THanks for raising this issue. I agree that it is a very important thing to keep at the forefront of oour counsciousness, as painful as it is.

I happen to think that domestic violence is one of the most significant public health problems we have. In terms of preventable causes of morbidity and mortality, it is near the top of the list.

The director of the CDC, Julie Gerberding, has taken an active interest in this topic. See
Intimate Partner Violence: CDC Activities

Holy cow, this reads like the exact opposite of my entire life. I have never stopped being grateful for a dad who thought my sister and I were the cat's pajamas, but now I really know how bad it can be, and how it can set one up for life.

The other thing I am seeing in this series of essays, that I hope the Mrs. will comment on, is that the "old" moral codes are there for a reason. Having experienced the alternatives, I'm guessing that's why she's a conservative today.

I must admit, though, the timeless imperative, "Eat a good breakfast" is rapidly falling by the wayside as my five-year-old and I eat jellybeans for breakfast. Sshh- don't tell Dad!

The CDC is, unfortunately, still steeped in out-of-date stereotypes that focus on females as victims and males as aggressors, which is true in only a minority of domestic violence cases. Fortunately, I do see that they're at least starting to recognize that. Given that they're a Federal government institution, they're probably doomed to stay permanently a decade or so out of date when it comes to these things, so I guess there's reason to hope.

Before "fisking" was a verb, Sommers did the job on a good bit of received wisdom regarding domestic violence. The book is "Who Stole Feminism".

we have a fairly violent society. it's not just women, although it's politically correct to focus on them. violence toward anyone is horrific. particularly when there are sexual components to it.

being fairly old, i've had 2 careers already. one in law for 17 years where i saw a number of things i'd never seen or heard.

many children are abused. not just little girls, but also little boys. this sets up a pattern for life if the parents aren't wise about handling it. and most aren't capable of handling it wisely... little boys are raped or abused almost as often as little girls. it's not always the parents or a boyfriend of the mom, but uncles, aunts, neighbors and strangers. you see their ads on milk cartons daily... and on ads in your mail.

abused children react a couple of different ways. they grow up swearing that they'll never hurt anyone else, indeed they'll go to the moon to protect others and they do. or they hurt so badly inside that they continue being victims or victimize others. some of the luckier ones fall somewhere in between.

however. i've been in court when male rape victims testified. yes, they exist. not just among homosexual communities either. i'm speaking of male victims who ranged in age from teens to 30s. rape is a particularly invasive, not to pun, and cruel crime. it takes something of one's innocence and security and twists it up six ways to sunday.

and i heard male attorneys laugh nervously when they were handling these cases... prosecutors and defense attorneys alike. why did they laugh like that? had they 'been there' and 'gone through that' themselves? who knows.

out east, i saw more violence of this kind toward men.

men rarely confide in women or other men, the way women confide in other women.

and most of us think 'it'll never happen to me; it always happens to someone else', or 'no one i know has ever gone through that'.

i met women in state government .... at a variety of levels years ago, not now so don't bother trying to guess who.... you won't.... including some department heads who had been raped as adults or molested as women....

this kind of violence toward some women drives them to succeed and acquire power to prevent this from ever happening to themselves or theirs ever again... it doesn't mean they healed. sometimes they are still hurting inside like crazy.

i've met others.... like the woman whose husband routinely beat the crap out of her, frequently breaking her jaw, arms or ribs and then passing her around to his buddies.... a miracle occurred there... the sheriff's department, to a man, took up a collection, helped her change her legal name and move out of state so her husband couldn't find her when she got out. cops are pigs? i don't think so as i've seen alot of that kind of human kindness among officers of the law... i've seen the other side too... it exists, but more often, this is what's there...

i've also met women who deliberately shot their husbands, went through trial and were found not guilty.... due to circumstances beyond their control.... in fact, one county no woman who killed her husband was ever found guilty. ..... it was always self defense.... and having killed someone is hell to live with....

.... it isn't just violence toward women. it's violence toward each other....

I said I'd start writing about my opinions on this subject, after I'd posted the last of it, but I'm a little spent right now, so it will take a few days for the follow up.

