Archive for the ‘battering’ Category

Catching Up

October 21, 2009

German doctor kidnapped and dumped before French courthouse

He is accused of raping and murdering his stepdaughter. But who would question her mother’s right to take the girl away from her father, the protector nature provided, and deliver her to a strange man who would have no genetic reason not to see her as a potential sex partner and a strong genetic motivation to kill her to free up resources for his own children? As was established in Roe vs. Wade, a mother’s gina tingle trumps her child’s life! Who cares if the children are murdered, as long as her cunt is wet!

As if to prove my point, the same website had this item:

One in two foster kids sexually abused

More on the nightmare that is modern Sweden: Toys”R”Us scolded for gender discrimination

Last winter, a sixth grade class at Gustavslund school in Växjö in south central Sweden reported Toys”R”Us to the Reklamombudsmannen (Ro), a self-regulatory agency which polices marketing and advertising communications in Sweden to ensure they are in line with guidelines set out by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC).

According to the youngsters, the Toys”R”Us Christmas catalogue featured “outdated gender roles because boys and girls were shown playing with different types of toys, whereby the boys were portrayed as active and the girls as passive”, according to a statement from Ro.

It’s appalling that the brainwashing is started this early. And of course, Toys R Us is quite right to accurately depict male and female behavior. If I had my way, any business whose advertisements gave the impression that it was acceptable for boys or girls to behave in a nontraditional fashion for their gender would be closed down and all culpable for the ad put in prison for life.

Rejected women sue Swedish university

The women claim they were denied admission into the psychology programme at Lund University in southern Sweden on account of their gender.

Probably they were passed over because they were too stupid for the program. Very few women – less than 10% of all women – are smart enough for college educations not to be wasted on them. But if the university had been discriminating, it would have been completely right to do so. Women need to be discouraged from gumming up the universities and workplaces. These things were created by men and belong to them by rights.

Why won’t criminals reveal all?

Vanessa George has admitted her crimes, but she will not tell the police what they need to hear.

Detectives estimate about 30 children and toddlers were victims of the Plymouth nursery worker, but think there is only a small chance of identifying them from the pictures.

Nursery monster Vanessa George to enjoy life of anonymity at taxpayers’ expense as furious parents call for her ‘to be skinned and rolled in salt’

Teenage mother who stubbed out cigarette on her baby daughter’s back because she was ‘stressed out’ is jailed

I thought about not posting these links for fear of attracting more idiot comments from antisemites, but what the hell, they’ll comment whether I post this or not. So, good news and bad news from Israel. First, the good news:

Court Rules: Husband and Wife are Equally Disbelieved

A significant ruling handed down in the Tel Aviv Magistrates Court last week may herald a new age: No longer is a husband accused of domestic violence considered guilty until proven innocent – and both husband and wife are equally disbelieved….

In the case at hand, after the man was arrested and sat in prison, evidence in his favor was produced, forcing the woman to withdraw her complaint and admit that he had never hit her.

The man did not take his “victory” easily, and sued the State for compensation for having been tried and incarcerated. Judge Shmuel Landman found that, in fact, there had been no cause for indictment and that the man deserves compensation.

Oh, by the way, it’s now a few weeks since I told Jonna that if she wanted another comment approved here, she would have to either 1) give the names of these mysterious feminists to whom she claims I owe my right to keep a blog, or else 2) admit that feminists did not, in fact, do that for me. I haven’t heard a peep from her since. She can’t name these feminists who won freedom of speech for me because they don’t exist, and she’s not honorable enough to admit that she was lying.

Now the bad news: Coming Soon: 26-Week Maternity Leave

Israeli women will soon have the right to take 26 weeks off from work following the birth of a child. The first 14 weeks will be paid for by the National Insurance Institute, while a law will be passed explicitly stating that the NII is not responsible to pay for the final 12 weeks.

The law allowing women to take six months of leave won government support Sunday. The bill was backed by MK Dalia Itzik of Kadima and MK Tzipi Hotovely of Likud.

Itzik said Sunday that winning support for the bill was “the beginning of a revolution in which we will bring Israel closer to the enlightened Western world.”

