Shat  terd


The hidden half of domestic violence

How to have eternal life

Report on Domestic Violence and Re-Authorization of Violence Against Women Act funds.

National Cry for Children

May 30, 2000

Esteemed members of Congress,

Re-authorizing funding for the Violence Against Women Act is not in the best interest of this country's families or national security. That is a very strong statement and I hope to back it up with verifiable and credible references in the next several pages.

There is an overwhelming body of evidence to establish that what we know to be a war on domestic violence is, in reality, a war on American families and America itself. I am the founder and Chairman of National Cry for Children, a group whose sole purpose is the protection of this country by protecting the future... our children. As you read this document I trust that you will consider that thousands of individuals-- hundreds of whom are children-- die needlessly every year in this country because of VAWA. Not because they weren't protected from their spouse, but because there was no one there to protect them from the system. Yes, the Federal government is financing the destruction and death of tens of thousands every year.

Traditionally our families were protected from this by the U.S. Constitution-- the document intended to protect all citizens-- but the Constitution, and its protections of due process of law, requirements that the innocent would be innocent until proven guilty, and even the right to a jury of our peers, have all but been replaced by the destructive force of propaganda wielded by a few for the manipulation of the masses.

I certainly do not believe that domestic violence should be tolerated. In fact I would support tougher penalties for batterers, but first we must determine who is battering whom, and to what degree. We must also act immediately to curb the "witch hunt" mentality that is so deeply ingrained in the mindset of the individuals who, as characterized by Political Science Professor Stephen Baskerville, "profess feminism, and practice Stalinism".

I'd like to share with you some statistical information from my home state of Virginia. Since the Federal government does not maintain certain information it is necessary to research these issues state by state. There is certainly no reason to believe that Virginia is not representative of all fifty states, and generally conforms to the mean in statistical data. Middle of the seaboard, middle of the road, as they say.

The sanctity of life

The first and foremost concern for us as a people must be the preservation of life. Certainly no citizen of this country should fear any sort of harm in their own home, but the deprivation of life rises to a heightened level that surpasses all others. No one wishes to see a women killed by her spouse or boyfriend, but the same desire to see men made safe from harm seems conspicuously absent from discussions of domestic violence.

Perhaps it is due to the fact that VAWA only funds educational programs targeted at stopping violence against women, and ignores the fact that men are abused by their spouses too. In fact the empirical data is overwhelming to support that over 50% of the time the FEMALE is the aggressor, not the male. [2]

Consider this recent article:

A commonly accepted ""truth'' about domestic violence is that 95% of the time, women are the victims and men the perpetrators. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Family Violence Survey--as well as numerous other studies-- have found that men are just as likely to be the victims of domestic violence as women. But aren't these women just defending themselves against their more violent partners? Straus and Gelles found that among couples reporting violence, the man struck the first blow in 27% of cases; the woman in 24%. The rest of the time, the violence was mutual, with both partners brawling. The results were the same even when the most severe episodes of violence were analyzed. They were also the same when only the woman's version of the events was considered.

Even more interesting are Straus' findings, released earlier this month, that men's violence against women--even as reported by women--has dropped 43% between 1985 and 1992. Over this same period, in contrast, assaults by women against men increased by about 28%. Straus concludes that "part of the reason may be that there has been no effort to condemn assault by wives parallel to the effort to condemn assaults by husbands.''

So where did the claim that 95% of domestic violence is initiated by men come from? From the U.S. Department of Justice, which collects data on the number of reports of domestic violence. But as women's rights groups rightfully claim, reports are not always an accurate measure of the severity of the problem. Certainly, some female victims of domestic violence fail to call the police, fearing retaliation by their abusers. But other Justice Department studies have shown that men, too, are reluctant to ask for help, reporting all kinds of violent victimization 32% less frequently than women.

Murray A. Straus, head of the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire, and Richard A. Gelles, a sociologist at the University of Rhode Island, who have been tracking spousal abuse for over 20 years, have come up with what are widely believed to be the most accurate estimates available--the National Family Violence Survey (NFVS).

Their Survey, sponsored by the National Institute of Mental Health, found that 84% of American families are not violent. In the 16% of families that do experience violence, the vast majority of that violence takes the form of slapping, shoving, and grabbing. Only 3-4% of all families (a total of about 1.8 million) engage in ""severe'' violence: kicking, punching, or using a weapon.

As for the perception that women who murder their husbands are treated harshly by the justice system, Dr. Mann found that few female domestic homicide offenders receive prison sentences, and that those who do rarely serve more than four or five years. These findings are confirmed by a recent Los Angeles Times article. The article, which quoted Justice Department sources, reported that women who kill their husbands were acquitted in 12.9% of the cases, while husbands who kill their wives were acquitted only 1.4% of the time. In addition, women convicted of killing their husbands receive an average sentence of only six years, while male spousal killers got 17 years.

I was shocked when I first learned that women are as aggressive, if not more, than men are. My wife abused me, but I thought I was statistically insignificant. I never dreamed that the problem of violent women was so widespread. But then I began to look at the world around me. Tonight while watching a "sitcom" I watched a woman throw an elbow to her boyfriends stomach causing him to double over in pain. The audience laughed rigorously. Imagine if the roles had been reversed and the boyfriend had struck his girlfriend with a crippling blow to the abdomen. The show would have been cancelled immediately if the next scene hadn't shown him being carted off in handcuffs. But there were no handcuffs when she struck him. Moreover had the scene played out with him responding to her blow by hitting her back, as a nation, we would have likewise gasped in horror at this domestic violence played out in our living rooms. "How dare he strike her back!" Consider the writings of Erin Pizzy who was a pioneer in the fight against domestic violence:

I said twenty-five years ago and I still say: Of the first 100 women
coming into the first battered women's refuge in the world in Chiswick,
London 62 were as violent as the partner they left. I expect, once true
figures can be correlated to find that figure reproduced as a true and
accurate figure...

Women are as violent as men, and are more likely to use violence in
personal relationships. The reason why their violence has been hidden is
because it is hidden violence - behind the closed front door of the home.
Women intimidate the family because of their strong central position in
the family and are now able to blackmail men, thanks to the bias against
men that has been prevalent in the last twenty-five years.

Erin Pizzy - founder of the domestic violence shelters - a vision that turned into a nightmare

Twenty five years ago, scientific evidence agreed with Ms. Pizzy also:

The first nationwide study of partner assault in the United States, done
in 1975, found that 4.6% of husbands were victims of severe domestic violence
each year, while only 3.8% of wives were partner assault victims. Since then,
annual assault rates against wives have fallen to 1.9%, while assaults on
husbands remain high - 4.5% in 1992. (Source: Murray Straus and Glenda Kantor.)

I grew up with strong family values and learned that men don't strike women, period. That's still good advice, but we need to insure that the flip side of that coin is included in the funding that comes out of Washington. Lest you believe the propaganda that violence toward men is not as serious as violence against women and therefore should be treated differently, I would point out that ALL statistics and studies on domestic violence show that across the broad spectrum of abuse, men are the victims as often as women. This moves from the pushing and shoving category all the way to murder. Consider this article from a survey of emergency room physicians:

Battered Men [JAMA, August 27, 1997; JAMA. 1997;278:620] Based solely on ISA scoring, the researchers said 19% of the women patients and 20% of the men had experienced recent physical violence. They pointed out that some experts fear attention to domestic violence against men will de-emphasize the importance of services for women. "Recognition of the global nature of violence may be more realistic than assuming that only women are victims," the researchers wrote in this month's Annals of Emergency Medicine.

In Virginia the death rate disclosed by figures from the Virginia Department of Health and the Virginia State Police Uniform Crime Report to the Federal government show that in 1998 the EXACT same number of men were killed by spouses or girlfriends as women were killed by their spouses or boyfriends. In the year 1998, there were 29 men killed by spouses or girlfriends, and 29 women killed by their spouses or boyfriends.

The common discrepancies come from conviction data being used in place of scientific data. When virtually ALL scientific studies show that women are as violent as men, and when murder rates are statistically insignificant between the sexes, but conviction data shows great disparity, then the war on violence should not be focused on men as the abusers, but rather on the nation's police forces, prosecutors, magistrates, and judges for failing to ensure that conviction rates parallel the occurrence of crime. [4]

Consider this excerpt from an Associated Press story on May 17, of this year regarding domestic violence:

``We have made significant increases in providing shelters, hot lines
and restraining orders to protect battered spouses and mandatory arrest
for domestic violence incidents,'' said Professor James Alan Fox of
Northeastern University in Boston. ``And the largest beneficiaries have
been men. The biggest drop is in women killing husbands.

``We've given wives alternatives to feeling like they have to pick up a
loaded gun to kill their loaded husbands,'' Fox said. ``Divorce is

The number of intimate partner homicides has declined substantially
since 1976 for every race and gender group except white women, the
bureau said, citing FBI data on homicides. Intimate partners committed
fewer murders each year during 1996, 1997 and 1998 than in any other
year since 1976.

If we now have equal rates of murder for both men and women, then must we not conclude that prior to the "shelters" and "restraining orders" outlined above more women were killing their husbands, than husbands killing their wives? Furthermore Prof. Fox's statements as to why fewer husbands are being killed are based in speculation, and insulting to men. There is certainly no reason to believe that because of protections from the government these men are being saved, it is more likely that violent women who crave control and manipulation can control and manipulate their husband more effectively through the fraudulent use of restraining orders and false convictions of domestic violence. Where once they used their own hands, they now use the hands of judges who have been trained (brainwashed) by programs designed to teach them to be sensitive to the emotional needs of the purported "female victim". This brainwashing has been funded by VAWA grants.

When a woman kills her husband he and his resources are gone, not to mention the possibility that she may face conviction for murder. Prof. Fox is correct in his assertion that now divorce is easier. Thanks to VAWA it is easier for women who truly need protection to receive help, but it is equally easy for the millions of women who are actually abusers to now wield the greatest weapon in the world-- a judge's gavel swung by the long arm of the law. Many of you have studied domestic violence and know that at its heart it stems from a perverse desire to control and manipulate another. It is not based in the actions of the victim, but in the emotional needs of the perpetrator. "I hurt, so you will hurt too." It is a cycle of control. Bring the victim within reach and strike. Cease the attack when the victim appears to have had enough and threatens to leave. Let things cool off, and then bring the victim close enough to strike again.

This cycle is at the heart of all abuse, whether between husband and wife, parents and children, or boyfriend and girlfriend. But this cycle needn't always take the form of hitting and shoving. Genetically men tend to be more imposing physically than women are. But it should be equally noted that women tend to be more emotionally domineering. VAWA has enabled millions of women to literally destroy their spouses through the unequal force of false allegations of abuse. This force is unequal because the emotional abuse inflicted upon the husband is coupled with the PHYSICAL ABUSE of the government. Our government does not drag men out in the street to beat them. Our government throws them out in the street with the clothes on their backs, where society will ridicule them with vile and disgusting labels such as "batter" and "unfit parent". They are not considered "beaten husbands" they are considered "dead-beat dads". But this is only the beginning.

In my opinion, Professor Fox's statement above-- that men are benefiting from the wholesale destruction of our families and futures-- is on the same order as those who would tell a rape victim that if they lay back and enjoy it, it won't do as much emotional damage. His statement asserts that it is good for the government to pay someone so they won't commit murder! Taking justice into your own hands is illegal and UN-Constitutional, no matter the reason. But these sorts of anarchist and vigilante statements are rampant in domestic violence forums. Furthermore there is a widespread belief that if a woman kills her husband she must be acting in self-defense. PRE-EMPTIVE SELF-DEFENSE IS MURDER. It has been murder in every society throughout the ages, at least until NOW. We have been led to believe that women only kill their husbands to protect themselves. This is a lie.

When it comes to the murder of intimates, as criminologist Coramae Richey Mann documented in her 1996 study of female killers, When Women Kill, murderesses are seldom helpless angels: 78% of the women in Mann's study had prior arrest records and 55% a history of violence. Only 59% claimed self-defense.

But even when the physical body is left intact, the inner part that gives us our humanity is often destroyed. These false allegations of abuse have become so widespread that on April 11 of this year a University of Miami Law professor said false allegations are "the stock in trade of family lawyers..." in an interview with the Miami Herald.

False or unfounded allegations of abuse are, in and of themselves, abuse. It is an abuse made all the more horrendous because it not only turns the victim away from help and rescue, but also punishes the victim to a point where they have lost their "life" and the day to day existence that is left is really not worth living.

Virginia Department of Health, Division of Child and Adolescent Health, statistics on suicide show that in 1998 there were 416 deaths from homicide and legal intervention in Virginia, and almost twice as many (827) deaths from suicide. All experts agree that as many as 50% and possibly as many as 75% of these suicides stem from divorce and separation episodes. While the root causes can be multi-faceted, there is a direct causal link to the dissolution of a relationship. Many times the emotional scars of alienation from one parent create the catalyst for these suicides, as noted by the fact that 75% of all suicides are committed by children from fatherless homes. Furthermore National statistics show that 75% of suicide victims are male, and that divorce doubles the risk that a man will commit suicide.

Extrapolating from these figures we can glean that in 1998, in the state of Virginia alone, deaths by suicide, induced through divorce, exceeded deaths by all other homicides. And approximately 300 of these were men who were KILLED because of separation or divorce. As many as 45 of these deaths were CHILDREN who could not bear the pain of their parents’ divorce or re-marriage. While exact numbers are difficult to obtain, it is estimated that close to 20,000 Americans commit suicide over divorce each year. Several thousand are children who didn't need to die.

The Virginia Department of Health, Division of Child and Adolescent Health, statistics on suicide show that from 1983- 1997, of the children that committed suicide, almost 70% of the deaths were inflicted by gun shot wounds. When we back out the number of suicides from the number of gunshot deaths, we see that the statistics provided by groups such as the Million Mom March are skewed-- not towards resolving the problems that are causing teenage deaths, but by these special interest group's desire to lessen the symptoms, not heal the disease. This country does not need gun control, we need divorce control. As many as 75% of all suicides and homicides could be avoided by strengthening families, and returning fathers to the lives of their children.

Of course people who commit suicide don't usually get much sympathy from us, but in most of these cases they should, because this is not about heartbreak, this is about the systematic torture of an individual until they can take no more. Yes, some of these suicides are just the loose canon that felt jilted and decided to end it all, but many others were the victims of a hit squad paid for by VAWA grants. The hit men wear black robes instead of black ski masks, but their effect is the same. However most of these "hit men" are well intentioned, well meaning judges and magistrates who believe they are doing the right thing, just like many of you believed you were doing the right thing when you authorized VAWA. The unintended consequence of VAWA has been to unleash a devastating piece of gender biased legislation that can only proceed by first destroying the protections of the Constitution, so it can move on to its next victim.

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder

It is only fitting that in the war on families, commonly referred to as the war on domestic violence, an epidemic of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) would also sweep the nation. After all PTSD was originally defined on a different battlefield, in a different era. At the time it was called "shell shock". It is caused by any set of circumstances that are beyond your control, threaten your existence, and potentially deny the basic right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This disorder does not come from "heartbreak" it comes from torture. It comes from an overwhelming, never ending helplessness brought on by an outside force.

It comes from being dragged out of your home when you've done nothing wrong. It comes from being told to shut up by a judge who walked into the courtroom and scowled at you, then smiled at your wife. It comes from believing that as soon as you have your day in court this nightmare will finally be over. It comes from going to court and learning that the nightmare has just begun. It comes from a court appointed attorney telling you that if you just plead guilty to the false charge of domestic violence and take a class you won't get jail time, but if you defend yourself against the false and malicious charge; they'll throw the book at you. It comes from being told that it doesn’t matter what really happened, you are going to be convicted because you are a man.

What the attorney didn't tell you is that you waived your right to your children because you are a convicted batterer and thanks to VAWA batterers can't be around their kids. It comes from realizing that the punishment doesn't fit the crime. It comes from realizing that your children are being punished and they're even more innocent than you are.

And it all started thanks to VAWA. If you finally get in touch with one of the over 8000 groups in this country standing up to fight these injustices you soon learn that there's nothing you can do about your own case. You made a bad decision because your attorney told you to, but now nobody wants to hear about it. Frantically you search for somebody to help you. There's no one available, so when you try to fight your way back into court you find out that if you haven't dotted the "i" and crossed the "t" --things that would only matter to a lawyer trying to protect his own turf-- your case gets dismissed. Now you spend every free minute at a law library so you know what to do. After a few months you know more family law than the average attorney, so you head back to court. This time you find out that even though the law is on your side, judges and attorneys don't follow the law. They have "broad discretion" and a VAWA grant taught them how to handle a nuisance like you… less visitation and more child support. The message is clear, "Shut up and stay out of my courtroom or it will be worse next time."

In despair you kiss a picture of your kids goodnight, and say a prayer for them. You remember the nights you used to pray with them by their bedside and wonder if maybe you shouldn't have prayed for something differently back then. A tear comes to your eye as you think about the fact that somehow you must have let them down. Somehow you must have been able to save your family, but you never can figure out what that something was. After all that's what dads do isn't it... protect their family? Your wife, her attorney, the judge, and most of the people you know have already told you you’re expendable as a father. Now you start to tell yourself the same thing.

Now you're entering the PTSD arena. It begins to set in when the smoke starts to clear and your initial shock starts to subside. It's replaced by something far more cruel. PTSD makes you afraid. Afraid of everything. Most importantly you are afraid to think. You get stuck in a place where you know you have to do something to end the nightmare, but even the most modest task causes you to tremble and shut down like a clam out of water. Many people suffering with PTSD suffer the most heinous realization of all. You got this way because of the government shoveling money hand over fist to greedy localities that track domestic violence convictions through their accounting department. Your child was stolen from you for a measly couple hundred bucks. Your life was stolen from you because "boys don't cry" but girls do it quite well.

Consider what a leading expert said in a recent newspaper:

The Booming Domestic Violence Industry, August 2, 1999, John McGuire,
Massachusetts News

"The legislature has loosened the standard. Now the person seeking the
order need only state he or she is "in fear" of the other person. It doesn't
take a cynic to point out that when a woman is getting a divorce, what she may
truly fear is not violence, but losing the house or kids. Under 209A, if
she's willing to fib to the judge and say she is "in fear" of her
children's father, she will get custody and money and probably the house."

"A man against whom a frivolous 209A has been brought starts to lose any
power in his divorce proceeding. They do start de-compensating, and they
do start to have emotional issues, and they do start developing
post-traumatic stress disorders. They keep replaying in their minds the tape of what happened to them in court. It starts this whole vicious downward cycle.
They've been embarrassed and shamed in front of their family and friends,
unjustly, and they totally lose any sense of self-control and self-respect.
They may indeed become verbally abusive. It's difficult for the court to
see where that person was prior to the restraining order."

Regardless of the BEST intentions in enacting the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA is destroying families and individuals. VAWA is creating violence where there was none, figuratively and literally. There can be no doubt of this fact. The government has adopted a widespread policy of, "Kill 'em all, and let God sort 'em out!"

Shredding the Constitution

The fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that "[n]o state shall...deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law..." U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, section 1.

Herein lies the protection from abuse of process, and that protection is based in every man and woman having a fair trial before they are deprived of their life, liberty, and property. When a woman can march into a magistrate’s office in any city or town in this country, with no corroborating witnesses or physical evidence, raise her right hand and say, "He shoved me and I'm afraid," and suddenly set in motion the power of the state against the accused, with NO provision for a presumption of innocence, then the Constitution has been discarded. Some scoff and say, "That's not what the 14th Amendment is talking about," and to those I would answer:

"While the Constitution does not specifically mention parental rights,
the Constitution's guarantee of liberty has been repeatedly interpreted
as encompassing such a right:

While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty
thus guaranteed {by the Fourteenth Amendment}...Without doubt, it denotes
not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the
individual to contract, to engage in the common occupations of life, to
acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up
children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience,
and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as
essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923).

Similarly, the Supreme Court in Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 1982, noted its "historical recognition that freedom of personal choice in matters of
family life is a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth

I know of several documented cases of fathers coming home to find their bags on the porch and a new man moved into their home with their wife and their kids. When these fathers have made a scene in the front yard they were carted off in handcuffs, and handed a restraining order against them obtained in a hearing they weren't "invited" to. These fathers have been effectively removed from their children, their home, and their belongings with no wrongdoing on their part, and NO chance for protection from the law. The courts make no effort to avoid such scenarios because they are BEING PAID through VAWA grants.

I have in my possession a complaint for criminal contempt filed against a father for violating a protective order. The complaint states plainly that this father's "crime" was that while he was at the hospital visiting his infant daughter, who had been admitted for a serious illness, the father reached over and touched his WIFE'S hand and told her he loved her. This gentleman spent 48 hours in the county jail for this "crime". This gentleman went into the state police databank of dangerous criminals for this "crime". And this gentleman, in this situation, is one of the statistics being brought before you as an example of another case of domestic violence. [5]

I dare say our founding fathers would roll over in their graves. Furthermore I hate to think the REVOLUTION they would fight this very day over the oppression and tyranny that has grown up in this country’s "family" courts.

Consider the implications to the rights guaranteed this father by the Constitution, but denied him by the courts. Certainly he was denied the love and affection of his wife and child. Both this father and this mother each had the right to get married. The Supreme Court decision above makes that clear. They both exercised their right to get married, be married, and raise children. Yet suddenly the mother filed for divorce unilaterally. She decided (and the full power of the state concurred) that she was now capable of denying the father his Constitutionally protected right to be married and raise his family. She had the court order an "injunction" against him exercising his right to be married and raise his children. This common injunction is called a no fault divorce. These injunctions seem appropriate when there is justifiable reason to deprive another of their rights due to their criminal behavior, but when a spouse has committed no crime worthy of such denial of the basic inalienable rights, these injunctions seem well outside the bounds of the law. No fault divorce is no more Constitutional than allowing one person to decide unilaterally that they are going to "marry" someone against their will.

"State interference with a fundamental right must be justified by a
compelling state interest." ROE, 410 U.S. at 155.

In Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158,166 (1944), the court
acknowledged a "private realm of family life which the state cannot
enter." See also Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977).

Of course "psychologists" would state that for someone to stay in a marriage when they aren't happy is detrimental to them. They fail to recognize how detrimental divorce is to the rest of the family. We are guaranteed the right to "pursue" happiness, not have it handed to us. We have removed ALL incentive for Americans to uphold their vows to their spouse, their children, their society and, in most cases, their GOD. The escalating divorce rates in this country have all but crippled us as a nation. This great country, that as recently as 50 years ago was pointed to as the fortress of morality for the world, has now become the laughing stock of the world. Most of this stems from the psychological premise of "make yourself happy first". Consider the definition of psychology as defined by World Book Encyclopedia:

"Psychology is the study of why humans and animals behave as they do. Psychologists study how our senses work, and why and how people learn and forget. They are interested in why people differ from each other. They try to discover why some persons lead happy, busy lives while others are unhappy and do not work well. Psychologists investigate why people try to reach some goals and avoid others."

Now consider the definition of religion as defined by World Book Encyclopedia:

"Religion could perhaps best be defined as man's attempt to achieve the highest possible good by adjusting his life to the strongest and best power in the universe. This power is usually called God."

In fact, that same encyclopedia also describes "metaphysics" as the search for meaning and tells about the two major disciplines: Super-naturalism and Naturalism. Super-naturalism seeks meaning through the supernatural, or through belief in a "God force" while Naturalism seeks meaning through natural sciences. I bring this up to make one strong point. Psychology is, by definition, a religion. It has become the "State Religion" of the United States of America, and it masquerades as a science so that it may dominate through control, just as our forefathers warned us of when they prohibited a "State Religion".

I can call a duck a swan all day long, and it won't make it a swan. I can also call psychology a science all day long, and it won't make it a science. It was the religion practiced by Eve in the Garden of Eden when she ate the fruit so she could have her eyes opened to be like God, and it is now stronger than ever. The Greek word "psyche", from which it gets its name, doesn't mean "mind", it means "soul". Psychology is the religion of humanism, which states that all men can be "like God" if we only try hard enough. It's a religion that is State mandated, State funded, and State regulated. And psychology is the State religion that is hiding behind the trappings of VAWA. This State religion has destroyed millions of families, and forced its doctrine on others by creating no fault divorce. This state religion hasn't stopped there either. It has been force-fed down the throats of every other religion in this country through a slow and persistent government mandated push.

This State religion puts loving fathers behind bars for saying, "I love you," because in the dogma of the State religion those three words are evil. This State religion teaches unsuspecting mothers to sacrifice their children on the altar of greed and self-seeking because they bought into the media hysteria about "another woman being killed by her spouse every nano-second".

Most importantly this religion prevents men of other religions from fulfilling their GOD given DUTY to protect, teach, and nurture their own children. This religion has ripped as many children as possible from the care and nurture of their home, and placed them in a State regulated day care center where disciples of "child psychology" can indoctrinate these children into full-fledged, born again believers of the new State religion. When some brave soul tries to break out of this religion and publish a paper that isn't in line with the accepted doctrine they are quickly dismissed. They are labeled heretic and quack for simply stating the truth. Simple truths like children need their parents; or that women can be control freaks too; or that marriage is a good thing.

I'd like to recall for you again the definition quoted before, regarding psychology. However this time as a Bible scholar, ordained minister, and Christian theologian I will make a few adjustments:

"Christianity is the study of why humans and animals behave as they do. Christians study how our senses work, and why and how people learn and forget. They are interested in why people differ from each other. They try to discover why some persons lead happy, busy lives while others are unhappy and do not work well. Christians investigate why people try to reach some goals and avoid others."

I feel rather certain that any of the world's major religions could fit their name into those slots as well. A deceptive religion has infiltrated the structure of this country from the top down and it operates on lies and deceptions. I cannot speak for all the world's religions, but I know that my religion teaches me who is the father of all lies. And when millions of Americans blindly believe the lie that destroying a child's family is somehow "in the child's best interest" I know that this must be coming from the "master of deception".

Child abuse

According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services report: Child Maltreatment 1997: Reports from the States to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System, fully 62.8% of all child fatalities are perpetrated by women, and this trend extends to all forms of abuse studied except for sexual abuse. To wit: Physical Abuse- 51.5%; Neglect- 49.8%; Medical Neglect- 82.0%; Sexual abuse- 25.9%; Psychological Abuse- 51.7%; Other abuse- 55.8%.

The same report, p. 7-2, Table 7-1, shows those women between the ages of 20- 40 years old committed a mean average of approximately 67% of the child abuse reported, while men only accounted for the remaining 33%. Conspicuously absent from this study is the breakdown of violence not only by gender, but also by relation to the child victim. Again it appears as though these statistics may have been intentionally skewed. Nevertheless other studies are available which show biological fathers are THE LEAST likely to fatally abuse their children.

Consider the Heritage Foundation report

"The Child Abuse Crisis: The Disintegration of Marriage, Family, and the American Community," May 15, 1997 notes that: "[due to] ... the disintegration of family and community ... America's infants and young children, about 2,000 of whom -- 6 per day --, die each year," and provides the following estimate:

Total Children Killed Per Year 2,000
Killed by Mothers 1,100 55.0%
Killed by Stepfathers 250 12.5%
Killed by live-in Boyfriends 513 25.7%
Killed by Biological Fathers 137 6.9%

Clearly the most dangerous place for a child is in a single mother home. Between biological mothers, stepfathers, and live in boyfriends, the total sum of fatalities reaches 92.5%! This is backed up by a report prepared by Donna Shalala, Secretary of DHHS:

In Single Mother Households, 422 children are fatally abused each year.
In Single Father Households, 25 children are fatally abused each year.
In Dual Parent Families, 16 children are fatally abused each year.

Of 430 children killed by firearms, 322 are killed in Single Mother

Source: Donna Shalala, "National Child Abuse Prevention Month" and "Child
Maltreatment 1994: Reports from the States to the National Center on Child
Abuse and Neglect".

Most frightening is not that roughly 17 times more children are killed in single mother households than in single father households. What is most frightening is that only 16 children die each year in an intact home, and still the government will not work to limit divorce, limit unwed births, and strengthen families. Of all the families that received any sort of "treatment" for violence, neglect, and abuse only 24.2% of the families received Family Preservation Services according to the report Child maltreatment 1997: Reports from the States to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System. p. E-7, Table E-5.

I refer you again to the fact that 70% of teen suicides are from gunshot wounds and as many as 75% are because the child's parents are getting divorced. Based in the figures supplied by Ms. Shalala in the table above, if these children had been in a healthy intact family, of the total of 893 children that DIED in that year, 770 CHILDREN MIGHT HAVE LIVED. These are unnecessary deaths that are often triggered by the selfish desires of a thoughtless parent, whose whimsical, bitter, vendetta is funded by a grant from VAWA.

As to the broad discrepancy between the number of children killed by their mothers compared to those killed by their fathers, there is no simple answer. Often this is trumped up as mothers having the greatest opportunity to abuse because they have custody most of the time. If this were the case we should see the figures closer to the order of 300 deaths in single mother homes to 100 deaths in single father homes. The variance is not corrected by adjusting for custodial arrangements. Further a statistical survey, with a credible source of reference, disproves the myth that more children die at the hands of their mothers because more children are in their mothers custody:

"The "opportunity" excuse fades further in a 10-year study of confirmed
parental child abuse/neglect in a state that awards over 40% "visitation"
time to separated noncustodial parents (usually fathers). In that state,
prior to the statewide guideline, 64% of confirmed child abuse was
committed by mothers, 36% by fathers. Following implementation of the
"visitation" guideline, the gap has widened and now stands at 69%-70%
mothers, 30%-31% fathers. [By this study, CHILDREN ARE SAFER WITH THEIR FATHERS when considering the OPPORUNITY EXCUSE!!]"
Supplied through research of the Men's Health Network

Tragically it is often small boys who must suffer the abuse that their mother once inflicted on their father. It has been suggested and is supported by government research, that frequently mothers displace their anger at their husband or boyfriend toward the son of that man. There is little other reasoning for such a dramatic distinction between the victim genders in fatal abuse. Even though young children are typically quite similar in their behaviors, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services report: Child maltreatment 1997 p. 6-1, paragraph 6.2, shows that the child fatality victims showed a bias of 56.6% of the children being boys, and only 43.4% of the victims being girls.

Even in the light of these overwhelming studies, men continue to be singled out as the "aggressive sex" with women being "protected" from the maladjusted, dangerous, social deviants called fathers. Federal programs enacted by Congress have worked to destroy families and cause irreparable harm to children. Family ties are destroyed-- based in hearsay, speculation, and fraud-- by the thousands everyday in this country yet very little monies are marked to strengthen families and target legitimate abuse.

Moreover the government Departments entrusted to oversee these problems often create more problems. When it comes to issues of family, it appears that the very government is at the heart of the destruction of American families. The document frequently cited above on child maltreatment is quite a long read. For that reason the Department of Health and Human Services produces "executive summaries" so you, those entrusted with acting on that report, won't have to go to the "trouble" of reading the "whole book".

The corresponding document in this case is the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, titled, "A Nation's Shame: Fatal Child Abuse and Neglect in the United States", and it makes 26 recommendations based on their research of child abuse in the U.S.A. There are NO recommendations regarding women perpetrators of child abuse, even though the research is overwhelming that women are killing far more children than men. In spite of powerful and definitive evidence that children SURVIVE much better in a two-parent home, there are NO recommendations for strengthening families. And, even though fathers are in the extreme minority when it comes to inflicting abuse on a child, the executive summary has presented
Recommendation 22:

"State and local agencies should design prevention programs for men.
Programs should integrate services on child abuse and domestic violence
and address the need for interagency training.

Specific strategies must reach men and alert women to the potential
role of men in abuse. These strategies should be funded via Federal
Family Preservation and Support monies, as well as public and private
sources at the state and local levels. Because of the correlation
between frequent co-existence of domestic violence and child abuse,
programs must address all forms of family violence, especially when
children are in the home."

Notice that the Department of Health and Human services is recommending the FRAUDULENT use of funds designed to preserve families, and stating that these funds should be used instead to promote anti-family propaganda that is contrary to their own research. This is the reason why only 24% of the families in crises received family preservation services. The government is recommending that those monies be spent educating women to believe that their children are in danger from the safest person for them to be around… their FATHER! Donna Shalala should be indicted for treason.

This Executive Summary: Fatal Child abuse and Neglect in the United States, also states on page 22, "In addition, research suggests that males cause most physical abuse fatalities." Whose research? Certainly not their own:

According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services report: Child maltreatment 1997: Reports from the States to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System, the report that this executive summary is supposed to summarize, 66.8% of the fatal child abuse perpetrators were female.

That executive summary is appropriately named, but this Nation’s Greatest Shame, is that the Department of Health and Human Services is lying to Congress so they can avoid their duty to protect children from fatal abuse. As a child advocate I say this is only one small step from murder. Again I say Donna Shalala should be indicted for treason against the United States of America for the deliberate fraud she has perpetrated against the moral fabric of this country. I would point out to you again the mentioned figures from Ms. Shalala above wherein she SPECIFICALLY states that in a recent year there were TWENTY TIMES as many deaths from single mothers. This is not "mistake" on her part. It is a several BILLION DOLLAR FRAUD.

Justice is blind, it turns a blind eye

Speaking of attorneys:

" ...eighty percent of those polled said they had actually handled a case
where they believed there was false accusation of abuse, as in disputes
over custody of children, for instance." [News Release, from The Dilenschneider
Group Inc., (representing the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers),
Three First National Place, 70 West Madison Street, Chicago, IL 60602, 11/91.]

As a country we will never win the war against abuse until we first win the war against false allegations. We will never win the war against false allegations until there is a price exacted for them. When 80% of the attorneys surveyed state that they believe they have represented a client who has made false allegations, I have to ask, "Did you report them?" Aren't attorneys sworn to uphold the laws and Constitutions of the country and their state? Aren’t attorneys "officers of the court" and as such sworn to uphold the integrity of the court? Yet these attorneys don't report these clients, because false allegations are the fuel that feeds the fire of billable hours. In a Miami Herald article on April 11, 2000, a University of Miami Law professor says false allegations are "the stock in trade of family lawyers..." If a suitable alternative to VAWA is to be found, it must incorporate severe penalties for false allegations. They traumatize parents and children and many NEVER recover.

The following excerpts and articles from around the country paint a clear picture of the social view of this new class of sub-human... The American father. First let's look at the employment arena.

Employers fight domestic violence

Monday, April 17, 2000

The Associated Press

BOSTON -- A group of Massachusetts companies are tackling a problem that businesses have been reluctant to confront -- domestic violence.

The group, Employers Against Domestic Violence, realized that it's not just a domestic problem: Domestic violence costs American businesses up to $5 billion each year in absenteeism, lower productivity, higher turnover, and health care costs, according to the Bureau of National Affairs.

Employers Against Domestic Violence began three years ago as a series of lunchtime discussions among several Boston companies about how to protect employees from abusive husbands and boyfriends.

Today, the group is a formal non-profit with 28 private corporations among its members, as well as government, police, and advocacy groups. It has helped similar organizations get started in cities such as New York and Indianapolis.

Last summer, Colleen Mackesey was trying to keep her two children away from a husband she says was abusive and had threatened to kill the entire family.

"They said you can go to court 4,000 times and you won't be fired," Mackesey said. EADV members cite statistics from the Family Violence Prevention Fund that one in four American women report having been physically abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives.

"We realized if it was happening in society, it was happening in the workplace," said Rebecca Jones, a director of human resources at Verizon Wireless.

It is certainly a safe bet that any man, who has been the victim of a false domestic violence claim, would be quickly dismissed by one of these companies. It is also a sure bet that a father, who has been accused of vile acts such as domestic violence, child abuse, or child sexual abuse, will not find an employer willing to let them "go to court 4000 times without being fired". In fact most of these fathers can't even disclose that they have to go to court for fear of reprisal. Most Americans still believe that if you are convicted of a crime you must have done it. They don't realize that the most realistic estimate is that TWO THIRDS OF ALL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CONVICTIONS ARE FALSE. [3]

This is further complicated by the fact that in the age of the internet it takes anyone with a keyboard and five dollars, about ten minutes to get a complete background check on someone else. If a father finds himself wrongly convicted, and loses his job, he will not be able to find another one easily. His reputation is marred. Companies, and their human resources departments who are comprised of 85% women, don't want to hire child abusers and wife beaters. For some employers it is disdain, for others it is fear of a loose cannon in their workplace, for some it's payback for women who've been abused, but the reasoning doesn't matter. The important thing is you have a father out of work with little chance of finding meaningful work, and now facing incarceration for not being able to pay child and spousal support (which is routinely set at the highest possible level for abusers in a tactic that flies in the face of "double jeopardy").



Wednesday, December 2, 1998

Times-Dispatch Staff Writer

In an unusual perjury case that authorities say
underscores the need for battered women to tell
the truth, a Henrico County woman was convicted
yesterday of recanting an allegation that her
husband beat and threatened to kill her.

Henrico Circuit Judge Buford M. Parsons Jr.
accepted Mrs. Brown's pleas and scheduled
sentencing for Feb. 9. The mother of three faces
up to 11 years in prison on the two charges, but
sentencing guidelines indicate she will receive
little jail time because of her otherwise clean

Henrico authorities took the unusual step of
indicting Mrs. Brown on perjury charges after she
testified during a July 27 hearing that she had
lied about her husband assaulting her. She said
she did so because "she saw her husband with another
woman and was jealous, and wanted to get back at
him," Deputy Commonwealth's Attorney Duncan P.
Reid said yesterday.

He [Reid] said cases such as Brown's have become
all too common. He estimated that 20 percent to 50 percent
of all domestic-violence cases in Henrico result
in the alleged victim changing her story, at least in

They either recant the entire allegation or
minimize it by saying, " 'He did it but I was
guilty, too,' " Reid said.

"It's been a real problem ever since I've been
prosecuting, and it's gotten worse," he said. "I
guess we're seeing a lot more domestic assaults
than we have in the past because we have a policy
of mandatory arrests" in such cases. "Police
officers no longer have the discretion that they
once did [in deciding whether to file charges]."

Reid said he doesn't enjoy prosecuting perjury
cases, which are rare, but authorities need to do
something to combat the large percentage of
spousal abuse victims who recant their allegations.

"It's a major problem in terms of wasted police
and judicial resources," he said.

But on July 27, during a hearing to reduce her
husband's bail, Mrs. Brown testified that she had
lied to the magistrate who issued the warrant and
protective order. Her husband spent at least eight
days in jail. The charge against him eventually
was dropped.

"If she tells the truth from the beginning, she
has no fear of perjury," Reid said. "It's when they
lie that [they become subject to perjury charges]. And
we should discourage people from lying."

1998, Richmond Newspapers Inc.

At first glance this story might seem like a step in the right direction, but consider that this prosecutor never ONCE even considers that the woman might be telling the truth that she wasn't abused. In fact he implies that as many as 50% of all domestic violence complaints are recanted because the "victim" has second thoughts. What could blind this man so much to the truth that many, if not most, of these women are lying? They aren't lying when they recant, but when they make the claim in the first place. Attorney Reid tells us why in the story. It's about money. It's about time and resources. VAWA grants pay his office to convict for domestic violence, they don't pay for perjury charges. In a scam-- that no public defender will ever admit publicly, but will admit privately-- court appointed lawyers try to lose these cases. They don't want to lose big mind you, certainly no jail time for their client, but they see a victory when an innocent is convicted, but still gets to walk out of the courthouse. And everybody in every courthouse in America knows all about it.

The public defender and the prosecutor supposedly work out an agreement where the man can get off with no jail time if he pleads guilty, pays costs and a fine, and takes a class. This works well for everybody except the new convict, although he won't realize it until it's too late. This way the state collects all court costs and attorneys fees, they also collect a fine, and they collect Federal matching money for being tough on domestic violence. Public defenders that don't play this game soon find their name removed from the public defender list of attorneys, and they get no more of these easy cases that are open and shut convictions from the beginning. For the most part these aren't malicious people. They are attorneys who have been fed false information. They have also been taught that it is better to err on the side of caution. Most of them don't realize what they are getting their clients into, because most of them don't practice family law.

But this is where you, as members of Congress, come in. Now all the statistics that are thrown at you to get additional funding have been inflated. In a state that may have 10,000 legitimate cases of abuse, the conviction rate may be as high as 25,000. The numbers get skewed way up and soon the pressure groups are talking about how domestic violence is on the increase and every few seconds another woman is being beaten, so therefore funding must be increased. Incidentally most of these special interest groups are the ones training the judges and lawyers about domestic violence, and they are being paid through VAWA grants to do the training. It is as if the government handed over their Visa card to an irresponsible teen.

But back to the prosecutor who charged the woman with perjury. Lest you believe this man is waging war against "perjury" to protect the integrity of the courts, I will tell you that I have personally spoken with this man SEVERAL times about documented cases of perjury. His office not only refuses to file charges, they refuse to investigate, because, "It's just too difficult to prove" and "We don't want to get in the middle of domestic relations matters."

The sentiment of this prosecutor is the same as others around the country. He doesn't care about perjury, due process, or justice. He cares about convictions that produce Federal monies in the state coffers. He advances his career that way. In a few years when his boss decides to step down his record for being tough on domestic violence can get him elected. It got some of you elected.

Consider the story above about the woman who made a spiteful malicious claim in a fit of jealous fury. It was similar to the way someone might strike his or her spouse in a fit of jealous fury. But she used the most accessible force that was sufficient to inflict emotional and bodily injury against him--the false allegation. When she tried to correct her mistake, the state brought forth its extreme power to COERCE this woman to testify falsely against her husband.

This prosecutor admitted to a newspaper that he has threatened a woman with 11 years in jail if she won't change her story. God forbid she was a weaker woman or of less noble character, because I dare say that their are millions of women who would, and in fact do, crumble under such pressure. I would point out to you something that may not be obvious at first glance. If there was ANY physical evidence or ANY witness to this crime, this prosecutor would not have been charging the woman with perjury; he would have been convicting the man without her. The only thing they had to build a case on was her word. We live in a time when that is all that is necessary, one person's uncorroborated word. This over zealous prosecutor was basing every ounce of this on her word, and his preconceived bias. He could have obtained a conviction with a photograph of her injuries, but there were none. He could have built a circumstantial case by calling in the neighbors to testify to what they heard, but they heard nothing.

But this is not about "he said/she said"; this is about the attitude of this prosecutor. This attorney had already decided that the alleged abuser was guilty. Even when the ONE witness admitted that she had lied this prosecutor still proceeded as if the man had committed the crime. This prosecutor had usurped the roles of not only judge and jury, but also executioner. He was livid when that opportunity was taken from him. This wasn't a case of domestic violence; it was a case of another prosecutor deciding that the Constitution didn't apply to him.

The falsely accused man spent 8 days in jail before he was released. The woman convicted of perjury spent time in jail too. The prosecutor who admitted in the newspaper to seeking a fraudulent conviction against an innocent man probably got a promotion. This is also VAWA at work. She probably deserved some jail time, but in the end she was trying to do the right thing. Every one of us knows what it's like to be angry and say something we wish we could take back later. The problem arises when the police and prosecutors fail to realize that sometimes people who are in love do stupid things and say stupid things that they later wish to recant. But just like once you invite a vacuum cleaner salesman into your house they won't leave till you buy something, so it is with the state when it comes to family matters. You open the door, and they are there till they get somebody behind bars, or at least take away your children. All too often this starts off as someone (usually a woman) seeking a tactical advantage:

In a 1993 article in the Massachusetts Bar Association Newsletter, Elaine Epstein, then president of the Massachusetts Bar Association, warned that the "frenzy surrounding domestic violence" was leading to disturbing excesses: "Restraining orders ... are granted to virtually all who apply... In many [divorce] cases, allegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage."

