I was there too. I've talked about it here before. My first husband.. while we were dating, it was little "jokes" that I was "overly sensitive" about. After marriage it escalated quickly into verbal abuse, controlling my money, trying to isolate me from friends and family. I was not easily controlled and the harder I pushed back, the more intense it became.. blockading me into my bedroom so I couldn't leave (I wanted to go for a drive to calm myself down, let the situation settle), physically holding me to keep me from going for a walk to calm down. My own rage was really increasing too, but I never acted on it physically. Then he was slamming doors, tossing things around.. then he threw a jar of jelly at me. I had been going to counseling, alone (because he said he didn't have a problem, I did, he was fine with how things were). The day after the jelly jar thing, I made my exit plan and was out in two weeks. It was scary. I was afraid he would find me.

Fear for myself was part of the reason I left, but it was also fear of the rage that was building up inside of me. I was sure that if we'd stayed together, one of us would kill the other. I just wasn't sure who would do it first. I have never felt that kind of rage again. I was lucky that I could get out because we had no kids, no house.. we'd only been married for 14 months. I can't explain the terror I had that he would find me. The most dangerous time, according to all the experts, is when you leave. Those Lifetime movies aren't a bunch of hooey, they are more real than most think.

The other thing that people don't realize is that these intense relationships are usually just as intensely good as they are intensely bad. The good times are extreme.. ecstatic. The bad times are peppered in among them. It makes it easier to think that it is going to be ok because you can almost forget when things are amazingly good. They always go bad again though. Intensely passionate to intensely violent, over and over and over...

VandalSquirrel, regardless of whatever, I doubt that a GC man who shared what IrishLake shared would receive the response that she has received. That gendered response to intimate partner violence is why I created this thread.

There are less men here than women to begin with, but if say, Senusret I posted something similar I'd support him as well. I'll definitely put out there I have more knowledge about same sex partner violence than the average GCer and that is often less reported and less understood than woman on man heterosexual DV.

Man-on-woman violence tends to be perceived differently than woman-on-man, man-on-man, and woman-on-woman violence. If a GC man shared the lesson that he and his wife learned after a violent altercation in which he punched her, he was arrested, and his wife felt bad seeing him in court--that would receive a different response from GCers. If a GC man said everything that IrishLake said but reversed the genders, it would receive a different response from GCers.

I appreciate IrishLake's honesty so my posts are not about her. It is simply the case that the responses to her post are extremely common. It is extremely common for people to respond to women in a manner that they tend not to respond to men. That includes the fact that women are more likely to share their experiences as the abusee or the abuser than men are. Men would not share if they were abused and they would not share if they abused someone else (even if they learned a huge lesson from it and it strengthened the relationship).

I second this. I don't think you've "brought shame" on anyone. Despite the negativity of the experience, it was told openly and honestly for others to learn from and that is the commendable part.
While this may be true, I think the reasons behind the punch were what elicited seemingly positive responses. While no one has flat out said they condone hitting another person regardless of the reason, everyone can understand and empathize with a woman who was faced with a man about to leave with her child. This is also a "gendered response" because we are empathizing with the "mama bear" reaction and assuming the father would not protect his child just as fiercely in the same situation. However, I would like to think that, if DS told a story where a woman was attempting to take his child away and he physically stopped her, he may not get "hugs and love" (A GC man would likely get a fist bump gif before getting hugs and love no matter the topic) but usernames would not immediately criminalize him either.

Exactly.

I would add "should not protect" to the "would not protect."

I don't think we disagree on the larger point that I am making. I will just add:

A GC man who hit the mother of his child to keep her from leaving with the child (rhetorical question: How often do women threaten to leave, or actually leave, with the children?) would probably be told in a loving/brofist/"we aren't judging you and thanks for your honesty" way that he should have just called the police.

No one in this thread justified (we empathize and sympathize) what happened with IrishLake and IrishLake is thankful that it was a learning experience on both sides. Yet and still, remember what people said earlier in this thread about the different ways that abuse manifests and how abuse starts off small and initially seems explanable and understandable, etc.? The different ways that abuse manifests tends to be applied to man-on-woman abuse whereas woman-on-man abuse is often seen as "it must have happened for a GOOD reason...it won't happen again because the initial problem has been solved."

