« Sexism and "Civility" | Main | Alternet Ignores Women's Blogs »
February 18, 2005
More On Domestic Violence Shelters And Abused Men
Bean has an excellent post up about domestic violence shelters for women and whether or not they should admit men. In addition to chastising men's rights activists who would rather whine, complain, and attack women's shelters rather than do the proper research necessary and seek funding to help abused men, she wrote this:
And here's the important part -- one of the reasons that men's shelters have not been successful (in addition to the fact that so many men's rights activists would rather bitch and moan than actually do anything, and would rather take away from women than actually do anything for themselves) is that men simply don't seek out the help. Part of this is because fewer men actually need this sort of help. Even if one was to accept the 30% rate of abused men (that I have seen argued by men's rights activists; although, I've yet to see the proof for this number), not all of those men need shelter; therefore it is not correct that 30% of the shelters should be for men. The vast majority of abused men are abused by men (that is, they are gay men who are being abused by their male partners). The majority of these men do not have children. That, in itself, lessens the barriers to leaving (although does not eliminate them), and therefore lessens the need for shelter. Also, these men tend to have more financial security, and are therefore in less need of shelter.
The other part is that abused men are simply not as likely to seek shelter -- perhaps out of shame. I'm not saying, in any way, that this is OK. Certainly, something should be done about it. But the fact remains, it's harder to get funding for something that is simply not used as often.
Men's rights groups -- if they were really interested in helping abused men -- would do better to actually get off their complaining asses and start doing something. Do some outreach to abused men. Start more programs addressing abuse of men (without taking the hard-earned resources from women). Start their own shelters (want some hints on doing so? -- look at the damned hard work of the feminists who started women's shelters in the 70s and 80s, feminists who didn't have public support or public funding, but did it anyway). And most important of all -- work with men who are doing the abusing. Because regardless of the gender of the abused, the vast, vast majority of abusers are men.
Related posts:
Another Attack On Domestic Violence Shelters Unsuccessful
Domestic Violence Shelter In Maine Under Attack By Men's Rights Activists
Men's Rights Attack Against Domestic Violence Shelters Dismissed (California)
Posted on February 18, 2005 at 10:57 AM | Permalink
Comments
Bean makes some very important points about the significance of abused AND homeless men, and how that small percentage that is battered is far less likely to have problems with homelessness (more financial resources, gay and not as likely to have dependent children that have hindered a career, etc.) She argues, as I have, that men's rights activists must do the hard work of documentation, setting up budgets, securing funding, and seeing projects through IF in fact there is population that warrants the development of a separate facility for battered homeless men.
As someone who is more familiar, at least from a professional standpoint, with the homeless part of the equation, I would also urge male activists to examine why men are homeless in this country, and use the scarce resources that exist in a wise and efficient way.
Especially in rural areas like mine, dv is the leading reason of why women and children do not have a home, although it is often, but not always, aggravated by other related issues, such as lack of education, lack of a job, self-esteem problems and depression, perhaps drug and alcohol as well.
For men, the reasons are typically a mix of lack of job/education, and to some degree, especially in the urban areas, of severe and persistent mental illness and/or substance abuse. I would urge male activists to join feminists in protesting the proposed funding cuts that will hurt both homeless men and women by slashing or eliminating these much needed mental health and drug/alcohol treatment services. If you are truly concerned about homeless men, then concern yourself with the reasons that the vast majority are homeless.
The exception to the above generalizations regarding abuse are very young homeless men (teens) who are frequently subject to abuse and rape, just like their female counterparts, especially if they have become involved in so-called "sex work." Much more needs to be done for homeless young people, and I look forward to men's activists becoming more involved in this area.
Posted by: silverside at Feb 18, 2005 12:50:33 PM
Another important distinction in how the dynamic of abuse plays out in the lives of men: very few abused men are forbidden from holding a job by their abusive partner, very few abused men are kept out of the workforce for years (thus limiting their ability to find a job when they leave) by their abusive partner, and few abused men are forbidden from obtaining an education by their abusive partner.
Where I live, spaces at the women's shelter are at a premium. The need is great and the spaces are few. Women who have an education and a job that allows them to support themselves are not likely to get a room at the shelter. That is not to say that they won't be given any help; the shelter will work with them to help them formulate an escape strategy, provide counseling, etc.....but room at the shelter is a scarce commodity, and tends to be reserved for those with no other options.
Posted by: La Lubu at Feb 18, 2005 1:52:47 PM
I don't want to sound like I'm drifting off topic too much, but if you stick to the issues that are really affecting men, rather than somewhat bogus and dubious issues like domestic battering of men, you can't help but be alarmed by what some observers are calling an alarming number of Iraq war vets with post-traumatic stress that are already spiraling into homelessness, even before the damn war is over. For those who claim to be concerned about issues that impact men, this should be a biggie, and it's only going to get bigger. In addition, for those who worry about children growing up without fathers, you should have increasing concern about the high number of older, mostly male, soldiers who have already started families, as opposed to the younger, typically childless soldiers of previous wars. For these are often loving fathers who are leaving devastated children (and wives, girlfriends, moms, dads, sisters, brothers, and friends) behind.
I don't say this to promote topic drift, but only to point out how obsessing on "us too" equivalents to women's problems (we're battered too! we're raped too!) is a kind of foolish strategy when there are real and serious problems that do disproportionately impact men, even while these issues are virtually ignored by the self-styled men's rights activists. I can't help but think you should qwitcherbitchin about dv shelters, and start marching against the war and cuts in the VA budget. Wanna make a real difference in the lives of real men? That looks to me like a good start.
Again, the key, as feminists discovered years ago, is that you have to take the time to find out what the problems are in your "community" --whether "community" is defined as your neighborhood, your town, women of color, gay men, etc. You have to ask people. You have to listen and not jam their issues into a preconceived agenda. You have to do the research. You have to look for solutions that work for your community. It's too easy to get sidetracked by bullshit that really doesn't have much to do with your community, but has everything to do with certain individuals having some sort of wacko vendetta against some other community.
Okay, let's go back to talking about dv shelters. That was a detour, but I'm back on the main road again.
Posted by: silverside at Feb 18, 2005 2:16:01 PM
"you can't help but be alarmed by what some observers are calling an alarming number of Iraq war vets with post-traumatic stress that are already spiraling into homelessness, even before the damn war is over. For those who claim to be concerned about issues that impact men, this should be a biggie, and it's only going to get bigger. In addition, for those who worry about children growing up without fathers, you should have increasing concern about the high number of older, mostly male, soldiers who have already started families, as opposed to the younger, typically childless soldiers of previous wars. For these are often loving fathers who are leaving devastated children (and wives, girlfriends, moms, dads, sisters, brothers, and friends) behind..."
You're very much correct. And on top of the problems you've described here, very well here by the way, they are also dealing with the same issues men here at home are facing.
Father's rights (and all the sub-issues that go with it)is no less a concern to these men who are coming home...some (and I stress, SOME) of them sadly, to find that their wives have moved on and that their feelings have changed. All to often, a wife (or husband)waiting at home during wartime meets up with someone else seeking comfort.
Some of these poor servicemen (AND women) actually receive divorce papers while they're in country. And that includes a forward area. Imagine the bullets have stopped flying just long enough to receive a little mail from a battalion runner and you open up a letter from your wife (or husband) that contains divorce papers. How hard must THAT be?
So thank you silverside for your kind words and support, but don't worry, MRA's will be standing up for returning vets like we have ALWAYS done.
One note...trying to invalidate or otherwise minimize what fathers and men's rights stands for by inferring that homeless vets have it much worse, will not work. But it WAS shrewd.
Posted by: Masculiste at Feb 18, 2005 7:45:33 PM
"So thank you silverside for your kind words and support, but don't worry, MRA's will be standing up for returning vets like we have ALWAYS done."
MRAs SUPPORT the war...if they cared about veterans shouldn't they should be working to stop it, not create a larger pool of disabled/homeless vets to HAVE to support...
Like the chicken or egg theory...
"One note...trying to invalidate or otherwise minimize what fathers and men's rights stands for by inferring that homeless vets have it much worse, will not work. But it WAS shrewd."
No...maybe she really cares about both women and men...I have known her a while and I think she does. She has a husband and a son so why wouldn't she really care about men...
She was trying to point out that if you want to start helping all these abused men you claims are out there, start some shelters of your own to help them...just like women did...women saw the need, did the research and got the numbers and then wrote for grants to open shelters...
Do that...instead of trying to invade the spaces women have built...
Posted by: NYMOM at Feb 18, 2005 8:28:46 PM
Well, if men's activists have been marching against the war, I missed it. If they've been protesting cuts in VA health care, mental health services or substance abuse facilities (issues that affect a lot of homeless men, and women for that matter), I missed it. When I looked up Fathering Magazine recently, I examined their forum on the middle east, just out of curiosity. I saw a lot of pseudo-Nazi anti-semitism ("jews run everything"), some twisted admiration for the Taliban and countries like Saudi Arabia and how the "control their women." Didn't see a word of concern about the American men (or women) getting killed to further Bush's foreign policy adventurism. I also saw some pornographic forums on "teen sexuality." I didn't see one damn thing that supported the lives of ordinary men, the regular guys who go to work every day and end up in the National Guard because they want to make a little extra money to pay bills, and then end up with their butts blown off in Tehran. Basically what I saw was stuff supporting pedophiles and anti-semitic right wingers.
Posted by: silverside at Feb 18, 2005 8:57:32 PM
"...some twisted admiration for the Taliban and countries like Saudi Arabia and how the "control their women..."