Even when women beat their husbands they are told it isn’t their fault. Consider this article from The Detroit News:

For thirteen years he never hit back
By Becky Beaupre / The Detroit News
For 13 years, Karen Gillhespy was the abuser.
She says she broke her husband's ribs, ripped entire patches of his hair out, scratched him, bit him, beat him with a baseball bat and kicked him.
He never hit back -- and he never filed charges.
But more shocking to Gillhepsy are the reactions she encountered telling her story.
"They told me I was the victim," said Gillhespy, 34, of Marquette. "Here's no way any of this was his fault. ... I knew the difference between being the victim and being the perpetrator. I am ashamed for what I did."
Gillhespy believes most people don't believe men can be victims. She knows they are wrong.
"I think it is just as serious as (violence against women) -- you just don't hear about it," Gillhespy says. "Maybe more men would come forward if you did."
Gillhespy, who wed at 16, says she began beating her husband early in their 16-year marriage. Her former husband, reached by phone, declined to comment but confirmed that abuse took place.
At the time, Gillhespy was a crack user, heroin addict and alcoholic. She says she beat her husband in fits of rage, usually when she wanted money or the car.
"I told him he was no good, and that he was loser. I kicked him and threw things at him," she says. "I used him and used him and used him."
The turning point came in February 1993, when Gillhespy struck two pregnant women in Grand Rapids while driving drunk.
Gillhespy received 45 days in jail and was sent to a drug treatment program in Marquette. She has gotten a divorce, finished high school and stayed sober. In a year, she will receive a degree from Northern Michigan University.
And although Gillhespy now understands the issues that led her to violence, she says she accepts full responsibility for her actions.
Her strength, she says, comes from admitting that she had a problem -- and from trying to help others accept that domestic violence goes both ways.
"I'm the other side of the coin," she says simply. "If you're abused, you're abused."
After reading that story, ask yourself this question: "If the interview had been with a "wife-beater" would the story be so objective?" Would it have the same "feel" to it that this "redemption" story of an abusive woman has? I doubt it. Consider the other side of the coin that this "husband beater" refers to, as told of in this article from Tulsa:
Battered males will tell no tales
By MICHAEL OVERALL World Staff Writer

After four years in an abusive marriage, he turned to a United Way-funded
agency called Domestic Violence Intervention Services.

"But when I showed up for my appointment," Casey remembers, "they said,
`There must be a mistake. You're a man.' They had nothing for me."

When Casey demanded some kind of help, "because it's only fair to treat
male victims the same as female victims," DVIS finally offered to put him in
the only therapy program available to men -- the one for abusive husbands who
want to learn to control their anger.

"They're still working under the old stereotype that all batter- ers are
men and all victims are women. Well, DVIS should know better."
These cases are not alone. They are not the exception, they are the rule. I can supply thousands of stories that never made "the paper". The courtrooms of America have become the playgrounds of special interest groups and greedy lawyers. Even the judges of America know that they are failing, but still do nothing to correct the widespread destruction wrought by their gavels.
Judges Are Afraid to Release Fathers
Zero tolerance means innocent and guilty will be punished
Massachusetts News--March, 2000
One judge, Bonnie H. MacLeod, says she heard a judge say at a conference, "When in doubt, throw him out."
She told Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly in 1997 that while not all judges adhere to the same line of thinking, some trial court judges do feel that if they are going to make an error, it is better to err on the side of issuing the order.
Walpole family lawyer Marilynne R. Bryant told the paper that restraining orders are "issued liberally and are easy to get."
Attorney Paul W. Patten of Fall River said they are "issued like candy." He continued, "It’s a rare case that they won’t be issued as long as somebody says the magic word – ‘I’ve been hit’ or ‘I’ve been threatened.’ Unless that person has three heads or something really incredible like that, a District Court judge is going to issue them."
This sort of gender bias and deception runs to the highest attorney in the land, The Attorney General. Consider Janet Reno's recent statements regarding VAWA:

"This morning, the Bureau of Justice Statistics released a Special Report
on Intimate Partner Violence that tells us that we have made real progress
intimate partner violence has decreased. Violence against women by
intimate partners fell by 21% from 1993- 1998. However, the study tells us that
violence still devastates too many lives and too many women, children and
families in this country.

"Intimate partner violence made up 22% of violent crime against women
between 1993 and 1998. That is too much. In 1998, women made up nearly
75% of the 1,830 intimate partner murder victims. And the percentage of
female murder victims killed by intimate partners has remained constant at about
30% since 1976.

"Finally, I want to say - as I have said time and again - that we will not
stop violence on our streets and in our neighborhoods, unless we first
stop violence in our homes. With crime down eight years in a row, we have a
unique opportunity to end the culture of violence in this county -wherever
it takes place. Now, we must seize that opportunity."
The obvious first question must be, "Is the Attorney General of the greatest country in existence that ignorant of the true nature of domestic violence?" The answer is, "Of course she isn't ignorant." Ms. Reno speaks of crime being down for eight years in a row, and promises that we have a unique opportunity to "end the culture of violence in this country". Obviously Ms. Reno has forgotten the article, "Reno Says Youth Violence Will Grow." The Washington Times. 2 October 1995:A-6, wherein it states according to Attorney General Janet Reno, the problem of children killing will only worsen because demographics show the key at-risk population -- 14- to 17-year-olds -- will increase significantly in years to come. Ms. Reno has forgotten that she has predicted that violent crime will increase by 60% in the next ten years as these children reach maturity.
Being tough on domestic violence puts people in office, and when there aren't true allegations false ones will drive the polls just as well. Too many American politicians have ridden the coat tails of exaggerated domestic violence into office. Ms. Reno and Ms. Shalala have also been careful to use the terminology of women killed by their "intimates". Please note these statistics are designed to play upon the fact that we tend to think of all "intimates" as members of the opposite sex. This research does not subscribe to those beliefs, and domestic violence in lesbian relationships DRASTICALLY exceeds violence against women in heterosexual relationships. In fact domestic violence in Lesbian relationships drastically exceeds violence in ALL other relationships. [5]
If you want to know why it is that there is such discrepancy between the scientific data on domestic violence and the data commonly supplied to you when the special interest groups are looking for additional funds, you need only look at the model for domestic violence intervention programs adopted by all fifty states. This model lays out in great detail how a prosecutor should use threats of perjury to compel a witness to testify who wishes to recant. See page 99 of the Virginia publication: Report of the Commission on Family Violence Prevention (Senate Document No. 17, 1999). Yet there is NO corresponding instruction to prosecute for perjury in cases of false allegations, and in fact I can find NOT EVEN ONE SUCH CASE in this entire state.
As the above document lays out the basic requirements to receive Federal funding, it states in item A. 1: "Family abuse is a crime rather than the result of or response to a failing relationship." Frankly this is a blatant lie. Almost ALL-domestic violence occurs after the separation of the parties, and until recently (the last one hundred years) MOST societies still considered such acts to be a capital offense:
Bruce A. Chadwick and Tim B. Heaton, The Statistical Handbook on the American Family (Oryx Press, 1992), p. 260-262:
* 58% of serious physical altercations are initiated by the wife (as was admitted by women).
* 96% of domestic violence occurs after the date of separation (read: the family is not the problem, the custody and asset war most certainly is).
Wife is usually the one injured in the altercation (69%).
The Model Program standards mentioned above go on to say in paragraph 5, "Any treatment provider who blames the victim... is in violation of these standards." Is it any wonder that there would be conflicts in data from these "battered women" programs? They are instructed to lie. I wish I could call it something else, but when you are told that in order to continue to receive Federal grant money, you must avoid blaming the victim, then you are lying. Even if a woman is suspected of filing false claims it can not be reported.
Consider if a woman goes to a shelter and tells them that she came home drunk from a night out on the town with the "girls", and that when her husband asked her where she'd been she kicked him in the groin, smashed a nearby lamp over his head, and that as she turned around to pick up something else to hit him with, he stood up and punched her so hard she was knocked unconscious. The husband was worried so he called 911. He ends up in jail, and she ends up at a shelter. If this story is relayed to the caseworker at the shelter, the caseworker can not blame the woman. She can not tell this woman she has a problem with alcohol, violence, and anger, all she can tell her is "it isn't your fault that you were battered." Do you recall the story a few pages ago about the woman who beat her husband for 13 years? This is why they told her she "was the victim" when she got into treatment. I know this sounds ridiculous, but frankly, I'm not the one writing these laws and policies.

Sexual Abuse by Gender
Several studies show that homosexuals consistently account for
between one-third and one-half of all cases of child molestation, according to
John Leo. "A New Furor over Pedophilia." Time Magazine, January 17, 1983, page 47, and, Institute for the Scientific Study of Sexuality. "Child Molestation and Homosexuality." Lincoln, Nebraska, 1984. As well as, Paul Cameron. "Homosexual Molestation of Children/Sexual Interaction of Teacher and Pupil." Psychological Reports, 1985, 57, pages 1,227 to 1,236.
If we know that almost half the sexual child abuse is perpetrated by homosexuals, and that almost 30% of all child sexual abuse is perpetrated by women, then why do groups such as the National Organization of Women champion the rights of homosexuals they way they do. Homosexuals comprise about 1.6% of this country’s population, yet commit HALF the sexual child abuse. Why does a group like N.O.W. support the rights of homosexuals on one hand, and on the other hand vilify fathers as child molesters? I call your attention to a page from NOW’s website:







Lesbian Rights Are Women's Rights

"When my ex-husband challenged the custody of my children because I am a lesbian, my years of activism in NOW and the women's movement were returned a hundred fold."

--Rosemary Dempsey, a long-time National NOW leader who won a precedent-setting lesbian custody case

"For lesbians of color, homophobia is compounded by race and sex discrimination. I am glad to see NOW linking all of the issues that are under attack by the radical right, as it gives us a perfect opportunity to bring together people with common goals."

--Mandy Carter, one of the nation's leading African-American lesbians fighting the radical right and a member of NOW's National Lesbian Rights Committee.

"As a lawyer and an activist, I know that changing laws isn't enough. We've got to work together to end the culture of discrimination."

-- Susan Mackenzie, attorney at law and National NOW Board Member.

"NOW's organizing was instrumental in our successful campaign to add sexual orientation to the White House Conference on Aging's non-discrimination policy."

--Del Martin, early NOW leader and author of Lesbian Woman with Phyllis Lyon.

"Any women who is or has ever been active in the feminist movement knows that the question isn't whether you will be called a lesbian, but rather when. It's a divide and conquer tactic designed to stop us from pursuing power."

--Lisa Tiger, Native American AIDS activist.(Quicktime clip from Rally for Women's Lives speech)

"I am a young lesbian, a feminist and an activist. NOW provided a safe and empowering place for me to be who I am."

--Amy Drayer, co-president, Scripps College NOW.



You and your girlfriend are holding hands on a busy street. A man shoves you and spits out a threat. You are both shaken, but aren't comfortable going to the police.

  • Your 65 year-old aunt is in intensive care. You and your husband visit but you notice that her partner never does. When you ask why, she tells you that the hospital only allows immediate family. Your aunt's partner can only see her if she pretends to be her sister.
  • Your daughter decides not to try out for her school basketball team because she overhears other students calling the players "dykes". She loves the sports, but fears the taunting of her classmates.

You avoid conversations with your office colleagues so you don't have to discuss your lover. You wouldn't dream of having a photo of her on your desk or bringing her to the office holiday party. You're attracted to other girls at school, but there's no one for you to talk to. You're afraid you'll lose your friends and your parents will kick you out of the house. You're fired from your job of 25 years because your boss finds out that you are a lesbian. When you call a lawyer to sue for reinstatement, you're shocked to find you have no legal protection against such discrimination.



We're Working To Stop The Hate.

NOW is the largest feminist organization in this country working for lesbian rights. The day-in, day-out activism of NOW's quarter of a million members and hundreds of chapters makes a difference.

We mobilize our powerful grassroots activists to defeat anti-lesbian and gay ballot measures and legislation. We press members of Congress and the administration to prosecute hate crimes and outlaw employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. We organize record-breaking marches to protest the radical right wing and their hateful agenda. We advocate for women who are driven out of the military by lesbian-baiting and military witch-hunts. We champion important advance such as same-sex marriage and funding for lesbian health issues. We need your help NOW.



Show You Support Equal Rights...

....for all women. To win those rights, we need to outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation. We need to stop the violence that keeps many of us silent for fear of being known or perceived as lesbian, gay, or bisexual. More of us need to tell the truth about our lives and make it clear that homophobia is a social disease.

We need legal recognition of all of our families. We need the same rights to health, pension and tax benefits as heterosexual couples. We need to stop bigoted judges who take children away from nurturing lesbian mother.

Regardless of your sexual orientation, we urge you to stand united against discrimination. By simply joining NOW or buying feminist products from our catalog, you help give us the clout and money we need to champion these issues. Contact your local NOW chapter to find out about their action plans to stop the hate.

Join NOW, where lesbian rights have been a national priority since 1975. Do it for yourself--and for girls and women everywhere. If you click Join NOW, you can DO IT NOW.


Return to NOW Home Page / Join NOW / Search NOW / Send NOW Mail

As members of Congress, I urge you to ask yourself this question:
If The National Organization of Women supports lesbians-- the group who is statistically most likely to violently assault a woman, AND they support the group (homosexuals) who are as much as 3000 TIMES more likely to molest children than heterosexuals; then can you REALLY believe that they are seeking to protect women and children when they bring you such gender biased, family hating legislation as VAWA?
After years of research I have NO reason to believe that the National Organization for Women has the slightest care about the welfare of women and children. They seek to spread lies through the halls of Congress and the halls of justice, so that they can forward their propaganda that destroys children and families. Any rational attempt to discuss reality with this group appears to be met with personal attacks in the public arena.
Yet the lies of this group are spreading faster than widefire, and their supporters have assumed key roles in every segment of our government. At a meeting for clinicians sponored by the Virginia Department of Health's, Fatherhood Campaign, I was handed a fact sheet prepared by Rebecca K. Odor, Director, Virginia Sexual Assault Prevention program, which states at the very top "97% of all sexual assaults are perpetrated by men." As you can see plainly, this is a lie. This is government tax dollars-- state and FEDERAL tax dollars-- paying for the spread of propaganda that not only demeans and degrades men, but puts children at serious risk because it diverts money away from the solutions and contributes to the problem.
The problem is lack of understanding of the dangers of child sexual abuse. Again, I must ask: Can this woman, who is supposed to be the leading expert on sexual crime prevention in the Commonwealth of Virginia, who has the very resources of the state at her disposal, be this mistaken? Or is this just another case of hard earned tax dollars paying to DESTROY our children?
Furthermore this propaganda diverts resources away from the protection of children. When the heads of approximately 60 social service agencies in one state are handed lies dressed as fact, and then go back to put in place programs, funded by Federal tax dollars, that target male perpetrators and ignore the fact that it is almost as likely that children are being sexually abused by women, then the government has paid to put OUR children in danger. And the government has paid for it through VAWA grants and the like.
Certainly in this country there is no need to stigmatize homosexuals further, but there is a need to accept the truth. That truth is that many child molesters are women, and that most child molesters are homosexuals. If this is the case then why do we have the "witch hunt" for fathers described by West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Workman in the following opinion:
"We now have a system in which a female parent need only scream child abuse in a loud voice to keep the male parent from seeing a child. Indeed, sexual abuse these days seems to arouse all the hysteria that was associated with witchcraft in yesteryear. In fact, it has even spawned a witch-huntingesque cottage industry, to-wit badly trained, ideological rape trauma experts, rape counselors, bachelor level pseudo-psychologists, social activists, and other assorted species of Jacklegs. I am a firm believer that the best interests of the child are paramount, but that does not mean never allowing a father to see his children when the evidence preponderates on his behalf even though, like an accused witch, he cannot clear himself beyond any shadow of a doubt. Continuous yelling and screaming of an accusation does not make that accusation any more true."
521; 1992 W. Va. LEXIS 76].
These are questions which the American people are demanding answers to-- answers only Congress can provide. Consider the list below of recent articles from around the world pertaining to the "blindness" of the government in addressing these issues. Indeed the world is looking (as usual) to the United States of America for a solution.
U.S. Top Court Considers Violence Against Women Law, Reuters, January 11, 2000
David Grossack 28 M.L.W. 930 (Federal Suit against Massachusetts Domestic Violence "fraud"), MASSACHUSETTS LAWYERS WEEKLY, December 27, 1999
Feminists Play the Victim Game, The New York Times, Cathy Young, November 26, 1999
Arrests of Women Increase Under Calif. Domestic Violence Law, The Washington Post (via Associated Press), author?, November 26, 1999, page A11
Senator Calls For a 'Change of Attitude' in Restraining Order Wars, The Massachusetts News (The Beacon Hill Beat), author?, November 24, 1999
Hitting below the belt, (Easy to get, hellish to deal with, restraining orders have become the ultimate weapon in domestic disputes), Mothers who think, Cathy Young, October 25, 1999
Women are at least as violent as men, but the evidence is everywhere being dismissed or ignored, The Sunday Times (Britain), Melanie Phillips, October 24, 1999
Man-bashing, Ottowa Citizen, author?, July 15, 1999, and again August 10, 1999
Women emerge as aggressors in Alberta survey (67% of women questioned say they started severe conflicts), National Post, Brad Evenson and Carol Milstone, July 10, 1999
Men aren't the only abusers, The Orlando Sentinel, Kathleen Parker, June 27, 1999
Hitting the Wall, (After 20 years of domestic violence research, scientists can't avoid hard facts), Mother Jones Magazine, Nancy Updike, May/June 1999
WHY IS DADDY IN JAIL?, The Washington Times, May 15, 1999
Claims of husband-beating gain prominence, Brown University, Alice Lovejoy, October 1997
Domestic abuse: It’s not always his fault, Scripps Howard News Service, Betsy Hart, 8/18/97
It's Always His Fault,The Women's Quarterly, Sally L. Satel, M.D., Summer 1997 #12
Spouse Abuse a Two-Way Street , USA Today, Warren Farrell Ph.D., June 29, 1994
Researcher Claims Abuse Shelter Advocates Make the Problem Worse, Washington Times, Joyce Price, Jan 31, 1994
Women Abuse Men: It’s More Widespread Than People Think,The Washington Post, Armin A. Brott. M.D., December 28, 1993
Notwithstanding the glaring truth, special interest groups, bent on the destruction of families at all cost, still circulate items such as this recent message:

"In a stunning defeat for women this week, the Supremes invalidated a
small portion of the Violence Against Women Act (but NOT its programs or
services), declaring that gender-motivated violence is not economic -
even though the cost to women is estimated at $3 billion a year. The ruling
was 5-4, carried by the conservative majority.
The next President
will appoint at least two more judges -- 'nuff said."

-- The Washington Feminist Faxnet

May 19, 2000

This represents that blatant dissemination of lies in an attempt to subvert the democratic process. The "truth" is the greatest fear of these presure groups, so they twart it at all costs. These messages of propaganda are blatantly spread by government tax dollars, as is pointed out in the article below:

Feminist Ideology Dominates Perpetrator Programs

It's Always His Fault

© 1997 by Sally L. Satel,M.D.
Psychiatrist and lecturer at the Yale School of Medicine

Increasingly, public officials are buying into Gloria Steinem's assertion that "the patriarchy requires violence or the subliminal threat of violence in order to maintain itself." They are deciding that the perpetrators of domestic violence don't so much need to be punished, or even really counseled, but instead indoctrinated in what are called "profeminist" treatment programs. And they are spending tax dollars to pay for these programs.


The government of the People of the United States of America is funding the subversion of itself. If patriarchy requires violence, then why are women as violent or more violent then men? The answer has nothing to do with violence. This isn’t a "war against the violent patriarchs" it is a war against a societal form of government founded in patriarchy… by those esteemed men we call our Founding FATHERS. This is the war that VAWA fights-- a war against the principles and values entrusted us by the framers of our Constitution, but VAWA is ON THE WRONG SIDE. VAWA does not protect women or children, VAWA DESTROYS them. [6]

This is a war against families. Consider the quotes below from the leaders of the rebellion against America, and from the feminist leaders who fight for VAWA. They know too well how effective VAWA is, and they also know what it is used for:

From Sisterhood Is Powerful, Robin Morgan (Ed), 1970, p. 537:

"We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy


Barbara Findlen, "Is Marriage the Answer?" Ms Magazine, May~June,


"Feminists have long criticized marriage as a place of oppression, danger, and drudgery for women."

Roxanne Dunbar in Female Liberation: How will the family unit be


"[T]he demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into

question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work

with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave

their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare."

Lenore Walker, after visiting one of the early shelters for battered

Women, as cited in The Battered Woman, p.195: "I was struck by what a

beneficial alternative to the nuclear family this arrangement

[communal housing and child raising] was for these women and children."

Linda Gordon, "Functions of the Family," WOMEN: A Journal of

Liberation, Fall, 1969: The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must Find better ways of living together.... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the Break up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process....

No woman should have to deny herself any opportunities because of her

Special responsibilities to her children.... Families will be finally

Destroyed only when a revolutionary social and economic organization permits people's needs for love and security to be met in ways that do not impose divisions of labor, or any external roles, at all.

However, missing from the feminist plan to destroy marriages and families is the truth of what good marriage creates. Marriage does not only serve as the natural and BEST place to raise children, but it also has benefits to the overall wellbeing of people that even translates into life expectancy!