The proper amount of paid maternity leave is: NONE. A woman with a baby doesn’t have time for a job, she has important work to do at home. And that they would even ask just shows how clueless women are about the nature of the grownup world. They literally do not understand that the reason that men get paid and women, until feminist legislation, usually didn’t, was that MEN WERE DOING THE WORK. Women cannot comprehend that money is given to you in exchange for work. If you don’t work, you don’t deserve any money. See how that works? If you’re female, no, you probably don’t.

Advertisements

September 23, 2009

The ego epidemic: How more and more of us women have an inflated sense of our own fabulousness

Us women are more egocentric and narcissistic than we ever used to be, according to extensive research by two leading psychologists.

More of us have huge expectations of ourselves, our lives and everyone in them. We think the universe resolves around us, with a deluded sense of our own fabulousness, and believe we are cleverer, more talented and more attractive than we actually are.

We have trouble accepting criticism and extending empathy because we are so preoccupied with ourselves.

Addicted to shopping: Half of women admit they can’t go a day without buying something

More than 15million British women are addicted to shopping, a study revealed today.

Researchers found over half of the entire female population shop because it gives them a high and a third can’t help spending money – even when they can’t afford it.

Six out of ten said they ‘have to’ spend money every single day – even if it just meant buying bread or milk.

Why I loathe feminism… and believe it will ultimately destroy the family By Erin Pizzey

ERIN PIZZEY set up the world’s first refuge for battered women in 1971 – and went on to establish an international movement for victims of domestic violence. But what she has never made public before is that her own childhood was scarred by the shocking cruelty of both her parents.

My father was ordered to Beirut by the diplomatic service, and we were left as refugees in Kokstad, South Africa. From living in an enormous house with a fleet of servants and a nanny, my twin sister Rosaleen and I were suddenly at the mercy of my mother Pat’s temper. And it was ferocious. Having escaped the brutality of the war, we were introduced to a new brand domestic cruelty.

Indeed, my mother’s explosive temper and abusive behaviour shaped the person I later became like no other event in my life.
Thirty years later, when feminism exploded onto the scene, I was often mistaken for a supporter of the movement. But I have never been a feminist, because, having experienced my mother’s violence, I always knew that women can be as vicious and irresponsible as men.

Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the movement, which proclaimed that all men are potential rapists and batterers, was based on a lie that, if allowed to flourish, would result in the complete destruction of family life….

Indeed, when I later opened my refuge for battered women, 62 of the first 100 to come through the door were as abusive as the men they had left….

Needless to say, my mother went berserk. She took me upstairs and beat me with an ironing cord until the blood ran down my legs. I showed my injuries to my teacher the next morning – but she just stared back impassively and did nothing….

Feminism, I realised, was a lie. Women and men are both capable of extraordinary cruelty. Indeed, the only thing a child really needs – two biological parents under one roof – was being undermined by the very ideology which claimed to speak up for women’s rights.

This country is now on the brink of serious moral collapse. We must stop demonising men and start healing the rift that feminism has created between men and women.
Harriet Harman’s insidious and manipulative philosophy that women are always victims and men always oppressors can only continue this unspeakable cycle of violence. And it’s our children who will suffer.

Links: How Women Behave

September 22, 2009

A few days ago, I got a furious comment from a feminist. After demonstrating her utter lack of basic reading comprehension and dutifully reciting the usual historically inaccurate bull about how feminism has done all kinds of wonderful things for me, she demanded to know how on earth a lesbian could possibly be a misogynist.

Here’s a few clues:

Rich men are better lovers: Women have more orgasms, better sex with wealthy men


Recession: When the money goes, so does the toxic wife
As the recession worsens, a lot of rich men are finding their gold-digging wives are taking to their heels

‘You loser!” screamed Katie, aiming a vase at her husband. “You’ve destroyed my life,” she continued, hurling it. “Just look at my hair, look at my nails! You loser, you jerk, you nobody.”

Katie’s husband, Jack, whose property portfolio disintegrated in the financial crash, had just told his wife that she would have to cut back on her thrice-weekly visits to Nicky Clarke, the nail salon in Harvey Nichols, and the oxygen facials, chemical peels and seaweed wraps at Space NK.

Not only that, but they no longer had the money to pay for an army of bullied Eastern Europeans to wait on her hand and foot.

Worse was to come – the brow-lift would have to be cancelled; her black Amex card would have to be snipped in half; and there was no way, he told her, that he could carry on spending £28,000 a year on Henry’s school fees at Eton.

