Father’s Rights and Violence Against Women
by Dr. Michael Flood
In this talk, I’m going to focus on the ‘fathers’ rights’ movement, and their impact on violence against women.
Introduction: The fathers’ rights movement
The fathers’ rights movement is defined by the claim that fathers are deprived of their ‘rights’ and subjected to systematic discrimination as men and fathers, in a system biased towards women and dominated by feminists. Fathers’ rights groups overlap with men’s rights groups and both represent an organised backlash to feminism. Fathers’ rights and men’s rights groups can be seen as the anti-feminist wing of the men’s movement, the network of men’s groups and organisations mobilised on gender issues (Flood, 1998).
Two experiences bring most men (and women) to the fathers’ rights movement. The first is deeply painful marriage breakups and custody battles. Fathers’ rights groups are characterised by anger and blame directed at ex-partners and the ‘system’ that has deprived men or fathers of their ‘rights’, and such themes are relatively common among men who have undergone separation and divorce. The second experience is non-resident fathers’ dissatisfaction with loss of contact with their children or with regimes of child support.
The fathers’ rights movement focuses on trying to re-establish fathers’ authority and control over their children’s and ex-partners’ lives, on gaining an equality concerned with fathers’ ‘rights’ and status rather than the actual care of children, and on winding back legal and cultural changes which have lessened gender inequalities.
Fathers’ rights groups are well-organised advocates for changes in family law, and vocal opponents of feminist perspectives and achievements on interpersonal violence.
Impact of the fathers’ rights movement on violence against women
The fathers’ rights movement has had four forms of impact on violence against women.
Priviledging contact over safety
Most importantly, the fathers’ rights movement has influenced family law, with damaging consequences for women, children, and indeed men. Above all, fathers’ contact with children has been privileged, over children’s safety from violence. [See The Custody Scam, the story of Dawn Axsom, Child Abuse: When Family Courts Get it Wrong, Letter to Judge from Jury foreman regarding prosecution of mother trying to protect her children from abusive father, or watch the PBS documentary Breaking The Silence; Children’s Stories at the bottom of this post.–Deborrah]
An uncritical assumption that children’s contact with both parents is necessary now pervades the courts and the media. The Family Court’s new principle of the ‘right to contact’ is overriding its principle of the right to ‘safety from violence’. The Court now is more likely to make interim orders for children’s unsupervised contact in cases involving domestic violence or child abuse, to use hand-over arrangements rather than suspend contact until trial, and to make orders for joint residence where there is a high level of conflict between the separated parents and one parent strongly objects to shared residence.
The fathers’ rights movement has been unsuccessful in achieving its key goal of a rebuttable presumption of children’s joint residence after separation. However, other changes in family law and government policy over the last two years have reflected its influence. Recent reforms mean that greater numbers of parents who are the victims of violence will be subject to further violence and harassment by abusive ex-partners, while children will face a greater requirement to have contact with abusive or violent parents.
Current government policy echoes many of the key themes of the fathers’ rights movement. Both government policy and many fathers’ rights groups are guided by two central, and mistaken, assumptions: that all children see contact with both parents as in their best interests in every case, and that a violent father is better than no father at all (DVIRC, 2005, pp. 5-6). Both bodies talk of ‘conflict’ rather than violence, neglect violence as a legitimate issue for the courts and family services to address, emphasise mediation and counseling as solutions, and focus on punishing women for making false allegations or breaching contact orders.
Discrediting victims
The second impact the fathers’ rights movement has had on violence against women is in discrediting victims. Fathers’ rights groups tell two key lies.
First, fathers’ rights groups tell the lie that women routinely make false accusations of child abuse to gain advantage in family law proceedings and to arbitrarily deny their ex-partners’ access to the children.
Second, fathers’ rights groups tell the lie that women routinely make up allegations of domestic violence to gain advantage in family law cases and use protection orders to remove men from their homes or deny contact with children rather than out of any real experience or fear of violence.
I have written detailed critiques of these first two lies, and they are available both online and in the latest issue of the Australian journal Women Against Violence. I can send copies to anyone who wishes.
