Hi All!

Thought I'd post an email I just wrote to some mangina called Michael Flood, who is a womyns studies PhD at Australia National University. Anyway he's got a site up at:

http://www.xyonline.net/

That is pure feminist sockpuppet garbage. Anyway he's recently tried to deny the existence of female on male domestic violence by discreditting the measure used in studies that bring up the 50/50 relationship, the Conflict Tactics Scale. You can find the original article here:

http://www.xyonline.net/husbandbattering.shtml

Here's my email (to michael.flood@anu.edu.au) :

Greetings Michael,

I found your site (XYOnline) and specifically your article on the
Conflict Tactics Scale from a link on the Wikipedia site. The article
I am writing about is here:

http://www.xyonline.net/husbandbattering.shtml

Glad to see your interest in the domestic violence issue. You have
made some interesting points concerning some recent studies and I
would like to comment on them and offer my opinion on the way forward
in dealing with domestic violence. Please note that I disagree with
most of your assertions, but am interested in an exchange of views on
the correct method by which domestic violence should be addressed. I
give my solution at the end so if you get sick of reading my rebuttals
to your points consider skipping to the end rather than dismissing the
email at that juncture. I hope though that as someone who looks to
work with men you may be interested in my point of view.

My initial feelings about your critique of the CTS originate from a
paper on it by Murray Strauss titled "The Conflict Tactics Scales",
which has already addressed much of the same criticism you offer on
XYOnline.

The link is:

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CTS44G.pdf

Which is one link above the link to your site on Wikipedia.

Pertinent comments from XYOnline, mine afterwards:

This study again used the Conflict Tactics Scale, in which men and
women are asked whether, in the last year, they or their spouse had
ever done any of a series of violent acts: hit with a fist or an
object, slapped, shaken, scratched, or kicked, their partner.
----------

The Conflict Tactics Scale measures far more types of behaviour than
this. It includes Physical Assault, Injury, Psychological Aggression
and Negotiation. These are measured next to a severity and frequency
scale.

==========

Firstly, they only use these authors' work selectively, as the authors
themselves disagree that women and men are equally the victims of
domestic violence.
----------

I'm presuming that you are not saying that the authors found as a
result of their study that the rate is equal, but then added a
disclaimer that the rate is not, based on opinion.

Your justification for this statement appears to be selective use of
one study while overall CTS based studies show that frequency,
severity and repetitiveness of domestic violence is relatively equal.
Ignoring exceptions to the rule is not selective use. Holding up
exceptions to the rule as equal to, or greater than, the rest IS
selective use.

==========

Firstly, it leaves out important forms of violence, such as sexual
assault, choking, suffocating, scratching,
----------

It leaves out none of these things. See above.

==========

stalking, and marital murder. Most importantly, CTS studies exclude
incidents of violence that occur after separation and divorce.
----------

By this stage it really ends up looking like you're broadening the
definition of "domestic violence" to include things that you
presumably believe would incriminate men more. If we are looking at
the issue from a "prevention" angle, then it would be wise to limit
the discussion to as relevant an issue as possible.

Otherwise we can throw in other behaviours on something like the
Dulles wheel of domestic violence, like "constant criticism", "put
downs" etc. to incriminate women more. We may as well throw in
instances of Parental Alienation Syndrome. And why even stop there?

The causes for issues may differ so to deal with them we best group
according to relevance and not go off on tangents. From a
"prevention", "cure" or "treatment" perspective dealing with the
problems specifically would surely be a better way to go about things.
Especially in this issue where a general "cause" would simply be to
point at one particular gender and blame.

==========

Secondly, CTS studies such as Headey et.al's treat violent acts out of
context. They only count violent acts. They do not tell us whether the
acts were in self-defence.
----------

They are aware of this criticism and have deliberately left context
out of their work as they concentrate on the RATES and not the CAUSES.

I admit there is much work to be done on identifying the causes of
domestic violence. Such studies as yet have not been widespread. I
want to work to change that. Do you?

Allow me to clarify. Alongside "self-defense", other possible contexts
such as "emotional abuse", "persistent criticism" and "persistent
insults" would have to be examined for frequency.