Yes, those guys were MRAs' HEROES until 9/11...
Posted by: at Feb 18, 2005 9:40:50 PM
"...some twisted admiration for the Taliban and countries like Saudi Arabia and how the "control their women..."
Yes, those guys were MRAs' HEROES until 9/11...
Posted by: NYMOM at Feb 18, 2005 9:41:15 PM
"You have to ask people. You have to listen and not jam their issues into a preconceived agenda. You have to do the research. You have to look for solutions that work for your community. It's too easy to get sidetracked by bullshit that really doesn't have much to do with your community"
Men's rights groups have done the research, and they've proven that women abuse their partners as often as men do. You just ignore it because they don't come to the conclusion you want. If a study supports the feminist lie that women never abuse their partners, you say that it's valid research. But if it reveals the truth about domestic violence, you claim that the people doing the study aren't "doing research." So you wouldn't actually accept any evidence that demonstrates that women frequently abuse men, no matter how valid it is.
And I think it's disgusting that you think that domestic violence against men is a non-issue. What if I said that domestic violence against women was a non-issue, and that women should stop whining about it? What if I said, women should focus on other issues and stop getting "sidetracked by bullshit?" (those are your words). That's exactly what you're doing (with men) and it proves just how sexist you are.
Do you know why men don't report domestic violence? It's because of people like you. Whenever men have actually try to start a shelter, people like you fight to make sure they don't get funding. And how can they get private funding when feminists like you try to convince everyone that abused men don't exist? YOU are the problem. And it's absolutely appalling. That's why the fight against feminism must continue.
Posted by: Adam at Feb 19, 2005 4:52:39 AM
Hmm perhaps I shouldn't have called you sexist, but that's only after I read trish's baseless lie about me being sexist (when I'm clearly an egalitarian). It just really angered me when you referred to anti-male violence as worthless nonsense, and said that anyone who brings up the issue is a "whiner." I'm sure you'd be angry if I said similar things about violence against women (and you might want to think about that before you post).
Posted by: Adam at Feb 19, 2005 5:33:25 AM
Adam, you're still missing the big picture. When you look at men who are homeless and have caseworkers ask them why they are homeless, how often does dv come up? The fact is, very rarely.
We have discussed before how hard it is to come up with any significant, documentable number of men who are homeless from DV, these men who presumably belong in a women's dv shelter. Granted, as I have said, the government generated statistics on homelessness are very poor, so local providers have to do their own counts. You have to have caseworkers ask men about dv along with other issues. (An aside: a few years ago, when the VA had funding available for homeless vets, I found out that none of our local providers asked their clients about veteran status, so we had no data. I recommended that they change that.) I would suggest that dv be asked of all male clients along with everything else. In some locales, this is probably already done. Pretty minimal costs involved in adding dv to the check off forms if even that. Or simply changing procedure to ask both male and female homeless clients. Simple and cheap, and it would get you numbers--one way or another.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that men don't always disclose. In fact, many women don't either, at least at first. So we can come up with anecdotal evidence - there was John or Bill. Great. A few individuals does not make or justify a separate program or shelter. It means if in fact John or Bill is homeless, and dv has contributed to their homelessness in some way, that they should seek shelter at the local men's homeless shelter and get hooked up with all the services they need that will help stabilize their lives, whether that's job training, substance abuse assistance, mental health services, etc. This avoids the problems we have discussed in actually putting men in shelters designed for battered women, and allows you to tailor your counseling approach to the needs of individual male clients. Should be the optimal approach, especially when you argue that the existing shelters "just don't get" male victims of dv. So that would suggest to me that you not want to use a one-size-fits-all existing program, and design individual counseling or case management approaches that do meet their needs WHEN they exist.
In contrast to the teeny numbers of men who appear to be homeless because of dv, I can walk with you through any urban neighborhood in the US and show you men who are homeless because of untreated mental illness and/or alcohol and drug abuse. We would have no disagreements at all about whether these men exist or whether there are substantial numbers. They most certainly are there, and no one would dispute that.
The argument has been made that men's activists do care about homeless vets (mostly men) or other issues that do have a significant impact on generating homelessness among men such as mental illness and substance abuse. Well, lip service is one thing and action is another. In fact, Trish has presented us with at least two states where men's right activists have launched lawsuits against women's dv shelters. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that these efforts cost a minimum of $100,000 each in terms of lawyers, resources, staff time, etc. So for Maine and California, at least $200,000 is being lost in opportunity costs that could have been used to address the following needs, needs that no one but the far right would dispute:
1) Meals for homeless men (and/or women)
2) In-patient or out-patient treatment slots for mental illness
3) Additional drug/alcohol counselors
4) Section 8 vouchers for men (and women) who have been priced out of the local housing market, and where housing constitutes more than 30% of income
We could go on and on.
Yet you obsess about an issue that in the overall scheme of things seems to affect very few men - men who are battered and are homeless as a result.
I get frustrated with anyone who wants to use scarce resources where there is little documented need, because it fits some preconceived poltical agenda. In the city I used to work in, the politicians were always pushing owner-occupied rehabilitation for seniors because it was politically popular. In fact, the numbers of income-eligible seniors who could use the program were quite small. What we had desperate need for, was a rental rehabilitation program for larger units, the units occupied by low-income families. There was just no doubt that this was the greatest need. But there was no support for this because lower income families, often minority, don't vote in the same numbers as white seniors on social security. So scarce rehab money was diverted to stuff with little need.
Sad.
Posted by: at Feb 19, 2005 8:16:41 AM
"MRAs SUPPORT the war...if they cared about veterans shouldn't they should be working to stop it, not create a larger pool of disabled/homeless vets to HAVE to support..."
MRA's do not support the war, they support the troops. Where do you get this drivel?
"When I looked up Fathering Magazine recently, I examined their forum on the middle east, just out of curiosity. I saw a lot of pseudo-Nazi anti-semitism ("jews run everything"), some twisted admiration for the Taliban and countries like Saudi Arabia and how the "control their women."
Give us a citation of what issue the magazine and I'll write them myself and chew them out.
"Trish has presented us with at least two states where men's right activists have launched lawsuits against women's dv shelters"
Yeah, because it's discrimination based on sex. If a man is constantly being assaulted by his wife in his own home, and he has to leave but has nowhere to go, why would he be turned down by a domestic violence shelter? Because he is a man. That's discrimination.
"When you look at men who are homeless and have caseworkers ask them why they are homeless, how often does dv come up? The fact is, very rarely."
Care to devulge EXACTLY how you know this? And care to further explain how 'very rarely' translates into 'meaningless?'
"A few individuals does not make or justify a separate program or shelter."
Well now we know why a shelter for men who are victims of DV, get no recognition...because it's supposedly isolated and thereby not worthy of consideration.
"It means if in fact John or Bill is homeless, and dv has contributed to their homelessness in some way, that they should seek shelter at the local men's homeless shelter and get hooked up with all the services they need that will help stabilize their lives."
We already DO that but as we've already discussed, There IS no service to help stabilize the lives of men who are specifically victims of DV. And taking courses on mental health, drug abuse etc. is something the abuser should be doing, not the abused.
"I get frustrated with anyone who wants to use scarce resources where there is little documented need, because it fits some preconceived poltical agenda"
It's not a political agenda, it's men getting their butts battered, who can neither defend themselves nor just pick up their's and sometimes their kid's lives because there is no support system in place who has even the slightest hint of empathy for them simply because they're men. Then they usually have to go through the 'divorce' system which becomes added abuse heaped upon the previous. And there's a wealth of documented need, but women's shelters simply refuse to document it.
"Yet you obsess about an issue that in the overall scheme of things seems to affect very few men - men who are battered and are homeless as a result."
Well at least you admit that it DOES take place But really...tell that to the one guy who repeatedly has to deal with this...that he's obsessing because he's just one in a million. That because his is an isolated case, that by definition, it's meaningless. That sounds very nurturing of you.
And just so you know, it was
Posted by: Masculiste at Feb 19, 2005 10:50:13 AM
Silverside (I think): "Trish has presented us with at least two states where men's right activists have launched lawsuits against women's dv shelters"
Masculiste: Yeah, because it's discrimination based on sex. If a man is constantly being assaulted by his wife in his own home, and he has to leave but has nowhere to go, why would he be turned down by a domestic violence shelter? Because he is a man. That's discrimination.
The court ruled against the men's rights groups that brought the lawsuits against the shelters. Read the posts. The rulings determined that the shelters had not discriminated against men.
Posted by: Trish Wilson at Feb 19, 2005 11:18:07 AM
1) Perhaps you can show me concrete evidence of how MR groups "support the troops" other than having yellow ribbon thingies on your cars.
2) Google Fathering Magazine.
3) Not discrimination, as there are emergency homeless shelters for men that can provide him with shelter and provide him with the services he would need. The courts have determined that it is NOT discrimination to generate special needs housing based on the needs of different populations. As a developer, I can build low-income senior units where you must be under a certain income and under a certain age (55, 65, depending on the funding) to get a unit. If you are over income and under age, you are not discriminated against. In fact, if I gave you a unit, I would be in serious non-compliance with my funding source. Likewise, if you are 44, there is no age discrimination if you are not admitted into our local runaway youth center. And if a woman showed up at our Union Mission shelter for homeless men, she wouldn't be admitted and it wouldn't be sex discrimination.
4) I know this because I am familiar with most of the major studies of homelessness in the US. I have also done the work of coalating local provider generated data so as to identify the major causes of homelessness within our particular area.