I do want to say, because it is what prompted the whole thing to start with, is that we should not assume that women (or men) are ignorant of their abusive situations. Many are very much aware of what is going on (as I was). But relationships, especially ones with children, are incredibly complicated. There are issues that have to be resolved, attempts at remediation that must be explored, and a host of other reasons that can make it very difficult to gauge (from the outside) what is going on.

I think law enforcement is in a devilish situation. I think many of the more recent approaches are backfiring. If, for example, a spouse is dependant on the other for income, and they know that a criminal record will make that more precarious, they are less likely to call the police when they need to. For this reason, I think that the mandatory "take to jail" laws are doing more harm than good.

As Dean pointed out elsewhere, it's a mixed bag--there is no one size fits all abuse situation and about half the time it is mutual (25% he started, 25% she started it). Police need to be able to use discretion. The people involved need some say over charges being filed.

I know it is an awful job for the police. They must hate going back again and again to the same place, with the same set of circumstance. They probably cannot understand why the people don't split up, or why it seems that nothing changes for the people involved.

And that's, perhaps, is where some education of the police could be helpful. They shouldn't assume nothing has changed--a lot may have changed.

There was a study once (can't remember source) that said that women plan to get divorced for two-three years before they actually take action on it. It takes that long to decide. For men, the figure is five years. Once they decide, then they have to do it, and that can take more time.

I know that people on the outside can become impatient with us, but time just goes by (as I tried to indicate in my story). Abuse, for most folks, isn't happening every minute of every day. There are other things going on for people. People and life is a lot more complicated, interwoven with good and bad that 2 hour TV movies on the subject can convey.

We need a lot more patience with people. They'll figure it out, most of the time. We need to give them a comfort zone in which to do that. We need to avoid rushing in and making assumptions, telling them how to live their lives, or what they should do about it. That's just another form of the same abuse they're living with. They need empowerment, not to be rescued.

What shocked me more than anything about my situation was how the show of force, the willingness to defend myself, changed everything. Groups like Second Amendment Sisters, who give weapons training to abused women, help them acquire low cost guns, etc., do a lot to empower women. Most aren't going to use that gun. They won't have to. But everyone (her, her abusive spouse) will know she CAN. And that, as they say, changes everything.

I think one more aspect that I didn't address, that is so critically important, is that we not lose sight of the perspective of history. Spousal abuse, domestic violence, child abuse (and crimes against children) are NOT NEW. That is not said to excuse it, to condone it, or in anyway suggest that it isn't serious. But there are many new dynamics in all of this that could be exacerbating the problems. Abuse and crime will go on. We might wish we could sprinkle faerie dust and "Cure" it once and for all, but we cannot do that. It's been with us since time began and will be with us until time ends. Every generation, every person born, every person who gets involved in a relationship, may face these issues. Any solutions we decide to attempt, old or new, need to take that long view into consideration.

Some of the older, less politically correct, methods were put aside. We need to come to terms with why we did that.

And finally, we need to stop stereotyping people. There is no standard mold. The Cops TV show episodes of the drunk loser beating on the trampy looking chick is not representative. And there are other kinds of abuse, abuse that doesn't show in bruises. This can be just as damaging and just as painful. There are many of us who experienced that kind of abuse. "You were abused, huh? Where are your scars? Where are your bruises?"

I don't have a single physical mark on my body.

Going into a home to get involved in a domestic violence call is quite possibly the single most dangerous thing a police officer ever does. It is difficult for them in more than one way.

It became somewhat easier for them in the last few years because it became plain and simple: arrest the man. There you go. Not only is it easier that way, but it also lets you feel like you're protecting the innocent from something big and hairy and dangerous. Two for two.

The fact that it's so seldom really that simple has taken time to penetrate, and in much of the country still hasn't; indeed, a man who is physically attacked by his abusive female mate may well be taken to jail anyway. It is that way in Michigan, where (unless it's changed in the last couple of years) it is automatically assumed in any domestic violence situation that whoever is larger and stronger should be able to defend himself from anyone weaker without doing any damage to the weaker person--and is therefore automatically guilty with no self-defense plea available.

I have also seen, firsthand, the way that women who are abusive themselves get railroaded into things they don't want to do, that only exacerbate their situation, by the battered-women's-shelter industry--and it is an industry, by the way, filled with many well-meaning volunteers but also people who get government and charity money for it and have a vested interest in keeping the status quo as it is.