A study in the American Journal of Sociology finds married couples have longer life -spans than unmarried people. The authors concluded that "for both sexes, the hazard of dying falls significantly with marital duration, suggesting a culmination of the benefits of marriage over time." And these researchers said their findings came as no surprise. "The relationship between marriage and death rates has now reached the status of a truism, having been observed across numerous societies and various social and demographic groups." Lee A. Lillard and Linda J. Waite. "'Til Death Do Us Part': Marital Disruption and Mortality." American Journal of Sociology 100 (1995). Pp. 1131-1156..
The feminist pressure groups would still have you believe that this doesn’t apply to most women. And since this paper is focused on domestic violence, it is appropriate to take a look at violence within marriages. When we consider all acts of violence against women, separated or divorced women are THIRTY TIMES MORE LIKELY to become victims of violence than married or widowed women. And never-married women are at least four times more likely to become crime victims, according to: "Crime in the United States 1992." U.S. Department of Justice. Federal Bureau of Investigation. 3 October 1993: 23 & 58; "Highlights from 20 Years of Surveying Crime Victims: The National Crime Victimization Survey, 1973-1992." U.S. Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics: 9.
Again, are we to believe that the feminist groups who have swindled Congress out of billions of dollars to research these issues have not found these truths? Have the Attorney General of the United States and the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services been denied the information contained in these government documents? Are they less capable than I, an untrained layman? I think not. It is selective blindness that has allowed billions of U.S. tax dollars to be used to destroy millions of families because it fits into the destructive plan of an immoral minority.
While I believe strongly in equal rights for women, both from an intellectual and religious basis, I cannot close my eyes to what modern feminism has brought to this country. The NOW’s campaigns for sexual immorality, sexual perversion, and sexual revolution have wrought a price this country CANNOT afford. Consider the work of Pitirim Sorokin in his book, The American Sex Revolution. (Boston: Porter Sargent Publishers. 1956.)
After analyzing studies of cultures spanning several thousands of years on several continents, this Harvard sociologist found that virtually all political revolutions that brought about societal collapse were preceded by a sexual revolution in which marriage and family were devalued.
So why would all these "feminists" seek to destroy marriage and family? Because they seek to undermine the social, economic, and political makeup of this country. Step one was to offer women "greener grass on the other side" through divorce, unwed births, and welfare, then to create the abusive, deadbeat dad myth to enslave men through welfare reform and government re-education. Consider that the groups YOU HAVE BEEN CATERING TO FOR THE LAST THREE DECADES, openly profess to seek the destruction of this great countries way of life.
Robert Cheney supplies the following information in his book, "Suffering Patriarchy", 1999, Ascension Press, New York, NY:
"...Ellen Wilkinson, ...had served her political apprenticeship in the feminist and peace movements, and in the communist party." [pp. 123, A century of Women.]
"Anna Louise Strong, doctor in philosophy, campaigner for child welfare and Socialist Party member, appeared to be the epitome of radical progressivism ... (she) found herself facing empty tables at the American Unions against militarism: 'The respactable members were retutning to war work. The President's of the Women's Clubs were swinging behind the Prseident." Only a handful of Socialists, Anarchists, and industrial workers of the world-- "Wobblies" remained. [pp. 91, A century of Women.]
"Cristal Eastman in contrast, challenged the mainstream as a Socialist-Feminist." [pp. 97, A century of Women.]
"Socialists and Anarchists who continued in opposition were severely persecuted, when Emma Goldman organized the No- Conscription League, the government arrested every young men attending the meeting." [pp. 100, A century of Women.]
"...In Europe (Margaret Sanger) researched the history and practice of birth control, meeting writers on sex psychology like Edward Carpenter and Havelock Ellis, with whom she had a love affair. She also made friends with anarchists and socialist advocate of birth control Rose Witlop, her companion Guy Aldred, and Stella Browne. Havelock Ellis was, however, to convince her that the cause of sexual reform would be best served by separating it from the left. Sanger's supporters in the United States tended to be linked to the Socialist Party, the Industrial Workers of the World, or the Anarchist circles." [pp. 111, A century of Women.]
"The Socialist-Feminist journalist and agitator, Agnes Smedley, for example, was arrested in 1918 because of her support for Indian nationalists as well as birth control, bringing Margaret Sanger to her defense." [pp. 112, A century of Women.]
"In 1922...the Anarchist Rose Witcop and her companion Guy Witcop...[along] with these Socialist and Anarchist women gained support not only from men who were anxious to leave their families, but also from radicals committed to sexual liberation. For example, Harry Wicks describes in his autobiography, Keeping My Head, how birth control and free love were part of the Battersea Socialist movement, along with vivsection and vaccination." [pp. 140, A century of Women.]
"Egalitarian in theory if not in practice, the party attracted numerous women like Dorothy Healey. Healey joined the Young Communist League (YCL) when she was fourteen and went on to serve as the leader of the Los Angeles district Communist Party for over twenty years." [Second to none, Vol. II, by Ruth Barnes Moynihan and Cyntia Russet Copyright 1993, The University of Nebraska Press.]
Lest you think this trend toward socialiism and communism is a thing of the past-- from an era when many young Americans were intrigued with the writings of Marx-- I would point out that it is easier to find "card carrying communists" within the feminist movement today than ever before.
"For months we have been having conversations with each other trying to work out where we stand as bisexuals. It probably doesn't sound that difficult, but our bisexuality is often construed by others as being at odds with the rest of who we are -- queer socialist-feminists in academia" [Bisexuality And How To Use It: Toward a Coalitional Identity Politics, Annalee Newitz and Jillian Sandell, Bad Subjects, Issue # 16, October 1994 ]
Queer--Socialist--Feminists--in Academia. I can’t think of a greater insult to pronounce upon someone in this country, yet this pair seems to claim those titles with pride. This is who is spending your BILLIONS from VAWA grants. Queer--Socialist-- Feminists--In Academia. The list above can go on for pages. What we call "feminism" and support in the way of a war against domestic violence, is in reality a war against America itself. VAWA is not designed to fund protective measures for women and children. If this was the case then VAWA, and indeed the goal of the National Organization of Women, would be geared toward returning women and children to the ABSOLUTE safest place on earth for them… an intact, two-parent home.
VAWA was designed to subvert democracy in the United States of America. There has been a war raging for most of the last century to overthrow the common decency and morality that made the U.S. stand out as a beacon on a hill.
This socialist thought has been spread throughout our high schools and college campuses via "developmental psychology" and "gender re-education". While the words "socialism" and "communism" are not always applied, the underlying doctrines behind them are. When the First Lady of the United States of America is trumpeting, "It Takes a Village to Raise a Child," and citing the same communal villages that Marx drew from when developing his Communist Manifesto; and when millions of Americans see nothing wrong with the fact that over 20 million of our children do not have a father in their life and are being raised in "day care" centers; then it is time for us to acknowledge the truth. This country has become the epitome of what Karl Marx envisioned. The Clinto Administration has ushered in the blind masses crying "economic prosperity" while their neighbors on each side crumble under the oppression of tyranny.
As a divorced (against my will), non custodial (against my will) father, I vacillated between laughter and tears as I watched many of you stand up to shout that we could not let little Elian Gonzales go back to the indoctrination camps of Cuba. I hope that you will take a GOOD look around you at the GIANT, GOVERNMENT FUNDED, COMMUNIST INDOCTRINATION CAMP, THAT WE CALL AMERICA. As a twentieth century American father I can assure you that the re-education camps of Cuba have nothing on family courts working in conjunction with the public school system in this country.
We have now--successfully-- taught well over half the children in this country that family means absolutely nothing except a way to get a new Nintendo machine. We have assured them that two cars in the garage are more important than two parents in the home. We have successfully taught them that justice is for sale to whoever can lie the best or spend the most. We have taught our sons from birth that they are naturally prone to violence and will one day be a threat to their family, then blame Hollywood and Smith&Wesson when one of them acts like he was told he would. We have trained our daughters to believe that men are so violent and repulsive that now homosexuality between teenage girls has become fashionable. Most importantly we have indoctrinated our children to believe that the promises and vows they make when they grow up are as worthless as the promises and vows their parents made when they were young.
A "communistic" environment cannot effectively thrive in a society with strong family ties. This is due to the fact that the necessary symbiotic relationship must form equally between families, not just the members of those families, and this is impractical in the real world. Families protected this country through two world wars, a civil war, a great depression, and the slow tide of Communism that swept the face of the earth. I dare say this country will fall if we see the economic collapse that many economists say is eminent. With over half the children born in this country last year being born in single mother households who would support these families in another "great depression"? If the "dead-beat" dads suddenly multiply by over a thousand, as was the case in the great depression, who will pull these dads out of a soup line to put them in jail? Will we "garnish" their bowl of soup, or put a locking "boot" on their cardboard box so they can’t move it? Perhaps we can "pressure" them into paying by posting their name in the newspaper they will SLEEP under. It seems that no one happened to think that far ahead when the polls were showing that "being easy on divorce and tough on dead beat dads" was getting people elected.
It has already been CONCLUSIVELY confirmed that over 80% of the so-called "dead beat dads" in this country make less than $7000 a year. For many of them jail is a step up and a new beginning. Yet as we placed this country on the road to destruction, the premise that the best thing you can give a child is a family was replaced my greed and propaganda.
In order for the true communal society envisioned by Marx to exist, it must first destroy the "family" unit in favor of "individuals". It is a divide and conquer technique. It is the same as what many of you accused Fidel Castro of with his "communist youth camps".
When individuals no longer see their family as their primary "micro-society" then they are left with only the option of being absorbed into the social community created by the state. Hence the state MUST become responsible for society as a whole, dictating not only morality, but "watch-dogging" society as Orwell foretold in his book, "1984". The term "Parens Patriae" has now been applied to extend to all members of the country since without "the state as parent" there would be no order. Millions cry out against "big government" without realizing that big government has become a necessity until we once again return to our democratic roots.
You cannot have family values when you refuse to value families. Until we return again to strong families that teach their children their values we will continue to see more and more discord as the government tries to dictate values to a populace as varied in beliefs as they are in backgrounds. The phrase, "just wait till your father gets home," has taken on a whole new meaning since my mother used it to my brother and I as boys. Now father is never coming home and accountability and responsibility have ceased to exist beyond government regulation.
Consider the effects of modern feminism/socialism on American Society:
1, Diminished Constitutional protections
2, Break down in family structure
3, Usurpation of parental rights in favor of a "state as parent" mentality
4, Dramatically escalating tax burdens so the masses may be benefited
5, Establishment of State "religion" based in Humanist philosophy identical to that outlined in the Communist Manifesto
6, Effective control of ALL branches of the government at state, local, and Federal levels through the use of propaganda and lies. "By controlling a person's beliefs, you can control their actions."
7, Massive transfer of wealth from one class of citizen to another, based in escalating divorce rates and statutory guidelines for child support and spousal support that discriminate between married and unmarried persons, and insure that the "elite" maintain enough fiscal stability to continue their war.
8, Dramatic increases in crime and prison populations now exceeding 2 million, with an expected increase in violent crime of over 60% within the next ten years.
9, Impending economic collapse that, unless addressed quickly, will only be overcome by adopting a socialist perspective.
While America slept, it was invaded and conquered my modern Socialists parading as "feminists". I should point out that many of them were not women, but men. Their goal is not the protection of women and children. They are in fact putting women and children at risk. Their goal is not to strengthen this country, but to destroy it. AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS FUNDING THIS DESTRUCTION THROUGH NUMEROUS GRANTS AND FUNDING MEASURES SUCH AS VAWA.
Not everyone who believes in women’s rights is a socialist. That isn’t the point. The point is that the leadership is and always has been. They spread propaganda and lies so that the masses will join in the fight. All patriotic Americans cringe at the thought of women and children being abused and exploited. Women and children should be protected-- perhaps even more so than men-- but the feminist propaganda machine has not sought to protect women and children, it has sought to exploit them. They routinely brand anyone who challenges them as a "patriarchal control freak that would keep women bare foot and pregnant" or worse they accuse you of being "soft" on domestic violence.
They have had a stranglehold on America, in that anyone who has stood up to them has been painted as a victimizer of women and children. They have held women and children out in front of them as a shield so they could be free to advance their twisted beliefs. They have not cared that they are leaving millions of broken and defeated men, women, and children in their wake.
If you want to protect women, strike down VAWA. Strike every bit of it. Convene exhaustive congressional hearings to investigate ALL the matters outlined in this paper and find the TRUTH that can set America free again. Then propose new legislation, which focuses on protecting ALL Americans by strengthening families and preventing violence. The day will come when America will look back to this day and critique the decisions you make. I leave you with this quote:
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands
which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity
forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams
Thank you and God Bless,
Brad Ingram, Chairman
National Cry for Children
[1] Remarks of Stephen Baskerville, Professor of Political Sciences on Nov. 7, 1999, addressing the American public gathered for National Cry for Children function in Washington DC.
Martin S. Fiebert
Department of Psychology
California State University, Long Beach
SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 95 scholarly investigations, 79 empirical studies and 16 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 60,000.
Aizenman, M., & Kelley, G. (1988). The incidence of violence and acquaintance rape in dating relationships among college men and women. Journal of College Student Development, 29, 305-311. (A sample of actively dating college students <204 women and 140 men> responded to a survey examining courtship violence. Authors report that there were no significant differences between the sexes in self reported perpetration of physical abuse.)
Archer, J., & Ray, N. (1989). Dating violence in the United Kingdom: a preliminary study. Aggressive Behavior, 15, 337-343. (Twenty three dating couples completed the Conflict Tactics scale. Results indicate that women were significantly more likely than their male partners to express physical violence. Authors also report that, "measures of partner agreement were high" and that the correlation between past and present violence was low.)
Arias, I., Samios, M., & O'Leary, K. D. (1987). Prevalence and correlates of physical aggression during courtship. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2, 82-90. (Used Conflict Tactics Scale with a sample of 270 undergraduates <95 men, 175 women> and found 30% of men and 49% of women reported using some form of aggression in their dating histories with a greater percentage of women engaging in severe physical aggression.)
Arias, I., & Johnson, P. (1989). Evaluations of physical aggression among intimate dyads. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 4, 298-307. (Used Conflict Tactics Scale-CTS- with a sample of 103 male and 99 female undergraduates. Both men and women had similar experience with dating violence, 19% of women and 18% of men admitted being physically aggressive. A significantly greater percentage of women thought self-defense was a legitimate reason for men to be aggressive, while a greater percentage of men thought slapping was a legitimate response for a man or woman if their partner was sexually unfaithful.)
Bernard, M. L., & Bernard, J. L. (1983). Violent intimacy: The family as a model for love relationships. Family Relations, 32, 283-286. (Surveyed 461 college students, 168 men, 293 women, with regard to dating violence. Found that 15% of the men admitted to physically abusing their partners, while 21% of women admitted to physically abusing their partners.)
Billingham, R. E., & Sack, A. R. (1986). Courtship violence and the interactive status of the relationship. Journal of Adolescent Research, 1, 315-325. (Using CTS with 526 university students <167 men, 359 women> found Similar rates of mutual violence but with women reporting higher rates of violence initiation when partner had not--9% vs 3%.)
Bland, R., & Orne, H. (1986). Family violence and psychiatric disorder. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 31, 129-137. (In interviews with 1,200 randomly selected Canadians <489 men, 711 women> found that women both engaged in and initiated violence at higher rates than their male partners.)
Bookwala, J., Frieze, I. H., Smith, C., & Ryan, K. (1992). Predictors of dating violence: A multivariate analysis. Violence and Victims, 7, 297-311. (Used CTS with 305 college students <227 women, 78 men> and found that 133 women and 43 men experienced violence in a current or recent dating relationship. Authors reports that "women reported the expression of as much or more violence in their relationships as men." While most violence in relationships appears to be mutual--36% reported by women, 38% by men-- women report initiating violence with non violent partners more frequently than men <22% vs 17%>).
Brinkerhoff, M., & Lupri, E. (1988). Interspousal violence. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 13, 407-434. (Examined interspousal violence in a representative sample of 562 couples in Calgary, Canada. Used Conflict Tactics Scale and found twice as much wife-to-husband as husband-to-wife severe violence <10.7% vs 4.8%>. The overall violence rate for husbands was 10.3% while the overall violence rate for wives was 13.2%. Violence was significantly higher in younger and childless couples. Results suggest that male violence decreased with higher educational attainment, while female violence increased.)
Brush, L. D. (1990). Violent Acts and injurious outcomes in married couples: Methodological issues in the National Survey of Families and Households. Gender & Society, 4, 56-67. (Used the Conflict Tactics scale in a large national survey, n=5,474, and found that women engage in same amount of spousal violence as men.)
Brutz, J., & Ingoldsby, B. B. (1984). Conflict resolution in Quaker families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 46, 21-26. (Used Conflict Tactics Scale with a sample of 288 Quakers <130 men, 158 women> and found a slightly higher rate of female to male violence <15.2%> than male to female violence <14.6%>.)
Burke, P. J., Stets, J. E., & Pirog-Good, M. A. (1988). Gender identity, self-esteem, and physical and sexual abuse in dating relationships. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, 272-285. (A sample of 505 college students <298 women, 207 men> completed the CTS. Authors reports that they found "no significant difference between men and women in reporting inflicting or sustaining physical abuse." Specifically, within a one year period they found that 14% of the men and 18% of the women reported inflicting physical abuse, while 10% of the men and 14% of the women reported sustaining physical abuse.
Carlson, B. E. (1987). Dating violence: a research review and comparison with spouse abuse. Social Casework, 68, 16-23. (Reviews research on dating violence and finds that men and women are equally likely to aggress against their partners and that "the frequency of aggressive acts is inversely related to the likelihood of their causing physical injury.")
Carrado, M., George, M. J., Loxam, E., Jones, L., & Templar, D. (1996). Aggression in British heterosexual relationships: a descriptive analysis. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 401-415. (In a representative sample of British men <n=894> and women <n=971> it was found, using a modified version of the CTS, that 18% of the men and 13% of the women reported being victims of physical violence at some point in their heterosexual relationships. With regard to current relationships, 11% of men and 5% of women reported being victims of partner aggression.)
Cascardi, M., Langhinrichsen, J., & Vivian, D. (1992). Marital aggression: Impact, injury, and health correlates for husbands and wives. Archives of Internal Medicine, 152, 1178-1184. (Examined 93 couples seeking marital therapy. Found using the CTS and other information that 71% reported at least one incident of physical aggression in past year. While men and women were equally likely to perpetrate violence, women reported more severe injuries. Half of the wives and two thirds of the husbands reported no injuries as a result of all aggression, but wives sustained more injuries as a result of mild aggression.)
Caulfield, M. B., & Riggs, D. S. (1992). The assessment of dating aggression: Empirical evaluation of the Conflict Tactics Scale. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 4, 549-558. (Used CTS with a sample of 667 unmarried college students <268 men and 399 women> and found on a number of items significantly higher responses of physical violence on part of women. For example, 19% of women slapped their male partner while 7% of men slapped their partners, 13% of women kicked, bit, or hit their partners with a fist while only 3.1% of men engaged in this activity.)
Deal, J. E., & Wampler, K. S. (1986). Dating violence: The primacy of previous experience. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 3, 457-471. (Of 410 university students <295 women, 115 men> responding to CTS and other instruments, it was revealed that 47% experienced some violence in dating relationships. The majority of experiences were reciprocal. When not reciprocal men were three times more likely than women to report being victims. Violent experiences in previous relationships was the best predictor of violence in current relationships.)
DeMaris, A. (1992). Male versus female initiation of aggression: The case of courtship violence. In E. C. Viano (Ed.), Intimate violence: interdisciplinary perspectives. (pp. 111-120). Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis. (Examined a sample of 865 white and black college students with regard to the initiation of violence in their dating experience. Found that 218 subjects, 80 men and 118 women, had experienced or expressed violence in current or recent dating relationships. Results indicate that "when one partner could be said to be the usual initiator of violence, that partner was most often the women. This finding was the same for both black and white respondents.")
Ernst, A. A., Nick, T. G., Weiss, S. J., Houry, D., & Mills, T. (1997). Domestic violence in an inner-city ED. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 30, 190-197. (Assessed 516 patients <233 men, 283 women> in a New Orleans inner-city emergency Department with the Index of Spousal Abuse, a scale to measure domestic violence. Found that 28% of the men and 33% of the women <a nonsignificant difference>, were victims of past physical violence while 20% of the men and 19% of the women reported being current victims of physical violence. In terms of ethnicity, 82% of subjects were African-American. Authors report that there was a significant difference in the number of women vs. men who reported past abuse to the police ,19% of women, 6% of men.>)
Feather, N. T. (1996). Domestic violence, gender and perceptions of justice. Sex Roles, 35, 507-519. (Subjects <109 men, 111 women> from Adelaide, South Australia, were presented a hypothetical scenario in which either a husband or wife perpetrated domestic violence. Participants were significantly more negative in their evaluation of the husband than the wife, were more sympathetic to the wife and believed that the husband deserved a harsher penalty for his behavior.)
Fiebert, M. S., & Gonzalez, D. M. (1997). Women who initiate assaults: The reasons offered for such behavior. Psychological Reports, 80, 583-590. (A sample of 968 women, drawn primarily from college courses in the Southern California area, were surveyed regarding their initiation of physical assaults on their male partners. 29% of the women, n=285, revealed that they initiated assaults during the past five years. Women in their 20's were more likely to aggress than women aged 30 and above. In terms of reasons, women appear to aggress because they did not believe that their male victims would be injured or would retaliate. Women also claimed that they assaulted their male partners because they wished to engage their attention, particularly emotionally.)
Fiebert, M. S. (1996). College students' perception of men as victims of women's assaultive behavior. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 82, 49-50. (Three hundred seventy one college students <91 men, 280 women> were surveyed regarding their knowledge and acceptance of the research finding regarding female assaultive behavior. The majority of subjects (63%) were unaware of the finding that women assault men as frequently as men assault women; a slightly higher percentage of women than men (39% vs 32%) indicated an awareness of this finding. With regard to accepting the validity of these findings a majority of subjects (65%) endorsed such a result with a slightly higher percentage of men (70% vs 64%)indicating their acceptance of this finding.)
Flynn, C. P. (1990). Relationship violence by women: issues and implications. Family Relations, 36, 295-299. (A review/analysis article that states, "researchers consistently have found that men and women in relationships, both marital and premarital engage in comparable amounts of violence." Author also writes, "Violence by women in intimate relationships has received little attention from policy makers, the public, and until recently, researchers...battered men and abusive women have receive 'selective inattention' by both the media and researchers.")
Follingstad, D. R., Wright, S., & Sebastian, J. A. (1991). Sex differences in motivations and effects in dating violence. Family Relations, 40, 51-57. (A sample of 495 college students <207 men, 288 women> completed the CTS and other instruments including a "justification of relationship violence measure." The study found that women were twice as likely to report perpetrating dating violence as men. Female victims attributed male violence to a desire to gain control over them or to retaliate for being hit first, while men believed that female aggression was a based on their female partner's wish to "show how angry they were and to retaliate for feeling emotionally hurt or mistreated.")
Gelles, R. J. (1994). Research and advocacy: Can one wear two hats? Family Process, 33, 93-95. (Laments the absence of objectivity on the part of "feminist" critics of research demonstrating female perpetrated domestic violence.)
George, M. J. (1994). Riding the donkey backwards: Men as the unacceptable victims of marital violence. Journal of Men's Studies, 3, 137-159. (A thorough review of the literature which examines findings and issues related to men as equal victims of partner abuse.)
Goldberg, W. G., & Tomlanovich, M. C. (1984). Domestic violence victims in the emergency department. JAMA, 251, 3259-3264. (A sample of 492 patients <275 women, 217 men> who sought treatment in an emergency department in a Detroit hospital were survey regarding their experience with domestic violence. Respondents were mostly African-American (78%), city dwellers (90%), and unemployed (60%). Victims of domestic violence numbered 107 (22%). While results indicate that 38% of victims were men and 62% were women this gender difference did not reach statistical signficance.
Gonzalez, D. M. (1997). Why females initiate violence: A study examining the reasons behind assaults on men. Unpublished master's thesis, California State University, Long Beach. (225 college women participated in a survey which examined their past history and their rationales for initiating aggression with male partners. Subjects also responded to 8 conflict scenarios which provided information regarding possible reasons for the initiation of aggression. Results indicate that 55% of the subjects admitted to initiating physical aggression toward their male partners at some point in their lives. The most common reason was that aggression was a spontaneous reaction to frustration).
Hampton, R. L., Gelles, R. J., & Harrop, J. W. (1989). Is violence in families increasing? A comparison of 1975 and 1985 National Survey rates. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 969-980. (Compared a sample of 147 African Americans from the 1975 National Survey with 576 African Americans from the 1985 National Survey with regard to spousal violence. Using the CTS found that the rate of overall violence (169/1000) of husbands to wives remained the same from 1975 to 1985, while the rate of overall violence for wives to husbands increased 33% (153 to 204/1000) from 1975 to 1985. The rate of severe violence of husbands to wives decreased 43% (113 to 64/1000) from 1975 to 1985, while the rate of severe violence of wives to husbands increased 42% (76 to 108/1000) from 1975 to 1985. In 1985 the rate of abusive violence by black women was nearly 3 times greater than the rate of white women.)
Henton, J., Cate, R., Koval, J., Lloyd, S., & Christopher, S. (1983). Romance and violence in dating relationships. Journal of Family Issues, 4, 467-482. (Surveyed 644 high school students <351 men, 293 women> and found that abuse occurred at a rate of 121 per 1000 and appeared to be reciprocal with both partners initiating violence at similar rates.)
Jouriles, E. N., & O'leary, K. D. (1985). Interpersonal reliability of reports of marital violence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 419-421. (Used the Conflict Tactics Scale with a sample of 65 couples in marriage therapy and 37 couples from the community. Found moderate levels of agreement of abuse between partners and similar rates of reported violence between partners.) Kalmuss, D. (1984). The intergenerational transmission of marital aggression. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 46, 11-19. (In a representative sample of 2,143 adults found that the rate of husband to wife severe aggression is 3.8% while the rate of wife to husband severe aggression is 4.6%.)
Kim, K., & Cho, Y. (1992). Epidemiological survey of spousal abuse in Korea. In E. C. Viano (Ed.) Intimate Violence: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. (pp. 277-282). Bristol, PA: Taylor and Francis. (Utilized the Conflict Tactics scale in interviews with a random sample of 1,316 married Koreans <707 women, 609 men>. Compared to findings with American couples, results indicate that Korean men were victimized by their wives twice as much as American men, while Korean women were victimized by their spouses three times as much as American women.)
Lane, K., & Gwartney-Gibbs, P.A. (1985). Violence in the context of dating and sex. Journal of Family Issues, 6, 45-49. (Surveyed 325 students <165 men, 160 women> regarding courtship violence. Used Conflict Tactics Scale and found equal rates of violence for men and women.)
Laner, M. R., & Thompson, J. (1982). Abuse and aggression in courting couples. Deviant Behavior, 3, 229-244. (Used Conflict Tactics Scales with a sample of 371 single individuals <129 men, 242 women> and found similar rates of male and female violence in dating relationships.)
Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., & Vivian, D. (1994). The correlates of spouses' incongruent reports of marital aggression. Journal of Family Violence, 9, 265-283. (In a clinic sample of 97 couples seeking marital therapy, authors found, using a modified version of the CTS, that 61% of the husbands and 64% of the wives were classified as aggressive, 25% of the husbands and 11% of the wives were identified as mildly aggressive and 36% of husbands and 53% of wives were classified as severely aggressive. Sixty-eight percent of couples were in agreement with regard to husband's overall level of aggression and 69% of couples were in agreement on wive's overall level of aggression. Aggression levels were identified as "nonviolent, mildly violent, or severely violent." Where there was disagreement, 65% of husbands <n=20> were under-reporting aggression and 35% of husbands <n=11> were over-reporting aggression; while 57% of wives <n=17> were under-reporting aggression and 43% of wives <n=13> were over-reporting aggression.)
Lillja, C. M. (1995). Why women abuse: A study examining the function of abused men. Unpublished master's thesis, California State University, Long Beach. (A review of the literature examining the issue of men as victims of female assaults. Includes an original questionnaire to test assumption that women who lack social support to combat stress are likely to commit domestic violence.)
Lo, W. A., & Sporakowski, M. J. (1989). The continuation of violent dating relationships among college students. Journal of College Student Development, 30, 432-439. (A sample of 422 college students completed the Conflict Tactics Scale. Found that, "women were more likely than men to claim themselves as abusers and were less likely to claim themselves as victims.")
Macchietto, J. (1992). Aspects of male victimization and female aggression: Implications for counseling men. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 14, 375-392. (Article reviews literature on male victimization and female aggression.)
Makepeace, J. M. (1986). Gender differences in courtship violence victimization. Family Relations, 35, 383-388. (A sample of 2,338 students <1,059 men, 1,279 women> from seven colleges were surveyed regarding their experience of dating violence. Courtship violence was experienced by 16.7 % of respondents. Authors report that "rates of commission of acts and initiation of violence were similar across gender." In term of injury, both men (98%) and women (92%) reported "none or mild" effects of violence.)
Malone, J., Tyree, A., & O'Leary, K. D. (1989). Generalization and containment: Different effects of past aggression for wives and husbands. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 687-697. (In a sample of 328 couples it was found that men and women engaged in similar amounts of physical aggression within their families of origin and against their spouses. However, results indicate that women were more aggressive to their partners than men. Aggression was more predictable for women, i.e., if women observed parental aggression or hit siblings they were more likely to be violent with their spouses.)
Margolin, G. (1987). The multiple forms of aggressiveness between marital partners: how do we identify them? Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 13 , 77-84. (A paid volunteer sample of 103 couples completed the Conflict Tactics Scale. It was found that husbands and wives perpetrated similar amounts of violence. Specifically, the incidence of violence, as reported by either spouse was: husband to wife =39; wife to husband =41.)
Marshall, L. L., & Rose, P. (1987). Gender, stress and violence in the adult relationships of a sample of college students. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4,
299-316. (A survey of 308 undergraduates <152 men, 156 women> revealed that 52% expressed and 62% received violence at some point in their adult relationships. Overall, women report expressing more physical violence than men. Childhood abuse emerged as a predictor of violence in adult relationships.)
Marshall, L. L., & Rose, P. (1990). Premarital violence: The impact of family of origin violence, stress and reciprocity. Violence and Victims, 5, 51-64. (454 premarital undergraduates <249 women, 205 men> completed the CTS and other scales. Overall, women reported expressing more violence than men, while men reported receiving more violence than women. Female violence was also associated with having been abused as children.)
Mason, A., & Blankenship, V. (1987). Power and affiliation motivation, stress and abuse in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 203-210. (Investigated 156 college students <48 men, 107 women> with the Thematic Apperception Test <TAT>, Life Experiences Survey and the CTS. Found that there were no significant gender differences in terms of the infliction of physical abuse. Men with high power needs were more likely to be physically abusive while highly stressed women with high needs for affiliation and low activity inhibition were the most likely to be physically abusive. Results indicate that physical abuse occurred most often among committed couples.)
Matthews, W. J. (1984). Violence in college couples. College Student Journal, 18, 150-158. (A survey of 351 college students <123 men and 228 women> revealed that 79 <22.8 %> reported at least one incident of dating violence. Both men and women ascribed joint responsibility for violent behavior and both sexes, as either recipients or expressors of aggression, interpreted violence as a form of "love.")
Maxfield, M. G. (1989). Circumstances in supplementary homicide reports: Variety and validity. Criminology, 27, 671-695. (Examines FBI homicide data from 1976 through 1985. Reports that 9,822 wives & common law wives <57%> were killed compared to 7,433 husbands and common law husbands <43%>).
McKinney, K. (1986). Measures of verbal, physical and sexual dating violence by gender. Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology, 14, 55-60. (Surveyed 163 college students, 78 men, 85 women, with a questionnaire designed to assess involvement in dating abuse. Found that 38% of women and 47% of men indicated that they were victims of physical abuse in dating relationships. Also found that 26% of women and 21% of men acknowledged that they physically assaulted their dating partners.)
McLeod, M. (1984). Women against men: An examination of domestic violence based on an analysis of official data and national victimization data. Justice Quarterly, 1, 171-193. (From a data set of 6,200 cases of spousal abuse in the Detroit area in 1978-79 found that men used weapons 25% of the time while female assailants used weapons 86% of the time, 74% of men sustained injury and of these 84% required medical care. Concludes that male victims are injured more often and more seriously than female victims.)
McNeely, R. L., & Mann, C. R. (1990). Domestic violence is a human issue. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5, 129-132. (A review article which discusses the findings that women are more prone than men to engage in severely violent acts and that "classifying spousal violence as a women's issue rather than a human issue is erroneous.")
McNeely, R. L., & Robinson-Simpson, G. (1987). The truth about domestic violence: A falsely framed issue. Social Work, 32, 485-490. (A review article which concludes that women are as violent as men in domestic relationships.)
Mercy, J. A., & Saltzman, L. E. (1989). Fatal violence among spouses in the United States, 1975-85. American Journal of Public Health, 79, 595-599. (Examined FBI figures regarding spousal homicides. During the 10 year period from 1975 to 1985 found higher murder rates of wives than husbands <43.4% vs 56.6%>. Black husbands were at the greatest risk of victimization. Spousal homicide among blacks was 8.4 times higher than that of whites. Spouse homicide rates were 7.7 times higher in interracial marriages and the risk of victimization for both whites and blacks increased as age differences between spouses increased. Wives and husbands were equally likely to be killed by firearms <approximately 72% of the time> while husbands were more likely to be stabbed and wives more likely to bludgeoned to death. Arguments apparently escalated to murder in 67% of spouse homicides.)
Mihalic, S. W., & Elliot, D. (1997). A social learning theory model of marital violence. Journal of Family Violence, 12, 21-46. (Based on data from the National Youth Survey <see Morse, 1995> a social learning model of marital violence for men and women was tested. For men ethnicity, prior victimization, stress and marital satisfaction predicted both perpetration and experience of minor violence. With regard to serious violence ethnicity, prior victimization, marital satisfaction predicted men's experience of marital violence, while ethnicity, class and sex role attitudes predicted the perpetration of male marital violence. For women the most important predictor of the experience of both minor and serious marital violence was marital satisfaction, class was also a predictor. With regard to female perpetrators of marital violence the witnessing of parental violence was an important predictor along with class and marital satisfaction. The social learning model worked better for women than men.)
Morse, B. J. (1995). Beyond the Conflict Tactics Scale: Assessing gender differences in partner violence. Violence and Victims, 10 (4) 251-272. (Data was analyzed from the National Youth Survey, a longitudinal study begun in 1976 with 1,725 subjects who were drawn from a probability sample of households in the United States and who, in 1976, were between the ages of 11-17. This study focused on violence as assessed by the CTS between male and female married or cohabiting respondents during survey years 1983 <n=1,496>, 1986 <n=1,384>, 1989 <n=1,436>, and 1992 <n=1,340>. For each survey year the prevalence rates of any violence and severe violence were significantly higher for female to male than for male to female. For example, in 1983 the rate of any violence male to female was 36.7, while the rate of any violence female to male was 48; in 1986, the rate of severe violence male to female was 9.5, while the rate of severe violence female to male was 22.8. In 1992, the rate of any violence male to female was 20.2, with a severe violence rate male to female of 5.7; while the rate of any violence female to male was 27.9, with a severe violence rate female to male of 13.8. Author notes that the decline in violence over time is attributed to the increase in age of the subjects. Results reveal <p. 163> that over twice as many women as men reported assaulting a partner who had not assaulted them during the study year." In 1986 about 20% of both men and women reported that assaults resulted in physical injuries. In other years women were more likely to self report personal injuries.)
Mwamwenda, T. S. (1997). Husband Battery among the Xhosa speaking people of Transkei, South Africa. Unpublished manuscript, University of Transkei, S. A. (Surveyed a sample of 138 female and 81 male college students in Transkei, South Africa, regarding their witnessing husbanding battery. Responses reveal that 2% of subjects saw their mother beat their father, 18% saw or heard female relatives beating their husbands, and 26% saw or heard female neighbors beating their husbands.)
Nisonoff, L., & Bitman, I. (1979). Spouse abuse: Incidence and relationship to selected demographic variables. Victimology, 4, 131-140. (In a sample of 297 telephone survey respondents <112 men, 185 women> found that 15.5% of men and 11.3% of women report having hit their spouse, while 18.6% of men and 12.7% of women report having been hit by their spouse.)
O'Keeffe, N. K., Brockopp, K., & Chew, E. (1986). Teen dating violence. Social Work, 31, 465-468. (Surveyed 256 high school students from Sacramento, CA., 135 girls, 121 boys, with the CTS. Ninety percent of students were juniors or seniors, the majority came from middle class homes, 94% were average or better students, and 65% were white and 35% were black, Hispanic or Asian. Found that 11.9% of girls compared to 7.4% of boys admitted to being sole perpetrators of physical violence. 17.8% of girls and 11.6% of boys admitted that they were both "victims and perpetrators" of physical violence.)
O'Leary, K. D., Barling, J., Arias, I., Rosenbaum, A., Malone, J., & Tyree, A. (1989). Prevalence and stability of physical aggression between spouses: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 263-268. (272 couples were assessed regarding physical aggression. More women reported physically aggressing against their partners at premarriage <44% vs 31%> and 18 months of marriage <36% vs 27%>. At 30 months there was a nonsignificant but higher rate for women <32% vs 25%>.)
Plass, M. S., & Gessner, J. C. (1983). Violence in courtship relations: a southern sample. Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology, 11, 198-202. (In an opportunity sample of 195 high school and college students from a large southern city, researchers used the Conflict Tactics scale to examine courtship violence. Overall, results reveal that women were significantly more likely than men to be aggressors. Specifically, in, committed relationships, women were three times as likely as men to slap their partners, and to kick, bit or hit with the fist seven times as often as men. In casual relationships, while the gender differences weren't as pronounced, women were more aggressive than men. Other findings reveal that high school students were more abusive than college students, and that a "higher proportion of black respondents were involved as aggressors.")
Riggs, D. S., O'Leary, K. D., & Breslin, F. C. (1990). Multiple correlates of physical aggression in dating couples. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5, 61-73. (Used CTS and studied 408 college students <125 men and 283 women>. Found that significantly more women <39%> than men <23%> reported engaging in physical aggression against their current partners.)
Rollins, B. C., & Oheneba-Sakyi, Y. (1990). Physical violence in Utah households. Journal of Family Violence, 5, 301-309. (In a random sample of 1,471 Utah households, using the Conflict Tactics Scale, it was found that women's rate of severe violence was 5.3% compared to a male rate of 3.4%.)
Rouse, L. P. (1988). Abuse in dating relationships: A comparison of Blacks, Whites, and Hispanics. Journal of College Student Development, 29, 312-319. (The use of physical force and its consequences were examined in a diverse sample of college students. Subjects consisted of 130 whites <58 men, 72 women>, 64 Blacks <32 men, 32 women>, and 34 Hispanics <24 men, 10 women>. Men were significantly more likely than women to report that their partners used moderate physical force and caused a greater number of injuries requiring medical attention. This gender difference was present for Whites and Blacks but not for Hispanics.)
Rouse, L. P., Breen, R., & Howell, M. (1988). Abuse in intimate relationships. A Comparison of married and dating college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 3, 414-429. (A sample of 130 married (48 men, 82 women) college students and 130 college students in dating relationships (58 men, 72 women) reported their experience of physical abuse in intimate relationships. Men were more likely to report being physically abused than women in both dating and marital relationships.)
Russell, R. J. H., & Hulson, B. (1992). Physical and psychological abuse of heterosexual partners. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 457-473. (In a pilot study in Great Britain 46 couples responded to the Conflict Tactics Scale. Results reveal that husband to wife violence was: Overall violence= 25% and severe violence= 5.8%; while wife to husband violence was: Overall violence= 25% and severe violence=11.3%.)
Sack, A. R., Keller, J. F., & Howard, R. D. (1982). Conflict tactics and violence in dating situations. International Journal of Sociology of the Family, 12, 89-100. (Used the CTS with a sample of 211 college students, 92 men, 119 women. Results indicate that there were no differences between men and women with regard to the expression of physical violence.)
Saenger, G. (1963). Male and female relations in the American comic strip. In D. M. White & R. H. Abel (Eds.), The funnies, an American idiom (pp. 219-231). Glencoe, NY: The Free Press. (Twenty consecutive editions of all comic strips in nine New York City newspapers in October, 1950 were examined. Results reveal that husbands were victims of aggression in 63% of conflict situations while wives were victims in 39% of situations. In addition, wives were more aggressive in 73% of domestic situations, in 10% of situations, husbands and wives were equally aggressive and in only 17% of situations were husbands more violent than wives.)
Sigelman, C. K., Berry, C. J., & Wiles, K. A. (1984). Violence in college students' dating relationships. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 5, 530-548. (Surveyed 504 college students <116 men, 388 women> with the Conflict Tactics Scale and found that men and women were similar in the overall amount of violence they expressed but that men reported experiencing significantly more violence than women.)
Sommer, R. (1994). Male and female partner abuse: Testing a diathesis-stress model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada. (The study was in two waves: the first was from 1989-1990 and included a random sample of 452 married or cohabiting women and 447 married or cohabiting men from Winnipeg, Canada; the second was from 1991-1992 and included 368 women and 369 men all of whom participated in the first wave. Subjects completed the CTS & other assessment instruments. 39.1% of women reported being physically aggressive (16.2% reporting having perpetrated severe violence) at some point in their relationship with their male partner. While 26.3% of men reported being physically aggressive (with 7.6% reporting perpetrating severe violence) at some point in their relationship with their female partner. Among the perpetrators of partner abuse, 34.8% of men and 40.1% of women reported observing their mothers hitting their fathers. Results indicate that 21% of "males' and 13% of females' partners required medical attention as a result of a partner abuse incident." Results also indicate that "10% of women and 15% of men perpetrated partner abuse in self defence.")
Sommer, R., Barnes, G. E. & Murray, R. P. (1992). Alcohol consumption, alcohol abuse, personality and female perpetrated spouse abuse. Journal of Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 1315-1323. (The responses from a subsample of 452 women drawn from a sample of 1,257 Winnipeg residents were analyzed. Using the CTS, it was found that 39% of women physically aggressed against their male partners at some point in their relationship. Younger women with high scores on Eysenck's P scale were most likely to perpetrate violence. Note: The sample of subjects is the same as the one cited in Sommer's 1994 dissertation.)
Sorenson, S. B., & Telles, C. A. (1991). Self reports of spousal violence in a Mexican-American and non-Hispanic white population. Violence and Victims, 6, 3-15. (Surveyed 1,243 Mexican-Americans and 1,149 non-Hispanic whites and found that women compared to men reported higher rates of hitting, throwing objects, initiating violence, and striking first more than once. Gender difference was significant only for non-Hispanic whites.)
Steinmetz, S. K. (1977-78). The battered husband syndrome. Victimology: An International Journal, 2, 499-509. (A pioneering article suggesting that the incidence of husband beating was similar to the incidence of wife beating.)
Steinmetz, S. K. (1980). Women and violence: victims and perpetrators. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 34, 334- 350. (Examines the apparent contradiction in women's role as victim and perpetrator in domestic violence.)
Steinmetz, S. K. (1981). A cross cultural comparison of marital abuse. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 8, 404-414. (Using a modified version of the CTS, examined marital violence in small samples from six societies: Finland, United States, Canada, Puerto Rico, Belize, and Israel <total n=630>. Found that "in each society the percentage of husbands who used violence was similar to the percentage of violent wives." The major exception was Puerto Rico where men were more violent. Author also reports that, "Wives who used violence... tended to use greater amounts.")
Stets, J. E. & Henderson, D. A. (1991). Contextual factors surrounding conflict resolution while dating: results from a national study. Family Relations, 40, 29-40. (Drawn from a random national telephone survey, daters <n=277; men=149, women=128> between the ages of 18 and 30, who were single, never married and in a relationship during the past year which lasted at least two months with at least six dates were examined with the Conflict Tactics Scale. Findings reveal that over 30% of subjects used physical aggression in their relationships, with 22% of the men and 40% of the women reported using some form of physical aggression. Women were "6 times more likely than men to use severe aggression <19.2% vs. 3.4%>...Men were twice as likely as women to report receiving severe aggression <15.7% vs. 8%>." Also found that younger subjects and those of lower socioeconomic status <SES> were more likely to use physical aggression.)
Stets, J. E., & Pirog-Good, M. A. (1987). Violence in dating relationships, Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 237-246. (Examined a college sample of 505 white students. Found that men and women were similar in both their use and reception of violence. Jealousy was a factor in explaining dating violence for women.)
Stets, J. E. & Pirog-Good, M. A. (1989). Patterns of physical and sexual abuse for men and women in dating relationships: A descriptive analysis, Journal of Family Violence, 4, 63-76. (Examined a sample of 287 college students <118 men and 169 women> and found similar rates for men and women of low level physical abuse in dating relationships. More women than men were pushed or shoved <24% vs 10%> while more men than women were slapped <12% vs 8%>. In term of unwanted sexual contact 22% of men and 36% of women reported such behavior. The most frequent category for both men <18%> and women <19%> was the item, "against my will my partner initiated necking".)
Stets, J. E., & Straus, M. A. (1990). Gender differences in reporting marital violence and its medical and psychological consequences. In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families (pp. 151-166). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. (Reports information regarding the initiation of violence. In a sample of 297 men and 428 women, men said they struck the first blow in 43.7% of cases, and their partner hit first in 44.1% of cases and could not disentangle who hit first in remaining 12.2%. Women report hitting first in 52.7% of cases, their partners in 42.6% and could not disentangle who hit first in remaining 4.7%. Authors conclude that violence by women is not primarily defensive.)
Straus, M. (1980). Victims and aggressors in marital violence. American Behavioral Scientist, 23, 681-704. (Reviews data from the 1975 National Survey. Examined a subsample of 325 violent couples and found that in 49.5% of cases both husbands and wives committed at least one violent act, while husbands alone were violent in 27.7% of the cases and wives alone were violent in 22.7% of the cases. Found that 148 violent husbands had an average number of 7.1 aggressive acts per year while the 177 violent wives averaged 6.8 aggressive acts per year.)
Straus, M. A. (1993). Physical assaults by wives: A major social problem. In R. J. Gelles & D. R. Loseke (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence pp. 67-87. Newbury Park, CA:Sage. (Reviews literature and concludes that women initiate physical assaults on their partners as often as men do.) Straus, M. A. (1995). Trends in cultural norms and rates of partner violence: An update to 1992. In S. M. Stich & M. A. Straus (Eds.) Understanding partner violence: Prevalence, causes, consequences, and solutions (pp. 30-33). Minneapolis, MN: National Council on Family Relations. (Reports finding that while the approval of a husband slapping his wife declined dramatically from 1968 to 1994 <21% to 10%> the approval of a wife slapping her husband did not decline but remained at 22% during the same period. The most frequently mentioned reason for slapping for both partners was sexual unfaithfulness. Also reports that severe physical assaults by men declined by 48% from 1975 to 1992--38/1000 to 19/1000 while severe assaults by women did not change from 1975 to 1992 and remained above 40/1000. Suggests that public service announcements should be directed at female perpetrated violence and that school based programs "explicitly recognize and condemn violence by girls as well as boys.")
Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1986). Societal change and change in family violence from 1975 to 1985 as revealed by two national surveys. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 465-479. (Reviewed data from two large sample national violence surveys of married couples and report that men and women assaulted each other at approximately equally rates,with women engaging in minor acts of violence at a higher rate than men. Sample size in 1975 survey=2,143; sample size in 1985 survey=6,002.)
Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J., & Steinmetz, S. K. (1981). Behind closed doors: Violence in the American family, Garden City, NJ: Anchor. (Reports findings from National Family Violence survey conducted in 1975. In terms of religion, found that Jewish men had the lowest rates of abusive spousal violence (1%), while Jewish women had a rate of abusive spousal violence which was more than double the rate for Protestant women <7%>, pp. 128-133. Abusive violence was defined as an "act which has a high potential for injuring the person being hit," pp.21-2.)
Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2). Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283-316. (The revised CTS has clearer differentiation between minor and severe violence and new scales to measure sexual coercion and physical injury. Used the CTS2 with a sample of 317 college students <114 men, 203 women> and found that: 49% of men and 31% of women reported being a victim of physical assault by their partner; 38% of men and 30% of women reported being a victim of sexual coercion by their partner; and 16% of men and 14% of women reported being seriously injured by their partners.)
Straus, M. A., & Kaufman Kantor, G. (1994, July). Change in spouse assault rates from 1975-1992: A comparison of three national surveys in the United States. Paper presented at the Thirteenth World Congress of Sociology, Bielefeld, Germany. (Reports that the trend of decreasing severe assaults by husbands found in the National Survey from 1975 to 1985 has continued in the 1992 survey while wives maintained higher rates of assault.)
Straus, M. A., Kaufman Kantor, G., & Moore, D. W. (1994, August). Change in cultural norms approving marital violence from 1968 to 1994. Paper presented at the American Sociological Association, Los Angeles, CA. (Compared surveys conducted in 1968 <n=1,176>, 1985 <n=6,002>, 1992 <n=1,970>, and 1994 <n=524>, with regard to the approval of facial slapping by a spouse. Approval of slapping by husbands decreased from 21% in 1968 to 13% in 1985, to 12% in 1992, to 10% in 1994. The approval of slapping by wives was 22% in 1968 and has not declined over the years.)
Sugarman, D. B., & Hotaling, G. T. (1989). Dating violence: Prevalence, context, and risk markers. In M. A. Pirog-Good & J. E. Stets (Eds.) Violence in dating relationships: Emerging social issues (pp.3-32). New York: Praeger. (Reviewed 21 studies of dating behavior and found that women reported having expressed violence at higher rates than men--329 per 1000 vs 393 per 1000.)
Szinovacz, M. E. (1983). Using couple data as a methodological tool: The case of marital violence. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45, 633-644. (Used Conflict Tactics Scale with 103 couples and found that the wives' rates of physical aggression was somewhat higher than husbands'.)
Tang, C. S. (1994). Prevalence of spouse aggression in Hong Kong. Journal of Family Violence, 9, 347-356. (Subjects were 382 undergraduates <246 women, 136 men> at the Chinese University in Hong Kong. The CTS was used to assess students' evaluation of their parents responses during family conflict. 14% of students reported that their parents engaged in physical violence. "Mothers were as likely as fathers to use actual physical force toward their spouses.")
Thompson Jr., E. H. (1990). Courtship violence and the male role. Men's Studies Review, 7, (3) 1, 4-13. (Subjects were 336 undergraduates <167 men, 169 women> who completed a modified version of the CTS. Found that 24.6% of men compared to 28.4% of women expressed physical violence toward their dating partners within the past two years. Found that women were twice as likely as men to slap their partners.)
Thompson Jr., E. H. (1991). The maleness of violence in data relationships: an appraisal of stereotypes. Sex Roles, 24, 261-278. (In a more extensive presentation of his 1990 article, the author concludes that, "a more masculine and/or less feminine gender orientation and variations in relationship seriousness proved to be the two strongest predictors of both men's and women's involvement in courtship violence.")
Tyree, A., & Malone, J. (1991). How can it be that wives hit husbands as much as husbands hit wives and none of us knew it? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association. (Reviews the literature and discusses results from their study attempting to predict spousal violence. Found that women's violence is correlated with a history of hitting siblings and a desire to improve contact with partners.)
Vivian, D., & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (1996). Are bi-directionally violent couples mutually victimized? In L. K. Hamberger & C. Renzetti (Eds.) Domestic partner abuse (pp. 23-52). New York: Springer. (Authors found using a modified version of the CTS, that in a sample of 57 mutually aggressive couples, there were no significant differences between husbands' and wives' reports concerning the frequency and severity of assault victimization. With regard to injuries, 32 wives and 25 husbands reported the presence of a physical injury which resulted from partner aggression.)
White, J. W., & Humphrey, (1994). Women's aggression in heterosexual conflicts. Aggressive Behavior, 20, 195-202. (Eight hundred and twenty nine women <representing 84% of entering class of women> 17 and 18 years old, entering the university for the first time completed the CTS and other assessment instruments. Results reveal that 51.5% of subjects used physical aggression at least once in their prior dating relationships and, in the past year, 30.2% reported physically aggressing against their male partners. Past use of physical aggression was the best predictor of current aggression. The witnessing and experiencing of parental aggression also predicted present aggression.)
White, J. W., & Kowalski, R. M. (1994). Deconstructing the myth of the nonaggressive woman: A feminist analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 487-508. (A review and analysis which acknowledges that "women equal or exceed men in number of reported aggressive acts committed within the family." Examines a variety of explanations to account for such aggression.)
White, J. W., & Koss, M. P. (1991). Courtship violence: Incidence in a national sample of higher education students. Violence and Victims, 6, 247-256. (In a representative sample of 2,603 women and 2,105 men it was found that 37% of the men and 35% of women inflicted some form of physical aggression, while 39% of the men and 32% of the women received some form of physical aggression.)
An earlier version of this paper appeared in Sexuality and Culture, 1997, 1, 273-286.
Portions of this paper were also presented at the American Psychological Society Convention in Washington, D.C. May 24, 1997.
A commonly accepted ""truth'' about domestic violence is that 95% of the time, women are the victims and men the perpetrators. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Family Violence Survey--as well as numerous other studies-- have found that men are just as likely to be the victims of domestic violence as women. But aren't these women just defending themselves against their more violent partners? Straus and Gelles found that among couples reporting violence, the man struck the first blow in 27% of cases; the woman in 24%. The rest of the time, the violence was mutual, with both partners brawling. The results were the same even when the most severe episodes of violence were analyzed. They were also the same when only the woman's version of the events was considered.
Even more interesting are Straus' findings, released earlier this month, that men's violence against women--even as reported by women--has dropped 43% between 1985 and 1992. Over this same period, in contrast, assaults by women against men increased by about 28%. Straus concludes that ""part of the reason may be that there has been no effort to condemn assault by wives parallel to the effort to condemn assaults by husbands.''
So where did the claim that 95% of domestic violence is initiated by men come from? From the U.S. Department of Justice, which collects data on the number of reports of domestic violence. But as women's rights groups rightfully claim, reports are not always an accurate measure of the severity of the problem. Certainly, some female victims of domestic violence fail to call the police, fearing retaliation by their abusers. But other Justice Department studies have shown that men, too, are reluctant to ask for help, reporting all kinds of violent victimization 32% less frequently than women.
Murray A. Straus, head of the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire, and Richard A. Gelles, a sociologist at the University of Rhode Island, who have been tracking spousal abuse for over 20 years, have come up with what are widely believed to be the most accurate estimates available--the National Family Violence Survey (NFVS).
Their Survey, sponsored by the National Institute of Mental Health, found that 84% of American families are not violent. In the 16% of families that do experience violence, the vast majority of that violence takes the form of slapping, shoving, and grabbing. Only 3-4% of all families (a total of about 1.8 million) engage in ""severe'' violence: kicking, punching, or using a weapon.
As for the perception that women who murder their husbands are treated harshly by the justice system, Dr. Mann found that few female domestic homicide offenders receive prison sentences, and that those who do rarely serve more than four or five years. These findings were are confirmed by a recent Los Angeles Times article. The article, which quoted Justice Department sources, reported that women who kill their husbands were acquitted in 12.9% of the cases, while husbands who kill their wives were acquitted only 1.4% of the time. In addition, women convicted of killing their husbands receive an average sentence of only six years, while male spousal killers got 17 years.

