which I could only offer possible avenues based on what I'm familiar that mental professionals are trying to do in their field.

I'm a personal advocate for the theory of "get the fuck over yourself" when it comes to taking offense to things. But on the flip side, I can't ignore that some people have some serious issues dealing with personal criticisms and some people in fact are out to emotionally harm others; even if just a simple temporary reaction to a slight. I've seen enough people insult others at the slightest offenses that illustrate people are fucking terrible to each other.

But as we have no measurement beyond reaction, and that can vary as much as any physical damage being dealt; it is difficult to properly gauge the severity of a comment based on the notions only the person lobbying it knows the full measure of their intent. But then again, how do we measure the physical abuse if not the outcome of the violence regardless of the intent involved?

Knowing what the toll is on emotional abuse can be, it is certainly something that should be explored. How we do it... that's a good question.

DevilWithaHalo:

Lil devils x:

DevilWithaHalo:
Bunch of snippage.

That is the issue here in regards to emotional abuse, how do you "measure it" when we can't even agree upon what it actually is, as for each person the damage done greatly varies. Some men may take a " get lost loser" rejection deeply and skew his view of women and never get over something like that, while at the same time, the guy walking around the bar asking every woman he sees" can I have a party in your mouth?" or " Niiii Tits" isn't phased a bit and would warrant a more severe reaction to make him stop harrassing the women in a horribly obnoxious manner.

That is what we have to look at here. It is a matter of respect for one another to solve these things, but we also have to view both sides of the story before we can determine what is " right" or " wrong."

That's a very good question, one which I could only offer possible avenues based on what I'm familiar that mental professionals are trying to do in their field.

I'm a personal advocate for the theory of "get the fuck over yourself" when it comes to taking offense to things. But on the flip side, I can't ignore that some people have some serious issues dealing with personal criticisms and some people in fact are out to emotionally harm others; even if just a simple temporary reaction to a slight. I've seen enough people insult others at the slightest offenses that illustrate people are fucking terrible to each other.

But as we have no measurement beyond reaction, and that can vary as much as any physical damage being dealt; it is difficult to properly gauge the severity of a comment based on the notions only the person lobbying it knows the full measure of their intent. But then again, how do we measure the physical abuse if not the outcome of the violence regardless of the intent involved?

Knowing what the toll is on emotional abuse can be, it is certainly something that should be explored. How we do it... that's a good question.

The idea that we can't assess emotional abuse isn't true, there are assessment instruments (tests, of various kinds) for that. (Pretty much if it's been studied and it's an issue for patients, someone or several someones have probably constructed and at least attempted to validate a test for it.) Therapists are (generally) well-trained to know emotional abuse when they hear it from their client-- frontline physicians less so (that's a whole 'nother rant, though, how undertrained GPs and PCPs are when it comes to any manner of mental health issue)-- whether or not they actually use any kind of testing.

We've also got a concept addressing how much adverse events (not just verbal slights, but any adverse events) affect people: resilience. There's an increasing amount of scholarship on psychological resilience and what strengthens and weakens it. You can't just say "get the fuck over yourself", reactions to criticism and emotional harm aren't a one-off-- someone who has had their resilience slowly stripped away through neglect or continued abuse when they were kids (that includes sustained bullying) isn't going to have the same ability to bounce back that someone who has always been surrounded by love and support from family and peers will. (Off-beam of the subject some, but on the topic of resilience there's also quite a bit of emerging data that these adverse events cause *physical* changes as well; a verbally and emotionally abused child or a sexually abused child is much more prone to have more physical health problems in adulthood than a kid who didn't experience these things. (I'm slowly reading up on epigenetics in my spare time, and definitely seeing this concept mentioned, in addition to running across it at work.))

BTW, I looked up the woman you mentioned, and while her work is laudable, her victim-blaming theories about abuse-prone women make me want to scream-- *because* of all the science on resilience. People (not just women) who gravitate to abusers are usually people who've had their resilience lowered by events in their earlier lives, that affects how they perceive what happens to them.

I mean yes, these things are complex and individual based on the cumulative events of a given person, but it's not like they're unknown qualities that nobody's ever studied, quantified, or treated.

Polarity27:
BTW, I looked up the woman you mentioned, and while her work is laudable, her victim-blaming theories about abuse-prone women make me want to scream-- *because* of all the science on resilience. People (not just women) who gravitate to abusers are usually people who've had their resilience lowered by events in their earlier lives, that affects how they perceive what happens to them.

Indeed, people's personal experiences are often superimposed on their perceptions of the world. People who are raised poorly often continue the cycle on to others. Which I find interesting when we consider how people are raised, who they are raised by, and who we then blame for their problems. I'd go further, but I'm not interesting in derailing the thread.

The reason I wanted you to look her up was her history regarding the work she's done regarding shelters and the resistence she received. It surprised me at first. And when compared to the statements you make, the pieces don't really fit.

DevilWithaHalo:

Lil devils x:

DevilWithaHalo:
Bunch of snippage.

That is the issue here in regards to emotional abuse, how do you "measure it" when we can't even agree upon what it actually is, as for each person the damage done greatly varies. Some men may take a " get lost loser" rejection deeply and skew his view of women and never get over something like that, while at the same time, the guy walking around the bar asking every woman he sees" can I have a party in your mouth?" or " Niiii Tits" isn't phased a bit and would warrant a more severe reaction to make him stop harrassing the women in a horribly obnoxious manner.

That is what we have to look at here. It is a matter of respect for one another to solve these things, but we also have to view both sides of the story before we can determine what is " right" or " wrong."

That's a very good question, one which I could only offer possible avenues based on what I'm familiar that mental professionals are trying to do in their field.