Again, though, we cannot get past this if we cannot stop with the stereotype of the big nasty aggressive violent man beating the crap out of the weak and helpless woman. Yes that happens. But lots else happens too.

As Cris notes, there are parts of the country where a woman can get away with shooting and killing her husband or boyfriend pretty much instantaneously by saying he attacked her, whether he did or not. There appear to have been women who have done this sort of thing on purpose, knowing it.

We need to stop infantalizing women and we need to stop stereotyping men when it comes to these situations.

This may, however, be a lost cause, and I think Mrs. du Toit may appreciate this line of argument:

It appears to me that it's very possible that the urge to protect women is innate to the human animal. If that is so--and mind you, it's only a theory, but one that seems to have a good bit of empirical support--then it may not ever be possible to expect fully rational discussions on this matter from most people.

I'm not sure that overall that's a bad thing, although it's got its down side. As they say, mother nature's a bitch.

Dean, thanks for leading me to Mrs. Du Tuit's stories. What a cool woman she is.

That Mrs. du Toit is a wonder to behold. I'm so glad to have read her stories. It is important for women and men to have stories to look to and to learn from. Thanks darlings.

Unfortunately, I was unable to read far into what she wrote, since by the 3rd paragraph, she'd used "name-calling" (a category of verbal abuse) 3 times.

Interesting. The first three paragraphs are as follows:

In a comment thread regarding domestic violence I was taken to task for referring to myself as "Mrs du Toit" by (what I would refer to as) a Femi-Nazi. She made some comment that she had a name and was proud to use it, and she'd never refer to herself the way I do.

I had a follow up e-mail with another blogger, someone I consider a dear friend (whom I won't out unless he decides to declare it), and disclosed a little bit of information about myself, that I hadn't disclosed on my blog. He made the comment that he wished he could revise what I'd written to him, so he could make the case that there are women who see clearly the abuses against men, who have seen both sides of the story—who've lived it. For reasons that I will only be able to explain later, there are reasons why I've been reluctant to disclose much of my past. Beyond those reasons, I've always thought of them as too personal. It sounds a little like whining when you try to relay these kinds of things.

I've spent the last couple weeks thinking about all of this. It consumed a lot of my thoughts while we were on our trip, this past couple of weeks.

Presumably you don't like the word "Femi-Nazi"--I don't either--even when used by a woman who once considered herself a feminist, and don't particularly care what caused her to come to her view. Nevertheless that is only one incident in the first three paragraphs that could remotely be construed that way.

I conclude from this that your real problem is a personal dislike of Mrs. du Toit and that this animosity has caused you to close your mind and make catty and inaccurate comments about my friend.

How sad for you.

Fascinating. "Name calling" to rise to the level of abuse requires that you actually direct it at a person. Since I made no reference to the specific person, other than to say it occurred on a comment thread, it would be impossible for it to rise to that standard.

What I did was LABEL an unspecified person's attack against me, with a term (that I'm assuming) is offensive, and therefore off limits by some PC standard.

Clearly, there is a semantic issue with what "name calling" actually means, or denial that there are women who use the once good intentions of Feminism to debase men, to deny them of their fundamental rights, or to attack other women using feminist memes.

That was not the feminism I signed on to. The day that the majority of women who use that label to describe themselves started twisting and abusing its good intentions of opening doors and opportunity to women, was the day I stopped using it to describe myself.

In the same breath, some women feel they can refer to men as "oppressive" but, if you are true feminist (not the twisted, immoral, hypocrites who've attempted to usurp the ideals) they open themselves up for the same criticism. They actually believe that their words and constant attacks and criticism of men, labeling them in whatever horrid way suits their purposes, should come without risk.

Not in my book.

It's sad for her if she was trying to change my viewpoint, she failed by turning me off in the first paragraph. (And maybe the other instances of name-calling were a little further down. I'm not going to re-read for the sake of argument, because I see no point in getting riled about this.)
Before I read this post here linking to this person, I'd never even heard of her.
So, from my point of view, all I'm missing out on is the possibility of reading more abuse. If you believe I'm missing more, perhaps urge her to communicate in a way that promotes those with different opinions to feel good about reading what she writes.
If you believe I'm being obstinate, you're entitled to believe that, but it does not change my limits of what I want to subject myself to, and I find it a little upsetting that you would attempt to insult me for that.