Chloe, too, would have to leave the marginally cheaper (only £25,000 pa) Wycombe Abbey immediately.

Such was the aggression and verbal and physical abuse that followed that Jack was left with cut lips and blood streaming from a broken nose.

Their eight-year-old child, not yet at boarding school, sat cowering in a corner and dialling 999. When they arrived, they had to restrain Katie forcibly from attacking her husband.

Usually when feminist teachers rape their students, it’s boys, but not always:

Music teacher Helen Goddard jailed for lesbian affair with pupil

A music teacher who had a lesbian affair with a 15-year-old pupil will be allowed to continue to see the girl after she is released from jail.

Despite the parents’ fears that Helen Goddard, 26, will try to rekindle her relationship with their daughter, a judge rejected a prosecution request to ban the teacher from seeing the girl for five years.

Police: Mom strangles newborn

CHEYENNE — A Riverton mother of three young children is being held on a charge of first-degree murder for allegedly strangling her newborn baby shortly after giving birth.

A Fremont County circuit court judge set bail at $500,000 on Friday for 21-year-old Lorene Quist Gines. The judge scheduled a preliminary hearing for Thursday.

Link dump

September 21, 2009

The “Bitch” Evolved: Why Girls Are So Cruel to Each Other
Researchers study the natural foundations of female social aggression

Women really can’t keep a secret: Tongues start wagging after just 47 hours

Ever wondered how long a woman can keep a secret? Well the answer, it seems, is less than two days.

Researchers found that they will typically spill the beans to someone else in 47 hours and 15 minutes.

RE teacher facing jail after sex with schoolboy, 15, she met on Facebook

I think I’ve linked this before, but I couldn’t find it, so:
Shocking 400 percent rise in women who batter men

Shocking to whom?

Links

July 20, 2009

I don’t often check my wordpress backup of this blog, so comments there tend to wait a lot longer. Anyway, some random person found my post about Katherine Hepburn and Cary Grant over there and left a fiery misguided comment, which I approved but didn’t bother to argue with, because the poor soul has had her head stuffed with so much nonsense that it will take years of head-on collisions with harsh reality before it would be possible to begin to reason with her.

Anyway, her unspoken premise, and probably those of a lot of my other trolls, is that civilization depends on people never retaliating against assholery, rather than on people refraining from assholery. That is, some people (read: women) should be allowed to be as vicious as they want to others, while other people (read: men) have a duty to exercise self-control instead of retaliating.

If it were not for the fact that men have about a thousand times as much self-control as women, for the last forty years white middle-class men would have been just as violent as feminists pretend that they are. We would all be living in a Lifetime Channel movie.

Now, the divide between those who are licensed to practice unlimited assholery and those who are expected to stoically endure it with patience normally only exhibited by people who have statues erected to them in cathedrals is not always male-female. The bad-boys who make women wet are also exempt. This is how schools are operated, as I have discussed before.

It’s natural for females, whose survival depends upon ingratiating themselves with those who are willing to do violence, to advocate this method of dealing with people. It isn’t very effective, however. People can be trained to let women and the designated bad-boy bullies who make them wet treat them like dirt a great deal, but no one can tolerate it forever and eventually they’re mad as hell and won’t take it anymore.

It doesn’t even take a lot in the way of retaliation, by the way. I’ve had people – mostly women – in my life treat me like dirt, and I would exercise self-restraint and politely request that they stop and tell them how I felt and all the other shit that feminists claim is highly effective against rape when it isn’t even effective against your so-called friends telling random passing strangers intimate details of your life. Finally, when it was clear there was going to be no change in their vile behavior, I would snap and retaliate. Now, since I’m short and female, when I “snap and retaliate”, it means I yell at you for maybe two minutes tops and then you never see me again. But even this, after many warnings, sometimes months of warnings, utterly shocks these entitlement princesses. They have been so well trained to believe that they can do whatever they want, no matter how harmful it is to other people, and that it is the responsibility of their victims to exercise infinite self-restraint while their rights are being trampled upon, that they literally cannot believe it when they hear a raised voice and a slammed door. No wonder they don’t believe that serious wrongdoing, or serious stupidity, can lead to violence. They believe they can keep friends by treating those friends like shit, and they are genuinely astonished when it doesn’t work that way.