I'm a personal advocate for the theory of "get the fuck over yourself" when it comes to taking offense to things. But on the flip side, I can't ignore that some people have some serious issues dealing with personal criticisms and some people in fact are out to emotionally harm others; even if just a simple temporary reaction to a slight. I've seen enough people insult others at the slightest offenses that illustrate people are fucking terrible to each other.

But as we have no measurement beyond reaction, and that can vary as much as any physical damage being dealt; it is difficult to properly gauge the severity of a comment based on the notions only the person lobbying it knows the full measure of their intent. But then again, how do we measure the physical abuse if not the outcome of the violence regardless of the intent involved?

Knowing what the toll is on emotional abuse can be, it is certainly something that should be explored. How we do it... that's a good question.

The measurement is reaction, and that is where the problem lies. For example, My brother claims his ex was abusive. He feels " emotional harm done to him" because she left him and physical harm done to him because she ran over his foot in the process. But when you look at the whole situation here, even from his own side of the story, would you hold him accountable for his emotional distress or her? He claimed she was not supportive of him working out of town, and told him she was leaving him, so he rushes back to find her car already packed and her trying to leave, so he attempts to jump on the hood of her car, while it was in motion and got his foot run over. Now yes, he is feeling very real emotional distress from this, but when you look at his actions in this, I do not fault her. He was attempting to control her, and force her to stay against her will. If anything he was the ones whose actions were abusive here, not her. Should she be forced to stay against her will to keep him from emotional harm? We obviously cannot shift the blame for everything we allow ourselvs to feel upon others because we view them as the source of our harm.

A big difference between emotional abuse and physical is that if someone if preventing you from leaving by harm, threat of harm ,or force to your person, property or loved ones, yes you can then blame the "abuser" as there is a very real danger. The issue with emotional abuse is what you allow yourself to endure. Now someone who has been "groomed" by extensive emotional abuse no longer has that "free will" to leave ability that others have, thus making it a more difficult issue to address. More often than not in that scenario, the abused allow themselves to be abused and it is very difficult, even for others to stop that cycle of abuse, because they "go back" to it, or seek out those disfunctional relationships because that is what they have been "groomed" to do. Who do we hold accountable for that?

Lil devils x:

DevilWithaHalo:

Lil devils x:

That is the issue here in regards to emotional abuse, how do you "measure it" when we can't even agree upon what it actually is, as for each person the damage done greatly varies. Some men may take a " get lost loser" rejection deeply and skew his view of women and never get over something like that, while at the same time, the guy walking around the bar asking every woman he sees" can I have a party in your mouth?" or " Niiii Tits" isn't phased a bit and would warrant a more severe reaction to make him stop harrassing the women in a horribly obnoxious manner.

That is what we have to look at here. It is a matter of respect for one another to solve these things, but we also have to view both sides of the story before we can determine what is " right" or " wrong."

That's a very good question, one which I could only offer possible avenues based on what I'm familiar that mental professionals are trying to do in their field.

I'm a personal advocate for the theory of "get the fuck over yourself" when it comes to taking offense to things. But on the flip side, I can't ignore that some people have some serious issues dealing with personal criticisms and some people in fact are out to emotionally harm others; even if just a simple temporary reaction to a slight. I've seen enough people insult others at the slightest offenses that illustrate people are fucking terrible to each other.

But as we have no measurement beyond reaction, and that can vary as much as any physical damage being dealt; it is difficult to properly gauge the severity of a comment based on the notions only the person lobbying it knows the full measure of their intent. But then again, how do we measure the physical abuse if not the outcome of the violence regardless of the intent involved?

Knowing what the toll is on emotional abuse can be, it is certainly something that should be explored. How we do it... that's a good question.

The measurement is reaction, and that is where the problem lies. For example, My brother claims his ex was abusive. He feels " emotional harm done to him" because she left him and physical harm done to him because she ran over his foot in the process. But when you look at the whole situation here, even from his own side of the story, would you hold him accountable for his emotional distress or her? He claimed she was not supportive of him working out of town, and told him she was leaving him, so he rushes back to find her car already packed and her trying to leave, so he attempts to jump on the hood of her car, while it was in motion and got his foot run over. Now yes, he is feeling very real emotional distress from this, but when you look at his actions in this, I do not fault her. He was attempting to control her, and force her to stay against her will. If anything he was the ones whose actions were abusive here, not her. Should she be forced to stay against her will to keep him from emotional harm? We obviously cannot shift the blame for everything we allow ourselvs to feel upon others because we view them as the source of our harm.

A big difference between emotional abuse and physical is that if someone if preventing you from leaving by harm, threat of harm ,or force to your person, property or loved ones, yes you can then blame the "abuser" as there is a very real danger. The issue with emotional abuse is what you allow yourself to endure. Now someone who has been "groomed" by extensive emotional abuse no longer has that "free will" to leave ability that others have, thus making it a more difficult issue to address. More often than not in that scenario, the abused allow themselves to be abused and it is very difficult, even for others to stop that cycle of abuse, because they "go back" to it, or seek out those disfunctional relationships because that is what they have been "groomed" to do. Who do we hold accountable for that?

How about threat of no longer loving you?

How about threat of you being alone?

So let me ask, about your brother: Was he working a job he didn't particularly want to pay for stuff for him and his girlfriend so they could live at a higher level of living? I'm not saying that was the situation, but is being a cold hearted bitch considered emotional abuse?

