Even more amazing still, one of the causes of DV listed in our class documents on the subject: MISANDRY. Yep...three cheers for our town's chief of police and instructor for this criminal law class...he's doing what others are not: addressing misandry as a cause of domestic violence! Check it out:

Causes of Domestic Violence

There are many different theories as to the causes of domestic violence. As with many phenomena regarding human experience, no one approach appears to cover all cases.

Identified and proposed causes include a need for power and control, a form of bullying and social learning of abuse. Abusers' efforts to dominate their partners have been attributed to low self-esteem or feelings of inadequacy, unresolved childhood conflicts, the stress of poverty, hostility and resentment toward women (misogyny), hostility and resentment toward men (misandry), personality disorders, genetic tendencies and sociocultural influences, among other possible causative factors. Most authorities seem to agree that abusive personalities result from a combination of several factors, to varying degrees.

Factors associated with domestic violence also include substance abuse, mental illness, poverty and various political and legal characteristics, such as authoritarianism.

And he talks about another reason why men get a bad rap and women do not, when it comes to DV....

Sex and Gender

Modes of abuse are thought by some to be gendered, females tending to use more psychological and men more physical forms. The visibility of these differs markedly. However, experts who work with victims of domestic violence have noted that physical abuse is almost invariably preceded by psychological abuse. Police and hospital admission records indicate that a higher percentage of females than males seek treatment and report such crimes.

Unless or until more men identify themselves and go on record as having been abused by female partners, and in a manner whereby the nature and extent of their injuries can be clinically assessed, men will continue to be identified as the most frequent perpetrators of physical and emotional violence

More from this document:

"In a more general overview of Domestic violence this crime occurs when a family member, partner or ex-partner attempts to physically or psychologically dominate or harm the other. The term "intimate partner violence" (IPV) is often used synonymously, other terms have included "wife beating", "wife battering", "Man Beating", "husband battering", "relationship violence", "domestic abuse", "spousal abuse", and "family violence" with some legal jurisdictions having specific definitions.
Recent attention to domestic violence began in the women's movement as concern about wives being beaten by their husbands, and has remained a major focus of modern feminism, particularly in terms of "violence against women".

Popular emphasis has tended to be on women as the victims of domestic violence although with the rise of the men’s movement, and particularly men’s rights, there is now some advocacy for men as victims, although the statistics concerning the number of male victims given by them are strongly contested by many groups active in research on or working in the field of domestic violence and "violence against men".

Estimates are that only about a third of cases of domestic violence are actually reported in the US and UK. In other places where there has been less attention and less support, reported cases would be still lower."

Ah the Tera that I used to like is back.

Domestic violence reporting for men is low for the same reasons it was low for women 6 decades ago. We are taught to take it in silence. We are told that we somehow deserve the abuse we recieve.

Feminism has curbed domestic violence it just highlighted the plight of one group of victims of it and ensured protection for that group.

The sad part is that if we worked at ending all domestic abuse not only would men be better served and protected but so would women.

When women were turned into the perpetual victims of DV they made it impossible to end DV. Because the root causes of it are not explored and dealt with.

A case in point a good friend of mine has a very abuseive wife she hits him and belttles him constantly. Well one day about 2 years ago she slapped him in front of her mother and the mother instead of rebuking her daughter told her that "That is how you keep him in line" and laughed.

My friend told his wife that her mother was part of the reason they had so many problems this earned him another slap and alot of berateing by both women.

He left the house to avoid more shaming language when he came home the mother was gone but the wife started up again my friend told her to shut up and she hit him again so he hit her back. She called her mother then the police and they showed up in that order as well. While he was being cuffed up for DV he heard his mother in law say "This is exactly why I have been telling you to divorce the bastard".

She hit him three times was subjected to emotional abuse by two women and was expected to take whatever she threw at him. But the moment he defended himself he was a "Bastard" and thrown in jail.

Now he is too scared to divorce her because he fears not just losing everything but also fears being jailed again falsely since he now has a record that says he is a wife beater. He now feels he has no recourse but to stay and accept whatever she does.

If we were to look at DV in all of it's states instead of just women being the victims we could get the problem solved for both genders.

If there were more avenues for men to get protection from abuse and had my friend had access to these services his wife may not have gotten hit back and he may have been able to get her help. And the cycle of abuse could have been stopped. But instead he has no other option but to simply complain to me about his situation.