Now for today’s links.

Jacqui Smith: I’d never run a thing before the Home Office

Jacqui Smith has admitted for the first time that she was not up to the job of Home Secretary.

She said she was thrust into one of the biggest posts in Government without any training and called for MPs to receive help before they become ministers.

She also suggested that any successes she had in her post were down to ‘luck’ rather than skill.

Also, a woman besides me is sick of women going to the office dressed like prostitutes.

She was wearing a ‘spray-on’ dress, cut low enough to reveal yards of cleavage and high enough to barely skim her thighs, with shoes so high she had trouble walking in them.

Those clothes spoke volumes more than the carefully crafted CV and told me two essential things: this woman is not intelligent, and she does not respect me or herself….

Dropping into an estate agent’s office last weekend, I found myself transfixed by the female agent who’s bra straps were clearly on display and who was wearing so much lip gloss her lips were almost glued together.

Does it matter? Yes, it does. It damages every woman who engages in it, and undermines women at work generally.

The way we dress has a huge effect on the way we perceive ourselves, and on the way we’re perceived. Sadly, the two don’t always match up.

My star candidate in the sexy dress, for example, may have looked in her mirror that morning and seen ‘confident, individual, fashionable’. I saw ‘bimbo, trying too hard, someone who doesn’t have the sense to dress for the context in which she’s going to be seen’.

Yeah. Just this weekend, I was ogling a really hot chick who was about one inch of cloth away from indecent exposure, and then I overheard some of her conversation and realized that she’s still in high school. I quickly started looking the other way, even though it’s not illegal to look, but I can hardly believe any parent let their daughter go out looking like that. Yes, most women today who are not lesbians firmly believe that women who dress like hookers are no more likely to be ogled than women who dress normally, so they won’t stop their daughters from dressing like that. (Why on earth do they think hookers dress this way? Because it makes men hard and dykes wet, that’s why!) But if these mothers haven’t deprived them of their fathers, and surely not all of them have, their fathers know what makes a man’s dick hard. I once said all this to an older woman and her suggestion was that fathers have too strong a mental block against ever seeing their daughters as sexual beings to even notice when they look like they’re trying to score $50 for their next hit. If I were ever to have a daughter – highly unlikely, considering my age and my manifest reluctance to saddle myself with a wife who could be young enough to have children – I would probably build the same kind of mental block against seeing her that way, so I suppose that could be true.

Domestic Violence Against Men In Colorado

Boys and their toys? It’s biological, not social

The males monkeys played with the ‘boys’ toys while the females played with ‘boys’ and ‘girls’ toys

Boys prefer playing with cars to dolls because of basic biological differences rather than social pressures, scientists say.

Researchers observed young male monkeys spent more time playing with vehicles than with cuddly toys.

They believe this suggests that in most cases boys have an innate predisposition for masculine toys, which is then reinforced by what they learn from their parents, friends and wider society.

Dr Kim Wallen, a psychologist at Yerkes National Primate Research Center in Atlanta, Georgia, studied a group of captive, mainly juvenile male and female rhesus monkeys.

Links

July 20, 2009

I don’t often check my wordpress backup of this blog, so comments there tend to wait a lot longer. Anyway, some random person found my post about Katherine Hepburn and Cary Grant over there and left a fiery misguided comment, which I approved but didn’t bother to argue with, because the poor soul has had her(?) head stuffed with so much nonsense that it will take years of head-on collisions with harsh reality before it would be possible to begin to reason with her.

Anyway, her unspoken premise, and probably that of a lot of my other trolls, is that civilization depends on people never retaliating against assholery, rather than on people refraining from assholery. That is, some people (read: women) should be allowed to be as vicious as they want to others, while other people (read: men) have a duty to exercise self-control instead of retaliating.

If it were not for the fact that men have about a thousand times as much self-control as women, for the last forty years white middle-class men would have been just as violent as feminists pretend that they are. We would all be living in a Lifetime Channel movie.

Now, the divide between those who are licensed to practice unlimited assholery and those who are expected to stoically endure it with patience normally only exhibited by people who have statues erected to them in cathedrals is not always male-female. The bad-boys who make women wet are also exempt. This is how schools are operated, as I have discussed before.