Um, hello, Chloe, I'm right here. Could you not speak to me in the third person, please? It's very rude.

The purpose of the series was not to change anyone's viewpoint, it was to create a foundation for my viewpoint. If you don't want to read it, that's your business. I clearly stated, upfront, that if my opinions on those subjects were not interesting or meaningful to someone, they should skip it.

You stated that I committed abuse by calling someone a name. Dean challenged that. I challenged that. You've essentially libeled me, and are now backing away from your remarks, but you were the one who was offended? Puhleeze.

But just to be fair, not a single individual was flamed in that piece, except the parties involved. I WAS flamed and the series was partly prompted in response to that.

But I hear what you are saying: Basically, it is ok for someone to accuse me of being under the thumb of an abusive male (thus insulting my husband), or I'm somehow less than a responsible, strong person because of my choice of address, but if I respond to it, with a label and description of my own, I'm the bad person.

Man, that kind of hypocrisy is pathetic. I never said that the individual who made those statements wasn't entitled to their opinions. I stated that I disagreed with them, STRONGLY and found it to be offensive to me personally and women generally.

The person who flamed me wasn't too keen on making sure I was welcoming to her criticisms, she was intent on discrediting me.

Now Dean has insulted you? Good grief.

It's all part and parcel with what I call Misogynist-Feminism, Connie. Basically, any woman's perspective is to be dismissed, derided, marginalized, infantalized, or otherwise demeaned if it does not conform to the orthodoxy of the hard left.

That said, it would be my suggestion that terms like "Feminazi" should be avoided, because it does offend some people unnecessarily. Not everyone whose knee jerks is as unreachable as Chloe has chosen to make herself, after all.

It's an interesting problem, Dean. It's somewhat ironic.

Would Orwellian-Feminism be less offensive? Militant-feminism?

The feminism that I used to know (the one I support and still support, but don't label it "feminism") was all about opening doors to women because "we were equal." Well, a lot of women discovered they weren't equal--not even close. Work, competing equally with men, was a lot harder than they thought, and men could be so mean and scawwy. Then, once we were in the door, despite all assurances to the contrary, women set about to change the terms. No longer was aggressiveness allowed. No longer were terms that might be scawwy allowed to be said around women. Men can't make comments about the waitress's boobs at the business lunch without getting fired or sued.

Some words are intentionally strong. If people (especially women) cannot get past a strong word, then they're still acting like little girls, and aren't going to be able to understand how to play fair with grown up rules. Essentially, I'll write them off until they decide to grow some.

I'm not going to do what you describe, that is, infantilize them. I'll abide by your rules, on your site, but I refuse to play that double-standard game on my site. They can grow up and deal with scawwy words and things which they might find offensive. If they find me offensive for talking straight, lord knows how they'll react around men. I'm not forcing anyone to read what I write and you weren't either--it was a recommendation--take it or leave it. No one was going to get fired for not doing what you recommended, or come to any physical harm.

Part of the whole political correctness nonsense is about controlling men, making them stop saying things that scare women. They're just WORDS. And in this case, text on a screen. Words like that cannot hurt anyone. You have to choose to be offended by a term used to describe an anonymous entity. It's the same logic that makes inanimate objects (like guns) have power. They don't. Unless you choose to give them power.

It's the same logic that gets Huckleberry Finn removed from library shelves because it contains terms now considered offensive.

Personally, I think women need a lot more practice with being offended and hearing straight talk, rather than perfumed speak. That is what they want, after all—for men to talk sweetly, with pretty scents, that don't cause anyone a fluster. If I applied that same argument to women of old, who used to faint at the sight of blood, or even talk of war, perhaps people would understand that this baby talk women seem to want is exactly what feminism was supposed to overcome. We won't faint. We're a lot tougher than that. But some seem to, but they call it something else, like "offensive language." Bullshit. It's the same double-standards as before.