Example 2:

The infamous dear john letters. Or the conception of children while men are serving in war. Or the cheating on of men or women deployed. Or cheating BY them. Which one is emotional abuse? Is any of them? I had a large argument with a free love individual about this once, regarding how even if they were having 'fun' and so was the cheating partner, they were emotionally hurting other people for nothing more then selfish gain on both individuals parts. It wasn't an arguement where anyone won, but it did sort of demonstrate some point I was trying to make it's 1:30 AM and I'm tired and a little tipsy.

Basically emotional damage is bad and can lead to lots of bad stuff, up to and including suicide, an for some bizarree reason young men have a 5x more likely chance to kill themselves then their female contemporaries so I'm wondering if it's linked or something. Though I've heard the #1 reason for men committing suicide (in India anyway) is because they didn't awnt to be a burden on their family.

I don't know. Don't read to much into this.

Although part of me wants to say 'Have you ever been in an emotionally abusive relationship? No? Shutup then". Don't! Please don't. But a lot of the crap people have been saying in the last couple of post have really just made me angry/Sad. I dunno how to explain it, or even really why.

Maybe it's the under-pinning that despite absolutely very few studies you automatically assume it's not happening to men as much because you don't see as much physical evidence of it. That just seems like such hypocritical thinking to me, especially from feminist people.

Lil devils x:

A big difference between emotional abuse and physical is that if someone if preventing you from leaving by harm, threat of harm ,or force to your person, property or loved ones, yes you can then blame the "abuser" as there is a very real danger. The issue with emotional abuse is what you allow yourself to endure. Now someone who has been "groomed" by extensive emotional abuse no longer has that "free will" to leave ability that others have, thus making it a more difficult issue to address. More often than not in that scenario, the abused allow themselves to be abused and it is very difficult, even for others to stop that cycle of abuse, because they "go back" to it, or seek out those disfunctional relationships because that is what they have been "groomed" to do. Who do we hold accountable for that?

THE. FUCKING. GROOMER. FOR. FUCK'S. SAKE.

Any more and I'll write something that will get me a suspension, because what you just wrote is triggery and awful. Do you have any idea how many people you just told are responsible for their own rape and abuse? Can you not think of anything someone would say that's not a threat of physical harm, but that binds you anyway? A person who you've confided in, who then takes what you said and turns it against you? I could give you a litany of phrases as examples, one more awful than the next, aimed like precision weapons. I bet you know some of them, turned against friends or family if not against you. Yes, it's awful to have fists turned against you. It's also awful to have *you* turned against you; how hard, the healing, when you feel like you've sinned so profoundly against yourself as to be made into the weapon that hurt you.

Please stop victim-blaming and leave off the scare quotes, there's no call for it. Grooming is real. Coercion is real. This isn't a zero-sum game, I can think of very few times "they had it worse" ever helped anybody, and what you said is hurting people.

Polarity27:

Lil devils x:

A big difference between emotional abuse and physical is that if someone if preventing you from leaving by harm, threat of harm ,or force to your person, property or loved ones, yes you can then blame the "abuser" as there is a very real danger. The issue with emotional abuse is what you allow yourself to endure. Now someone who has been "groomed" by extensive emotional abuse no longer has that "free will" to leave ability that others have, thus making it a more difficult issue to address. More often than not in that scenario, the abused allow themselves to be abused and it is very difficult, even for others to stop that cycle of abuse, because they "go back" to it, or seek out those disfunctional relationships because that is what they have been "groomed" to do. Who do we hold accountable for that?

THE. FUCKING. GROOMER. FOR. FUCK'S. SAKE.

Any more and I'll write something that will get me a suspension, because what you just wrote is triggery and awful. Do you have any idea how many people you just told are responsible for their own rape and abuse? Can you not think of anything someone would say that's not a threat of physical harm, but that binds you anyway? A person who you've confided in, who then takes what you said and turns it against you? I could give you a litany of phrases as examples, one more awful than the next, aimed like precision weapons. I bet you know some of them, turned against friends or family if not against you. Yes, it's awful to have fists turned against you. It's also awful to have *you* turned against you; how hard, the healing, when you feel like you've sinned so profoundly against yourself as to be made into the weapon that hurt you.

Please stop victim-blaming and leave off the scare quotes, there's no call for it. Grooming is real. Coercion is real. This isn't a zero-sum game, I can think of very few times "they had it worse" ever helped anybody, and what you said is hurting people.

I find the idea of victim blaming being a bad thing kind of hard to sallow. While there are cases where it is a bad thing, getting shot by a random sniper comes to mind. Just being a victim does not exempt one from whatever culpability one had.
For the "groomer" instance, while groomer is mostly the one at fault, the "groomie" has some responsibly for failing to notice what was happening in time.

Hell giving a "victim" a free pass can and has lead to a cultural mind-set where people get away with first degree murder.
A woman looked up how to create napalm, created it, then waited until her husband was asleep, to take the kids and burn him to death. When she was arrested she claimed he had beaten and raped her, so her act was one of self-defense. So never faced any jail time and join a medal for her actions. She got a free pass because she claimed to be a victim and to challenge her claims, would have been victim blaming.

Polarity27:

Lil devils x:

A big difference between emotional abuse and physical is that if someone if preventing you from leaving by harm, threat of harm ,or force to your person, property or loved ones, yes you can then blame the "abuser" as there is a very real danger. The issue with emotional abuse is what you allow yourself to endure. Now someone who has been "groomed" by extensive emotional abuse no longer has that "free will" to leave ability that others have, thus making it a more difficult issue to address. More often than not in that scenario, the abused allow themselves to be abused and it is very difficult, even for others to stop that cycle of abuse, because they "go back" to it, or seek out those disfunctional relationships because that is what they have been "groomed" to do. Who do we hold accountable for that?

THE. FUCKING. GROOMER. FOR. FUCK'S. SAKE.