Men’s versus women’s violence (Impact on perceptions of intimate violence)
Related to this, the fathers’ rights movement also has had some impact on public perceptions of intimate violence. In particular, it tells the lie that domestic violence is gender-equal or gender-neutral – that men and women assault each other at equal rates and with equal effects.
While I’ve called this a lie, this is one claim for which there is some academic support.
To support the claim that domestic violence is gender-symmetrical, advocates draw almost exclusively on studies using a measurement tool called the Conflict Tactics Scale. The CTS situates domestic violence within the context of “family conflict”. It asks one partner in a relationship whether, in the last year, they or their spouse have ever committed any of a range of violent acts. CTS studies generally find gender symmetries in the use of violence in relationships. There are three problems with the use made of such studies by fathers’ rights activists.
First, men’s rights and fathers’ rights groups make only selective use of this data, as CTS authors themselves reject efforts to argue that women’s violence against men is as common or as harmful as men’s violence against women (Kimmel 2001, p. 22).
Second, there are methodological problems with the Conflict Tactics Scale. The CTS is widely criticized for not gathering information about the intensity, context, consequences or meaning of the action. The CTS ignores who initiates the violence (when women are more likely to use violence in self-defense), assumes that violence is used expressively (e.g. in anger) and not instrumentally (to ‘do’ power or control), omits violent acts such as sexual abuse, stalking and intimate homicide, ignores the history of violence in the relationship, neglects the question of who is injured, relies on only one partner’s reports despite poor interspousal reliability, and omits incidents after separation and divorce, which is a time of increased danger for women.
Third, a wide range of other data find marked gender asymmetries in domestic violence. For example, crime victimization studies based on large-scale aggregate data, household and crime surveys, police statistics, and hospital data all show that men assault their partners and ex-partners at rates several times the rate at which women assault theirs and that female victims greatly outnumber male victims (Tjaden & Thoennes 2000, pp. 25-26).
Feminist and other scholars have worked to reconcile the conflicting findings of these bodies of data. One important insight is the recognition of different patterns of violent behaviour in couples and relationships. Some heterosexual relationships suffer from occasional outbursts of violence by either husbands or wives during conflicts, what some (Johnson 1995, 284-285) call “common couple violence”.
Here, the violence is relatively minor, both partners practise it, it is expressive in meaning, it tends not to escalate over time, and injuries are rare. In situations of “patriarchal terrorism” on the other hand, one partner (usually the man) uses violence and other controlling tactics to assert or restore power and authority. The violence is more severe, it is asymmetrical, it is instrumental in meaning, it tends to escalate, and injuries are more likely.
CTS studies are only a weak measure of levels of minor ‘expressive’ violence in conflicts among heterosexual couples. They are poorer again as a measure of ‘instrumental’ violence, in which one partner uses violence and other tactics to assert power and authority (Johnson 1995, 284–285).
There is no doubt that men are the victims of domestic violence. Men experience domestic violence at the hands of female and male sexual partners, ex-partners, and other family members.
A growing body of research tells us that there are important contrasts in women’s and men’s experiences of domestic violence. Women are far more likely than men to be subjected to frequent, prolonged, and extreme violence, to sustain injuries, to fear for their lives, and to be sexually assaulted (Kimmel 2001, 19; Bagshaw et al. 2000). Men subjected to domestic violence by women rarely experience post-separation violence and have more financial and social independence. Female perpetrators of domestic violence are less likely and less able than male perpetrators to use nonphysical tactics to maintain control over their partners (Swan & Snow 2002, 291-292).
Women’s physical violence towards intimate male partners is often in self-defense (DeKeseredy et al. 1997; Hamberger et al. 1994; Swan & Snow 2002, 301; Muelleman & Burgess 1998, 866). On the other hand, women’s intimate violence can also be motivated by efforts to show anger, a desire for attention, retaliation for emotional hurt, and so on (Hamberger et al. 1994). It is inadequate to explain women’s violence simply in terms of their own oppression and powerlessness, and naïve to assume that women are immune from using violence to gain or maintain power in relationships (Russo 2001, 16-19).