I think you'll find feminists will NEVER support studies into the
causes of domestic violence as it will shatter the idea that
"male-dominance" is the primary cause and more than likely replace
that with a context of "emotional abuse [from the female party]" as
the primary cause.

==========

More women (7.6 percent) than men (4 percent) said they felt
"frightened and intimidated" [Headey et.al, 1999: 59].
----------

I would expect this but basing conclusions about causes on the
subjective feelings of people is not very tangible.

==========

To make the fifty/fifty claim about husband battering, men's rights
and fathers' rights advocates must also ignore or dismiss a mountain
of conflicting evidence, from crime victimisation surveys of the
population, numerous studies using methodologies other than the
Conflict Tactics Scale, calls made to domestic violence centres and
services, hospital statistics on how people were injured, and
applications for intervention orders.
----------

Isn't the Australian Personal Safety Survey counted as a "crime
victimisation survey"? Admittedly it is not 50/50 and although the
interviewers were all female, and men only made up 1/3 of the sample,
the rate still came up 1/3 women 2/3 men.

Domestic violence centres and services are almost exclusively staffed
by strongly feminist women. These services are very clearly aimed at
women. Saying that men have not used services not aimed at or designed
for them as evidence that they don't need them is simply not logical.

Under the current climate of men being blamed for domestic violence
and the fact that men are more capable and willing to take care of
themselves relying on "intervention orders" as evidence is very
dubious.

Hospital records perhaps stands, but we are now not exactly looking at
a mountain of evidence.

==========

and that when boys and men are the victims of violence this is usually
violence by other boys and men.
----------

This is not relevant to a domestic violence context. It seems to me
mixing issues to bring about a general blaming conclusion. We could
add to this more instances of abuse from the "domestic"
classification, like child abuse and neglect in order to blame women
instead. It is a tangent.

==========

However, surveys such as the one by Headey et.al are likely to miss a
second important form of domestic violence, what Johnson calls
"patriarchal terrorism".
----------

Again why don't we just add things like "nagging" and "refusal of sex
as a punishment" to the list if we're going to widen the definiton of
domestic violence, especially in such inflammatory terms.

==========

We also need to remember that a great deal of violence by wives
against husbands is retaliatory or in self-defence.
----------

You present no data to back this up. Earlier you complained this
wasn't surveyed.

==========

However, if our concern genuinely is "violence done to men", then we
should not be concentrating our efforts on violence by women to men in
the home.
----------

Our concern is "prevention of domestic violence", "prevention of
injustices in domestic violence prevention tactics" and "prevention of
negative stereotypes". I *am* talking about "prevention of domestic
violence against women" here and not just "against men" as addressing
the CORRECT CAUSES will aid in that.

==========

There is thus a widespread pattern of male/male violence. The fact
that this is ignored in favour of spurious claims about women's
violence towards men is a symptom of the political agendas which in
fact guide men's rights claims.
----------

Focusing on "violence done to men" is another selective broadening of
the context. We could broaden it further to a concern about
"violence". Then men are the bigger victims and the issue of "violence
done to women" is of inferior consequence, unless there is some sort
of political agenda, according to this logic.

Then, also "stranger violence" is far more prevalent than "domestic
violence" and the causes may be completely different.

You realise that a widespread pattern of female/female violence (1/5th
according to the ABS survey) is also being ignored by the focus on
domestic violence.

That includes the female/female domestic violence in lesbian
relationships, the rate of which is vastly higher than male/female and
female/male domestic violence.

I would also point to widespread behaviour such as female/female
schoolyard bullying, which tends to be non-physical, as a negative
behaviour overlooked by blaming conflict on men in this way.

What you've done here is suggest that the cause of the problem is
simply "men". A wild sweeping generalisation that ends the discussion
before looking at the causes more closely and one that no men, except
self-loathing ones, are going to accept. A generalisation that leads
to negative stereotypes of men and increases the chances of injustices
in the attempted prevention of the problem, which is limited.

==========

Fathers' rights groups also claim that domestic violence either
doesn't really exist or is the responsibility of both parties, and
that other forms of behaviour by women are just as abusive, such as
verbal abuse, denial of men's sexual needs, denial of access and
divorce [ibid: 55-57].
----------

You didn't provide any sort of rebuttal for this claim. In and of
itself it doesn't seem incriminating to me. In fact if domestic
violence is to be addressed, it is imperative that these things are
addressed as part of the solution.