Citations on Domestic Occurrence of Spousal Abuse



Bureau of Justice, BJS Data Report, 1989 (page 20)(quote)

At current homicide rates, the lifetime chance of being a murder victim is --

1 in 30 for black males
1 in 179 for white males
1 in 132 for black females
1 in 495 for white females



The Violent Couple, by William A. Stacey, Lonnie R. Hazlewood, Anson Shupe. Westport, CT: Praeger. 1994.

Bruce A. Chadwick and Tim B. Heaton, The Statistical Handbook On the American Family (Oryx Press, 1992), p. 260-262:

* 58% of serious physical altercations are initiated by the wife (as was admitted by women).
* 96% of domestic violence occurs after the date of separation (read: the family is not the problem, the custody and asset war most certainly is).
* Wife is usually the one injured in the altercation (69%).



"Personality Characteristics of Falsely Accusing Parents in Custody Disputes", Ralph Underwager and Hollida Wakefield, Sixth Annual Symposium in Forensic Psychology, 1990:

Over 85% of child sex abuse allegations in divorce and custody allegations are found false in tried court cases. In these cases, the accuser has MMPI's indicating unusual personality characteristics in 90% of cases, and the alleged perpetrator has normal MMPI's in 95% of cases.



"Physical Assaults by Wives - A Major Social Problem", Dr. Murray Straus, edited by Richard Gelles and Donileen Loseke; "Current Controversies on Family Violence". 1993, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.:

"The purpose of this chapter is to review research that shows that women initiate and carry out physical assaults on their partners as often as men do. A second purpose is to show that, despite the much lower probability of physical injury resulting from attacks by women, assaults by women are a serious social problem, just as it would be if men "only" slapped their wives or "only" slapped female fellow employees and produced no injury."....

"Without adjustment for injury, the National Family Violence Survey produces and estimate of more than 6 million women assaulted by a male partner each year, of which 1.8 million are "severe" assaults (Straus and Gelles, 1990). If the injury adjusted rate is used, the estimate is reduced to 188,000 assaulted women per year. The figure of 1.8 million seriously assaulted women every year has been used in many legislative hearings and countless feminist publications to indicate the prevalence of the problem."....

"The Kentucky study also brings out a troublesome question of scientific ethics, because it is one of several in which the data on assaults by women were intentionally suppressed".......

"Studies of residents in shelters for battered women are sometimes cited to show that it is only their male partners wh are violent. However, these studies rarely obtain or report information on assaults by women, and when the do, they ask only about self-defense".....

"Data on calls for domestic assaults to the police are biased in ways that are similar to the bias of the National Crime Victimization Survey. As in the NCVS, at least 93% of the cases are missed, probably because there was no injury of threat of serious injury great enough to warrant calling the police. Because the cases for which police are called tend to involve injury or chronic severe assault, and because that tends to be a male pattern, assaults by women are rarely recorded by police"....

Two recent gender-specific estimates of the rates for partner homicide indicate that wives murder male partners at a rate that is 56% (Straus, 1986) and 62% (Browne & Williams, 1989) as great as the rate of partner homicides by husbands".....

"Of the 495 couples in the `985 National Family Violence Survey for whom one or more assaultive incidents were reported by a woman respondent, the husband was the only violent partner in 25.9% of cases, the wife was the only one to be violent in 25.5% of cases, and bother were violent in 48.^% of cases. Thus a minim estimate of violence by wives that is not self defense because the wife is the only one to have used violence in the past 12 months is 25%"....

"Perhaps the real gender difference occurs in assaults that carry a greater risk of causing physical injury, such as punching, kicking, and attacks with weapons. This hypothesis was investigated using the 211 wives who reported one or more instances of a "sever" assault. The resulting proportions were similar: both, 35.2%; husband only, 35.2%; and wife only, 29.6%"......

"The findings just reported show that regardless of whether the analysis is based on all assaults or is focused on dangerous assaults, about as many women as men attacked spouses who had NOT hit them during the one-year refernt period. This is inconsistent with the self-defense explanation for the high rate of domestic assault by women".....

"A large scale Canadian study found that women struck the first blow about as often as men. However, as in the case of the Kentucky survey mentioned earlier, the authors have not published the finding, perhaps because they are not "politically correct.""......

"The discrepancy between the findings from surveys of family problems and findings based on criminal justice system data or the experiences of women in shelters for battered women does not indicate that one set of statistics is correct and the other not. Both are correct. However, they apply to different goups of people and reflect different aspects of domestic assault. Most of the violence that is revealed in surveys of family problems is relatively minor and relatively infrequent, whereas most of the violence in official statistics is chronic and sever and involves injuries that need medical attention. These two types of violence probably have different etiologies and probably require different types of intervention. It is important not to use findings based on cases known to the police or shelters for battered women as the basis for deciding how to deal with the relatively minor and infrequent violence found in the population in general. That type of unwarranted generalization of often made: it is known as the 'clinical falllacy'".......

"It follows from the above that efforts to prevent assaults by husbands must include attention to assaults by wives"......



Brinkerhoff, Merlin B.; Grandin, Elaine; Lupri, Eugen; "Religious Involvement And Spousal Violence: The Canadian Case", Journal For The Scientific Study Of Religion, Vol. 31, Number 1, 1992, pages 15-31.

Examines the influence of religious denomination and church attendance on spousal violence. The study found that religion had little to do with spousal violence. It dispels the prejudice that rigidly patriarchal men would be more prone to beat their wives than men generally. Other variables were looked at to explain male to female violence and female to male violence. Some relationship was found between lack of church attendance and family violence.



Gelles, R.J. The violent home: A study of physical aggression between husbands and wives Sage, Beverly Hills CA, 1974

In 1974, a study was done which compared male and female domestic violence. In that study, it was found that 47% of husbands had used physical violence on their wives, and 33% of wives had used violence on their husbands (Gelles 1974). Half of the respondents in this study were selected from either cases of domestic violence reported to the police, or those identified by the social service agency.

This is a watershed study and it has been widely cited. There has been severe criticism of Gelles' conflict scales.



Chesanow, Neil, Violence at Home, New Woman, February 1992, pg. 96-98. [note: this is a very interesting article, particularly so since it appeared in a women's magazine and argues that women are equally violent towards men in intimate relationships. One of the bases for Chesanow's arguments is that domestic violence among lesbian intimates is roughly as common as domestic violence among heterosexual intimates -- based on crime statistics.]



Curtis, L.A. Criminal violence: National patterns and behavior Lexington Books, Lexington MA, 1974

In 1974, a study was released showing that the number of murders of women by men (17.5% of total homicides) was about the same as the number of murders of men by women (16.4% of total homicides). This study (Curtis 1974), however, showed that men were three times as likely to assault women as vice-versa. These statistics came from police records.



Wolfgang, M. Patterns in Criminal Homicide Wiley, New York, 1958



Mercy, J.A. & Saltzman, L.E. "Fatal violence among spouses in the United States, 1976-85" American Journal of Public Health 79(5): 595-9 May 1989

Curtis's murder statistic was no big news, by the way. In 1958, an investigation of spousal homicide between 1948 and 1952 found that 7.8% of murder victims were husbands murdered by wives, and 8% were wives murdered by husbands (Wolfgang 1958). More recently, in a study of spousal homicide in the period from 1976 to 1985, it was found that there was an overall ratio of 1.3:1.0 of murdered wives to murdered husbands, and that "Black husbands were at greater risk of spouse homicide victimization than Black wives or White spouses of either sex." (Mercy & Saltzman 1989)

Does this study adequately represent the contribution of ex-spouses to the homicide rate? Bronis Vidugiris examines the data sources for it. study Steinmetz , Suzanne K. The cycle of violence: Assertive, aggressive and abusive family interaction Praeger Press, New York, 1977



Steinmetz, Suzanne K. The Battered Husband Syndrome Victimology 2, 1977-1978, p. 499

In 1977, Suzanne Steinmetz released results from several studies showing that the percentage of wives who have used physical violence is higher than the percentage of husbands, and that the wives' average violence score tended to be higher, although men were somewhat more likely to cause greater injury. She also found that women were as likely as men to initiate physical violence, and that they had similar motives for their violent acts (Steinmetz 1977-78).



Nisonoff, L. & Bitman, I Spouse Abuse: Incidence and Relationship to Selected Demographic Variables, Victimology 4, 1979, pp. 131-140

In 1979, a telephone survey was conducted in which subjects were asked about their experiences of domestic violence (Nisonoff & Bitman 1979). 15.5% of the men and 11.3% f the women reported having hit their spouse; 18.6% of the men and 12.7% of the women reported having been hit by their spouse.



Straus, M.A., Gelles, R.J., and Steinmetz, S.K. Behind Closed oors: Violence in American families, Doubleday, New York, 1980

In 1980, a team of researchers, including Steinmetz, attempted to address some concerns about the earlier surveys (Straus, Gelles & Steinmetz, 1980). They created a nationally representative study of family violence and found that the total violence scores seemed to be about even between husbands and wives, and that wives tended to be more abusive in almost all categories except pushing and shoving.



Straus, M.A. & Gelles, R.J. "Societal change and change in family violence from 1975 to 1985 as revealed by two national surveys" Journal of Marriage and the Family 48, po. 465-479, 1986

Straus & Gelles did a followup survey in 1985, comparing their data to a 1975 survey (Straus & Gelles 1986). They found that in that decade, domestic violence against women dropped from 12.1% of women to 11.3% while domestic violence against men rose from 11.6% to 12.1%. The rate of severely violent incidents dropped for both groups: From 3.8% to 3.0% of women victimized and from 4.6% to 4.4% for men.



Sexuality Today Newsletter "Violence in Adolescent Dating Relationships Common, New Survey Reveals" December 22, 1986 (reporting on a report in Social Work contact Karen Brockopp) pp 2-3.

In 1986, a report appeared in Social Work, the journal of the National Association of Social Workers (Nov./Dec. 1986) on violence in adolescent dating relationships, in which it was found that girls were violent more frequently than boys.



O'Leary, K. Daniel; Arias, Ilena; Rosenbaum, Alan & Barling, Julian "Premarital Physical Aggression" State University of New York at Stony Brook & Syracuse University

Another report on premarital violence (O'Leary, et al) found that 34% of the males and 40% of the females reported engaging in some form of physical aggression against their mates in a year. 17% of women and 7% of men reported engaging in severe physical aggression. 35% of the men and 30% of the women reported having been abused.