5) "Very rarely" gets translated into "meaningless" as cruel as that may sound when you are dealing with very limited resources. When you have to make decisions or recommendations as to what projects get funded, large numbers of persons affected should receive precedence over tiny numbers of persons affected. In the real world, political interests too often override this, providing funding for all kinds of pork and meaningless projects while important needs get ignored. I am opposed to this.
6) Correct. If no one can come up with real data to support their proposal, than I tend not to support it.
7) Incorrect. There are dv services that are available to anyone. Just not shelter within a facility designed for women if you are a man. And in fact, dv shelters do provide an array of services, because most of the women entering them have multiple needs. It's not like all you do is sit around complaining about the patriarchy. Chances are job training, counseling, etc. are part of the equation.
8) As someone who has worked in government, housing, homelessness, and grants, the reality is that there are always a few individuals who fall between the cracks. Their income was $100 too high to be eligible for rehab, etc. It's sad. I wouldn't be surprised if I were able to locate 2 or 3 homeless men within my county over the last 10 years who had homelessness that in someway was related to dv. Do I see a need to set up a separate shelter for this? No. Do I see a need to disrupt the existing women's programs that are turning away women now? No. When there are perhaps 10 DOCUMENTED homeless men in need of residential drug/alcohol treatment for every one bed that is available, do I think that a project providing additional treatment beds should receive priority over a battered men's shelter where the numbers are fuzzy? Yes, I do.
If you had to make a decision as to what projects would get funding, what choice would YOU make, especially if you are trying to be responsive to the data?
Posted by: silverside at Feb 19, 2005 11:51:58 AM
"The court ruled against the men's rights groups that brought the lawsuits against the shelters. Read the posts. The rulings determined that the shelters had not discriminated against men."
-Sorry but you're wrong about that Trish. First of all, CA never made it to trial. It was dismissed prior to that. And since we don't know whether that was "with" or "without" prejudice means that they either could appeal the dismissal or refile altogether.
And the Bangor Maine court has determined there was enough evidence for a trial and denied the dismissal. CA doesn't ALWAYS set the trend.
See...
http://michaelcapanzzi.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2005/2/17/328699.html
""Very rarely" gets translated into "meaningless" as cruel as that may sound when you are dealing with very limited resources" and "If you had to make a decision as to what projects would get funding, what choice would YOU make, especially if you are trying to be responsive to the data?"
It's very simple. Lump ALL domestic violence cases together. Men (and the data is not sketchy, it's there and well documented by the justice dept for starters...if you'd only acknowledge it) woman and especially children.
And like what any other social services organization commonly does now, if you have limited resources you outsource to another agency that may have openings or is more appropriate to your needs. And you acknowledge EVERYONE who is a victim, no matter their sex or status. The problem with that, of course, is that even in the social services industry, groups tend to compete for those so-called limited-resources.
But what you should NEVER do is seperate who you will or will not service or even so much as acknowledge on the basis of sex. It's no wonder men frequently don't report it or prosecute it even when there are witnesses. That would be like saying that if men rarely get sick, then there's no real need for a medical concentration on men's health.
That is discrimination plain and simple. And THAT is why these above cases will eventually make it to trial. After that, we'll all just have to watch and see what happens.
And don't even try that 'limited resources' mallarky. New govt. sponsored DV programs are being created every day and the domestic violence division of the divorce industry is booming. I have quite a bit of social services experience myself.
Posted by: Masculiste at Feb 19, 2005 12:59:12 PM
"The court ruled against the men's rights groups that brought the lawsuits against the shelters. Read the posts. The rulings determined that the shelters had not discriminated against men."
Masculiste: Sorry but you're wrong about that Trish. First of all, CA never made it to trial. It was dismissed prior to that. And since we don't know whether that was "with" or "without" prejudice means that they either could appeal the dismissal or refile altogether.
I know the people involved. Yes, the case was dismissed, and rightly so. The men's rights activists had no merit for their case. The case was appealed, and the guys lost. Again. The women's shelters do not discriminate against men.
Posted by: Trish Wilson at Feb 19, 2005 1:02:57 PM
Since I have serious wonkish tendencies, I decided to do a little additional research examining the differences between why men and women are homeless. As I have tried to discuss, women are far more likely to be homeless because of dv and flee with children. Men, on the other hand, are more likely to be single and on the streets for reasons related to alchohol, drugs, and mental illness.
One of the best sources I found was the June 2001 issue of Healing Hands, which includes 6 pages on Single Males: The Homeless Majority. (Can find on-line). Some of their findings:
77% of the homeless are single males
33% of homeless men are veterans
Alchohol problems are reported at 2X the rate of homeless women
Of homeless clients reporting alcohol or drug related problems, 73% are male
A significant number of homeless men report growing up with family trauma, abuse, neglect, and poverty.
This 6 page article which is very sympathetic to men does not ONCE mention any findings that men are homeless due to dv committed against them, especially by women. There is mention that some of them may have alienated their families because of past abusive behavior, and thus burned their own bridges in terms of family support, however.
Again, if I had to make a funding and/or programmatic decision, whether to provide money for a male dv center and/or force the women's shelter to "integrate" (with all the potential problems and overcrowding that was already there), or open up new residential treatment beds for alcohol and substance abuse, what would the data tell me is best to do in terms of helping the largest number of men in need?
I would choose to do what would appear to help the greatest number of homeless men: open up more treatment slots for alcohol and substance abuse.
The male dv thing is a red herring, and if you were to ask experts in homelessless what THEY thought would best to help homeless men, as opposed to what so-called male activists (who seem to be more motivated by an anti-feminist agenda then helping real-life men on their real needs) think homeless men need, this is what the answer would be.
Posted by: silverside at Feb 19, 2005 1:38:30 PM
By contrast, this is what the National Coalition for the Homeless says about homelessness and domestic violence (Note again that there is no mention of males homeless from dv):
This fact sheet examines the relationship between domestic violence and homelessness. A list of resources for further study is also provided.
BACKGROUND
When a woman leaves an abusive relationship, she often has nowhere to go. This is particularly true of women with few resources. Lack of affordable housing and long waiting lists for assisted housing mean that many women and their children are forced to choose between abuse at home or the streets. Moreover, shelters are frequently filled to capacity and must turn away battered women and their children. An estimated 32% of requests for shelter by homeless families were denied in 1998 due to lack of resources (U.S. Conference of Mayors, 1998).
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AS A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR TO HOMELESSNESS
Many studies demonstrate the contribution of domestic violence to homelessness, particularly among families with children. A 1990 Ford Foundation study found that 50% of homeless women and children were fleeing abuse (Zorza, 1991). More recently, in a study of 777 homeless parents (the majority of whom were mothers) in ten U.S. cities, 22% said they had left their last place of residence because of domestic violence (Homes for the Homeless, 1998). In addition, 46% of cities surveyed by the U.S. Conference of Mayors identified domestic violence as a primary cause of homelessness (U.S. Conference of Mayors, 1998). State and local studies also demonstrate the impact of domestic violence on homelessness:
* In Minnesota, the most common reason for women to enter a shelter is domestic violence. Approximately one in five women (19%) surveyed indicated that one of the main reasons for leaving housing was to flee abuse; 24% of women surveyed were homeless, at least in part, because of a previous abuse experience (Wilder Research Center, 1998).
* In Missouri, 18% of the sheltered homeless population are victims of domestic violence (De Simone et al., 1998).
* A 1995 survey of homeless adults in Michigan found that physical abuse/being afraid of someone was most frequently cited as the main cause of homelessness (Douglass, 1995).
* Shelter providers in Virginia report that 35% of their clients are homeless because of family violence (Virginia Coalition for the Homeless, 1995). This same survey found that more than 2,000 women seeking shelter from domestic violence facilities were turned away.
POLICY ISSUES
Shelters provide immediate safety to battered women and their children and help women gain control over their lives. The provision of safe emergency shelter is thus a necessary first step in meeting the needs of women fleeing domestic violence.
A sizable portion of the welfare population experiences domestic violence at any given time; thus, without significant housing support, many welfare recipients are at risk of homelessness or continued violence. In states that have looked at domestic violence and welfare receipt, most report that approximately 50-60% of current recipients say that they have experienced violence from a current or former male partner (Institute for Women's Policy Research, 1997). In the absence of cash assistance, women who experience domestic violence may be at increased risk of homelessness or compelled to live with a former or current abuser in order to prevent homelessness. Welfare programs must make every effort to assist victims of domestic violence and to recognize the tremendous barrier to employment that domestic violence presents.
Long term efforts to address homelessness must include increasing the supply of affordable housing, ensuring adequate wages and income supports, and providing necessary supportive services.
RESOURCES
National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, P.O. Box 18749, Denver, CO, 80218-0749; 303/839-1852, Fax: 303/831-9251.
National Domestic Violence Hotline, 3616 Far West Boulevard, Suite 101-297, Austin, TX 78731-3074. Hotline numbers: 1-800-799-SAFE(7233), 1-800-787-3224 (TDD) .
National Resource Center on Domestic Violence, 6400 Flank Dr., Suite 1300, Harrisburg, PA 17112-2778; 800/537-2238.
National Clearinghouse for the Defense of Battered Women, 125 S. 9th St., Suite 302, Philadelphia, PA 19107-5116; 215/351-0010; Fax: 215/351-0779.
REFERENCES
DeSimone, Peter et al. Homelessness in Missouri: Eye of the Storm?, 1998. Available for $6.00 from the Missouri Association for Social Welfare, 308 E. High St., Jefferson City, MO 65101; 573/634-2901.