Men are likely to under-estimate and under-report their subjection to domestic violence by women (George 1994, 149; Stockdale 1998, 63). There is no evidence however that male victims are more likely to under-report than female victims. In fact, men tend to over-estimate their partner’s violence and under-estimate their own, while women do the reverse (Kimmel 2001, 10-11).
The fathers’ rights movement’s attention to domestic violence against men is not motivated by a genuine concern for male victimisation, but by political agendas concerning family law, child custody and divorce (Kaye & Tolmie 1998, pp. 53-57). This is evident in two ways.
First, the fathers’ rights movement focuses on this violence when the great majority of the violence inflicted on men is not by female partners or ex-partners but by other men. Australian crime victimisation surveys find that less than one percent of violent incidents among men is by partners or ex-partners, compared to one-third of incidents among women (Ferrante et al. 1996, 104). Boys and men are most at risk of physical harm from other boys and men.
Second, the fathers rights’ movement seeks to erode the protections available to victims of domestic violence and to bolster the rights and freedoms of alleged perpetrators, and this harms female and male victims of domestic violence alike. I turn to this now.
Protecting perpetrators and undermining supports for victims
The fourth way in which the fathers’ rights movement has had an impact on violence against women is in its efforts to modify responses to the victims and perpetrators of violence.
The fathers’ rights movement has sought to wind back the protections afforded to the fictitious ‘victims’ of violence and to introduce legal penalties for their dishonest and malicious behavior. The Lone Fathers’ Association and other groups argue that claims of violence or abuse should be made on oath, they should require police or hospital records, and people making allegations which are not then substantiated, and those who’ve helped them, should be subject to criminal prosecution. They call for similar limitations to do with protection orders.
Fathers’ rights groups also attempt to undermine the ways in which domestic violence is treated as criminal behavior. They emphasise the need to keep the family together, call for the greater use of mediation and counseling, and reject pro-arrest policies.
Such changes would represent a profound erosion of the protections and legal redress available to the victims of violence and the ease with which they and their advocates can seek justice. This agenda betrays the fact that the concern for male victims of domestic violence often professed by fathers’ rights groups is rhetorical rather than real. While such groups purport to advocate on behalf of male victims of domestic violence, they seek to undermine the policies and services that would protect and gain justice for these same men.
Fathers’ rights groups often respond to issues of domestic and sexual violence from the point of view of the perpetrator. And they respond in the same way as actual male perpetrators: they minimise and deny the extent of this violence, blame the victim, and explain the violence as a mutual or reciprocal process (Hearn, 1996, p. 105).
This sympathy for perpetrators is evident in other ways too. Fathers’ rights advocates have expressed sympathy or justification for men who use violence against women and children in the context of family law proceedings. And, ironically, they use men’s violence to demonstrate how victimised men are by the family law system (Kaye & Tolmie, 1998a, pp. 57-58).
Members of fathers’ rights groups also act as direct advocates for alleged perpetrators of violence against women. For example, one group distributes pamphlets for ‘victims of a false AVO’, giving no attention to how to respond to ‘true’ perpetrators of violence nor to the safety of family members.
Fathers’ rights groups also attack media and community campaigns focused on men’s violence against women, call for the de-funding and abolition of what they call the “domestic violence industry”, and engage in the harassment of community sector and women’s organisations which respond to the victims of violence.
Other, positive responses by men: The White Ribbon Campaign
This is all pretty depressing news. In this context, I’ve been especially heartened to see a growing positive response by men, in alliance with women, to help stop violence against women. I will focus on one such response.
White Ribbon Day is the largest effort by men across the world, working in partnership with women, to end men’s violence against women. White ribbons are worn on the day by men to show their concern about violence against women, and by women who are supporting men. It takes place on November 25th, the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women.
In Australia, White Ribbon Day is organised in part by UNIFEM, a women’s organisation, but it is conducted in partnership with men and men’s organisations. The White Ribbon Campaign focuses on the positive roles that men can play in helping to stop violence against women.
To find out more, visit the website: http://www.whiteribbonday.org.au/
Conclusion
To continue our efforts to prevent violence, several strategies are necessary.