==========

the problem primarily is violent models of manhood and an ethic of
mutual combat and honour in masculine culture. To end the violence we
will have to change these models, such that toughness, aggression and
insensitivity stop ruling men's lives.
----------

I can't believe my eyes on this one. Do you mean by "ethic of mutual
combat", an idea that "if someone hits you it is fair to hit back"??

If so, while above you make the consistent (unsupported) claim that
women mostly hit men in self-defense, and that is okay, if the roles
are reversed and the woman hits the man, he is the primary abuser if
he hits back, because he is doing it to engage in "mutual combat"??

That is a pretty clear double-standard in your beliefs which you need
to look at. Maybe I misunderstood this one.

The next thing is what I take issue with mostly in what you've said.
HONOUR is a BAD thing?! Tell me how it is HONOURABLE to beat or even
dominate someone who is weaker than you and I'll show you a pig in the
clear blue sky my friend. You are alienating one of the best methods
with which to prevent men from committing domestic violence.

"Toughness" can be re-framed into dealing with problems without giving
in to anger and resorting to violence. If you hear the term "let's
sort this out like men" - that means let's talk this through. I don't
know what you're thinking here.

Destroying the self-esteem of men by characterising them as abusers
can only add to their inability to deal with conflict.

Destroying the ability to assert themselves in a relationship prevents
men from adequately negotiating in conflict which can result in
acceptance of unwanted situations to avoid conflict and unhealthily
bottling up anger for it to explode at a later stage (in violence).

This sort of thing being unhelpful to men in relationships is well
documented in pro-male relationships books such as No More Mr Nice
Guy, by Dr Robert Glover. In this book he explains how unassertive men
are often the most manipulative of all, and deeply unhappy, with their
wives overly unhappy with them as a result.

http://www.nomoremrniceguy.com/

This also indicates a misandric agenda of emasculating men by
demonising masculinity, which I suppose you picked up from women's
studies. An agenda that very few men will not simply reject as
repugnant. This is neither an effective method of responding to
domestic violence, nor of getting men on your side. In fact I
personally am very committed to stopping this sort of thing from
happening, particularly if this message is being sent to
impressionable boys, which I consider brainwashing and very harmful to
their healthy development. A growing number of men are, supported by
the Internet. If you are sending this message to boys I would ask you
to seriously consider the consequences in their lives for actions
performed at the behest of biased women who do not hold male best
interests or happiness at heart.

==========

They taint as backlash the call for recognition of violence experienced by men.
----------

It IS "backlash" so no problem. Feminist ideals by nature neglect the
needs of men and will not deal with the domestic violence problem in
the end.

==========

They antagonise potential supporters.
----------

Antagonising radical feminists whose main goals are to disrupt the
family unit and emasculate men is not a loss. If those "potential
supporters" will be antagonised unless the situation is NOT dealt with
correctly, then antagonised they shall be. Men are increasingly
antagonised by their approach.

==========

They are based on a simplistic "You've got it, we want it too" logic
which may not provide the most appropriate services for men.
----------

You know why? Because appropriate services will either be labelled as
meeting "misogynist" needs, or will be pointed as an example of
patriarchal advantage which needs to be redressed.

The best we can get is equal services because the provision of them is
recognised as not sexist. We'll get nothing else.

To illustrate, answer this: What services are you proposing?

I hope you're not talking about "anger management" courses run by
radical feminists, because men won't actually like that. Naturally,
we'll be told we *should* like it. "ie. if we're not abusers". That
sort of thing is quite oppressive, but does not deal with the issue at
all.

If I suggested something like "sexual deprivation abuse" laws
targetting women who withhold sex as punishment, would that get passed
or dismissed as misogynistic? We both know the answer.

Now you know why.

==========

Fathers' rights groups have criticised and attacked the operation of
Domestic Violence Orders or Apprehended Violence Orders, claiming that
false allegations of domestic violence and child abuse are routinely
made and that alleged victims of such crimes are too readily believed.
These efforts undermine the safety and protection available to both
female and male victims of violence.
----------

Same argument as: Laws respecting privacy undermine the protection and
safety available to the public by preventing the police from doing
their job.