Daly, M. & Wilson, M. "Parent-Offspring Homicides in Canada, 1974-1983" Science v. 242, pp. 519-524, 1988



Nagi, Saad Child Maltreatment in the United States Columbia University Press, New York, p. 47, 1977



Statistical Abstract of the United States 1987 table 277

The idea of women being violent is a hard thing for many people to believe. It goes against the stereotype of the passive and helpless female. This, in spite of the fact that women are known to be more likely than men to commit child abuse and child murder (Daly & Wilson 1988 report 54% of parent-child murders where the child is under 17 were committed by the mother in Canada between 1974 and 1983, for instance. The Statistical Abstract of the United States 1987 reports that of reported child maltreatment cases between 1980 and 1984 between 57.0% and 61.4% of these were perpetrated by the mother. Nagi 1977 found 53.1% of perpetrators were female, 21% male and 22.6%.

Note that because mothers tend to have more access to children than do fathers that these results should not be interpreted to mean that were things equal, women would still commit more abuse).



Pence, Ellen, and Paymar, Michael: (1993) Education Groups for Men Who Batter: The Duluth Model New York/Springfer Publishing Co.

Pence and Paymar in "Education Groups for Men who Batter" have documented 100 cases of husband battering in 10 years of serving victims of DV. of these they say 7 were men who were actually afraid to go home and were sheltered and advised on how to peacefully get out of the relationship. 7 of the several thousand cases of women in the same predicament seems miniscule, unless you're one of the seven. I'm going to guess that Liz' point is that statistics that count the number of blows delivered by each member of the couple doesn't really tell the story of DV. The subjugation of one human being by another often takes other forms than just hitting. This happens to men who are in relationships they don't understand and who are taken advantage in other ways. The outcome is not as compelling, that is, it doesn't come out in Emergency Room statistics and there may not be any blood on the kitchen floor but it's victimization all the same. It leaves it's mark on the male victim and on the children all the same.



McNeely, R.L.. and Robinson-Simpson, G(1987)The Truth about Domestic Violence: A Falsely Framed Issue.Social Work32(6)485-490

Excerpt from the text of the book: "Yet, while repeated studies consistently show that men are victims of domestic violence as often as are women, `both the lay public and many professionals regard a finding of no sex difference in rates of physical aggression among intimates as surprising, if not unreliable,' the stereotype being that men are aggressive `and women are exclusively victims.' "



O'Leary K. Daniel., Barling J., Arias, Ilena, Rosenbaum Alan, Malone J., and Tyree A., "Prevalence and stability of physical aggression between spouses: a longitudinal analysis," Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology. 57(2):263-268, 1989.

This report notes that 31% of men and 44% of women in a study reported that they aggressed against their partner in the year before marriage. Eighteen months after marriage, 27% of the men and 36% of the women reported being violent towards their partner.



Steinmetz, Suzanne K. and Lucca, Joseph S. "Husband Battering" in Handbook of Family Violence Van Hasselt, Vincent B. et al. editors, Plenum Press, New York 1988, p. 233-246

Drs. Steinmetz and Lucca note that "the greatest increase in female criminal activity parallels the increasing number of women who hold positions of trust in the business world." This report should not be seen simply as an indicator of female aggressiveness, but also as an indicator that there is something about being in "positions of trust" that enables, if you will, aggressiveness. The article contains a lengthy discussion of the use of battered husbands in humor.

The data from the US National Crime Survey (NCS) states that 84% of the victims of "intimate" violence were female. ("Highlights from 20 years of Surveying Crime Victims", NCJ-144525.)

It puts the occurrence of this violent crime (from "intimates only") at 5.4 female victims per 1000 women per year - this is all crimes, some of which did _not_ involve injury.

For comparison, the rate for "Accidental injury, all circumstances" is given as 220 per 1000 adults per year - a figure 40 times higher.

If one accepts data such as that from the NCS, one must (at least if one is consistent and intellectually honest) admit that such violence is rare. The picture changes, though, when different techniques of investigation (methodologies) are used, such as those by Straus and Gelles. This data shows that domestic violence is MUCH more common. In fact, some degree of violence (NOT injury, however) occurs at a rate of 113 incidents per 1000 couples per year (husband. on wife) and 121 incidents per 1000 couples per year (wife on husband)! This is 20x the rate that the NCS reports.

Many readers may have seen the material below already, but it may be new to others.

To give a little background on how the rates of violence were determined, by Straus & Gelles I include the following question from the published survey for the CTS methodology:

Question 35: No matter how well a couple gets along, there are times when they disagree, get annoyed with the other person, or just have spats or fights because they're in a bad mood or tired or for some other reason. They also use many different ways of trying to settle their differences. I'm going to read some things that you and your spouse might do when you have an argument. I would like you to tell me how many times in the last 12 months you:

a. Discussed the issue calmly b. Got information to back up your side of things c. Brought in or tried to bring in someone to help settle things d. Insulted or swore at the other one e. Sulked and/or refused to talk about it f. Stormed out of the room or house (or yard) g. Cried h. Did or said something to spite the other one i. Threatened to hit or throw something at the other one j. Threw or smashed or hit or kicked something k. Threw something at the other one l. Pushed, grabbed, or shoved the other one m. Slapped the other one n. Kicked, but, or hit with a fist o. Hit or tried to hit with something p. Beat up the other one q. Threatened with a knife or gun r. Used a knife or gun

To summarize, Straus & Gelles, using the CTS methodology described above found that rates for total (including less severe violence, such as pushing and shoving) between husbands and wives are quite close) for husbands and wives, with one survey showing husbands as more violent and the other with wives as more violent.

I should note that the CTS figures (and probably the Kentucky figures as well) show only raw incidents of violence, and do not take into account motivation or 'self defense'.

Other data, however indicates that the gender of the striker of the first blow is fairly uniform. Jan. E States and Murray A Straus, "Gender Differences in Reporting Marital Violence and It's Medical and Psychological Consequences", ch 9 in Straus & Gelles "Physical Violence in American Families" quote the following:

Men claimed they struck the first blow in 44% of the cases, their female partners in 44% of the cases, and "couldn't remember" in 12% of the cases.

The women claimed men hit them first in 43% of the cases, that they struck the first blow in 53% of the cases, and "couldn't remember" in 5% of the cases.

However, data for injury rates based on these studies shows women seeking treatment for a doctor much more often than men did. In a study of 8145 families 7.3% of 137 women severely assaulted (i.e. 10 out of 137) and 1% of 95 men severely assaulted (i.e 1 out of 95) men needed a doctor.

(all figures are rates per 1000 couples per year, and the CTS figures are based on two national surveys of a representative population sample)

Rates per yer per 1000 couples of various forms of violence.


CTS Survey #1

CTS Survey #2



1975 (N=2143)

1985 (N=3520)












1) Threw something






2) Pushed, grabbed, or shoved






3) Slapped






4) kicked, bit, or hit with fist






5) Hit or tried to hit with something






6) Beat up






7) Threat with gun or knife






8) Used gun or knife






Overall violence (1-8)






severe violence (5-8)






To give a little background on how the rates of violence were determined, by Strauss & Gelles I include the following question from the published survey for the CTS methodology:

Question 35:
No matter how well a couple gets along, there are times when they disagree, get annoyed with the other person, or just have spats or fights because they're in a bad mood or tired or for some other reason. They also use many different ways of trying to settle their differences. I'm going to read some things that you and your spouse might do when you have an argument. I would like you to tell me how many times in the last 12 months you:

a) Discussed an issue calmly
b) Got information to back up your/his/her side of things
c) Brought in or tried to bring in someone to settle things
d) Insulted or swore at him/he
m) Slapped him or her
... (rest of items covered by 1-8 go here)

The data below from "Behind Closed Doors" have husband reports and wife reports of violence. As you can see, there is no evidence of differential reporting, at least not with the methods/methodology used by Straus and Gelles (it remains possible that there is some sort of similar effect that could influence a less well-designed methodology).

Source of data % violent husbands % violent wives






















Men's Health America
May 19, 2000

This past week the U.S. Department of Justice released its latest
report on Intimate Partner Violence (1). The DOJ report found that in
1993, women were victimized at a rate of 9.8 per thousand, and 1.6
per thousand men were victimized by their intimate partners.

But the year before, in 1992, the Temple University Institute for
Survey Research found that 19 per thousand women had been the victim
of severe wife-beating, and 45 out of 1,000 husbands had been the
target of severe husband-beating (2).

These studies, conducted one year apart, reveal a 6-fold disparity in
overall violence rates. The DOJ survey concluded that women are the
primary victims; the Temple survey found the opposite. Both surveys
were nationally representative.

Who is right?

Let's consider the case of Billy-Bob and his live-in girlfriend
who live in a trailer park outside Tuscaloosa. One afternoon a woman
knocks on his screen door to ask him some questions about crime.

She starts with the standard questions about age, sex, and education.
These are the actual questions she reads next: "I'm going to
read some examples that will give you an idea of the kinds of crimes
this study covers...Has anyone attacked or threatened you in any of
these ways...With anything like a baseball bat, frying pan, scissors,
or stick?"

Billy-Bob feels a tiny lump in his throat, because he knows the
interviewer has noticed that fresh welt on his left temple. The joke
he's been making all day about "That ol' pitcher who
beaned me with a
softball!" is beginning to wear thin.

He knows his girlfriend is hoovering in the next room, and the walls
in the trailerhome are paper thin. He would never admit to a female
interviewer that his girlfriend heaved a coffee mug at him. Hell,
that's not a crime, because he never called the police. And if
there's any doubt, that deep chivalrous instinct kicks in.

"Next question, m'am." And another case of aggravated
assault goes unreported.

This is what researchers call "demand characteristics,"
subtle pressures of the survey that bias a respondent's answer.
other words, it's a rare man who will admit to being assaulted by
wife or girlfriend, and brand her as a criminal in the process.

The Violence Against Women Act funds a multi-million dollar industry
with a vested interest in the continued perception of men as brutal
batterers of women. As a result, much of what passes for domestic
violence research these days has become politicized.

The Department of Justice has been repeatedly criticized for
politicizing domestic violence research. First, it established an
office that specialized in violence against women, but no office for
violence against men. This in spite of the fact that men are twice as
likely as women to be targets of simple assault, aggravated assault,
and robbery. And men are at four-times greater risk of becoming a
homicide victim (3).

In 1994 the DOJ published its report on sex-specific violence, which
it brazenly titled, "Violence against Women" (4). But no
on "Violence against Men." Apparently, violence against men
become a non-issue.

Then it commissioned the National Violence Against Women Survey to
look at female victims of violence (5). Bowing to immense pressure,
DOJ finally relented and also included men in the survey---but still
retained its uni-sex name.

This latest report is the most recent example of the politicization
of domestic violence research.

Advocacy that masquerades as science is no way to establish public
policy. This will end up pitting men against women. One wonders what
good that will do.

1. Department of Justice. Intimate Partner Violence. NCJ-178247, May
2. Straus M, Kantor G: Change in Spouse Assault Rates from 1975 to
1992. Presented at the 13th World Congress of Sociology, July 19,

3. Department of Health and Human Services: Health, United States,
1999. Table 30.
4. Department of Justice: Violence Against Women. NCJ-145325. January
5. Tjaden P, Thoennes N. Prevalence, incidence, and consequences of
violence against women: Findings from the National Violence Against
Women Survey. Washington, DC: Department of Justice, 1998, NCJ-172837.


Feminists Wary of Brzonkala Precedent, Vow to Change The Court by
Defeating Bush!

May 19, 2000
"Violence against women, which has reached epidemic levels, keeps women
from participating equally in the life of our country," Ireland said.
"And yet the Supreme Court has said not just that women's right to be
free from gender-based violence is not protected by the U.S.
Constitution, but that the Constitution actually prohibits Congress from

providing such protection."

"The next president will probably fill two or perhaps three vacancies on
the U.S. Supreme Court during his term. I shudder when I remember that
Bush named ultraconservatives Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas as the
Supreme Court justices he most respects. With the justices now divided
5-to-4 against us on women's rights issues, the new president's
nominations will set the direction of the court for many years to come.
We need to make sure that the next president is committed to moving
women's rights forward," Ireland said


The Battered Statistic Syndrome

by Armin A. Brott

By now, everyone knows about the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. But there's a third victim of these tragic killings: the truth about the prevalence of domestic violence and female victimization, a truth that is daily being maimed almost beyond recognition by the irresponsible use of statistics.

Consider, for example, the wildly varying statements being issued on all sides regarding the number of women who are supposedly beaten by men in the United States. The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, for example, estimates that more than half of married women (over 27 million) will experience violence during their marriage, and that over one third (over 18 million) are battered repeatedly every year. Shocked by these statistics--both of which are frequently quoted in the media--I called the NCADV and asked where they came from. Rita Smith, the group's coordinator, told me these figures were only "estimates." From where? "Based on what we hear out there." Out where? Battered women's shelters and other advocacy groups.

Common sense should tell you that asking women at a shelter whether they've been hit would be like asking patrons at McDonald's whether they ever eat fast food. It would be irresponsible and intellectually dishonest to apply those answers to the country as a whole. But when there's a sensational story to run, common sense and intellectual honesty are rarely taken into consideration.

Even those who have a public responsibility to be accurate on these issues sometimes falter. According to Donna Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services, for example, 4 million women are battered each year by their male partners. But where did Shalala get her figure? From a 1993 Harris poll commissioned by the Commonwealth Fund. Two percent of the 2,500 women interviewed said they had been "kicked, bit, hit with a fist or some other object." Apply that to the approximately 55 million women married or living with a man and you get a total of 1.1 million. So where did the other 2.9 million come from? They were women who said they had been "pushed, grabbed, shoved, or slapped." That's a form of abuse, to be sure, but is it what most people would call battering?

By far the worst distortion of the numbers of battered women comes from Miami talk show host Pat Stevens, who appeared on a segment of CNN's Crossfire show called "OJ on the Air" in June. Stevens estimated that when adjusted for underreporting, the true number of battered women is 60 million. No one bothered to tell Stevens--or Crossfire's millions of viewers--that 60 million is more than 100% of all the women in this entire country who are currently in relationships with a man. Instead, Stevens' "estimate" and the other "facts" on battered women all serve to fuel the claims that there's an "epidemic of domestic violence" and a "war against women."

How many battered women are there? "Because many feminist activists and researchers have so great a stake in exaggerating the problem and so little compunction about doing so, objective information on battery is very hard to come by," writes Christina Hoff Sommers, author of Who Stole Feminism: How Women Have Betrayed Women (Simon & Schuster, 1994). But Murray A. Straus, head of the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire, and Richard A. Gelles, a sociologist at the University of Rhode Island, who have been tracking spousal abuse for over 20 years, have come up with what are widely believed to be the most accurate estimates available--the National Family Violence Survey (NFVS).

Their Survey, sponsored by the National Institute of Mental Health, found that 84% of American families are not violent. In the 16% of families that do experience violence, the vast majority of that violence takes the form of slapping, shoving, and grabbing. Only 3-4% of all families (a total of about 1.8 million) engage in "severe" violence: kicking, punching, or using a weapon.

Moreover, a recent study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine found that 44% of "severe violence" to wives did not cause any injury, and 31% caused only a slight bruise. Still, Straus and Gelles estimate that about 188,000 women are injured severely enough to require medical attention. That's a horrifying number of victims, but it's a far cry from 4 million, or 18 million, or 60 million.

Another commonly accepted "truth" about domestic violence is that 95% of the time, women are the victims and men the perpetrators. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Family Violence Survey--as well as numerous other studies--have found that men are just as likely to be the victims of domestic violence as women. But aren't these women just defending themselves against their more violent partners? Straus and Gelles found that among couples reporting violence, the man struck the first blow in 27% of cases; the woman in 24%. The rest of the time, the violence was mutual, with both partners brawling. The results were the same even when the most severe episodes of violence were analyzed. They were also the same when only the woman's version of the events was considered.

Even more interesting are Straus' findings, released earlier this month, that men's violence against women--even as reported by women—has dropped 43% between 1985 and 1992. Over this same period, in contrast, assaults by women against men increased by about 28%. Straus concludes that "part of the reason may be that there has been no effort to condemn assault by wives parallel to the effort to condemn assaults by husbands."

So where did the claim that 95% of domestic violence is initiated by men come from? From the U.S. Department of Justice, which collects data on the number of reports of domestic violence. But as women's rights groups rightfully claim, reports are not always an accurate measure of the severity of the problem. Certainly, some female victims of domestic violence fail to call the police, fearing retaliation by their abusers. But other Justice Department studies have shown that men, too, are reluctant to ask for help, reporting all kinds of violent victimization 32% less frequently than women.

Confessing to being beaten up by another man, however, is a piece of cake compared to admitting being victimized by a woman. After all, men are socialized to "take it like a man." As a result, men tend to report only the most extreme abuse. "They wouldn't dream of reporting the kind of minor abuse--such as slapping or kicking--that women routinely report," says Suzanne Steinmetz, director of the Family Research Institute at Indiana University / Purdue.

Another example of how data on female victimization is distorted, is the claim that "domestic violence is the most common cause of injury to women." The source for this claim is a 1991 study of extremely poor, inner-city African-American women in Philadelphia--which doesn't even find that domestic violence was the leading cause of injury. "And even if it did," says Dr. Jeane Ann Grisso, one of the lead researchers of the study, "I'd never apply that conclusion to the total population of American women." Nevertheless, Grisso's study has been widely cited as proof that there's an epidemic of violence against women.

Some advocates have taken Grisso's study one step further, claiming that as many as 50% of women's hospital emergency-room admissions are the result of ongoing abuse. At the source of this so called fact are several studies done in the 1970's by Evan Stark and Anne Flitcraft, co-directors of the Domestic Violence Training Project at the University of Connecticut. They compiled their data by going through old medical records in urban hospitals and estimating how many women were battered by using what they called an "index of suspicion." Christina Hoff

Sommers has analyzed Stark and Flitcraft's methods and writes: "if a woman was assaulted but the records do not say who hit her, Stark and Flitcraft classify this as a case of 'probable' domestic abuse; if she has injuries to her face and torso that are inadequately explained, they classify it as "suggestive of abuse." Apparently no one considered the possibility that someone other than a husband or boyfriend might have been responsible for the woman's injuries. Compare Stark and Flitcraft's results to those reached in a 1992 survey of 397 emergency rooms in California. Nurses were asked to estimate the number of patients per month who have been diagnosed with injuries caused by domestic violence. Estimates ranged from two per month for small hospitals to eight per month for large ones. The California study concluded that the number of perceived domestic violence victims was so low because many health professionals are poorly trained in recognizing domestic violence. That may be correct, but it's doubtful that it would account for the enormous difference between a handful of domestic violence cases a month and the claim that such cases account for 50% of all women's emergency room admissions.

There's no question that many women who have been severely battered are afraid to leave their batterers--either because they are economically dependent, or because they fear further abuse. In one of their "fact sheets," the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence tells us that women who leave their batterers "increase by 75% their chances of getting killed." When I asked her to explain that figure, the NCADV's Rita Smith admitted that that statistic isn't true at all, and that the Coalition has no concrete evidence of the effect--if any--leaving a violent partner will have on a woman. I then asked Ms. Smith whether it bothered her that her organization was responsible for spreading an imaginary statistic. "Not really," she said. "We think the chance of getting killed goes up and we're just trying to make a point here."

In a very small number of tragic cases, abusive men do kill their partners. But women aren't the only ones killed in domestic disputes. A Justice Department study released earlier this month showed that 41 percent of spousal murder victims were male. Battered women's advocates claim that those women who kill their husbands do so only out of self-defense. But in an extensive study of women imprisoned for murder, Coramae Richey Mann, a researcher at the Department of Criminal Justice, Indiana University/Bloomington found that only 59% claimed self-defense and that 30% had previously been arrested for violent crimes.

As for the perception that women who murder their husbands are treated harshly by the justice system, Dr. Mann found that few female domestic homicide offenders receive prison sentences, and that those who do rarely serve more than four or five years. These findings were are confirmed by a recent Los Angeles Times article. The article, which quoted Justice Department sources, reported that women who kill their husbands were acquitted in 12.9% of the cases, while husbands who kill their wives were acquitted only 1.4% of the time. In addition, women convicted of killing their husbands receive an average sentence of only six years, while male spousal killers got 17 years.

Why are these statistics being battered? "The higher your figures for abuse, the more likely you'll reap rewards, regardless of your methodology," says Dr. Sommers. Those who create and disseminate inflated statistics are often invited to testify before Congress, they're written about in the New York Times, and some even get to be interviewed on Oprah.

Not everyone who manipulates data does so for personal gain. Some are simply trying to get people to sit up and pay attention to the plight of battered women--a truly important goal. But to do so, they've created a false epidemic. If advocates confined themselves to the truth—that 3-4% of women are battered each year--domestic violence might still be regarded as the unfortunate behavior of a few crazy men. But if enough people are led to believe that 19 or 50 or 100 percent of women are "brutalized," the only logical conclusion can be that all men are dangerous and all women need to be protected.

Is it OK to lie shamelessly if your cause is a noble one? Is half a solution better than no solution at all? On the one hand, lying about the extent of the problem of domestic violence has had some very positive effects, opening the public's eyes as well as their wallets. Battered women are now the hottest story in town and Congress is about to pass the $1.8 billion Violence Against Women Act which, among other things, will fund toll-free hotlines, battered women's shelters, and education and training programs. It's certainly possible that none of this would be happening if advocacy groups stuck strictly to facts.

On the other hand, even supposedly harmless "puffing" can have been some extremely negative consequences. Inaccurate discussions about domestic violence, for example, can quickly turn into smear campaigns in which almost every man who hasn't exhibited his natural vicious and misogynist tendencies yet, is expected to do so at any moment. Members of Congress, seeing a golden opportunity to appease a large block of voters, have chosen a quick solution rather than attempting to correct their constituents' misapprehensions. The Violence Against Women Act, for example, doesn't devote a nickel to the same kind of special protection for men, even though males make up 75% of all murder victims and 61% of the victims of all violent crime.

Women, too, are being hurt by the lies. Having fought so hard to be taken seriously and treated as equals, women are again finding themselves portrayed as weak and helpless--exactly the stereotypes that have been traditionally used to justify discriminating against them. As the author and feminist critic Katherine Dunn writes in the current issue of The New Republic, "The denial of female aggression is a destructive myth. It robs an entire gender of a significant spectrum of power, leaving women less than equal with men and effectively keeping them 'in their place' and under control."