We must continue to respond effectively to those who’ve experienced this violence, the coalface work that some of you already do.
We must continue to keep the issue of violence against women on the public agenda.
We must step up efforts to engage men in positive ways, building partnerships with supportive men and men’s groups. We must confront, or sidestep, the dangerous ambitions and dishonest claims of the men’s and fathers’ rights backlash.
The achievements of the father’s rights movement are already putting women, children and indeed men at greater risk of violence and abuse. The fathers’ rights movement has exacerbated our culture’s systematic silencing and blaming of victims of violence and hampered efforts to respond effectively to the victims and perpetrators of violence.
However, the new politics of fatherhood has not been entirely captured by the fathers’ rights movement. There is potential to foster men’s positive and non-violent involvement in parenting and families. Key resources for realising the progressive potential of contemporary fatherhood politics include the widespread imagery of the nurturing father, community intolerance for violence against women, growing policy interest in addressing divisions of labour in child care and domestic work, and men’s own investments in positive parenting.
However, thwarting the fathers’ rights movement’s backlash requires that we directly confront the movement’s agenda, disseminate critiques of its false accusations, and respond in constructive and accountable ways to the fathers (and mothers) undergoing separation and divorce (Flood, 2004, pp 274-278).
Beating the backlash
The following are some of the political strategies we can use to help beat the fathers’ rights backlash.
Discredit fathers’ rights groups. Emphasise that they;
- Are interested only in reducing their financial obligations to their children;
- Are interested only in extending or regaining power and authority over ex-partners and children.
- Do nothing to increase men’s actual share of childcare / parenting or men’s positive involvement in parenting both before and after separation.
- Collude with perpetrators of violence against women and children, protect and advocate for perpetrators, or are perpetrators.
- Produce critiques of their lies and their strategies which are credible and accessible.
- Co-opt the new politics of fatherhood;
- Support positive efforts to respond to separated fathers. (And emphasise that FR groups fix men in anger and blame, rather than helping them to heal.)
- Build on men’s desires to be involved (and nonviolent) parents.
- Find alternative male voices: supportive men and men’s / fathers’ networks and groups.
‘Speaking as a father…’
Tell women’s stories
Atrocity tales: Stories of abuse and inequality.
In letters, submissions, on talkback, etc.
(But beware of the ways in which these can (a) portray women only as victims, (b) homogenise and essentialise women’s (diverse) experiences of violence, and (c) undermine credibility and support. )
Find and nurture male allies: in government, the community sector, academic, etc.
More widely, we must continue do the work of violence prevention: to undermine the beliefs and values which support violence, challenge the power relations which sustain and are sustained by violence, and promote alternative constructions of gender and sexuality which foster non-violence and gender justice.
Contact the Author:
Dr Michael Flood
Postdoctoral Fellow
Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society (ARCSHS)
La Trobe University
E-mail: michael.flood[at]anu.edu.au
PO Box 4026, Ainslie ACT, 2602
Presentation in Panel, “Myths, Misconceptions, and the Men’s Movement”, at Conference, Refocusing Women’s Experiences of Violence, Sydney, 14-16 September.
Sign this petition to stop court ordered child abuse in your Congressional district!
Deborrah
Veteran social researcher, relationship advice columnist, author and radio host. Author of hundreds of articles on American and black culture, gender issues, singles, dating and relationships. Author of "Sucka Free Love!" , "The 24 Types of Suckas to Avoid," "The Black Church - Where Women Pray and Men Pray," and "Why Vegan is the New Black" all available on Amazon.Com. Her unique voice and insightful commentary have delighted fans and riled haters for 20 years. Read her stuff on SurvivingDating.Com and AskHeartBeat.Com.
Follow Me:
Category: Men's Issues
Statistics from the 90s?? come on Dave…get real….this decade is also almost over the statistics you spew from earlier in it. You guys just CANNOT stand to be told the truth by smart women. There will be a new report coming out on how many fathers have killed their children or wives/ex-wives/girlfriends…and 2009 is going to put all of your shit down in the sewer…poor little fellas…
Sorry, forgot to name my source.
Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect
Sedlak, A. J., Broadhurst, D. D.