Any more and I'll write something that will get me a suspension, because what you just wrote is triggery and awful. Do you have any idea how many people you just told are responsible for their own rape and abuse? Can you not think of anything someone would say that's not a threat of physical harm, but that binds you anyway? A person who you've confided in, who then takes what you said and turns it against you? I could give you a litany of phrases as examples, one more awful than the next, aimed like precision weapons. I bet you know some of them, turned against friends or family if not against you. Yes, it's awful to have fists turned against you. It's also awful to have *you* turned against you; how hard, the healing, when you feel like you've sinned so profoundly against yourself as to be made into the weapon that hurt you.

Please stop victim-blaming and leave off the scare quotes, there's no call for it. Grooming is real. Coercion is real. This isn't a zero-sum game, I can think of very few times "they had it worse" ever helped anybody, and what you said is hurting people.

I do not think you got what I was getting to here.
First, You cannot force help someone. I have tried. They have to want to to change these things, and be willing to make those changes in their life, or they will just continue to seek out disfuncional relationships. At the Battered womens shelter, we would prevent the women from outside contact for a time period to try and help them get to that point, but they would still try and contact their abusers by sneaking around the systems in place to protect them. It is sad to watch, honestly. You have women beaten, their children beaten, but yet they still want to "go back" to that and endanger themselves and their children, no matter how many times this happens to them. There has to be some accountability on the part of the victim here as well, or not only will they put themselves in harms way, they will put their loved ones in harms away as well.

You can blame the original "groomer" or "groomers" but what about after they are no longer in the picture? The abused after that often seek out abusers, and also become abusers themselves. Who do you hold accountable for the events after that? You can hold the " groomers' accountable for their actions, but you also have to have some accountability on the abused for their actions as well. If they don't want to change, you can't force them to. Considering I have BEEN abused, and also cut that out of my life as well be active in helping others by volunteering at the shelter, I do know there is accountability on both ends when you are dealing with the "cycle" of the abuse itself. If the abused fail to acknowledge their own accountability for their own actions, they cannot be helped out of the situation. They must be able to empower themselves in order to break the cycle, in order to stop this from happening to them or others.

Knowing my history through previous discussions, I am sure you know very good and well that I am not "blaming the vitim" for being raped. That is absurd. I hold the abuser, whether it is a a rapist or a batterer, the person committing the violence is responisble for their actions. However, if a person knowingly endangers themselves repeatedly, by actively seeking out abusers and refuses to allow others to help them, how can you hold others accountable because they refused to be helped? The abuser is accountable for their actions, even if they are the abused as well.

A guy was raped, so then he goes and rapes other guys, is he not still held accountable for his abuse, or is he suddenly no longer accountable because he was committing these actions only because of the emotional trauma that he endured in the first place? We have to have accountability here, and sometimes that also falls on the abused as well.

These situations are not always black and white as it may seem.

Bentusi16:

Lil devils x:

DevilWithaHalo:

That's a very good question, one which I could only offer possible avenues based on what I'm familiar that mental professionals are trying to do in their field.

I'm a personal advocate for the theory of "get the fuck over yourself" when it comes to taking offense to things. But on the flip side, I can't ignore that some people have some serious issues dealing with personal criticisms and some people in fact are out to emotionally harm others; even if just a simple temporary reaction to a slight. I've seen enough people insult others at the slightest offenses that illustrate people are fucking terrible to each other.

But as we have no measurement beyond reaction, and that can vary as much as any physical damage being dealt; it is difficult to properly gauge the severity of a comment based on the notions only the person lobbying it knows the full measure of their intent. But then again, how do we measure the physical abuse if not the outcome of the violence regardless of the intent involved?

Knowing what the toll is on emotional abuse can be, it is certainly something that should be explored. How we do it... that's a good question.

The measurement is reaction, and that is where the problem lies. For example, My brother claims his ex was abusive. He feels " emotional harm done to him" because she left him and physical harm done to him because she ran over his foot in the process. But when you look at the whole situation here, even from his own side of the story, would you hold him accountable for his emotional distress or her? He claimed she was not supportive of him working out of town, and told him she was leaving him, so he rushes back to find her car already packed and her trying to leave, so he attempts to jump on the hood of her car, while it was in motion and got his foot run over. Now yes, he is feeling very real emotional distress from this, but when you look at his actions in this, I do not fault her. He was attempting to control her, and force her to stay against her will. If anything he was the ones whose actions were abusive here, not her. Should she be forced to stay against her will to keep him from emotional harm? We obviously cannot shift the blame for everything we allow ourselvs to feel upon others because we view them as the source of our harm.

A big difference between emotional abuse and physical is that if someone if preventing you from leaving by harm, threat of harm ,or force to your person, property or loved ones, yes you can then blame the "abuser" as there is a very real danger. The issue with emotional abuse is what you allow yourself to endure. Now someone who has been "groomed" by extensive emotional abuse no longer has that "free will" to leave ability that others have, thus making it a more difficult issue to address. More often than not in that scenario, the abused allow themselves to be abused and it is very difficult, even for others to stop that cycle of abuse, because they "go back" to it, or seek out those disfunctional relationships because that is what they have been "groomed" to do. Who do we hold accountable for that?

How about threat of no longer loving you?

How about threat of you being alone?

So let me ask, about your brother: Was he working a job he didn't particularly want to pay for stuff for him and his girlfriend so they could live at a higher level of living? I'm not saying that was the situation, but is being a cold hearted bitch considered emotional abuse?