Protecting both genders from DV is the way to end it. Protecting only women encourages women to be abuseive.

I think it's great that in a criminal law class, future law enforcement officials (who are now students like me) are being instructed to consider the plight of men as victims of DV. It's no longer "all about women," and the reasons why only women (as DV victims) have been addressed for so long are being discussed openly. Only in one other class I've been in (in the last two years) has an instructor dared to discuss openly with his students issues that men face when it comes to DV and misandry in society. I'm actually rather impressed that in this class (criminal law), misandry is a topic for discussion. Maybe we're just beginning to reach a turning point in history...could it be?

Quite a fascinating read, thanks for sharing this one, Tera. It's certainly quite incredible to find mention of misandry, let alone inclusion of men at all when discussing violence from intimate partners.

These things take time. Officers have to follow the orders of superiors with more seniority and who may not have taken the latest classes. Plus VAWA funds classes for working officers now and they press the PC men are bad POV.

"Allegations of DV are part of the "gamesmanship" of divorce"..

This is what DV is all about, its about the perpetual running to mother that children do, its about adults who have decided to cede their maturity and ability to make decisions to the state and expect nanny to punish the other party.

The person who claims the "victim" role gets the prize in this case, its a perverse system..

So, no surprises that the aim of many in a seperation or family related case is to become a "DV victim"..

By becoming a DV victim, a person (usually female of course!) is set to gain a massive advantage, command position, all marital assets children, and the full backing of the family destructive state..

What the DV industry does not like the idea of, is the fact that the majority of "DV" is mutual, i.e. both parties partake in it..

When the mutuality is established, or that men also "suffer" from DV (How can anyone truly "suffer" from what they are very keen to have inflicted upon them as it gives them the powers they seek?), the advantages of claiming DV by women will dissapear, hence, the effect will NOT be a reduction in DV, it will be a reduction in REPORTING of DV..

The only way DV will truly reduce is when men and women avoid co-habitation or marraige, and especially when men stay away from "violence prone women" as more men are deciding that they would like to..

Why is "Domestic" violence regarded as more serious that any other form?

Its because this is the type that is more likely to escalate due to the constant proximity of the folk involved. It is also the most common experience of violence that folk usually have.

I would say that the whole industry is clearly silly, as even if well meaning, it does not allow folk to define the their own personal terms of engaging with each other.

Some couples are not completely averse to a bit of "spousal chastisement", others will call the cops if sir objects to them having sex with the local rugby team while he is at work..

A bit of "push and shove" or "slap and tickle" IS a normal part of many peoples experiences, what is wrong with the middle class perverters ideas of DV is that they are imposing their own culture upon a class that does not have much ability to deal with such extreme "non aggression" policies..

Also, the middle class interferers are notoriously hypocritical, hence the glee when one finds a DV cop being busted for.. DV!!

The state should, in the main, keep its snout out of what happens in family life, common sense has gone out of the window and it is clear to see that the "Over-Zealous" interference does not make a jot of difference to protecting REAL victims..

Agreed Hahoo. I remember a girlfriend I had who would pick fights with me and say horrible things to me.

One day during an argument I asked her why she had to pick fights and say hurtful things to me. She said it was because she wanted my attention. So I asked her why she didn't just tell me she wanted attention she said because I should know when she wanted attention and she shouldn't have to tell me. I then asked her why she stayed so mad at me after an argument then and she looked me right in the eye and said that she didn't like it when I fought with her.

So she would start a fight then be mad that I fought with her. All because she wanted attention.

I wonder how many cases of DV are from women who purposely drive their men that state just to get attention. I don't hit women but I have been sorely tempted to in the past just to get the broad to shut up and leave me be.

Quote from chevalier

Agreed Hahoo. I remember a girlfriend I had who would pick fights with me and say horrible things to me.

One day during an argument I asked her why she had to pick fights and say hurtful things to me. She said it was because she wanted my attention. So I asked her why she didn't just tell me she wanted attention she said because I should know when she wanted attention and she shouldn't have to tell me. I then asked her why she stayed so mad at me after an argument then and she looked me right in the eye and said that she didn't like it when I fought with her.

So she would start a fight then be mad that I fought with her. All because she wanted attention.