Year Published: 1996
Mothers are more likely to neglect children while fathers are more likely to abuse them. Also, since mothers are most likely to be the primary caregivers of the children, there is more likelihood of them having opportunities to abuse and neglect their children. Mothers are held responsible for all abuse and neglect, even when perpetrated by a male in the household (failure to intervene).
However, when you break down stats according to children living only with the mother and children living only with the father, you get an entirely different picture. These are the populations you need to watch – mother-only homes and father-only homes. Even though fathers spend much less time with their children than mothers, and they are much less likely to have primary care over their children, fathers of children living in father-only homes are more likely to abuse and neglect them than mothers of children in mother-only homes.
Here are the actual rates, broken down by mother-only and father-only homes:
Children living with their only their mothers experienced maltreatment under the Harm Standard at a rate of 26.1 per 1,000 children. Children living with only their fathers: 36.6 per 1,000.”
PHYSICAL ABUSE: Children living with only their mothers: 6.4 per 1,000 children. Children living with only their fathers: 10.5 per 1,000 children. “When specific types of abuse under the Harm Standard are examined, it is apparent that the findings described in the previous paragraph stem from the disproportionate incidence of physical abuse among children in father-only households…”
NEGLECT: Children living with only their mothers: 16.7 per 1,000 children. Children living with only their fathers: 21.9 per 1,000 children.
EMOTIONAL NEGLECT: Children living with only their mothers: 3.4 per 1,000 children. Children living with only their fathers: 8.8 per 1,000 children.
SERIOUS INJURIES: Children living with only their mothers: 10.0 per 1,000 children. Children living with only their fathers: 14.0 per 1,000.
MODERATE INJURIES: Children living with only their mothers: 14.7 per 1,000 children. Children living with only their fathers: 20.5 per 1,000.
ALL MALTREATMENT: Children living with only their mothers: 50.1 per 1,000 children. Children living with only their fathers: 65.6 per 1,000.
ALL ABUSE: Children living with only their mothers: 18.1 per 1,000 children. Children living only with their fathers: 31.0 per 1,000.”
@ Dave:
Your ONE report conflicts with hundreds that point to MEN as being the perpetrators of violence against women and children worldwide.
Why would 75% of divorced fathers say their exes have “interfered” with their visitation? What does that mean? That he didn’t get what he wanted the way he wanted? That the children didn’t want to be with his angry, vindictive behind and he wrongly blames the mother for their lack of interest in building a relationship with him? I think its primarily the latter.
Too many men see their children as property, not as people that they need to be involved with mentally and emotionally, that they need to support, brag about, care for, empathize with, and love. No, too many of married men especially see child rearing as their wife’s job and even though they are right in the home, the woman still exists as a single parent! She has sole responsibility for preparing meals, helping with homework, chauffeuring them around, buying school uniforms and clothes, taking them to the doctor, caring for them when they are sick, teaching them life skills. Dads don’t do shit but want to complain about what women might not do to their standards. That is why I say Women Should Stop Having Children.
Courageous Kids of California provides stats that are vastly contradictory to the Cathy Young article that you quote. 80% of these kids report they don’t WANT to see their abusive fathers and were forced to by courts back into an abusive situation because their father “had rights” to hurt them and their mother.
Marriage does not create a chattel relationship dude. A woman has every right to divorce a man that is not giving her the marriage and commitment she seeks. Why be married to someone that wants to live as a single man getting his needs met and overburdening you with responsibility while he does nothing to go out of his way to make you or his children happy? Are you kidding me!? That is why women file for 75% of the divorces – men’s lying, cheating, selfishness, abuse, verbal cruelty, and cold emotional distancing of their partners. That type of relationship is not rewarding and no one wants to live a lifetime like that. I’d divorce that man too!
Sexual abuse DOES occur in homes by fathers and step-fathers and boyfriends. Reports by the mother of sexual abuse in child custody cases should always be thoroughly investigated and never dismissed by those in power whose jobs it is to protect children. After all, what pedophile is going to openly admit his crimes?