Douglass, Richard. The State of Homelessness in Michigan: A Research Study, 1995. Available, free, from the Michigan Interagency Committee on Homelessness, c/o Michigan State Housing Development Authority, P.O. Box 30044, Lansing, MI 48909; 517/373-6026.
Homes for the Homeless. Ten Cities 1997-1998: A Snapshot of Family Homelessness Across America. Available from Homes for the Homeless & the Institute for Children and Poverty, 36 Cooper Square, 6th Floor, New York, NY 10003; 212/529-5252.
Institute for Women's Policy Research. "Domestic Violence and Welfare Receipt," 1997. IWPR Welfare Reform Network News, Issue No. 4. April. Available from Institute for Women's Policy Research, 1400 20th Street, NW, Suite 104, Washington DC 20036; 202/785-5100
Mullins, Gretchen. "The Battered Woman and Homelessness," in Journal of Law and Policy, 3 (1994) 1:237-255. Entire issue available for $30.00 from William S. Hein & Co., Inc., 1285 Main St., Buffalo, NY 14209; 800/828-7571.
Owen, Greg et al. Minnesota Statewide Survey of Persons Without Permanent Shelter; Volume I: Adults and Their Children, 1998. Available for $20.00 from the Wilder Research Center, 1295 Bandana Blvd., North, Suite 210, St. Paul, MN 55108-5197; 612/647-4600.
U.S. Conference of Mayors. A Status Report on Hunger and Homelessness in America's Cities: 1998. Available for $15.00 from the U.S. Conference of Mayors, 1620 Eye St., NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC, 20006-4005, 202/293-7330.
Virginia Coalition for the Homeless. 1995 Shelter Provider Survey, 1995. Out of Print. Virginia Coalition for the Homeless, P.O. Box 12247, Richmond, VA 23241; 804/644-5527.
Zorza, Joan. "Woman Battering: A Major Cause of Homelessness," in Clearinghouse Review, vol. 25, no. 4, 1991. Available for $6.00 from the National Clearinghouse for Legal Services, 205 W. Monroe St., 2nd Floor, Chicago, IL 60606-5013; 800/621-3256.
Posted by: silverside at Feb 19, 2005 1:53:51 PM
"Read the posts"
Read who's posts? At least point me in the right direction here. All I'm reading are your posts, there's no link to a 'Findlaw' story, or an 'Assoc. Press' or 'Reuters' story or anything.
Do you have any coverage on which to base your interpretations?? Am I to take YOUR word for it, 3 or 4 times, with no link to an actual press coverage on the matter? There had to be press coverage, otherwise how would you know anything about it. Let's see the coverage that you're here interpretting and see for ourselves. Because I just GAVE you press on the Maine case...but you're still gonna argue, huh?
Posted by: Masculiste at Feb 19, 2005 3:39:20 PM
Trish, Silverside and Masculiste...
I want to thank you all so much for this informative discussion...
I've learned a lot...
One question to Silverside, would there be an difference in the figures if the abused population wasn't homeless...
In other words, abused women with few resources seek out these DV shelters as a vehicle to re-establish themselves in society after leaving their abuser...
Now what if they had resources however...then who would know that they were the victims of dv? Sinc they would provide their own housing and never show up on the dv radar...
RIGHT...
So this could mean two things...1...there are more men being abused but they don't show up at shelters since they don't need them as they have their own resources...2...there are also MORE women being abused then we currently know about because working women and women with family to help them don't show up on this radar either...
So using homeless figures for men OR women to target how many abused people there are out there isn't all that useful...it's like using ONLY the population of disabled vets to estimate how many VETERANS there are in our society...A LOT would be missed as MOST veterans are NOT disabled...so perhaps it's the same time with abuse...MOST victims aren't homeless...
So I go back to what I said before which is that we should start checking figures of EMERGENCY ROOMS as every DV victim has that in common, not need for shelter BUT the need for emergency medical care...and everybody rich, poor, man or women shows up in emergency rooms for that if they are truly a victim of domestic violence...
Posted by: NYMOM at Feb 19, 2005 4:04:58 PM
"So I go back to what I said before which is that we should start checking figures of EMERGENCY ROOMS as every DV victim has that in common, not need for shelter BUT the need for emergency medical care...and everybody rich, poor, man or women shows up in emergency rooms for that if they are truly a victim of domestic violence..."
You had me up until 'emergency room's. (GASP!!! Excuse me while I take a moment and grab for my crash cart...I feel a 'big one' comin.'
I think emergency room stats would be a great place to start. But I still see no logical reason for seperating victims on the basis of sex.
Posted by: Masculiste at Feb 19, 2005 5:30:24 PM
"I think emergency room stats would be a great place to start. But I still see no logical reason for seperating victims on the basis of sex."
Because we are trying to figure out if you all are really telling the truth about so many men being abused by women OR if, in fact, it's just part of MRA's ongoing campaign to destroy women...
It's very simple...
Posted by: NYMOM at Feb 19, 2005 5:42:50 PM
To answer your question, NYMOM, counting homeless persons with various issues affecting and/or contributing to their homelessness doesn't necessarily say anything about those with the same issues who are NOT homeless.
One of the big debates in the homeless literature is to what extent drug abuse in a sense causes homelessness since there are many addicts who are not homeless. The answer seems to be that there has to be other risk factors involved - poverty, unemployment, etc. At the same time, drug abuse becomes a way of self-medicating for living on the streets once you are homeless so it's difficult to sort these things out.
There is some evidence that abused women in households approaching the middle class will sometimes end up in a shelter if they are not able to secure the financial resources that would allow them to function independenly. If they haven't had a job, haven't had contact with friends or family, etc., will also create dependency. However, yes, it is mostly the poor who will end up there.
Emergency room reports would tell you who is getting the worst of the battering. It may not be an accurate picture of all battering. I suspect women will show up very heavily in this data, because even in the studies that Adam cited, it was generally conceded that women tend to get more severe injuries.
With any social science statistics gathering, there are trade-offs in terms of the data. What it tells you, what it doesn't. Think of how messy economic data can be, and how certain indicators can suggest one thing, and certain indicators another.
But since the original post had to do with shelters for battered women (anybody remember that?) the question necessarily involved those who were both battered and effectively homeless as a result of the battering. Those who have alternatives may seek out services, but they wouldn't necessarily look into shelter. And apart from the debate about how battered men are or in what numbers, I just haven't seen any data that battered men show up in body counts for homeless people. The mentally ill do. Alcoholics and drug abusers do. The unemployed and undereducated do. Abused men don't.
Posted by: silverside at Feb 19, 2005 11:33:38 PM
"Emergency room reports would tell you who is getting the worst of the battering. It may not be an accurate picture of all battering. I suspect women will show up very heavily in this data, because even in the studies that Adam cited, it was generally conceded that women tend to get more severe injuries."
But shouldn't that be what 'battering' is all about, severe injuries...
I mean I'm sure that somebody somewhere might have some literature that amongst the under 18 population, 2 year olds are the most likely to hit or bite; thus are the most 'violent' yet who cares? It's the amount of injury that is inflicted that we should be worried about as that is the ONLY reason hospitals, police, your neighbors, etc., need to even get involved...
If no one is hurt during a family argument, it remains just that, as it should...
So if no men are showing up in hospital emergency rooms, then as far as I'm concerned there are NO battered men...
Case closed.
Let them find another term to call themselves; they are NOT battered and thus not entitled to services for battered victims such as shelters and the like...
Posted by: NYMOM at Feb 20, 2005 1:36:49 AM
It is immoral to fancy bullies
There are abused men. Wife beating is evil.
But so is abusing men. I know there are men and women sadisitc enough to enjoy violence and abuse. Look at all those sick women that fancy Mike Tyson or write love letters off to serila killers. There are evil men and evil women. I think separate shelters should be used. One for men and one for women.
But i also think separatre shelters should exit for women that fancy bullies and women that dont fancy bullies.
www.netwebresearch.com/servicesview
I think it is important one of the reason women get invloed with evil abusive men isbecuase of s sick evil mindset that is allowed to exist in the media and society of evil abusive men as being seen as sexy and manly. Some women even see evil as a some sort of skill. That is sick.
Posted by: Tony McRush at Mar 14, 2005 6:29:01 AM
"But shouldn't that be what battering is all about, severe injuries..."
"...emergency rooms.....if they are truly a victim of domestic violence."
NYMOM, that's the old line of toxic thinking designed to keep people in the line of fire---to keep them from getting out or seeking help. The old "that's a private family matter" way of thinking. The idea that if you are married or cohabiting, that by doing so you have already given tacit permission for your partner to hit you. This continues the cycle of escalating violence.
Let's not play games here about who is or is not "truly" a victim of domestic violence, shall we? You are aware that this attitude has negative consequences, right? And that those negative consequences fall disproportionately on women, right? So stop.
I was punched, slapped, hit, kicked, and had objects thrown at me by my husband. I never went to the emergency room, or sought any other medical attention because I was still operating under the flawed thinking that because I hadn't suffered a "severe" enough injury (becoming totally incapacitated), that what happened to me didn't matter. It did. I was already ashamed enough. I didn't want to endure the shame of a roomful of strangers shaming me some more because my injuries weren't "severe" enough to "count".
I now know that there is no excuse for that kind of behavior, and there is absolutely no reason in the world to tolerate it. Abusers are master con artists and psychologically manipulate their targets by making the most of society's harsh view of their targets. Let's move forward to a new standard, a standard that says one punch is too much, ok?!