Example 2:

The infamous dear john letters. Or the conception of children while men are serving in war. Or the cheating on of men or women deployed. Or cheating BY them. Which one is emotional abuse? Is any of them? I had a large argument with a free love individual about this once, regarding how even if they were having 'fun' and so was the cheating partner, they were emotionally hurting other people for nothing more then selfish gain on both individuals parts. It wasn't an arguement where anyone won, but it did sort of demonstrate some point I was trying to make it's 1:30 AM and I'm tired and a little tipsy.

Basically emotional damage is bad and can lead to lots of bad stuff, up to and including suicide, an for some bizarree reason young men have a 5x more likely chance to kill themselves then their female contemporaries so I'm wondering if it's linked or something. Though I've heard the #1 reason for men committing suicide (in India anyway) is because they didn't awnt to be a burden on their family.

I don't know. Don't read to much into this.

Although part of me wants to say 'Have you ever been in an emotionally abusive relationship? No? Shutup then". Don't! Please don't. But a lot of the crap people have been saying in the last couple of post have really just made me angry/Sad. I dunno how to explain it, or even really why.

Maybe it's the under-pinning that despite absolutely very few studies you automatically assume it's not happening to men as much because you don't see as much physical evidence of it. That just seems like such hypocritical thinking to me, especially from feminist people.

No longer loving you is not abuse. That is just something that may or may not happen over the course of relationships. One sided relationships do not work. " being alone" is not a threat. If you are not comfortable being alone, you may already have issues that could make it difficult to have a healthy relationship in the first place. I think much of that has to do with the whole "entitlement" issue. You see, men often grow up thinking they are "entitled" to not being alone. First, you have to realize that you are not owed anything. The world does not owe you a beautiful woman in your bed rubbing and kissing on you all night. That is not a threat if you fail to have one.

You have to consider that both parties in any relationship have their own needs/ wants/ desires from a relationship, and if either party is not receiving what they desire in a relationship, they can leave. That does not make them an abuser.

If one party in a relationship is fine with a long distnace relationship, and the other is not, and wants a different type of relationship, that does not suddenly make them an abuser, no, but the appropriate thing to do at that point is break it off and yes, leave, rather than be dishonest and continue a relationship they are not happy with.

Yes, emotions can be difficult to handle, and many do not handle them very well. That does not suddenly mean that everyone should be forced to be ruled by others emotions. One guy loves a girl, she does not love him, so should she then be forced to try to love him because it will cause him emotional harm of she does not? That is basically what it boils down to when you look at those situations. Both parties in any relationship have to be equally important in order for it to work. You cannot have either party "enslaved" to anothers emotions.

And yes, I have been both an emotionally and physically abused, so yes, I do have some "first hand" understanding of this to add to your discussion. I do not assume it is not happening to men, I am fully aware that both men and women are physically and emotionally abused, as I already stated in this thread.

Lil devils x:

Bentusi16:

Lil devils x:

The measurement is reaction, and that is where the problem lies. For example, My brother claims his ex was abusive. He feels " emotional harm done to him" because she left him and physical harm done to him because she ran over his foot in the process. But when you look at the whole situation here, even from his own side of the story, would you hold him accountable for his emotional distress or her? He claimed she was not supportive of him working out of town, and told him she was leaving him, so he rushes back to find her car already packed and her trying to leave, so he attempts to jump on the hood of her car, while it was in motion and got his foot run over. Now yes, he is feeling very real emotional distress from this, but when you look at his actions in this, I do not fault her. He was attempting to control her, and force her to stay against her will. If anything he was the ones whose actions were abusive here, not her. Should she be forced to stay against her will to keep him from emotional harm? We obviously cannot shift the blame for everything we allow ourselvs to feel upon others because we view them as the source of our harm.

A big difference between emotional abuse and physical is that if someone if preventing you from leaving by harm, threat of harm ,or force to your person, property or loved ones, yes you can then blame the "abuser" as there is a very real danger. The issue with emotional abuse is what you allow yourself to endure. Now someone who has been "groomed" by extensive emotional abuse no longer has that "free will" to leave ability that others have, thus making it a more difficult issue to address. More often than not in that scenario, the abused allow themselves to be abused and it is very difficult, even for others to stop that cycle of abuse, because they "go back" to it, or seek out those disfunctional relationships because that is what they have been "groomed" to do. Who do we hold accountable for that?

How about threat of no longer loving you?

How about threat of you being alone?

So let me ask, about your brother: Was he working a job he didn't particularly want to pay for stuff for him and his girlfriend so they could live at a higher level of living? I'm not saying that was the situation, but is being a cold hearted bitch considered emotional abuse?

Example 2:

The infamous dear john letters. Or the conception of children while men are serving in war. Or the cheating on of men or women deployed. Or cheating BY them. Which one is emotional abuse? Is any of them? I had a large argument with a free love individual about this once, regarding how even if they were having 'fun' and so was the cheating partner, they were emotionally hurting other people for nothing more then selfish gain on both individuals parts. It wasn't an arguement where anyone won, but it did sort of demonstrate some point I was trying to make it's 1:30 AM and I'm tired and a little tipsy.

Basically emotional damage is bad and can lead to lots of bad stuff, up to and including suicide, an for some bizarree reason young men have a 5x more likely chance to kill themselves then their female contemporaries so I'm wondering if it's linked or something. Though I've heard the #1 reason for men committing suicide (in India anyway) is because they didn't awnt to be a burden on their family.

I don't know. Don't read to much into this.

Although part of me wants to say 'Have you ever been in an emotionally abusive relationship? No? Shutup then". Don't! Please don't. But a lot of the crap people have been saying in the last couple of post have really just made me angry/Sad. I dunno how to explain it, or even really why.