A University of Victoria Sexual Assault Centre post provides the following childhood sexual abuse statistics:
1 in 3 females and 1 in 6 males in Canada experience some form of sexual abuse before the age of 18.
80% of all child abusers are the father, foster father, stepfather or another relative or close family friend of the victim.
Incestuous relationships last 7 years on average
75% of mothers are not aware of the incest in their family
60-80% of offenders in a study of imprisoned rapists had been molested as children
80% of prostitutes and juvenile delinquents, in another study, were sexually abused as children.
@ GetaLifeDickWad
Don’t worry, I edited your comment. Love your research and passion (reminds me of me!), just please watch your language in the future.
My bad for the language. My vocab is colorful 😉
1. On child abuse committed by women: You aren’t so smart are you on your critical thinking OR math skills. This has been cleared and refuted some time ago.
http://dastardlydads.blogspot.com/2009/11/how-to-misrepresent-statistics-lesson-1.html
http://dastardlydads.blogspot.com/2009/09/child-abuse-and-neglect-co-occurence-of.html
http://dastardlydads.blogspot.com/2009/12/experts-more-men-killing-their-families.html
http://dastardlydads.blogspot.com/2009/11/child-sexual-abuse-in-eastern-carribean.html
http://www.randijames.com/2009/08/when-men-and-women-abuse-children.html
http://www.randijames.com/2009/06/guess-whos-killing-children.html
http://www.randijames.com/2009/06/do-mothers-commit-more-abuse-than.html
http://www.randijames.com/2009/03/mother-vs-father-child-abuse.html
http://www.randijames.com/2009/04/fathers-are-more-likely-to-sexually.html
2. On women initiating divorce: So what? What does it prove anyway? That men can’t screw, to say the least.
http://www.randijames.com/2009/03/women-initiate-more-divorces.html
3. Hate speech should not be confused with the truth, just because you refuse to acknowledge it. Men aren’t oppressed. Get over it.
Deborrah says:
“Dennis Pakkala: Your goal is to muddy the facts with repetitive long-winded posts that attempt to refute the facts that: (1) men are the rapists, killers of women and children around the world and molesters of both boys and girls that trust them as fathers”
Uh… actually, most child abuse and parental murder of children is committed by mothers, not fathers. Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth, and Families, Child Maltreatment 1997: Reports from the States to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (Washington DC, :GPO, 1999). See: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/ncands97/s7.htm. Child abuse perpetrators are 62.3% female. Child fatality perpetrators are 62.8% female.
Deborrah says:
“(2) men that would exert so much energy trying to lambaste women on the Internet are truly representative control freaks that are out to â??getâ?? the women that donâ??t want to be with them anymore and disagree with them like you;”
No… now who is tying to muddy the facts? The truth is:
70% or more of all divorces involving couples with children are initiated by mothers, not fathers. [Source: Margaret F. Brinig and Douglas A. Allen, “‘These Boots Are Made For Walking”: Why Most Divorce Filers Are Women” American Law and Economics Review 2â??1 (2000): 126â??169.]
A randomized study of 46,000 divorce cases published in the American Law and Economics Review found that in only 6% of cases women claimed to be divorcing cruel or abusive husbands. Surveys of divorced couples show that the reasons for their divorces are generally a lack of closeness or of “not feeling loved and appreciated.”
[Source: Margaret F. Brinig and Douglas A. Allen, “‘These Boots Are Made For Walking”: Why Most Divorce Filers Are Women” American Law and Economics Review 2â??1 (2000): 126â??169.]
Meanwhile, three-quarters of divorced fathers surveyed maintain that their ex-spouses have substantially interfered with their visitation rights.
[Source: Joyce A. Arditti, “Factors Related to Custody, Visitation, and Child Support for Divorced Fathers: An Exploratory Analysis,” Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 17, 1992, pp. 34, 39.]
… and a study of children of divorce found that 42% of children who lived solely with their mother reported that their mother tried to prevent them from seeing their fathers after the divorce.
[Source: Cathy Young, Ceasefire!: Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality, The Free Press, 1999, p. 209.]