I wonder how many cases of DV are from women who purposely drive their men that state just to get attention. I don't hit women but I have been sorely tempted to in the past just to get the broad to shut up and leave me be.

A lot. For sure. Many women seem to derive strange sexual pleasure from annoying men..

Many seem to derive it from getting men to fight over them..

Many women would rather argue than be ignored.. Theyd rather spend hours going at it hammer and tongue than feel ignored.. They love the drama, but they dont realise how much it drains men to indulge in their demanding attention seeking.

Drains and diverts energy..

They will alternately "up" a man, then when they have his approval and praise, they will then almost immediately "down" him..

This is their AW game.. This is what they live for.. This is what they love..

You can see it in action on forums such as this..

You will note how certain women have first "licked the arse".. Then they "kick the arse", then, when they get kicked back, they play "poor little victim", then they get support from the Knights for mares, then they have their orgasm seeing the fight that ensues.. Then they go back to the "lick the arse, kick the arse" cycle..

It just destracts, creates a sideshow, makes a mockery..

And all the time they are waiting for the best time to slip in some "pro-feminism" stuff..

Usually immediately after they have re-ingratiated themselves with some butt-slavering to the male ego..

And this is what often constitutes the "kick the arse" slap in the face, or is the preliminary to it..

Its an endless game, a cycle of futility on the whole..

They are sick.

People like this tend to want the state to regulate everything, as they dont want to think of taking responsibilty for their own actions in winding others up.

Women who behave in such an attention seeking manner will by the nature of their attention seeking always be prone to "DV"..

That is why the want the state in everyones private lives..

So they can carry one winding up everyone with impunity and play their AW games safely..

She.. "If you wont give me attention, I will go to someone who will.."

He.. "Please dont do that darling..."

Or should it be..

He.. "Off you fuck then.. !!"

Of course, in that event, she probably will.. But she will come back.. Demand her "rights"..



And they wonder why they get "DV"..

But they want to ensure that the state will punish anyone who seeks to punish them in ways they cant deal with..

All these calls for Male DV shelters etc are just another way of getting men out of the family home and leaving the mother with the kids and everything..

Dont be fooled gentlemen!!

Although sadly, I note that it is easy to fool most people..

Thanks for the heads-up, Tera. It is heartening to hear that DV against men is starting to sink into Law Enforcement minds. Even if it is in a out-of-the-way, top-left corner of the USA.

In another 40 years it might spread.

I see your notes say that it is little known and due to it being under-reported. I would say that the under-reporting of actual incidents is probably correct but the little known is not due to that. It is suppressed.

It has been known for a long time. The stats and the warnings have been there. The studies have been done. No-one in any political authority wants to make them known.

Quote from Percy

Thanks for the heads-up, Tera. It is heartening to hear that DV against men is starting to sink into Law Enforcement minds. Even if it is in a out-of-the-way, top-left corner of the USA.

In another 40 years it might spread.

I see your notes say that it is little known and due to it being under-reported. I would say that the under-reporting of actual incidents is probably correct but the little known is not due to that. It is suppressed.

It has been known for a long time. The stats and the warnings have been there. The studies have been done. No-one in any political authority wants to make them known.

Those aren't my notes, Percy...they are part of the document itself...part of the written lecture our instructor gave us. I just put parts of it in bold print. Also, the document is 33 pages long...so I didn't post the whole thing, just bits and pieces. If anyone's actually interested in seeing it all, let me know, and I could send a copy via an email attachment.

The truth has always been there, as you say. I think maybe there are those (even in law enforcement) who'd like the truth to be known, but are afraid of the consequences.

Those aren't my notes, Percy...they are part of the document itself...part of the written lecture our instructor gave us.

Ahh, yes. That is how I understood it - notes that had been provided to you. It was my poor expression to them call them 'your' notes. Ambiguous.

Quote from Percy

Ahh, yes. That is how I understood it - notes that had been provided to you. It was my poor expression to them call them 'your' notes. Ambiguous.

I just wanted to be sure I wasn't getting credit of any sort (one way or the other) for something I did not write.

I have written much on the subject myself, prior to receiving this document, actually, and my instructor (and classmates) have seen what I've written. I'm just honestly surprised to see my instructor agreeing with and touching on some of the subjects I've written about. I think it's great he's talking about these things with the class!