Maybe it's the under-pinning that despite absolutely very few studies you automatically assume it's not happening to men as much because you don't see as much physical evidence of it. That just seems like such hypocritical thinking to me, especially from feminist people.

No longer loving you is not abuse. That is just something that may or may not happen over the course of relationships. One sided relationships do not work. " being alone" is not a threat. If you are not comfortable being alone, you may already have issues that could make it difficult to have a healthy relationship in the first place. I think much of that has to do with the whole "entitlement" issue. You see, men often grow up thinking they are "entitled" to not being alone. First, you have to realize that you are not owed anything. The world does not owe you a beautiful woman in your bed rubbing and kissing on you all night. That is not a threat if you fail to have one.

You have to consider that both parties in any relationship have their own needs/ wants/ desires from a relationship, and if either party is not receiving what they desire in a relationship, they can leave. That does not make them an abuser.

If one party in a relationship is fine with a long distnace relationship, and the other is not, and wants a different type of relationship, that does not suddenly make them an abuser, no, but the approprotate thing to do at that point is break it off and yes, leave, rather than be dishonest and continue a relationship they are not happy with.

Yes, emotions can be difficult to handle, and many do not handle them very well. That does not suddenly mean that everyone should be forced to be ruled by others emotions. One guy loves a girl, she does not love him, so should she then be forced to try to love him because it will cause him emotional harm of she does not? That is basically what it boils down to when you look at those situations. Both parties in any relationship have to be equally important in order for it to work. You cannot have either party "enslaved" to anothers emotions.

And yes, I have been both an emotionally and physically abused, so yes, I do have some "first hand" understanding of this to add to your discussion. I do not assume it is not happening to men, I am fully aware that both men and women are physically and emotionally abused, as I already stated in this thread.

Someone threatening to leave you if they don' get their way constantly isn't a form of abuse?

So threatening someone to keep them from leaving = abuse

But manipulating them through emotions in order to get your way = not abuse?

Bentusi16:

Lil devils x:

Bentusi16:

How about threat of no longer loving you?

How about threat of you being alone?

So let me ask, about your brother: Was he working a job he didn't particularly want to pay for stuff for him and his girlfriend so they could live at a higher level of living? I'm not saying that was the situation, but is being a cold hearted bitch considered emotional abuse?

Example 2:

The infamous dear john letters. Or the conception of children while men are serving in war. Or the cheating on of men or women deployed. Or cheating BY them. Which one is emotional abuse? Is any of them? I had a large argument with a free love individual about this once, regarding how even if they were having 'fun' and so was the cheating partner, they were emotionally hurting other people for nothing more then selfish gain on both individuals parts. It wasn't an arguement where anyone won, but it did sort of demonstrate some point I was trying to make it's 1:30 AM and I'm tired and a little tipsy.

Basically emotional damage is bad and can lead to lots of bad stuff, up to and including suicide, an for some bizarree reason young men have a 5x more likely chance to kill themselves then their female contemporaries so I'm wondering if it's linked or something. Though I've heard the #1 reason for men committing suicide (in India anyway) is because they didn't awnt to be a burden on their family.

I don't know. Don't read to much into this.

Although part of me wants to say 'Have you ever been in an emotionally abusive relationship? No? Shutup then". Don't! Please don't. But a lot of the crap people have been saying in the last couple of post have really just made me angry/Sad. I dunno how to explain it, or even really why.

Maybe it's the under-pinning that despite absolutely very few studies you automatically assume it's not happening to men as much because you don't see as much physical evidence of it. That just seems like such hypocritical thinking to me, especially from feminist people.

No longer loving you is not abuse. That is just something that may or may not happen over the course of relationships. One sided relationships do not work. " being alone" is not a threat. If you are not comfortable being alone, you may already have issues that could make it difficult to have a healthy relationship in the first place. I think much of that has to do with the whole "entitlement" issue. You see, men often grow up thinking they are "entitled" to not being alone. First, you have to realize that you are not owed anything. The world does not owe you a beautiful woman in your bed rubbing and kissing on you all night. That is not a threat if you fail to have one.

You have to consider that both parties in any relationship have their own needs/ wants/ desires from a relationship, and if either party is not receiving what they desire in a relationship, they can leave. That does not make them an abuser.

If one party in a relationship is fine with a long distnace relationship, and the other is not, and wants a different type of relationship, that does not suddenly make them an abuser, no, but the approprotate thing to do at that point is break it off and yes, leave, rather than be dishonest and continue a relationship they are not happy with.

Yes, emotions can be difficult to handle, and many do not handle them very well. That does not suddenly mean that everyone should be forced to be ruled by others emotions. One guy loves a girl, she does not love him, so should she then be forced to try to love him because it will cause him emotional harm of she does not? That is basically what it boils down to when you look at those situations. Both parties in any relationship have to be equally important in order for it to work. You cannot have either party "enslaved" to anothers emotions.

And yes, I have been both an emotionally and physically abused, so yes, I do have some "first hand" understanding of this to add to your discussion. I do not assume it is not happening to men, I am fully aware that both men and women are physically and emotionally abused, as I already stated in this thread.

Someone threatening to leave you if they don' get their way constantly isn't a form of abuse?

So threatening someone to keep them from leaving = abuse

But manipulating them through emotions in order to get your way = not abuse?

"threatening" is the key word here. What is a threat?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/threat
threat (thrt)
n.
1. An expression of an intention to inflict pain, injury, evil, or punishment.
2. An indication of impending danger or harm.
3. One that is regarded as a possible danger; a menace.
tr.v. threat·ed, threat·ing, threats Archaic
To threaten.