It’s natural for females, whose survival depends upon ingratiating themselves with those who are willing to do violence, to advocate this method of dealing with people. It isn’t very effective, however. People can be trained to let women and the designated bad-boy bullies who make them wet treat them like dirt a great deal, but no one can tolerate it forever and eventually they’re mad as hell and won’t take it anymore.

It doesn’t even take a lot in the way of retaliation, by the way. I’ve had people – mostly women – in my life treat me like dirt, and I would exercise self-restraint and politely request that they stop and tell them how I felt and all the other shit that feminists claim is highly effective against rape when it isn’t even effective against your so-called friends telling random passing strangers intimate details of your life. Finally, when it was clear there was going to be no change in their vile behavior, I would snap and retaliate. Now, since I’m short and female, when I “snap and retaliate”, it means I yell at you for maybe two minutes tops and then you never see me again. But even this, after many warnings, sometimes months of warnings, utterly shocks these entitlement princesses. They have been so well trained to believe that they can do whatever they want, no matter how harmful it is to other people, and that it is the responsibility of their victims to exercise infinite self-restraint while their rights are being trampled upon, that they literally cannot believe it when they hear a raised voice and a slammed door. No wonder they don’t believe that serious wrongdoing, or serious stupidity, can lead to violence. They believe they can keep friends by treating those friends like shit, and they are genuinely astonished when it doesn’t work that way.

Now for today’s links.

Jacqui Smith: I’d never run a thing before the Home Office

Jacqui Smith has admitted for the first time that she was not up to the job of Home Secretary.

She said she was thrust into one of the biggest posts in Government without any training and called for MPs to receive help before they become ministers.

She also suggested that any successes she had in her post were down to ‘luck’ rather than skill.

Also, a woman besides me is sick of women going to the office dressed like prostitutes.

She was wearing a ‘spray-on’ dress, cut low enough to reveal yards of cleavage and high enough to barely skim her thighs, with shoes so high she had trouble walking in them.

Those clothes spoke volumes more than the carefully crafted CV and told me two essential things: this woman is not intelligent, and she does not respect me or herself….

Dropping into an estate agent’s office last weekend, I found myself transfixed by the female agent who’s bra straps were clearly on display and who was wearing so much lip gloss her lips were almost glued together.

Does it matter? Yes, it does. It damages every woman who engages in it, and undermines women at work generally.

The way we dress has a huge effect on the way we perceive ourselves, and on the way we’re perceived. Sadly, the two don’t always match up.

My star candidate in the sexy dress, for example, may have looked in her mirror that morning and seen ‘confident, individual, fashionable’. I saw ‘bimbo, trying too hard, someone who doesn’t have the sense to dress for the context in which she’s going to be seen’.

Yeah. Just this weekend, I was ogling a really hot chick who was about one inch of cloth away from indecent exposure, and then I overheard some of her conversation and realized that she’s still in high school. I quickly started looking the other way, even though it’s not illegal to look, but I can hardly believe any parent let their daughter go out looking like that. Yes, most women today who are not lesbians firmly believe that women who dress like hookers are no more likely to be ogled than women who dress normally, so they won’t stop their daughters from dressing like that. (Why on earth do they think hookers dress this way? Because it makes men hard and dykes wet, that’s why!) But if these mothers haven’t deprived them of their fathers, and surely not all of them have, their fathers know what makes a man’s dick hard. I once said all this to an older woman and her suggestion was that fathers have too strong a mental block against ever seeing their daughters as sexual beings to even notice when they look like they’re trying to score $50 for their next hit. If I were ever to have a daughter – highly unlikely, considering my age and my manifest reluctance to saddle myself with a wife who could be young enough to have children – I would probably build the same kind of mental block against seeing her that way, so I suppose that could be true.

Domestic Violence Against Men In Colorado

Boys and their toys? It’s biological, not social

The males monkeys played with the ‘boys’ toys while the females played with ‘boys’ and ‘girls’ toys

Boys prefer playing with cars to dolls because of basic biological differences rather than social pressures, scientists say.

Researchers observed young male monkeys spent more time playing with vehicles than with cuddly toys.

They believe this suggests that in most cases boys have an innate predisposition for masculine toys, which is then reinforced by what they learn from their parents, friends and wider society.