Those things are not being criticised or attacked for no reason. We
can't let false accusations go unnoticed if it undermines the
protection of people's basic human rights such as protection from
injust imprisonment or removal from their home. I'd also remind you
that a presumption of innocence is a basic human right.

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by
an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his
rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed
innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at
which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy,
family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and
reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law
against such interference or attacks.

Article 17.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

==========

What we don't need are ideologies and services which involve spurious
claims about women's violence, incite men to murderous anger, pit men
against women, and fix men in feelings of powerlessness and blame.
----------

That is a PRECISE description of the feminist approach to the domestic
violence issue with the substitution of a few gender based words. It
sounds to be your approach to the problem from what I have read. Fact
is, domestic violence will never go away unless all causes of the
problem are addressed. We cannot have a simplistic one-sided blaming
way of dealing with the problem.

I would also point out that while MRAs are placing the blame 50/50,
you are placing the blame 0/100. Which approach fixes more people in
powerlessness and blame?

Your case against the existence of husband battering is very weak and
you ignore this aspect of domestic violence at your peril.

I ask you this: If women on man domestic violence is non-existent,
then what harm will it do to put in place the same safeguards against
man on woman DV?

Doing that will eliminate much of the controversy surrounding the
issue, so why is it always rejected?

I don't believe I agree with what appears to be your approach to
domestic violence from this article. I don't think it will work or
will gain widespread acceptance. It seems you have read so many
women's studies books that you are becoming ineffective in dealing
with men equally with women due to no longer understanding their
needs. I must say I was not surprised to find out, after reading the
article, that you were a women's studies student. Obviously, you are
predisposed to curry favour with feminists at the expense of men,
which will do no good in your work.

There should be an equal number of men's studies courses...

My approach is gender egalitarian and consists of the following:

* Recognition of acceptable methods of dealing with relationship
conflict and offering training in these methods. Educate in postive
terms of what TO DO rather than negative terms of what NOT TO DO.

* Catering this training to values acceptable to genders specifically.
A focus on honour and positive aspects of masculinity as a reason for
compassion and reasons against DV for men. No misandric demonisation
of masculinity. I'd leave women to decide on the best values to
motivate women to use the correct conflict resolution methods and
avoiding the below behaviours (empathy?). Training must be in equal
measures.

* Adequate research into all the causes of domestic violence,
including self-defence, poverty, alcholism, nagging, withholding
affection etc. ALL CAUSES looked at.

* Recognition of violence in a gender-neutral form as an unacceptable
method for resolving relationship conflict. Equal laws against it for
each gender with equal punishment and equal recognition.

* Recognition of verbal abuse, insults, criticism and ridicule
(including emasculation) as unacceptable methods for resolving
relationship conflict. Consideration of response to this sort of thing
as a mitigating factor in consideration of prosecution for resultant
violence. Again equal recognition that it could be either gender as
the perpetrator. Of course my hope is that with recognition of this as
unacceptable, and training in correct methods things will not reach
this stage with frequency.

* Domestic violence organisations, particularly organisations offering
training to be staffed by men and women in equal numbers, preferrably
married ones.

Neither men or women who are not responsible for domestic violence
should have a problem with the above and I think you will find most
men will accept it.

Thankyou for reading.

Kind regards,


Mike Anderson

Ah looking through that I mean't Dulluth, rather than Dulles.

Anyway, interested in any criticism, expansion etc. you guys have.

There is one comment I'd like to make regarding domestic violence: We all know that DV is committed equally between the sexes, and we've been trying to prove this to the outside world. However, I think that this point should be entirely irrevelant. Shouldn't everyone be treated equally? So what if more women than men are victims of DV, why should they get special treatment? Men make up the vast majority of the victims of war, but that doesn't mean we give them special treatment over the female victims. When someone is a victim of a crime, it shouldn't matter what their sex is, they should get the same treatment as everyone else.

Right! So turn it around. If DV is 50/50 then why would certain people not want us to know? Why spend billions on propaganda that says white is black and vv?

Why manipulate society to ridicule those who serve to keep it functioning?
Why elevate those who contribute little, to the highest status?

BECAUSE YOU CAN.