I do not see " I am leaving" as a "threat", because that is not voicing impending danger or harm.
Will them leaving result in bodily harm or injury? Attempting to physically force someone to stay against there will is a threat because in order to keep them there you would have to physically make them against their will. There is a huge difference.

"I am leaving" is not forcing them to do something against their will, "You are NOT leaving" Or "I won't let you leave." is.

Arakasi:
Whereas if you are a woman and weak it's all 'poor you' and 'it's a man's fault'.

Actually, if you're a woman the response is just as likely, if not more so, to be: "Well, if you hadn't been wearing that skirt..." "You were out a bit late," "You did kiss him so you can hardly blame him for wanting more," "Are you sure it was a proper rape or did you just change your mind?" etc. If you're an 11 year-old girl and you get gang-raped by 20 guys, the response is sometimes: "You drew them in like a spider with a web."

OK, more on-topic. There is a sexism still inherent in our society which can make men feel too ashamed to report abuse or rape, because men are expected to be macho and we still laugh at the idea of a guy "getting beat by a girl". This also means that there isn't as much of a support network for men who have suffered from domestic abuse.

However, I think that another reason that there are more shelters for battered women than for battered men is that male-on-female domestic violence is far more common than female-on-male.

Personally, I don't believe that shelters for sufferers of domestic violence should be gendered at all. I would prefer to see "battered persons" shelters to allow for intersectionality and also to acknowledge that anyone can be a victim of domestic violence.

/pops into thread

On the one hand, in my admittedly very limited, anecdotal experience, men tend to handle abuse better, leaving abusers and doing so quickly rather than developing that weird Stockholm syndrom you sometimes see in abusive relationships.

On the other, some men get married perhaps before they should have, and when they go for a divorce... well, I've never heard of a man who kept his house or kids in that situation without the woman being diagnosed as mentally ill.

On that note... /pops the hell out again

boots:

Arakasi:
Whereas if you are a woman and weak it's all 'poor you' and 'it's a man's fault'.

Actually, if you're a woman the response is just as likely, if not more so, to be: "Well, if you hadn't been wearing that skirt..." "You were out a bit late," "You did kiss him so you can hardly blame him for wanting more," "Are you sure it was a proper rape or did you just change your mind?" etc. If you're an 11 year-old girl and you get gang-raped by 20 guys, the response is sometimes: "You drew them in like a spider with a web."

OK, more on-topic. There is a sexism still inherent in our society which can make men feel too ashamed to report abuse or rape, because men are expected to be macho and we still laugh at the idea of a guy "getting beat by a girl". This also means that there isn't as much of a support network for men who have suffered from domestic abuse.

However, I think that another reason that there are more shelters for battered women than for battered men is that male-on-female domestic violence is far more common than female-on-male.

Personally, I don't believe that shelters for sufferers of domestic violence should be gendered at all. I would prefer to see "battered persons" shelters to allow for intersectionality and also to acknowledge that anyone can be a victim of domestic violence.

Genderless shelters can never happen, and actually put the abused in harms way. Here at the battered womens shelter, we have electrified coiled barbed wire to keep out their attackers, as well as regular visit from law enforcement, and they still try ot get in to carry out their threats on the women in there. This is a very serious issue, and the only other alternative we have if it is too dangerous to keep them there is to get them into a safe house, which is much more difficult to do due to the limited resources and overwhelming demand for them. These situations are so volitile, you have to understand the seriousness of the issue. They pay hitmen to try and take out these women, EVEN while they are in the shelters. We have had situations where they paid women to pretend to be abused to attempt to gain access to the shelter to spy on their target. The sheer lack of victim protection in the US is the problem here. You cannot have men and women in the same shelter, not only could that put them in further danger, the women are often traumatized to the point they cannot even be around men for the immediate time being. Women often come in bloodied and beaten, or have just been released from the hospital and brought to us from there.

Bentusi16:

Someone threatening to leave you if they don' get their way constantly isn't a form of abuse?

So threatening someone to keep them from leaving = abuse

But manipulating them through emotions in order to get your way = not abuse?

OK, I think it might be state-the-obvious time. No one is automatically entitled to sex or affection from another person, regardless of how long you've been together. "Threatening" someone with the end of a relationship is not emotional abuse. If that were the case then anyone who has ever ended a relationship would be an "abuser" because they hurt the other person's feelings.

There is a HUGE difference between threatening someone to keep them from leaving, and threatening to leave yourself.

Withholding sex or affection is not emotional abuse. I'm sorry, but it's not. Emotional abuse is more along the lines of deliberately using threats and insults to make someone feel worthless or victimised. That's not to say that a lot of people won't claim to have been "victimised" because the object of their affections refused to jump into bed with them, but those people are idiots.

Lil devils x:

Genderless shelters can never happen, and actually put the abused in harms way. Here at the battered womens shelter, we have electrified coiled barbed wire to keep out their attackers, as well as regular visit from law enforcement, and they still try ot get in to carry out their threats on the women in there. This is a very serious issue, and the only other alternative we have if it is too dangerous to keep them there is to get them into a safe house, which is much more difficult to do due to the limited resources and overwhelming demand for them. These situations are so volitile, you have to understand the seriousness of the issue. They pay hitmen to try and take out these women, EVEN while they are in the shelters. We have had situations where they paid women to pretend to be abused to attempt to gain access to the shelter to spy on their target. The sheer lack of victim protection in the US is the problem here. You cannot have men and women in the same shelter, not only could that put them in further danger, the women are often traumatized to the point they cannot even be around men for the immediate time being. Women often come in bloodied and beaten, or have just been released from the hospital and brought to us from there.