Posted by: La Lubu at Mar 14, 2005 9:01:21 AM
"Let's not play games here about who is or is not "truly" a victim of domestic violence, shall we? You are aware that this attitude has negative consequences, right? And that those negative consequences fall disproportionately on women, right? So stop."
I hate to tell you this but it's just the opposite of what you think and if we continuce downgrading the sorts of incidents that qualify as domestic abuse it will become worse for women; as it already has in some states with must arrest laws that were passed to HELP WOMEN now being used against them...
For instance, a woman who screams at someone (using your definition) can eventually be charged with inciting violence by emotional abuse...so we'll have the situation where woman will be charged with the same thing for yelling at someone, as her husband who broke her nose and arm...
So that's where this is leading if it continues...
Posted by: NYMOM at Mar 14, 2005 9:45:42 AM
"NYMOM, that's the old line of toxic thinking designed to keep people in the line of fire---to keep them from getting out or seeking help. The old "that's a private family matter" way of thinking. The idea that if you are married or cohabiting, that by doing so you have already given tacit permission for your partner to hit you."
BTW, your statement is a misunderstanding of what people think about this...what people believe signals your tacit acceptance of abuse is not the amount of injury you sustain; but the fact that you remain married or living with the person AFTER the abuse has begun...
That's what signals tacit acceptance...
"Let's move forward to a new standard, a standard that says one punch is too much, ok?!
You're right, even one punch is TOO much...but the willingness of women to stay long after the one punch is thrown and so on and so forth, that's the problem...
So you're preaching to the converted here really, as I have little patience and no sympathy for women who stay with men who beat them up...Actually I consider them enablers who make it impossible for women 'collectively' to force men into shaping up and being better men. As why should men change and work to become better, if there is always some woman enabler available who will put up with them as is...
I would not change either if I was guaranteed to always have a girlfriend or wife no matter how outrageous my conduct...why should I change...change is hard work and it's so much easier to NOT change, particularly when they are no long term consequences to NOT changing such as being alone maybe if no woman would bother with you...
But of course, that never happens...and these idiots always find some dumbell enabler to put up with them...which is why my solution for changing men is to change women...WE must change before men do...
So, again, I agree 1000%....one punch is too much...
Posted by: NYMOM at Mar 14, 2005 10:09:31 AM
First off, in no way, shape or form did I even allude to "yelling" as being physical abuse that should warrant an arrest. My husband knew that a punch in the face that could blacken my eye or break my nose would have consequences; he preferred the back of my head, where my thick hair would cover any welting. He also had a penchant for kidney punches and shin kicking (hip kicking, if I was lying down). The coward especially loved the sneak attack.
Why did I stay as long as I did? That's a complex question. Part of the answer is in the slow escalation of violence. If he had started right in with the extreme examples in the beginning of the marriage, I would have immediately divorced him. But most domestic violence does not follow that trajectory. Like the analogy of boiling frogs, it begins slowly and progresses, and it begins with more innocous forms of control than overt violence. DV is a pattern; recognize the pattern and you may never need to live through (or die through) overt violence.
Another reason is cultural conditioning. I grew up in an abusive, alcoholic home. Eventually my father quit drinking, and after several more years abandoned his dry-drunk syndrome (translation: all the dysfunctional behaviors of alcoholism, sans the alcohol). Too late. My formative years had already left me with an imprint that violence was normal and to be expected. That part and parcel of having a husband meant putting up with that occasional behavior.
That's another part of it...abusive behavior tends to be occasional, not constant. This really fucks with your mind. Especially when combined with pre-existing cultural messages that say, "marriage is forever", "divorce is for the weak", or that you (especially for women!) have an obligation to solve your partner's dysfunction---that your partner's addiction, mental illness, and or anger-management problem is your responsibility and that you would be abandoning your marital responsibility and sacred vows by leaving.
Obviously, I got to the point where I wanted to leave. But that took planning, because I wanted to (a) live; my husband made no secret that if I left him he would kill me and then himself, and (b) have other members of my family survive also, because he threatened to kill them as well. I was so driven down that I was willing to take the chance on being killed. I no longer wanted to live as I was living. I made plans to survive, but it took planning. When the situation gets that bad, it does take planning. One of the ways in which domestic violence shelters aid people is in helping them formulate an escape plan that will work.
Now, you are probably well aware that when a woman leaves, that is the point when she is at the most danger, right? It was no different for me. He did come back one night, kicked my door down, and tried to murder me. He expected me to be sleeping at four AM. But years of sneak attacks, some in my sleep, left me with an extreme sensitivity to noise (and a rocking case of insomnia). I heard the footsteps in the hallway before he got to the door of my apartment. I want to the phone and dialed 911, but by that time the door was in and the phone was ripped off the wall before the connection was made....
Part of my survival was based on toughness, and a willingness and ability to fight back. Part of it was based on sheer luck. And another part I credit to the fact that I was prepared to die, and he apparently was not. During the fight, I did not expect to live. But lucky for me, he brought knives, not guns to kill me (oh, did I mention that he was dressed in a ninja outfit, with his face blackened by camoflage? nuttier than a fucking loon. anyway....). The problem with a knife as a murder weapon, is that you have to get close enough to your target that your target can kill you, too. Ever see the poster of the heron trying to swallow the frog, with the half-swallowed frog's hands around the heron's neck? Well, it was like that. He couldn't knock me out with the heavy policeman's flashlight he had (the kind with four batteries, that he drove into the back of my head like a pile-driver with such force that I lost some hair hours later), and the knives weren't working out so well for him, since I could use them too when he had both hands on the flashlight, so I was able to use negotiating skills in a stalemate.
I never called the police even afterwards. I was afraid I wouldn't be belived. He was nuttier than a loon, but he was a handsome, clean-cut man with superior communication skills...like most con-artists. Authority figures, especially those in law enforcement and the military, just loved him. I have no doubt that he was a clinical sociopath. It's not that he had me psyched out of calling the police; I have known many women who had far more of a clean-cut image than myself who received the derision of the police when they were in desperate need of assistance. I knew that both my occupation (construction) and my appearance (Sicilian) would work against me to set in motion stereotypes that would plow down any chance I had of being seen as an actual victim, which I was.
And of course, there is the fact that if you are not staying in a shelter, there is little protection that can be provided to you. My only form of protection was staying awake and having eyes in the back of my head. Restraining orders aren't worth the paper they are printed on (IMHO). The only way I could have entered a shelter was to quit my job and give up my apprenticeship. My apprenticeship was my future. There was no way I was giving that up. As far as I know, there are no legal provisions for assisting women in that respect....with regards to keeping jobs, or putting education or apprenticeships on hold in order to deal with solving a domestic violence problem. There are so damn many factors that keep women locked in a cycle of abuse.
I got out. I survived. And I have nothing but the utmost compassion and respect for women enduring the same struggles. No thanks to individuals like you, NYMOM.
Posted by: La Lubu at Mar 14, 2005 1:46:05 PM
Interesting...
We'd never even met...
Yet somehow I'm to blame that you married a nut...
I'm sorry my life wasn't as dramatic as yours...my ex wasn't a potential murderer, just a jackoff...so I guess that gives you more points them me since I don't have a hand-to-hand combat story fighting my ex off with knives while he's dressed like a ninja, to post here...
Let' agree to disagree on this issue and not respond to each other posts any more...
Posted by: NYMOM at Mar 14, 2005 3:28:45 PM
NYMOM, you can choose to not respond to me, no sweat off my brow. But if you persist in making public posts that help perpetuate damaging myths, like that domestic violence is the fault of the person getting punched, then you can expect that I'll be making posts refuting such bogus nonsense.
I'm not blaming you, or anyone else, that I ended up with a nutcase! I'm just trying to point out that being in this situation is something that can happen to anyone (yes, you heard me. No one is immune. Addictions and the brain damage that results from those addictions often bring violence along for the ride too. No one is immune.), and that you are being part of the problem, rather than part of the solution, by promoting the old-fashioned idea that beating one's partner, as long as it doesn't require emergency room care, is a "family problem". Bruises, and most especially the resulting psychological damage, doesn't "count". At one time I agreed with you. I thought my physical abuse didn't "count" because it wasn't dramatic enough. I didn't have a broken arm, so it didn't count. That cut didn't require stitches, so it didn't count. that lump on the back of my head was invisible to the public, so it wasn't "really" abuse. And so, not believing that what I was living through was "really" abuse, just a "family matter" I ended up staying for even more abuse, which escalated.
Other folks read this blog too, not just you and I. Any opportunity I have to dispel myths about domestic violence, I will use. And I know several women with stories like mine; several women who have had to engage in hand-to-hand combat to save their own damn lives. One of the exacerbating facts of domestic violence is how got-damn alone you feel. How ashamed. I come out as a survivor of domestic violence both online and in real life because many people would never guess that I was. I don't fit the "profile". Thing is, there is no damn "profile"!! Survivors come from all walks of life. By speaking up, I hope to bring light to the subject, and let others who are or were in that position know that they are not alone. That isolation, like the blaming-the-victim attitude, feeds the fires of DV.
Posted by: La Lubu at Mar 14, 2005 4:03:03 PM
"...and that you are being part of the problem, rather than part of the solution, by promoting the old-fashioned idea that beating one's partner, as long as it doesn't require emergency room care, is a "family problem"..."
I NEVER said women should stay in an abusive relationship if NO SERIOUS INJURY was involved...and that is what you are trying to imply here...I never said that or implied it. Of course, you should leave; but why do the police have to be involved for you to leave?
I said it should ONLY be a matter for the police and the courts if serious injury was involved...but that, by no means, means that you should stay in the relationship...UNTIL the police get involved...