Beven I didn’t call any names, but you did take a bait LOL which just proves what I said, A hit dog will hollar, I skimmed the comments and didn’t read any one’s comment long enough to single any one poster out. I just know that there will be opposition to what this article is saying and namely by men who buy into this father’s right movement. But thanks for proving my point exactly.
When I say ” A hit dog will hollar”, I’m addressing those men who resent the discussion of these so called fatherhood rights which is really a cloak for men trying to be dominant and vengeful. They don’t want to accept it and they are outraged that people are speaking out against it.
I guess these men expect people not to notice what they do to women and children. They expect women to just roll over and accept it that violence and misogyny against women is on the rise. It has always been the case but previously women were legally subjugated, couldn’t vote, rarely worked outside the home and were limited in their career choices.
Now that woman have a stronger voice and bank account and therefore wield a voice and power of their own, they are speaking out against this violence and subjugation and men can’t stand it. They want the status quo back. They want women under their shoe. Men who buy into this mentality are not men, but they are cowards. They are bullies who derive their power by subjugating women and children. Men will deflect and throw up the small number of violent acts that women commit against men, and this number is miniscule when compared to the overwhelmingly large number of violent acts men commit against women and children world wide every single day!
And stats show most of the acts that women do commit against men are provoked and after the woman has endured years of emotional/physical/sexual/abuse and or watched her kids being abused. If you kick someone long enough sooner or later they will retalitate.
The violence that men commit against women is not derrived from self defense or provocation, it mostly comes from the men being bullies, wanting to assert their authority over women and their unwillingness to accept women as being equal to them with a mind of their own and rights and a voice to speak out.
This just happened yesterday morning around 7 am. A mother killed in front of her daughters. Whether men want to accept it or not, it is cold hard fact that the violence against women around the world is high and is escalating!!!
*****************************************************************************
Bronx mom Lakisha Scriven shot in head, killed in front of daughters while taking them to school
Originally Published:Monday, December 7th 2009, 11:35 AM
A Bronx mom taking her kids to school Monday was killed by a brazen gunman who fired a bullet into the back of her head as her daughters screamed in horror, police and witnesses said.
Lakisha Scriven, 30, a supervisor for the city’s Administration for Children’s Services, was shot execution-style as she loaded her girls into her parked SUV.
“I heard crying and screaming,” said neighbor Alicia Parks, 25, who was awoken by the gunshots.
“The only thing I kept hearing was, ‘Mommy!'” said Parks, an administrative assistant. “When I finally woke up, I heard, ‘The bad man killed Mommy.'”
Scriven died at Jacobi Medical Center an hour and a half after the 7:15 a.m. shooting in Wakefield, police said.
Her girls, ages 5 and 8, were unharmed but terrified, Parks said.
Parks was barefoot and wearing only her nightgown when she dashed into the street to whisk the girls into her home as police swarmed the bloodstained SUV.
“At first, I hugged them, consoled them,” said Parks.
“The little babies were traumatized. I tried to ask for their father or a number, but they couldn’t give me any information,” she said. “After today, you know you’re not safe anywhere.”
Investigators – who believe the shooting was a hit – were questioning the father of Scriven’s children as well as the victim’s new boyfriend at the 47th Precinct stationhouse last night, police sources said.
The kids told Parks and police that they did not recognize the gunman. Police believe the killer walked up to Scriven’s Ford Explorer as she piled her girls into the vehicle and then opened fire.
Scriven lived with her girls in a well-maintained building just steps from where she was slain, relatives said.
“It feels like a bad dream,” said Donna Hamilton, 50, the dead woman’s aunt. “She was a good mother, a professional. She took care of kids who had problems at home.”
Last week, Scriven forced Clarence White, the father of her girls, to move out of her home after months of fighting, neighbors and relatives said.
Police responded to the home to investigate calls for domestic disturbances in 2003 and again last year, but no one was arrested either time, a police source said.
White’s relatives insisted that he would never harm her. “He loved her,” said his sister Diane Greer. “She was the mother of his children. He picks up his children every day after school.”