As evidenced by the beginning of your post:

Yep.

See: Chris Brown. Even after repeated apologies and saying that he's learned from the experience, he is still demonized by many people.

*This is not me condoning his actions.

I completely agree. Rihanna came out of this scot-free, but I think there had to be a DAMN good reason for him to put both of their lives in jeopardy in that car.

Now -- I would never hit a woman. Ever. However, some women* take advantage of that and come at men with the "Whatchu gon' do? Hit me? I wish you would! Try it. I wish you would!"

Say that enough times and you'll find someone who will take you up on your offer.

ETA: Women aren't the only ones taking advantage.

Absolutely. I don't condone it, and as others have observed, ultimately things like when they had sex, who said what/did what to whom become relevant. Dealing with these issues is often very personal, and like I said, it's often the case that both parties are in the wrong.

And it's those cases where both parties are in the wrong that I find the law (at least in Oklahoma) doesn't seem to have an adequate remedy. Often, it's the first person to talk to the police or the first person to get to the courthouse to file for a victim's protection order (VPO) (think restraining order for a victim of domestic violence).

In Oklahoma, the standard for awarding a VPO is pretty low, just that there has been domestic violence, stalking, harassment, dropping off of items at the victim's home, etc. And to go along with that, in the divorce arena, if the court finds there's domestic violence (and it often does in a he-said/she-said context), then there's an automatic presumption that the complaining party should get custody of the child. It's a great way to gain a leg up in a custody proceeding and is abused all the time.

On the civil end, I've both prosecuted and defended these actions and in the majority of the cases, I think the statute is being misused and that there should be a more adequate remedy. Treating one party as the "victim" and the other as aggressor, which is usually a distinction based on gender, is often a wholly inadequate means to tackle this issue in the courtroom context.

Exactly. I knew a man whose crazy wife used to get angry and mess with the steering wheeling, the car key, and attempt to place the car in something other than drive when they were driving on the highway with their child in the backseat. He said it took everything in him to not punch the shit out of her for the safety of everyone in the car. Thankfully, he was able to smack her hands out the way and beg her to stop. He waited until they got home and he finally filed for divorce. The things is, guess who got custody of the child? Not the father because he apparently could not prove that she was an unfit parent. Guess who would have possibly been arrested had the wife been punched and the police been called? In most jurisdictions, the husband or both of them. I wonder what would have happened if he had not punched her but called the police because she was behaving dangerously on the highway.

It is beyond frustrating. It's maddening. It's very, very hard. I no longer do this work because I couldn't take it. Aspiring lawyers often imagine a fight of good vs. evil. There are cases like that. Then sometimes it's evil vs. evil, or psycho self-destruction vs. evil.

A lot of mental health workers say their least favorite patients are the ones with borderline personality disorder. They have a diabolical genius for driving other people berserk. A lot of victims of domestic violence have this condition, and it makes it so hard to represent their interests. They will come up with the most creative ways to sabotage your work.

not an attorney, but a law librarian that worked in the county courthouse for 5 years. dealing with DV and everything associated with it was one of the main reasons for my burnout. ESPECIALLY seeing the same people over and over and each partner continually trying to "outdo" the other.

It made it really hard (for *me*) to be appropriately sensitive after a certain point. colleagues l lovingly joke that law school students are demanding... i say piece of cake compared to john q. public!

Borderline Personality Disorder is a terrible condition that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. That said, I've heard that when men are being abused by their female partners, the women often have heavy borderline traits (if they're not diagnosed BPD). The highs are super-high, and the lows are abysmal. They're often substance abusers. The men don't want to leave their kids but know that their wives are manipulative enough to do certain things to get custody. The stories out there are terrible.

This is what I said. I don't condone him hitting her by any stretch of the imagination but that does not stop me from wondering what she was doing at the time. Her actions are some of the many things that happened in that car that the public does not know. Unfortunately, when many people hear "there's lots of stuff we don't know," it equals "she might also be at fault" which equals "she deserved what she got." Which equaled me getting called lots of interesting names when I said "there's lots of stuff we don't know." People tend to demonize those who refuse to or are hesitant to demonize the abuser--an effect of that idea of "there's only one victim and one abuser and you MUST choose a side."