Dr Kim Wallen, a psychologist at Yerkes National Primate Research Center in Atlanta, Georgia, studied a group of captive, mainly juvenile male and female rhesus monkeys.

February 19, 2009

Riding the Donkey Backwards: Men as the Unacceptable Victims of Marital Violence

In post-Renaissance France and England, society ridiculed and humiliated husbands thought to be battered and/or dominated by their wives (Steinmetz, 1977-78). In France, for instance, a “battered” husband was trotted around town riding a donkey backwards while holding its tail. In England, “abused” husbands were strapped to a cart and paraded around town, all the while subjected to the people’s derision and contempt. Such “treatments” for these husbands arose out of the patriarchal ethos where a husband was expected to dominate his wife, making her, if the occasion arose, the proper target for necessary marital chastisement; not the other way around (Dobash & Dobash, 1979).

I suggest that, after restoring legal recognition of husbands’ authority, we bring back these customs in order to compel men to bring their wives under control.

Despite the criticisms leveled at Steinmetz and her concept of the battered husband, violence directed at husbands has been reported by others. For instance, Murray Straus, Richard Gelles, and Suzanne Steinmetz (1980) estimated that about one in eight men in the United States acted violently during marital conflict. However, they estimated a similar number of women also acted violently during marital conflict. They also noted that in a majority of these cases, violence was a mutual or bilateral activity, with only 27% of cases finding that husbands were the sole perpetrators of violence and 24% of cases finding only wives acting violently. With respect to serious violence, as judged by the Conflict Tactics Scales (Note 2), these authors stated that the rate for men beaten by their wives was 4.6%; a figure that indicated “over 2 million very violent wives.” While 47% of those husbands who beat their wives did so severely three or more times a year, 53% of women who beat their husbands severely did so three or more times a year.

In conclusion, summarized such data as Straus and Gelles (1986) indicating that women engage in minor assaults against their male partners at a slightly higher rate than for the same attacks upon women by men. In situations in which both partners use violence, men and women were also almost equally responsible for the first blow, but in only one quarter of these relationships was the man the sole victim. At more potentially injurious levels of assault, men were considered to exceed women in their aggressive behavior and it was suggested that a relative rate in the order of 6 or 7 to 1 (male versus female) was evident for the perpetration of injurious assaults.

February 19, 2009

Riding the Donkey Backwards: Men as the Unacceptable Victims of Marital Violence

In post-Renaissance France and England, society ridiculed and humiliated husbands thought to be battered and/or dominated by their wives (Steinmetz, 1977-78). In France, for instance, a “battered” husband was trotted around town riding a donkey backwards while holding its tail. In England, “abused” husbands were strapped to a cart and paraded around town, all the while subjected to the people’s derision and contempt. Such “treatments” for these husbands arose out of the patriarchal ethos where a husband was expected to dominate his wife, making her, if the occasion arose, the proper target for necessary marital chastisement; not the other way around (Dobash & Dobash, 1979).

I suggest that, after restoring legal recognition of husbands’ authority, we bring back these customs in order to compel men to bring their wives under control.

Despite the criticisms leveled at Steinmetz and her concept of the battered husband, violence directed at husbands has been reported by others. For instance, Murray Straus, Richard Gelles, and Suzanne Steinmetz (1980) estimated that about one in eight men in the United States acted violently during marital conflict. However, they estimated a similar number of women also acted violently during marital conflict. They also noted that in a majority of these cases, violence was a mutual or bilateral activity, with only 27% of cases finding that husbands were the sole perpetrators of violence and 24% of cases finding only wives acting violently. With respect to serious violence, as judged by the Conflict Tactics Scales (Note 2), these authors stated that the rate for men beaten by their wives was 4.6%; a figure that indicated “over 2 million very violent wives.” While 47% of those husbands who beat their wives did so severely three or more times a year, 53% of women who beat their husbands severely did so three or more times a year.

In conclusion, summarized such data as Straus and Gelles (1986) indicating that women engage in minor assaults against their male partners at a slightly higher rate than for the same attacks upon women by men. In situations in which both partners use violence, men and women were also almost equally responsible for the first blow, but in only one quarter of these relationships was the man the sole victim. At more potentially injurious levels of assault, men were considered to exceed women in their aggressive behavior and it was suggested that a relative rate in the order of 6 or 7 to 1 (male versus female) was evident for the perpetration of injurious assaults.