You make a good point, though I think the point of trying to make DV support intersectional still stands. A compromise would be separate shelters for male and female victims under an umbrella organisation to support domestic abuse victims, though I think it's also important to account for non-cisgendered people who are victims of domestic violence.

boots:

Lil devils x:

Genderless shelters can never happen, and actually put the abused in harms way. Here at the battered womens shelter, we have electrified coiled barbed wire to keep out their attackers, as well as regular visit from law enforcement, and they still try ot get in to carry out their threats on the women in there. This is a very serious issue, and the only other alternative we have if it is too dangerous to keep them there is to get them into a safe house, which is much more difficult to do due to the limited resources and overwhelming demand for them. These situations are so volitile, you have to understand the seriousness of the issue. They pay hitmen to try and take out these women, EVEN while they are in the shelters. We have had situations where they paid women to pretend to be abused to attempt to gain access to the shelter to spy on their target. The sheer lack of victim protection in the US is the problem here. You cannot have men and women in the same shelter, not only could that put them in further danger, the women are often traumatized to the point they cannot even be around men for the immediate time being. Women often come in bloodied and beaten, or have just been released from the hospital and brought to us from there.

You make a good point, though I think the point of trying to make DV support intersectional still stands. A compromise would be separate shelters for male and female victims under an umbrella organisation to support domestic abuse victims, though I think it's also important to account for non-cisgendered people who are victims of domestic violence.

Yes it would be nice to have facilities for everyone, though looking at the current state of funding for these programs, I regretfully do not think it would happen any time soon. The funding for the battered women's shelter and safe houses is charity based, if people do not donate, it shuts down. They can only use what money they are given, and that only goes so far. It is very lacking as it is, and currently do not have enough to meet the demand. Often women are left sleeping in the halls on bags of clothes due to bed shortages, and we are unable to find them a shelter with space. This forces shelters to have to force people out and take worst cases only. No one should be turned away, but that is the reality of the current situation.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaand nerco-time I didn't want to start a new thread for this, it seems to pointless...

dystopiaINC:
Aaaaaaaaaaaaand nerco-time I didn't want to start a new thread for this, it seems to pointless...

oh boy. lot of crap to sort through here.

first off, the infant mortality rate is higher for males because the immune response is sexually dimorphic. It should go without saying that women are at a far greater risk of dying while giving birth than men are.

I'm not sure how spending a disproportionate amount of public health-care and medical research money on men is supposed to be evidence of oppression. If anything that's a sign of male privilege.

There's some serious cherry picking going on with those murder rates. Yes, most murders are male-on-male. And yes, when women do commit murder, the victim is a man more often than not. But they conveniently leave out the fact that the male-on-female murder rate is three times that of female-on-male. Violence against women is predominantly perpetrated by men. Violence against men is also mostly perpetrated by men. Governments pay more attention to the problem of violence against women because women are far more often victims than they are offenders, though maybe they should be looking into making men less violent. men commit 9 times as many violent crimes as women do, and men are 9 times more likely to go to jail. Funny how that math works out.

Sigh. None of these claims are sourced at all and most of them are too vague to fact-check easily. But yeah, this is basically a bunch of cherry-picked conclusions stripped of context to make a bad-faith argument about the plight of men in Canada, with an ill-conceived dig at straw-feminists tossed in at the end to boot.

The general public and mainstream society see men as expendable.
When we're encouraging our male children to beat the crap out of each other for entertainment/achievement then it's kinda hard to ignore.

Warren Farrell has some interesting opinions on the subject.

Perhaps stuff like this is at least part of the reason that male suicide rates are astronomically higher than female suicide rates.

Lil devils x:

boots:

Arakasi:
Whereas if you are a woman and weak it's all 'poor you' and 'it's a man's fault'.

Actually, if you're a woman the response is just as likely, if not more so, to be: "Well, if you hadn't been wearing that skirt..." "You were out a bit late," "You did kiss him so you can hardly blame him for wanting more," "Are you sure it was a proper rape or did you just change your mind?" etc. If you're an 11 year-old girl and you get gang-raped by 20 guys, the response is sometimes: "You drew them in like a spider with a web."

OK, more on-topic. There is a sexism still inherent in our society which can make men feel too ashamed to report abuse or rape, because men are expected to be macho and we still laugh at the idea of a guy "getting beat by a girl". This also means that there isn't as much of a support network for men who have suffered from domestic abuse.

However, I think that another reason that there are more shelters for battered women than for battered men is that male-on-female domestic violence is far more common than female-on-male.

Personally, I don't believe that shelters for sufferers of domestic violence should be gendered at all. I would prefer to see "battered persons" shelters to allow for intersectionality and also to acknowledge that anyone can be a victim of domestic violence.

Genderless shelters can never happen, and actually put the abused in harms way. Here at the battered womens shelter, we have electrified coiled barbed wire to keep out their attackers, as well as regular visit from law enforcement, and they still try ot get in to carry out their threats on the women in there. This is a very serious issue, and the only other alternative we have if it is too dangerous to keep them there is to get them into a safe house, which is much more difficult to do due to the limited resources and overwhelming demand for them. These situations are so volitile, you have to understand the seriousness of the issue. They pay hitmen to try and take out these women, EVEN while they are in the shelters. We have had situations where they paid women to pretend to be abused to attempt to gain access to the shelter to spy on their target. The sheer lack of victim protection in the US is the problem here. You cannot have men and women in the same shelter, not only could that put them in further danger, the women are often traumatized to the point they cannot even be around men for the immediate time being. Women often come in bloodied and beaten, or have just been released from the hospital and brought to us from there.

Are you opposed to men having their own shelters, though? Could be wrong, but even the woman who spearheaded the whole concept of battered women shelters wanted men to have their own safe havens as well....

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here