OF COURSE YOU SHOULD LEAVE...BEFORE the police are involved...
My point about NOT involving the police unless serious injury is that if you continue trying to 'dumb' down abuse to mean everything, it's going to wind up meaning nothing...and women are going to wind up being arrested for bs (which is happening already) that is not domestic abuse...
Who wins when abuse is NOT defined as serious injury? Men do. So keep that in mind when you keep trying to classify everything as abuse including spitting, yelling, throwing something. You are going to wind up having more women arrested for bs and eventually women are NOT even going to be able to call 911, which is happening already, because their spouse is going to claim they yelled...or some such nonsense...and then both can be subject to arrest...
That is where this will end...
BTW, you did the same thing regarding the post on that woman divorcing while pregnant...you keep putting all these words in my mouth about her sitaution when I simply pointed out that WOMEN are the ones who stand to lose if it becomes permissible or common for women to divorce while pregnant...because that can turn around on women and wind up with them BEING divorced while pregnant...instead of addressing that issue you came up with all these things you claimed I said, which I didn't...about single mothers on welfare, and all these other things.
So quit putting words in my mouth regarding these issues which I never even said...Charlie Sheen's wife is divorcing him while pregnant and I said the same thing about her that I said about Shawna Hughes...that whether or not they are a welfare recipient or a model/actress doesn't matter...it's a BAD public policy for women to allow this to happen...
Just like it's bad public policy for WOMEN to have abuse keep being dumbed down to mean everything...because eventually a spit or throwing a book is going to mean the same thing as having an arm or jaw broken...and that is NOT good for women...
THAT is what I said about the police ONLY being involved when serious injury occurs...but to say that ANY LEVEL of abuse is just a 'family problem's and women should just stay and ignore it...NEVER...I would never say or implied such a thing...
Posted by: NYMOM at Mar 14, 2005 5:33:26 PM
NYMOM, do you ever watch boxing matches? And if so, have you ever noticed how some people can take punches without it "showing up" so much on their face? That they have to go a few rounds before it looks like they've been in a fight? And yet others are bleeding and bruising before the end of the first round?
Domestic violence can be like that too. For whatever reason, I only bruise up noticably on my legs. I don't bruise easily on my face. Why should the punch I've taken on my jaw not count, because I didn't lose teeth or suffer a broken jaw? It still hurt like hell. But again, like I said, I was intimidated from calling the police, because I couldn't "prove" that I'd been hit. Or that I didn't deserve it.
Domestic violence is an escalating pattern. By the time the abuser is hitting and striking, the abuser feels quite comfortable with stalking and death threats as well. And abusers are far more likely to carry out (or attempt to carry out) those death threats than the average population. You've provided plenty of evidence for that on your own blog. It is a well-known statistic that women leaving abusers are most at risk at the time they leave. This is why escape plans are necessary. And why it is good to have the support not just of friends, family, or other well-wishers, but of law enforcement as well. For all the consciousness-raising that has been done over the years, there are still many areas of this country where the police don't take domestic violence seriously. Or, the police take it seriously, but the local prosecutors and judges do not!
In the meantime, one of the strategies that anti-domestic violence groups recommend for self-protection, is to call the police. Arrest and conviction can be powerful deterrents. It does not work on all abusers, but it tends to be more effective than "just leaving", which can be hard to do if one doesn't have the money. Saving up for two months rent plus a deposit (which is the standard situation here for renting an apartment) can be difficult.
And there's always the job factor. Or the school factor. Or both. If your abuser doesn't know where you live, there's always the worksite or school where you can be found. Sometimes women get fired when their controlling husband shows up at the job, screaming obscenities and invective. Employers don't want to deal with that, and many blame the victim. For DV survivors who work, a job is a lifeline in more than one way. And yes, I had a close call with this situation when my husband showed up on the job. My foreman was completely unsympathetic, and blamed me for the disruption, although I did no yelling or cursing (and mind you, this was a construction site, where everyone else on the job was yelling and cursing as a matter of course!). I was very much afraid for my livelihood. I did not want to be thrown out of my apprenticeship because of my husbands' behavior, so my escape plan had to be formulated carefully.
You are right when you say "leave". But see, we aren't doing an adequate job of explaining what the pattern of abuse looks like. The time for leaving is before the first punch is thrown. By the time that happens, it's time for the police....regardless of the level of visible damage. When more people are aware of the warning signs, fewer people will stick around for things to get worse. That's what I'm getting at. And only looking at the Hollywood, "Burning Bed" version of DV (remember? Farrah Fawcett with the big black eye?) is not helpful. The abuser that throws objects with force that hit you (like a beer glass that breaks on impact, but doesn't do "enough" damage because your clothes absorb part of the impact and prevent you from suffering a serious cut), will be using fists and feet later. The abuser that slaps at first will punch later. The abuser that hits you in the back of the head will aim for the jaw as time passes.
DV survivors come from all walks of life, but we tend to have one thing in common....we never really wanted to admit that we were being abused. Not even to ourselves. We try to shrug it off, as something that was a "fluke", or that "it was just the booze speaking" or whatever. There is a great degree of social stigma surrounding DV, and more of it is directed at the people taking the blows than the ones giving them. By creating a hierarchy of "real" abuse vs. "not real abuse", what you are really saying to the person taking the hits is "you haven't suffered enough pain yet. You need to suffer more, before I can take you seriously. You don't count until you are broken. Breaking doesn't cut it."
And that is toxic. And it's also the same message given to rape victims.
Posted by: La Lubu at Mar 14, 2005 7:14:07 PM
Fine...
I'm tired of the argument...
I just said and I'm standing by it that every argument between two people does NOT need to involve the police and that we will ultimately be hurting women MORE if we allow the label of abuse to apply to everything, especially since women are generally the more vulnerable to receiving the more SERIOUS injuries...thus counting battered victims through use of emergency room statistics makes more sense, which, btw, is what started this original debate...
JUST as I stated before (and again you disagreed) that allowing pregnant women to divorce will eventually lead to pregnant women (who again are the more vulnerable) to BE DIVORCED...That's where that will lead...
Remember EVERY LAW or PUBLIC POLICY we implement can turn into a double edged sword to be used against women...and generally is...especially with domestic violence now as MRAs are just looking for the numbers...so a spit or a smack from a women (that does little or no damage) for their 'count' equals a punch that shatters your jaw IF you do NOT use the emergency room numbers...as opposed to arrest reports...
Does that mean I'm saying UNLESS you wind up in the emergency room, it's just a family issue and you should stay until you do...HECK NO...
Never said it, never implied it...
Never...
Posted by: NYMOM at Mar 14, 2005 8:41:26 PM
I am in wholehearted agreement with you that every argument between partners should not result in a call to the police. Where we differ is that I believe once that argument turns to fisticuffs the police should be called, even if one's jaw isn't broken. Arrest and conviction are powerful deterrents for many abusers. This can even act as an intervention for some abusers, who may receive anger-management counseling (a common court order) and be motivated to break the cycle of abuse (a minority of abusers, granted, but it happens). There's nothing like police at the doorstep to break that cycle of denial.
The divorce-while-pregnant issue is irrelevant here. Could be irrelevant in other places too; when I filed for my divorce, I was not asked if I was pregnant, nor was there any place in the paperwork that declared me to be non-pregnant during any step in the proceedings. I filed in Illinois, and I did have to declare that I had not shared a residence for over six months; perhaps because of that I was assumed to not be pregnant? Or at least by my husband? I don't know. I just know that there was nothing in the paperwork about it. I tend to see your objections as a red herring because any man who is going to abandon his wife while she is pregnant isn't going to be of much use to her married either, and he probably isn't going to be paying her child support afterwards. She's already in a position of cutting her losses; why not sooner than later? A marriage license does not a marriage make. If he's already looking for a divorce, she's probably already in financial straits. At least a divorce might protect her from having to pay his bills. You could say he would be legally responsible for her bills (while married), but hey, ask some divorced people who had court orders on what their ex-spouse was supposed to pay off after the divorce how well that worked out.
'nother words, if you're dealing with a turd, it's time to flush!
Posted by: La Lubu at Mar 14, 2005 9:26:07 PM
"I am in wholehearted agreement with you that every argument between partners should not result in a call to the police. Where we differ is that I believe once that argument turns to fisticuffs the police should be called, even if one's jaw isn't broken. Arrest and conviction are powerful deterrents for many abusers."
I guess where we disagree is that you see police as a possible arbitrator in the relationship which might enable women to stay, even though they are being beat up...
I don't see the police role that way...
"The divorce-while-pregnant issue is irrelevant here."
No...because it shows a pattern where you argue with me by making odd assumption about my motives...
For instance, I didn't want Shawna Hughes divorcing because I have something against single women collecting welfare????I didn't want her divorcing for the same reason I didn't want Charlie Sheen's wife divorcing BECAUSE EVENTUALLY THAT WILL LEAD TO MEN DIVORCING PREGNANT WOMEN AND BEING LEGALLY AND FINANCIALLY IN THE SAME POSITION AS A BOYFRIEND...TO WIT: THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR NOTHING UNTIL AFTER THE BIRTH OF BABY...
So again, who will benefit from this ultimately, men...the same ones who will benefit when we allow the definition of abuse to slowly shift from serious injury to everything else INCLUDING serious injury...