It was not immediately clear when Scriven started dating her new boyfriend, according to neighbors and police sources. His name was not released.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/12/07/2009-12-07_bronx_mom_fatally_shot_in_the_head_killed_while_taking_daughters_to_school.html#ixzz0Z6CSHDMT
Hi Raz:
“To the men who are crying fowl against this article on what Father’s right truly means, all I can say is ‘A hit dog will hollar’.”
Are you implying that I’m a dog? Is that some bait you want me to bite? You have no idea what circumstances in my life have led me here and be motivated to “speak my mind”. I was never intending to make so many posts, but I found the reation to Denis Pakkala’s posts interesting.
There are always three sides to every story, and the feminist view is just one….
To the men who are crying foul against this article on what Father’s right truly means, all I can say is ‘A hit dog will hollar’.
My first comment didn’t violate any of the three guidelines you listed, yet it was deleted.
Nor was my responce to “A Concerned Citizen” regarding the Duluth model violated any of your three guidelines.
Comment No: 197 by WhitePower openly equate Fathers Rights organizations with a race hate organization(KKK). I take it that you must believe that men who are members of fathers rights organizations must also be radical racists.
I understand that this is your forum and that you can define the guidelines, but should include a fourth guideline stating only comments and opinions(not any facts, as they would only cloud the situation) which you want to see get listed.
HAHAHAHA!!!!! Why are you so scared of my comments Deborrah?
—
Not scared at all. I have very specific guidelines here though that include (1) no flaming of me or other posters; (2) no spamming saying the same thing over and over using bandwidth with nonsense; and (3) no profane names. When a post violates one or more of those rules, it is summarily deleted without an apology or notice.
— Deborrah
Spamming the comments here with material that bases its conclusions on the faulty Conflict Tactic Scales does not change the fact that the CTS is very methodologically flawed. Dr. Flood already addressed the serious problems with the CTS in his article. The CTS has been recognized as very flawed for over a decade, and it isn’t any better today. Reputable researchers do not believe misleading and flimsy “research” that claims that men and women are equally abusive, or that there is an epidemic of men out there being battered by women. Repeating lies does not make them true.
Dennis Pakkala: Your goal is to muddy the facts with repetitive long-winded posts that attempt to refute the facts that: (1) men are the rapists, killers of women and children around the world and molesters of both boys and girls that trust them as fathers, uncles, grandpas, brothers, etc.; (2) men that would exert so much energy trying to lambaste women on the Internet are truly representative control freaks that are out to “get” the women that don’t want to be with them anymore and disagree with them like you; and (3) the men’s rights movement is nothing but a bunch of sad, angry men’s attempts to legally beat and control women.
Well, it won’t work.
Get a life dude. This post was not shared to personally offend YOU because I don’t know you and at this juncture wouldn’t want to. Accept that males are the primary perpetrators of violence and murders in domestic situations. It’s reality. You might not like it, but no amount of your ranting and raving with pseudo science and fake stats is going to change the fact that the bodies of women in graveyards and on slabs in morgues have been primarily put there by men they thought loved and cared for them. The children being raped worldwide by pervert pedophiles, filmed, photographed, then killed and buried in wilderness and under homes was done by men. Primarily by men they thought loved and cared for them. Lots of those men are their own fathers, stepfathers, trusted relatives, extended family members and neighbors. People they THOUGHT they could trust. Violent, sneaky, hate filled wierdos.
Yeah, you men did that. So stop trying to change history. You sound like those people that say the Holocaust didn’t happen.
Dutton, Nicholls, 2006 THE GENDER PARADIGM IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RESEARCH AND THEORY
The Self Defence Debate – Female Intimate Violence is Defensive
Bland and Orn (1986) in a survey conducted in Canada did ask who used violence first. Of the women who reported using violence against their husbands, 73.4% said they used violence first. Stets and Straus (1992a) reported that females said they struck first 52.7% of the time.
…
Stets and Straus concluded that not only do women engage in a comparable amount of violence, they are “at least as likely” to instigate violence. The results also indicate that women were more likely to hit back (24.4%) than men (15%) in response to violent provocation by a partner (Straus & Gelles, 1992)
The latter result is difficult to explain from a feminist assertion that women are more afraid of male violence than the reverse. In all, these data do not support the argument that female violence is solely defensive