I also know that "I was doing it to protect her from hurting herself" is a pretty popular excuse for men after using physical force on a woman when really she was putting no one in danger. However, it is almost impossible to prove if that's true one way or the other without witnesses. No clue if it's true, but I read a good deal of what went down between Chris and Rihanna happened after the car was already pulled over. Would that change how the whole ordeal is viewed? Would that change if he also had bruises all over him and those pictures were splashed across tabloids?

I'm having flashbacks of that video of the McDonald's employee beating an irate female customer with a crowbar! Did she "deserve" it? No...but in this society, where many, many people are teetering on the edge of sanity, it is NOT smart to start screaming "DO SOMETHIN! DO SOMETHIN!" 2 inches from someone's face...

OT, but I just thought of that...Actually kind of on topic, since violence by women is escalating, and is bound to translate as an increase of women AS batterers.

I remember that. She jumped on the counter and into the kitchen area. Did she think they were NOT going to try to contain her? Unfortunately, she confronted the wrong individual.

I think most people only think about DV as male on female due to the large number of campaigns like "Real men beat eggs" and "To violence against women, _______ says no."

There aren't many campaigns that focus on all aspects of DV

My former roommate was in an abusive relationship with her girlfriend prior to her moving in with us. DV within same-sex relationships is extremely underreported; and there are a few factors for this--financial dependence is a huge issue, far more than I would have expected it to be.

I would be interested in discussing how same-sex DV is ignored or hidden. I'm super glad we got past the "just leave" nonsense earlier.

I'd just like to say that this has been an awesome conversation!

Anecdotally speaking, with regard to same-sex DV, I've seen plenty of it while waiting my turn on the VPO docket (in OKC, we have a judge who only hears cases where people are claiming there is domestic violence which entitles them to a restraining order).

Of course, when I say "same sex," it occurs to me that I've never once seen a male-male DV situation. Of course, due to the state of marriage laws in my state, the same sex community doesn't really have the same access to the legal system as everyone else.

I agree with all of this. I read this entire thread before work this morning, but I didn't have time to respond. That's the bad thing about this board, you almost have to keep checking it for good chatting sessions, otherwise you miss out LOL. This is one that I missed. Dr. Phil, I feel you on this. I've never been abused in a relationship and I've never hit a woman, but I have seen my pops beat on my mom several times. I was just a kid then, and I wasn't much older than 7 or 8 when they finally divorced. It was one of those things that she eventually got tired of. I think sometimes we live in a bad situation for so long that it becomes normal when in reality it isn't. When you mentioned the chuckling if it was a female beating on a dude, I'll admit, I'd probably laugh at that too. It's almost a normal response from a lot of dudes, but at the same time a wrong response. But, yeah, I agree with this all the way.

Is it possible that it was presented as a garden variety male-male fight when it was actually domestic violence? i.e. the officers just refused to book it that way?

Thank you for that, I will once I get a moment free from the law library!

SPEAK THAT. I've been saying this for some time (IRL, I don't it's come up here). There are many situations that fall into the category of DV that are never even touched. People are not taught how to deal with them and professionals aren't even taught how to offer help with them, which is a shame.

Dunno. I don't handle the criminal side of that stuff. Or at least I haven't yet. I do quite a bit of civil restraining order stuff, which is quasi-criminal in nature, because if a victim's protection order is violated in Oklahoma, it's a felony charge.

With an Oklahoma VPO, the party seeking it has to go to the courthouse and file a petition (it's a fill-in-the-blanks form) and give a valid address for service. There's then a court date and a hearing. At the hearing, the judge will listen to the evidence (imagine a daytime judge tv show and it's about like that) and then decides whether or not a VPO can be entered based on the evidence.

I thought of this thread when I read this:

http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_ne...e=home_oneline

I'm not familiar with Cafemom, so I'm not sure if this is just the writing style for the site, but I found this interesting:

It seems like there must be more than one accuser in order for a "woman raping a man" claim to be legit. I doubt that we would wait for more women to come forward before a "man raping a woman" claim would be seen as legit. I think it would help solidify a case, but the woman's story would not be a "cockamamie" one until others came forward.