Posted by: NYMOM at Mar 15, 2005 1:17:04 AM
No, I don't see the police in an arbitrating role. The police should be called because it sends a powerful message to the abuser that abusive behavior will not be tolerated and does have consequences. If the police are not called, the abuser will never have any consequences. An abused person needs allies. Arrest and conviction of an abuser gives the abused person a level of protection that "just leaving" can not provide. Many abusers engage in stalking and harassment. Abused persons have a hard time making a break because of this; partly becaue of fear that the abuser will make good on those threats (after all, the abuser has made good on many threats in the past), and partly because the abuser has already engaged in behavior that has alienated many possible allies. This affects the abused person's ability to escape....to find housing, a new job, transportation, and the like. And it is even more complicated of the abused person has children to worry about (which I did not).
I am mystified at your concentration on hypothetical situations that may affect some women, and your lack of compassion and refusal to recognize the parameters of definite situations, in the here and now, that affect many women, every day.
And yeah, your pregnant divorce situation is a red herring. Hello! What is the difference between divorce and abandonment?! If he is seeking a divorce while she is pregnant, he has already signaled his intentions and she should cut her losses. The solution? Protect yourself. Do not put your future in the hands of another. You have the choice of whether or not to let yourself down. You do not have the choice about others letting you down. Have a plan, and have a backup plan. Folks spend more time worrying about whether their car, a material, replaceable object, has adequate maintenance and insurance...and spend not enough time protecting their irreplaceable bodies and future.
And by the way, I have been that pregnant woman with no support. I made it by not relying on the support of an irresponsible person. I highly recommend that as a strategy, and at the same time I highly recommend that we as a society support policies that give a helping hand to people in need. Compassion keeps us human.
Posted by: La Lubu at Mar 15, 2005 7:39:25 AM
"I am mystified at your concentration on hypothetical situations that may affect some women, and your lack of compassion and refusal to recognize the parameters of definite situations, in the here and now, that affect many women, every day."
Just the opposite...it is YOU who are projecting a hypothetical situation on other women and trying to paint it as the norm; thus concluding that all of our laws and public polices have to adhere to your definition of what's normal...
Do you REALLY think that what you described as happening with your ex was normal?
MOST women are NOT married or living with someone who dresses as a ninja and attacks them with knives...thus MOST women are not in need of laws changing that will disadvantage most of us...
Okay...
NOR are MOST women married to a husband who is in jail or in a gang, so MOST women will NOT benefit when laws are changed to allow pregnant women to either divorce or, more likely over time, be divorced themselves when pregnant...
So it's you who are projecting all these unrealistic scenarios off on MOST women just because of your own situation, which was NOT normal by any means...not by a long shot...
I have a LOT of compassion for women which is why I'm trying stop more experiments being done with their lives...the laws as they exist right now for battered woemn
are fine (they don't need to be redefined to include lesser injuries which only benefits men looking to include themselves as battered victims for minor incidents)...
Nor do laws or public policy regarding divorcing while pregnant need to be passed...as the laws as they currently exist protect most pregnant women most of the time...
As I told you before, laws are NOT made for one woman or ONE bad situation...
Posted by: NYMOM at Mar 15, 2005 10:05:03 AM
Go call your local anti-domestic violence center. Ask them what percentage of abusers stalk their vistims. What percentage follow them to work, school, or their children's school and create a public scene. How many vandalize personal property or attempt to break in for another beating. How many succeed at breaking in and giving that other beating. How many attempt to kill. How many succeed. The only thing unusual about my situation was the goofy ninja outfit. The breaking in with weaponry is pretty much standard abuser behavior after the abusee leaves. Standard. Not unusual, not one-in-a-million. It happens every day, all around the clock, to women in every part of this country. It could have happened on your block, this morning. It happens in my neighborhood pretty often, judging from the Police Beat reports published in the local paper.
And on the pregnancy/divorce front, while most women are not dealing with incarcerated men, many women are dealing with abusers, and need to make that clean break. In the mind of the abuser, a marriage license amounts to ownership papers. Allowing him to retain those ownership papers gives him a powerful incentive to keep on breaking the law. It's not the women who have long-term incarcerated gangbanger boyfriends who most benefit from allowing pregnant divorce, but women who have abusers that "put on a happy face" for the public.
You clearly said in the other thread that one of your objections to that case was that taxpayers would end up supporting that baby, so I'm skeptical of your motive.
And quit privileging abuse between married people. If a stranger came up to you and socked you in the jaw on the street, that would be assault, no? Even if they didn't get a clean shot, even if you had barely-visible swelling. That person would be arrested if caught. Why should it be any different at home?
Posted by: La Lubu at Mar 15, 2005 11:59:30 AM
La Lubu: You're right, even one punch is TOO much...but the willingness of women to stay long after the one punch is thrown and so on and so forth, that's the problem...
NYMOM: So you're preaching to the converted here really, as I have little patience and no sympathy for women who stay with men who beat them up...Actually I consider them enablers who make it impossible for women 'collectively' to force men into shaping up and being better men. As why should men change and work to become better, if there is always some woman enabler available who will put up with them as is...
As I wrote in another post, it takes a woman several tries before she leaves her abuser for good. It took me three tries. I certainly don't blame myself nor do I consider myself an enabler for staying with my abuser when leaving would have made things worse for me and my son. It took me time to get out of that relationship, and at least legally things were worse for me for a few years. But I'm out now and I and my son are better for it. It's insulting to view abused women as enablers when they know that leaving an abusive relationship at that moment in time is not the best avenue for them to undertake. Most women do eventually leave their abusers. It just takes time.
Posted by: Trish Wilson at Mar 15, 2005 1:12:26 PM
Don't blame the women who are at that moment unable to leave their abusers. Blame the abusers and the society they live in that continues to condone the abuse that they perpetrate. Rather than ask "why doesn't she just leave?" the real question should be "why is he allowed to continue to abuse her?"
Posted by: Trish Wilson at Mar 15, 2005 1:13:49 PM
Then using that logic what Hedda Nussbaum did was right...staying for years and allowing her adoptive daughter to get abused and finally killed...She was the impetus behind the endangerment laws in New York...
I'm sorry but we just cannot give a free pass to every women who stays in an abusive relationship... particularly if she's endangering others who do NOT have the choices she does...
Sorry...but that's just the way it is...
Posted by: NYMOM at Mar 15, 2005 1:34:52 PM
Btw, it's just like you said in another post that women need to think twice about going on with a guy who has a bunch of children with different mothers...same thing...
Women need to do their homework BEFORE getting involved in these relationships...because we are the more vulnerable party being physically weaker...
Posted by: NYMOM at Mar 15, 2005 1:37:25 PM
Thank you Trish, and both of the above quotes were from NYMOM. It took me far longer than just the first punch to get out; I would not expect that of anyone else either. I was the one saying "one punch is too much."
Posted by: La Lubu at Mar 15, 2005 1:42:33 PM
"ou clearly said in the other thread that one of your objections to that case was that taxpayers would end up supporting that baby, so I'm skeptical of your motive."
Yes, that's right...and that is a valid concern...as are others...since as you said and I agreed, MOST pregnant women are NOT on welfare...so why should ONE woman who IS on welfare with ALL her needs already taken care of be allowed to make public policy for women when most of them are NOT on welfare...
I also said Charlie Sheen's wife, as a model-actress will make MORE money then most women...THUS her case cannot be used as an example for MOST women either...yet you never mentioned that interestingly enough...
So ALL of these things are concerns...
Yes...
As neither of these women represent MOST women, yet by their behavior, could easily set public policy impacting most women and allowing them to be divorced while pregnant when they are not in a position to have that happen to them...
Posted by: NYMOM at Mar 15, 2005 1:44:31 PM
"La Lubu: You're right, even one punch is TOO much...but the willingness of women to stay long after the one punch is thrown and so on and so forth, that's the problem...
NYMOM: So you're preaching to the converted here really, as I have little patience and no sympathy for women who stay with men who beat them up...Actually I consider them enablers who make it impossible for women 'collectively' to force men into shaping up and being better men. As why should men change and work to become better, if there is always some woman enabler available who will put up with them as is...
Trish...BOTH of those quotes were mine...it wasn't one was a response to something else...BOTH were mine...
AND both consistent with my philosophy and viewpoint...
Sorry...but people are responsible for their own behavior...as you have said many time talking about second wives enabling men to get custody to avoid paying child support...it's the same thing...there are no free passes...
Posted by: NYMOM at Mar 15, 2005 1:48:50 PM
La Lubu: "Thank you Trish, and both of the above quotes were from NYMOM. It took me far longer than just the first punch to get out; I would not expect that of anyone else either. I was the one saying "one punch is too much.""
You're welcome. I realized both quotes were from NYMOM after I wrote the comment. My mistake.
I don't think it's fair to blame abused women when they don't leave according to someone else's standards. It takes them several tries to finally and successfully leave, as both of us have described. Most abused women do leave their abusers, and most of them and their children end up the better for it.
Posted by: Trish Wilson at Mar 15, 2005 2:13:46 PM
Exactly, Trish and La Lubu. Too add to what you said, I can't imagine that an abused woman will seek out help or support from her friends or family if all she's going to hear is that she's an enabler for staying as long as she did, and that, by extension, she brought the abuse on herself.
People are responsible for their actions--including assholes who abuse. They too are responsible for their own actions.
There is a world of difference between urging caution in casting your lot with someone, and calling abused women irresponsible and enabling for being to frightened or too overwhelmed to leave. Many of these women have no financial support once they go. While it's easy to bleat about how some things are more important than money, try singing that song when abusive ex uses his considerable resources to get custody of the kids (even though he abused them or never paid any attention to them before), harrass you, stalk you, or hurt your family.