February 19, 2009

Riding the Donkey Backwards: Men as the Unacceptable Victims of Marital Violence

In post-Renaissance France and England, society ridiculed and humiliated husbands thought to be battered and/or dominated by their wives (Steinmetz, 1977-78). In France, for instance, a “battered” husband was trotted around town riding a donkey backwards while holding its tail. In England, “abused” husbands were strapped to a cart and paraded around town, all the while subjected to the people’s derision and contempt. Such “treatments” for these husbands arose out of the patriarchal ethos where a husband was expected to dominate his wife, making her, if the occasion arose, the proper target for necessary marital chastisement; not the other way around (Dobash & Dobash, 1979).

I suggest that, after restoring legal recognition of husbands’ authority, we bring back these customs in order to compel men to bring their wives under control.

Despite the criticisms leveled at Steinmetz and her concept of the battered husband, violence directed at husbands has been reported by others. For instance, Murray Straus, Richard Gelles, and Suzanne Steinmetz (1980) estimated that about one in eight men in the United States acted violently during marital conflict. However, they estimated a similar number of women also acted violently during marital conflict. They also noted that in a majority of these cases, violence was a mutual or bilateral activity, with only 27% of cases finding that husbands were the sole perpetrators of violence and 24% of cases finding only wives acting violently. With respect to serious violence, as judged by the Conflict Tactics Scales (Note 2), these authors stated that the rate for men beaten by their wives was 4.6%; a figure that indicated “over 2 million very violent wives.” While 47% of those husbands who beat their wives did so severely three or more times a year, 53% of women who beat their husbands severely did so three or more times a year.

In conclusion, summarized such data as Straus and Gelles (1986) indicating that women engage in minor assaults against their male partners at a slightly higher rate than for the same attacks upon women by men. In situations in which both partners use violence, men and women were also almost equally responsible for the first blow, but in only one quarter of these relationships was the man the sole victim. At more potentially injurious levels of assault, men were considered to exceed women in their aggressive behavior and it was suggested that a relative rate in the order of 6 or 7 to 1 (male versus female) was evident for the perpetration of injurious assaults.

February 19, 2009

Riding the Donkey Backwards: Men as the Unacceptable Victims of Marital Violence

In post-Renaissance France and England, society ridiculed and humiliated husbands thought to be battered and/or dominated by their wives (Steinmetz, 1977-78). In France, for instance, a “battered” husband was trotted around town riding a donkey backwards while holding its tail. In England, “abused” husbands were strapped to a cart and paraded around town, all the while subjected to the people’s derision and contempt. Such “treatments” for these husbands arose out of the patriarchal ethos where a husband was expected to dominate his wife, making her, if the occasion arose, the proper target for necessary marital chastisement; not the other way around (Dobash & Dobash, 1979).

I suggest that, after restoring legal recognition of husbands’ authority, we bring back these customs in order to compel men to bring their wives under control.

Despite the criticisms leveled at Steinmetz and her concept of the battered husband, violence directed at husbands has been reported by others. For instance, Murray Straus, Richard Gelles, and Suzanne Steinmetz (1980) estimated that about one in eight men in the United States acted violently during marital conflict. However, they estimated a similar number of women also acted violently during marital conflict. They also noted that in a majority of these cases, violence was a mutual or bilateral activity, with only 27% of cases finding that husbands were the sole perpetrators of violence and 24% of cases finding only wives acting violently. With respect to serious violence, as judged by the Conflict Tactics Scales (Note 2), these authors stated that the rate for men beaten by their wives was 4.6%; a figure that indicated “over 2 million very violent wives.” While 47% of those husbands who beat their wives did so severely three or more times a year, 53% of women who beat their husbands severely did so three or more times a year.

In conclusion, summarized such data as Straus and Gelles (1986) indicating that women engage in minor assaults against their male partners at a slightly higher rate than for the same attacks upon women by men. In situations in which both partners use violence, men and women were also almost equally responsible for the first blow, but in only one quarter of these relationships was the man the sole victim. At more potentially injurious levels of assault, men were considered to exceed women in their aggressive behavior and it was suggested that a relative rate in the order of 6 or 7 to 1 (male versus female) was evident for the perpetration of injurious assaults.