Maybe a little straight talk, with some mean and scawwy words might knock a few off their high horses. I hate this dichotomy choice that this crop of militant-feminists has defined: either a high horse or a pedestal. Well, not for me. I'll walk around here on the sidewalk, with the other reasonable and straight talking folks. I'll take people at their intent.

I understand that your intention is to tone down the language to open up the audience to a wider group, but I don't believe that is possible. People that would "get me" (or you in the long run) have to be qualified at some level, just like qualifying a sales lead. If someone is going to be turned off by the term I used to describe an anonymous entity, I don't want to try to reach them. It's a waste of my time.

I don't have a problem with the term aforementioned. Words have energy and this one certainly does. It has energy because it has meaning. So does 'love' 'hate' and for that matter 'ice cream' and 'energy' itself.

Words are intended to cause a reaction, otherwise we'd all just be monosyllabic. To those that were offended by Mrs. du Toit's story--I have one question: When did you think she was addressing or commenting about you?

In order for me to be offended, I need to be addressed, personally. The only people she addressed were the people involved. How egotistical to think that we, the readers, have some kind of personal attachment to her story.

And, one other comment. If Mrs. du Toit's story sparked a reaction in you, perhaps you have some issues that YOU need looking at.

I'm just saying. For me, not that it matters, I found it a gesture of personal courage and inspiration that she would share her story so that others might be inspired or learn from it. I was and I did. If you didn't, so what!

I think my specific rejection of "Feminazi" comes from my aversion to referring to people as Nazis or Communists unless they are literally Nazis or Communists.

I understand that people don't (usually) mean it that way. It's not a criticism per se.

It's good to have feelings about words. Very good. Any feelings. I wasn't fussin' with you. "Nazi" is a very powerful word. The "Mrs." chooses her words for that reason, I think. She has a great command of the language; I admire that.

I see that trait in many great speakers. When I hear (not just read) speeches by Martin Luther King, Jr., Ghandi, HH, Henry James, Bill Cosby...--they seemed to pick their words for the eloquence as well as the impact both on themselves and on their audience.

Sometimes their words moved their audience to cry, laugh, act, react, or merely contemplate the pattern of a tea cup--but the words themselves took on a life of their own because their authors had the passion of their convictions. (I wish I had that skill.)

You, Dean, do that too when you really love what you're talking about. And, we're all the better off for it. Of all the 'men' who support women, you do so with style and grace. I appreciate that!

Aw shux. (Looking at feet, grinning sheepishly.)

Nice try, but I couldn't be less of a feminazi if I tried.

If you're going to label people, it's best to do your homework.

Who called you that, Helen?

Mrs. DuToit did.

I'm the one that was in part one.

I am the infamous Feminazi. It's headed off from Snooze Button Dreams, who has the beginning of the cycle.

And Mrs. Du Toit asserts that I "flamed" her for her viewpoint.

Au contraire.

I was giving my opinion. To date, I haven't "flamed" anyone yet on the web, I don't really see the need to-it's rather childish and counter-productive.

Done now.

I'm truly awaiting your post on this subject. If you want to, that is.

You see, I suspect I know a little bit about what you may write.

As a young woman and before I married, I was in the clutches of an abusive relationship. After the divorce from my first husband, I somehow found myself in another one. (I think it's important to clarify that my first husband was NOT an abusive person.) I know (among other things) what it's like to walk on eggshells around an abusive person; what it's like to give an Academy Award-winning performance to extricate yourself from them.

What I didn't realize is that there are a hell of a lot of males in the very same boat. My beloved husband, for instance, was married to a woman with a manic-depressive rage syndrome (not the medical or scientific term, I assure you). She would fly off the handle, for no apparent reason, and attack her then-husband. Verbally, physically, emotionally. I ask you -- how hard does one have to scratch someone to scratch through A TATTOO?

He learned to keep his keys in his pocket and leave. Just leave, until the storm had passed. Because he could not call the police, he could not do anything but allow her to carry on like that. The southern state we lived in would likely have branded him as the agressor -- because that is the stereotype. Not to mention the fact the stigma attached to a military male who "cannot control his spouse."

At any rate, all of the other name-calling storminess aside, I am very interested in reading what you have to say on this very sensitive subject.