Posted by: Sheelzebub at Mar 15, 2005 3:53:15 PM
Keep in mind that there is precious little in the way of safety nets for those trying to escape abuse. This thread started off being about DV shelters. There are far, far, more people in need of such services than there are sheleters. Rural residents especially have little access to such services.
Other safety nets could be laws that protect the rights of DV survivors to postpone their schooling for a time, or retain their academic scholarship while they make their escape. Or that prevent angry employers for taking out relatiatory action against their employee who is a victim, because of damages done by the abuser. Here in Illinois, Governor Blagojevich has signed a bill that requires employers to allow some time off for DV survivors as they make the transition to a safe place. This is a positive law. This will help people.
Also, keep in mind that abusers tend to seek out targets they know in advance will be vulnerable, such as those who don't have nearby relatives (who could possibly offer safe haven). Without a detailed investigation, it's hard to determine who is going to be an abuser at face value. Most don't "look the part", and almost all of them do not engage in abusive behavior at first. In fact, they tend to be more charming and engaging than the average person....in the beginning. They tend to display almost an old-fashioned level of politeness. This is a ruse that degenerates over time.
Anyway, don't take my word for it; here is a good link on signs of abusive personality from a progressive police department, and here is a link on the same from a domestic violence shelter.
Happy reading.
Posted by: La Lubu at Mar 15, 2005 4:52:27 PM
A while back, my local NPR affiliate had an call-in program with people from the local DV shelter. One caller asked if they ever had male clients, and they said they certainly did - 45 in the previous calendar year. Two required shelter, and in a situation like this - or where the batterer may know where the shelter is, an abused lesbian, or if the shelter is full - they have a network of satellite shelters in the region, and that's where these men stay.
Most, but not all, of these men were in gay relationships.
I once worked with a woman who had lived in a DV shelter, and she told me about all the women who were kicked out. I thought, "How horrible!" but no, they didn't follow the rules. #1 - no drugs or alcohol. #2 - no physical or verbal abuse of children, clients, or staff. #3 - no contacting the abuser. That last violation got them banned from this shelter for 6 months. Their resources are scanty and they will use them for people who could actually benefit from them.
just my 2 cents
Posted by: kohoutekdriver8 at Mar 23, 2005 12:08:45 PM
"#3 - no contacting the abuser. That last violation got them banned from this shelter for 6 months."
Yes, this is why NY passed various laws to charge people who did this...my sister works in a shelter and it's the number one reason for kicking women out...but calling CPS to keep the kids...after a few weeks the attempts to return to abuser...and sometime even after you set them up in an apartment and everything, same thing...has same guy installed in new housing so the whole ballgame starts all over again...
Posted by: NYMOM at Mar 23, 2005 12:42:49 PM
I have no firsthand experience with this (Thank God!) but I have heard that the REAL reason why police don't take DV seriously is because there is no point in arresting the abuser. The vast majority of the time, guess who shows up first thing in the morning to bail him out? You guessed it, she does.
Everything I have ever read or seen about DV suggests strongly that it is almost always associated with drugs and alcohol or severe mental illness, and most batterers are not married to the women they abuse. My mom was a police department secretary and she always thought DV was a husband-vs-wife thing. No, it's usually live-in boyfriends. She also was completely unaware of the existence of DV in gay relationships but was shocked at how common it is.
As for female abuse of men, it is more likely to be emotional or verbal, which is much harder to prove and probably more destructive. These women also frequently abuse their children, which is even worse because they really CAN'T leave.
Posted by: kohoutekdriver8 at Mar 23, 2005 2:00:30 PM
"As for female abuse of men, it is more likely to be emotional or verbal, which is much harder to prove and probably more destructive. These women also frequently abuse their children, which is even worse because they really CAN'T leave."
Yet in one sense, once identified, easier to deal with...Since once removed you can KEEP a child away from an abusive parent either through the court or termination of parental rights...
The REAL problem is keeping a full-grown adult from another adult who is determined to hurt them...that's the challenge...a child once identified CAN BE removed and kept away...
Adults, however, are not so easy to control...and many of those adults are responsible for those kids getting hurt by bringing them BACK into a bad situation over and over again...
Posted by: NYMOM at Mar 23, 2005 2:39:13 PM
Okay, all you male activist do it yourselfers! The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development SuperNOFA is now available! Funding for homeless shelters and all kinds of other non-profit housing.
http://www.hud.gov/offices/adm/grants/nofa05/grpcoc.cfm
Have fun! Because it's a lot of work.
Posted by: silverside at Mar 23, 2005 3:49:51 PM
NYMOM, I agree with you totally regarding your post, 2 posts ago.
Posted by: kohoutekdriver8 at Mar 25, 2005 12:42:00 AM
"Okay, all you male activist do it yourselfers! The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development SuperNOFA is now available! Funding for homeless shelters and all kinds of other non-profit housing.
http://www.hud.gov/offices/adm/grants/nofa05/grpcoc.cfm
Have fun! Because it's a lot of work."
Along the same lines but for everyone, I posted an incorrect name here a few weeks ago for a foundation that gives out grants for innovations solutions to various problems...the correct name of the foundation was Echoinggreen @ http://www.echoinggreen.org (originally I said evergreen)...
Sorry if I caused anyone to miss this year's deadline which has already passed, but you can start preparing to apply for next year's...
Posted by: NYMOM at Mar 25, 2005 9:15:38 AM
"Everything I have ever read or seen about DV suggests strongly that it is almost always associated with drugs and alcohol or severe mental illness, and most batterers are not married to the women they abuse."
From what I have read and heard, there is a correlation between drugs/alcohol and dv, but not a clear-cut causal relationship. The same can be said for drugs/alcohol and homelessness. Lots of people may drink/drug to excess, but that doesn't mean they beat their partners or become homeless. Sometimes you see people attempt to self-medicate with drugs/alcohol as a way of attempting to COPE with dv and/or homelessness. So in a sense, the drugs/alcohol become a secondary development.
Also realize that abusers often attempt to blame their behavior of somebody or something else. Alcohol doesn't change your basic behavior or personality. It just loosens your inhibitions. By no means to all or even most people start beating up their partners after a few beers. Only those who are predisposed to anyway.
I have never seen any evidence that abusers are more "mentally ill" than other people. Yes, they tend to have narcisistic personalities, sometimes verging into sociopathology. The kind of person who is absolutely unable to recognize that another person has an independent existence with their own rights. Still, the vast majority of abusers are fully functional. In fact, a scary number of sociopathic personalities are downright charming when it suits their purpose, which is why you see these people getting a pass in the system. They are very convincing, while the victim is a blabbering, anxiety-ridden mess.
Posted by: silverside at Mar 25, 2005 9:52:29 AM
By the way, I'm currently working with two groups to develop 6 units of transitional housing for dv victims and their children. I will be utilizing the Supportive Housing Program (SHP) for potential funding, which is one of the programs listed in the SuperNOFA above. I have never worked with the HUD Continuum of Care funding before (which SHP is a part of) although I have used Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding for various housing projects including dv emergency and transitional. I am very happy to be putting my technical and professional skills to work in something that I have a strong commitment to.
And just so all the fellers out there can know how fair and nice I really am, I will offer FREE technical assistance to you on your application, whether its for a mixed shelter or a male only. Same goes for a female-only, should anybody be trying that, even though we are assured that this is strictly retro these days.
Posted by: silverside at Mar 25, 2005 10:32:37 AM
My post is less about the need for men's shelters as it is about the ignorance I read in some of the other postings. I am presently in the midst of a divorce from a verbally, and emotionally abusive alcoholic man. He has used every trick in the book to control myself and my 4 year old. I would not be blamed if I hated all men and not just him, I don't, however. If it hadn't been for a wonderful man I knew, just a friend whom I knew cared for me, I would never have forced him to leave. This same man is himself being abused...by his peptite 5'2 wife. He has never spoken of it but people have begun to notice. She controls everything he does, leavs lists on her computer of all that he has done wrong or is doing wrong and is not afraid to tell peopele what she is doing. What's her punishment? Mentally she has beaten him down, and recently, that we know of, she has turned to violence (they have 2 young children) now I know he is no innocent, he's made big mistakes. But I don't give a damn what sex your are or who is more abused than the other. GROW UP, PEOPLE!!! If both women's groups and men's groups would stop whining about who has it worse...when I read an enrty that said because men injuries are not "abuse" because they don't end up at the hospital...Well ladies, do you think maybe it's because of women (and men) like you!!!! Before you go off on me, I come froma family that has experienced the worst kinds of abuse. My mom? Raped and beaten so often by her first husband that that is how one of my older brothers was concevied ( and he now is a drug addict/abuser/ and a hell's angel). My sister? Molested in foster care (she was put there due to our mom leaving her abuser and unable to take care of her for awhile), then she was abused again by an uncle, she became a runaway, a prostitute and she emotional and physically abused both myself and her son. This has led my nephew to be the abused in his relationship. My cousin, abused by his girlfriend, was stabbed by her. I was lucky to have a great father (my mom's second successful marriage) and at least one great brother, who was also married to an emotionally abusive witch. I think I can safely say I see both sides and I tell you, after reading some of your ignorant comments, I am ASHAMED to be a woman. Not because I feel men have it worse, I still feel women are in the majority, but you are perpetuating abuse on not just men...there are children everyday growing up seeing a parent they love being hurt in one way or another by the other parent they love. Shouldn't everyone come together to stop ALL abuse so that these innocent kids are not left to sort things out for themselves, most likely just continuing the abuse onto thier kids?
Posted by: Ashamed at Jun 28, 2006 2:00:22 AM