Worst of all, the inflation of domestic violence statistics produces a kind of ratchet effect. The same people who complain that no one listens if they don't exaggerate only find it that much more difficult to get people's attention the next time around--which in turn seems to justify another round of exaggeration. Eventually, the public either stops listening altogether, or finds the statistics too absurd to believe. And when we're trying to alleviate the tragedy of domestic violence, the last thing you want anyone to do is laugh.

Armin A. Brott



Copyright Armin A. Brott. All Rights Reserved.
Page Location: mid://00000067/
Bailey GR. "Treatment of domestic violence in gay and lesbian relationships." Journal of Psychological Practice 2 (2): 1-8, 1996.
Bernhard LK. "Physical and sexual violence experienced by lesbian and heterosexual women." Violence Against Women 6 (1): 68-79, 2000.
Burke LK, Follingstad DR. "Violence in lesbian and gay relationships: Theory, prevalence, and correlational factors." Clinical Psychology Review 19 (5): 487-512, 1999.
Coleman VE. "Lesbian battering: The relationship between personality and the perpetration of violence." Violence and Victims 9 (2): 139-152, 1994.
Farley N. "A survey of factors contributing to gay and lesbian domestic violence." In: Renzetti CM, Miley CH, ed. Violence in Gay and Lesbian Domestic Partnerships: 35-42. New York: Harrington Park Press/Haworth Press, Inc., 1996.
Fortunata B. "Lesbian experience of domestic violence." Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences & Engineering 60 (2-B): 0872, 1999.
Hanson B. "The violence we face as lesbians and gay men: The landscape both outside and inside our communities." Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services 4 (2): 95-113, 1996.
Istar A. "Couple assessment: Identifying and intervening in domestic violence in lesbian relationships." In: Renzetti CM, Miley CH, ed. Violence in Gay and Lesbian Domestic Partnerships: 93-160. New York: Harrington Park Press/Haworth Press, Inc., 1996.
Klinger RL, Stein TS. "Impact of violence, childhood sexual abuse, and domestic violence and abuse on lesbians, bisexuals, and gay men." In: Cabaj RP, Stein TS, ed. Textbook of Homosexuality and Mental Health: 801-818. Washington DC: American Psychiatric Press, Inc., 1996.
Lockhart LL, White BW, Causby V. "Letting out the secret: Violence in lesbian relationships." Journal of Interpersonal Violence 9 (4): 469-492, 1994.
Margolies L, Leeder E. "Violence at the door: Treatment of lesbian batterers." Violence Against Women 1 (2): 139-157, 1995.
Marrujo B, Kreger M. "Definition of roles in abusive lesbian relationships." In: Renzetti CM, Miley CH, ed. Violence in Gay and Lesbian Domestic Partnerships: 23-33. New York: Harrington Park Press/Haworth Press, Inc., 1996.
Mendez JM. "Serving gays and lesbians of color who are survivors of domestic violence." In: Renzetti CM, Miley CH, ed. Violence in Gay and Lesbian Domestic Partnerships: 53-59. New York: Harrington Park Press/Haworth Press, Inc., 1996.
Renzetti CM. "The poverty of services for battered lesbians." In: Renzetti CM, Miley CH, ed. Violence in Gay and Lesbian Domestic Partnerships: 61-68. New York: Harrington Park Press/Haworth Press, Inc., 1996.
Renzetti CM. "Violence and abuse in lesbian relationships: Theoretical and empirical issues." In: Bergen R, ed. Issues in Intimate Violence: 117-127. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 1998.
Renzetti CM, Miley CH, Dandeneau C. "Violence in gay and lesbian domestic partnerships." Sex Roles 36 (5-6): 431-432, 1997.
Renzetti CM. "Violence in lesbian and gay relationships." In: O'Tolle L, Schiffman JR, ed. Gender Violence: Interdisciplinary Perspectives: 285-293. New York: New York University Press, 1997.
Scherzer T. "Domestic violence in lesbian relationships: Findings of the Lesbian Relationships Research Project." In: Ponticilli C, ed. Gateways to Improving Lesbian Health and Health Care: Opening Doors: 29-47. New York: Harrington Park Press/ The Haworth Press, Inc., 1998.
Sloan L, Edmond T. "Shifting the focus: Recognizing the needs of lesbian and gay survivors of sexual violence." Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services 5 (4): 33-52, 1996.
Stahly GB, Lie GY. "Women and violence: A comparison of lesbian and heterosexual battering relationships." In: Chrisler JC, Hemstreet AH, ed. Variations on a Theme: Diversity and the Psychology of Women: 51-78. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1995.
Taylor J, Chandler T, Cross EJ. "Lesbians talk violent relationships." Women's Studies International Forum 19 (3): 345-346, 1996.
Waldron CM. "Lesbians of color and the domestic violence movement." In: Renzetti CM, Miley CH, ed. Violence in Gay and Lesbian Domestic Partnerships: 43-51. New York: Harrington Park Press/Haworth Press, Inc., 1996.


by John Marshall
Seattle Post-Intelligencer
They are tired of being typecast because of their gender, tired of being blamed for society's ills, tired of suffering various injustices, and tired of just sitting and taking it.
Men, make no mistake, are getting uppity these days. Organizing into groups. Networking with their brothers. Starting their own publications. Firing off letters and faxes. Taking their cause to the talk shows and anyone else who will listen.
The O.J. Simpson murder case has fired these men's activism as few events have before. And fueled their outrage, too.
For the orgy of Simpson coverage and the outpouring of public comment has, except for a few brief asides, targeted men as the villains of this and other tragedies when love turns sour. It is the same old story, male activists believe Men tarred and feathered again for being the violent sex.
Men do indeed commit some horrible and violent acts, these activist men concede, and that is a serious problem that should be addressed. But that's only part of the story, they argue. These men produce a host of studies and statistics and real-life horror stories, all intended to emphasize that many women are violent too, and are not always innocent victims.
What these activist men try to counter, most of all, is the perception that men are never beaten by women. Or, if they are, the numbers of men affected are so small and so insignificant that they are not worth bothering with.
This is illustrated by what are perhaps the most widely quoted domestic violence statistics in the wake of the Simpson case -- that about 95 percent of the victims of domestic violence seen in hospital emergency rooms or in police reports are female and only about 5 percent are male.
But the male activists contend that such statistics are suspect. Men are far less likely to admit, in any public fashion, that they have been beaten by a woman, an admission likely to call into question their masculinity. And men are even more reticent to report such beatings when they believe the deck is so stacked against them, with a legal and social service system almost entirely geared to assist female victims of domestic violence.
Violence by women has prompted relatively few research studies, but those that have been done do support some of the contentions of male activists. Women are as likely to abuse children as men, some studies have found. And other studies have found violence occurs in relationships between lesbian women with much the same frequency as it does in relationships between men and women.
An observer of all these research studies is Roland Maiuro, a national expert on domestic violence who works at Harborview Medical Center in Seattle. Maiuro, a 43-year-old clinical psychologist, heads Harborview's anger management and domestic violence program and also edits "The Journal of Violence and Victims," a respected technical publication with national distribution.
Maiuro emphasizes domestic violence is a "much more complicated" problem than its usual depiction of males as villains, females as victims.
Maiuro summarizes the research:
"There has not been much published about female-to-male violence, but the phenomenon does exist. The national surveys that do look at the overall rate of violence of men toward women and women toward men have found that the rate is about equal.
"When you look past those percentages, into the context, much of women's violence is in retaliation to men's violence. And when you look at serious injuries, 90 percent of those documented are those of women. But these percentages are based on what we know and most researchers have not cared about men . . . .
"And when you look at homicides from domestic violence, the gap also closes somewhat; the split is not 90 percent female victims, but more like 60 percent female and 40 percent male, although women, after years of abuse, often feel so threatened that they kill men . . . .
"In the cause of advocacy on domestic violence, statistics seem to be quoted selectively. One of the issues we need to raise now is: At what point in our advocacy does it become oriented toward stopping the violence, instead of selecting one sex to sympathize with more than the other?"
Maiuro's observations come as no surprise to the loose network of activist men and their organizations. They readily distribute copies of academic studies on such subjects as "Incidence and Chronicity of Assaults by Wives on Husbands" by Murray A. Straus of the University of New Hampshire.
But the favored ammo of late, for male activists seems to be the recent book, "Who Stole Feminism?" by Christina Hoff Sommers, an associate professor of philosophy at Clark University near Boston who says she is "a feminist who does not like what feminism has become."
Sommers' thesis is that militant "gender feminists" have captured the women's movement and given it an anti-male bias.
She contends misuse and even fabrication of domestic violence studies is one of the ways militant feminists rally the faithful and sway public opinion in their favor. Sommers zeroes in on two widely published domestic violence reports from 1993 that were used to damn men.
One was that "battery against women is the No. 1 cause of birth defects in this country," more than all other medical and environmental causes combined. Sommers demonstrates this widely reported "fact", supposedly from the March of Dimes, was a complete misstatement of other research that had nothing to do with cause-and-effect. What research showed was that more women in America are screened for birth defects than are screened for domestic battery.
Sommers' other target is "the Super Bowl hoax of 1993" -- the widely disseminated report that "Super Bowl Sunday is the biggest day of the year for violence against women," with 40 percent more women battered on game day. This "fact" generated so much coverage that NBC was moved to include a pre-game public service spot warning that domestic violence is a crime.
One skeptical reporter from the Washington Post investigated the Super Bowl abuse claim and, as Sommers reiterates, found it had absolutely no basis in research. The fabrication was first mentioned at a Pasadena news conference called by a coalition of women's groups and it was soon spread by the media as truth -- the link between the violence of football and violence against women just accepted as plausible.
The activism of many men is fueled by the belief they have been mugged by a legal system that favors women, especially in this age of acute sensitivity and correctness. There are groups formed by angry men who feel that they have gotten shafted by court decisions on divorce and child custody, or allegations about sexual harassment or physical abuse.
The latest horror stories about men spread through such groups like wildfire. They include the tale of a 30ish Seattle therapist who, under physical attack by his lover, was fending off her blows while trying to shield his two young children.
The man finally called 911 to report the attack, then left the house with his kids after striking back once at the woman. He says he was never interviewed by either police or prosecutors, but was later charged and convicted of assault and required to pay a $500 fine, perform 100 hours of community service and have absolutely no contact with the woman. His conviction is now under appeal, which is why he asked that his name not be published.
"I was dumbfounded from the very start of the incident," the man says. "I was getting struck by this woman while I was holding my daughter and I was the one who called the police."




Inside A ‘Batterers Program’ for ‘Abused’ Women
Women Violating Women

When Hillary Clinton says it takes a "village" to raise a child, does this mean that snooping, nosey, prying and gossipy people will be surrounding all of us – snoopers who are employees of the state with the power of police?

This woman wonders.

By Nev Moore

I was forced by DSS to attend a "support group" for abused women, against my will. Or else I would never see my daughter again. That is what they told me.

I was required to report every week to the Independence House, Hyannis, although it’s supposedly for women who seek their help. It’s run primarily by volunteers who are not counselors, therapists, or psychologists. They are all former battered women. Yet my DSS "service plan" stated that I had to attend for "treatment."

The meetings were held behind closed doors.

I can’t possibly express how much I hated and resented being in that room. The women were, in general, obsessive, neurotic, and vengeful. At the beginning of each meeting they went around the room and each woman was supposed to say a "brag" for the week. I did not want to participate in this childish game.

The first week I was there, one woman’s "brag for the week" was that she’d had an abortion. Her DSS worker had suggested that she talk about it. Regardless of whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, most people would agree this is a sad, intimate and private act, certainly not a "brag of the week" in a roomful of strangers.

There was a volunteer facilitator and a confidentiality notice was read at the start of each meeting. It said that women did not have to talk if they didn’t want to. Whatever you said in the room was strictly confidential and would not leave the room.

It Was Repulsive

I found it repulsive. And yet this is where I was ordered to go for "treatment" to "raise my self-esteem." Some women had been away from their ex’s for six to eight years, yet continued to go to the meetings. It was like their victimhood was an all encompassing identity. They were addicted to being a "victim" so people would feel sorry for them.

Many said that although their husbands never actually abused or controlled them, they didn’t always agree with them. So that was abusive. Many other women said, "I never knew I was being abused until I came to Independence House." [Hmmm…]

One woman who was not being abused, but I guess was just lonely, would often talk for the entire two hours. She was very loud and aggressive, constantly interrupting others. She told us that she was taking night courses, and her (male) teacher had asked her to stop interrupting and dominating the classroom. She proudly told us that she called him at his home and informed him in no uncertain terms that he had verbally abused her. It was easy to understand why she was lonely. The support group was like a social club for her, where she had a hostage audience.

There were other women who were, as my teenagers say, right off-the-loop. They were so intense and obsessive that they frightened me. Some would rock on the floor and wail, or curl into a fetal position and cry loudly throughout the meeting. One wanted to go to court and get a court order to have her ex sterilized so that he could never have children with another woman. Another (divorced from her ex) wanted to know where his P.O. box was. The women got all excited, jumping up and down, and yelling out: "Follow him," "Watch him," and "Pay someone to follow him." I believe if men do this it’s called "stalking.’

I felt like I was trapped in the piranha tank at feeding time.

On other nights, the group would be in depression mode, weeping and wailing. I don’t mean to sound harsh and unsympathetic, but I did not want to be held hostage in a room listening to other peoples’ problems. It was depressing and distasteful. At times when I was bored to the point I thought I was going to start crying, I would take out my wallet and make out my grocery list on a scrap of paper. The facilitator told me that wasn’t allowed because I might be taking notes on what the women were saying. This is an accurate insight to the paranoia, negativity, and suspiciousness that pervades Independence House.

Making Money

I realized that I never heard a facilitator encourage a woman to heal and move on with her life. They encouraged women to stay stuck in the victim mentality. I realized that, if women move on, they would no longer be clients. Each woman is worth many dollars to DSS and to Independence House. The more clients – the more funding dollars.

Every week I received calls from our DSS supervisor, Larry Vadeboncoeur, chastising me for my "attitude" at the support group. He told me in a meeting at DSS that I would not get my child back until my attitude changed and I "processed my issues" and "did my stuff." What "stuff" was never identified, even after repeated requests from me for clarification. After all, I don’t have a degree in psychology, so I don’t understand these professional terms, like "client needs to do her stuff."

When I told Mr. Vadeboncoeur what went on in the meetings and that they were terribly depressing and distasteful, he snapped, "That is not what goes on at Independence House!" I didn’t "share much" in the meetings because I felt nothing in common with the group. I said that I was forced to be there against my will and they needed to remove the word "Independence" from their title and stop handing out mugs that said: "Independence: the Freedom to make your own choices."

When I couldn’t stand the breast-beating victim dance any more, I would offer small pieces of input. My feeling is that, if the guy was that bad, then good riddance to bad rubbish. By sitting in these groups forever, rehashing abuse, real or perceived, a woman keeps the wounds open and allows the man to still have power over her.

Each week I continued to get chastised by the DSS supervisor, Larry Vadeboncoeur, for my poor attitude and "not accepting the message." I was, much later, to read in my DSS file that, if they forced me to attend those meetings, I would "relate to" and "form a bond" with the women there. (Translation: accept the indoctrination and embrace my victimhood.)

It Was ‘Confidential’

I began to wonder how what I was saying behind closed doors at a confidential support group in Hyannis was finding its way to a DSS supervisor in an office in Yarmouth. On two occasions I spoke with one of the directors at Independence House, Natalie Dupres. I told her that DSS was using the fact that I did not want to attend her meetings to keep my child from coming home. Ms. Dupres assured me that they never called or spoke to DSS. She said, even with a release from a client, they could only verify attendance and participation. They would "never disclose the content of what is discussed in a support group."

She added, "You know what DSS is like," inferring that DSS was making it up. The only problem with this was that DSS was repeating, verbatim, what I actually was saying behind closed doors, including things that I deliberately fed into the group discussion just to see if they made their way back to me. They did. Ms. Dupres was never actually present in the support group meetings, which means that the group facilitators had been instructed to report back what I said in meetings.

The fact that I did not want to be there, and found the meetings boring and repulsive just increased my resentment and antagonism. But, with our child held hostage, I would have done anything that anyone ordered me to do.

Eventually, Independence House decided that they did not want me there informing the other women that they were primarily funded by DSS and that what the women said in the group could be reported back to DSS and used against them. At that point DSS decided that I had "processed my issues" as far as I was going to. So I was released from my enforced obligation to attend. The funding they received because I was attending was not worth having their little secrets exposed.

Our weekly schedule of mandated "tasks" for my husband and me included individual counseling for each of us, "angry man" classes for my husband, parenting classes at Independence House, random urine screens and three AA meetings a week for my husband, a weekly supervised visit at the DSS office, plus court days and meetings at the DSS office.

Nev Moore is President of Justice for Families, a group she founded to help parents who have problems with the DSS. They can be reached at (508) 362-6921 or P.O. Box 141, Barnstable, MA 02630.

Judges Are Afraid to Release Fathers
Zero tolerance means innocent and guilty will be punished
Massachusetts News--March, 2000
The judges of Massachusetts are afraid to release a man if he has been charged with domestic violence. They know that the Boston Globe will excoriate any judge if a woman is later injured or murdered.
SJC Gave Glimmer of Hope
The Lawyers Weekly story was written because of two new cases where the SJC had reversed the lower courts. The paper said:
"District Court and Probate Court judges have long been accused of ‘rubberstamping’ 209A requests, which – once issued – are entered into a registry at the Department of Probation and are very difficult to have expunged."
But the paper said that while the SJC opinion was "encouraging" to defense attorneys, they believed it would "not necessarily result in trial judges being more reluctant" to issue restraining orders.
Taunton attorney James H. Fagan, who is also a state Representative, said:
"While it’s a positive sign that the court has acknowledged a problem, to suggest that these two cases would [cause] the pendulum to swing back to a fairer or more neutral position would be overly optimistic….I had a judge once say, ‘Who cares if she lied on the affidavit? If she comes in and says she’s frightened today, that’s all I have to hear."
Fagan added that even though the SJC opinion was welcome, the average person would not be able to afford to appeal a decision. In addition to that, it would probably be over a year before an appeal would be heard.
He also put some reality into the discussion by noting that the courts are greatly overloaded.
"All too often, given the busy and crowded docket the District Court judges face, a 209A request is a collateral emergency shoved on them in an already very busy, full day. As judges watch someone like me representing someone with four witnesses to controvert what was said in an affidavit, the judge looks at that and cannot help but think how much time this will take when he has a courtroom of people with criminal problems already scheduled for trial."

Anti-Male Feminist Propaganda Not the Solution for Domestic Violence



Mona Charen
Sept. 8, 1997
1997 Washington Times Corporation
The trouble with ideologues is their simplemindedness. Communists saw a world full of evil: Conniving capitalists arrayed against virtuous, long-suffering proletarians. Fascists saw the world divided between master and inferior races. Modem feminists see violent, aggressive, uncivilized men victimizing helpless, innocent, peace-loving women. It is the mark of small minds that they seek to eradicate nuance and complexity.
The fact that an idea is foolish, however, is no guarantee against its general approbation. Writing in the summer issue of the Virginia-based Women's Quarterly, Sally Satel assays the state of domestic-violence treatment and finds that the feminist understanding of the phenomenon has triumphed.
The feminist view of domestic violence, she explains, is akin to the feminist view of rape -- namely, that all men are potential batterers and that battery is an expression of patriarchal control. In a dozen states, including Massachusetts, Colorado, Florida, Washington and Texas (with a dozen more coming down the pike), guidelines for handling domestic-abuse cases specifically forbid couples counseling until and unless the man has undergone feminist indoctrination.
The man is seen by feminists as the problem in all domestic-violence situations. It is natural, if you already know who's at fault, to leave the woman out of counseling. To include her would amount to blaming the victim. Some of these therapies, by the way, are funded by the federal government under the Violence Against Women Act.
Like all ideologues, feminists are casual about mere facts. Feminists have floated falsehoods in service of their vision of domestic violence and, as Satel notes, they create "new bogus statistics faster than the experts can shoot them down." Some have become legendary, such as the claims that "more women have been killed by family members in the past five years than Americans were killed in Vietnam."
This is not to suggest that domestic violence is an invention. Alas, it is not. But there absolutely is no reason to believe that feminist approaches to the problem do any good. In fact, they may do real harm.
Take "must-arrest" laws. Many jurisdictions now require police to arrest one member of the couple (almost always the man) whenever there is a complaint of domestic abuse.
But while arresting the man may be the right thing to do in some cases, others are less clear. Arrest can inflame a situation that might not have escalated. And women themselves are sometimes the initiators of violence. Indeed, according to several studies, women are as likely as men to resort to violence.
Is it more often self-defense in the case of women? Not always. About 1.8 million females are victims of severe domestic violence each year. But so are 2.1 million men (men sometimes hurt other men in the home). Most violent situations involve both parties. Researcher Murray Straus, analyzing several studies, concludes that 25 to 30 percent of violent clashes between partners are the result of attacks by women.
The feminist assumption in cases of marital abuse is that all men are violent and irredeemably so. The advice of leading "experts" always is the same: Leave. But many women don't leave and they are not, Satel argues, all pathetic Hedda Nussbaums, caught in destructive chains they cannot escape. Many recognize their own contributions to the problem. Others weigh the costs of denying their children a father.
If it purely were a matter of patriarchal arrogance, why is domestic abuse a problem even among lesbians?
Abusive husbands and wives need to learn how to control their behavior and communicate better with one another. It does not help to tell them that men are violent out of hatred for all women.

(please click above to vote for this site)

JUNE is Domestic Violence Against Men Awareness Month

Contact us

Interactive Groups


Ken's Page

Jerusalem Daily/Shattered Men

 Read  Guest Book  Sign

Shattered Men Group