The original article is at http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/15/world/...imbabwe-sperm/. I referenced the Cafe Mom blog post, because I thought the author's take and reader comments were interesting in light of the topic of this thread, but the comments on the original article are interesting as well.

There are several comments about why Americans would think the concept of women raping men is humorous as opposed to being sick.

I read through a few of the comments and saw this:

*facepalm*

I can't believe people can be that stupid.

Yes, a lot of people would laugh. But wasn't this thread started because many people are unfamiliar with different types of DV and found female on male DV humorous.

If there were more public awareness campaigns about all kinds of DV, then people would be more used to the idea that it can happen to anyone, and find it less humorous. Chicken or the egg kind of thing.

I think personally that it's not that they (the organizations) don't see there is a need (because there is), it think it's because people still consider it such a "taboo" topic.

Like the mentality that the women was "asking" to be raped because she dressed "slutty". I think some people think "what did they do to not keep the spouse/partner happy".

It's a total load of crap. Abusers are on power trips and control freaks and no matter what the victim does they aren't going to make the abuser happy. The problem is the victims tend to have extremely low self esteem and the abusers make them think that they aren't "good enough" for anyone else. It's really sad and I wish there was more out there to get these people out of these relationships and get them the psychological help they need.

I thankfully have never been in that type of relationship so I cannot speak from any personal experience. Knowing who I am though, I'm 100% sure that if my husband/boyfriend laid a hand on me in anger I'd be out that door so fast his head would spin.

That article was ridiculous. I cannot believe those women...that's just sick. On all counts. I'm not sure which was worse, the crime they committed or those inane comments.

I just read this thread and love the discussion that's gone on.
I do have something that I'm having trouble with...
In no circumstance do I condone violence, whether it is male on female or reversed. But I'm just not sure that realistically woman on man domestic violence should be viewed the same as man on woman. I mean, generally men are significantly stronger than women. If a girl tries to compete with guy physically they pretty much always lose. When a girl playfully hits a guy, even if it's pretty hard in her opinion, the guy will laugh most of the time about how pathetic it was. But I, as well as many other women I know and I'm sure many I don't know, have been joking around with a guy where they will hold me down to tickle me or something equally innocent and end up actually causing pain. They certainly do not intend to do so, but it still happens. Men are, in general, more capable of causing real damage to a woman than a woman is of causing real damage to a man. At least this is how it seems to me. If I am completely off here, please let me know and help me to better understand.

What if a woman attacks a man who is physically weaker than she is? Is that still cute?

Or what if a little petite thing uses a bat, knife, or gun against a man?

^^ I was going to ask about the use of weapons. Even something like a frying pan.

*cough*Gritball*cough*

ETA: Thanks for bringing this up, southernbelle14. It's honestly good food for thought. It sounds like you're saying that we should treat M-->W DV differently (i.e., more severely) than W-->DV because the woman will likely cause less damage. In other words, it sounds like the crime should be judged based on the outcome rather than intent. (Let me know if that's not what you meant.) There were some good points posed up there--would you feel the same if a woman assaulted a man smaller or physically weaker than herself? Used a weapon? If the man was larger, but she used her nails to scratch his eyes and blind him?

I'll take it a step further...what if just the intent was greater? Would you still feel the same looking at a man physically assaulting a woman with intent to hurt her vs. a woman physically assaulting a man with intent to kill him? Even if the assaultive woman hurt her male victim LESS than the assaultive man hurt his female victim, there is a reason why attempted murder is punished more harshly than "regular" assault. That being said, there would be a good reason why DV is just as bad on both sides--malicious intent to hurt another person is just as wrong, no matter how extensive the actual damage is. That's why I view W-->M DV as equal to all the other kinds.

You're talking about playful hitting.

Domestic abuse is a lot of things, but playful it isn't. And abuse isn't just physical, it's emotional, sexual, etc. In my experience, women and men both have the capacity to be extraordinarily cruel.

And yes, I've represented male victims of domestic abuse whose spouse was about 1/3 their size. Abuse takes all shapes and sizes and forms.