March 28, 2002

9:08 AM

The male, heterosexual victims of spousal abuse."Blood streamed down my face. Internal injuries dislocated my ribs. Lacerations and multiple abrasions marked my back and groin. My attacker had no injuries. I told the officer that I wanted the crime report to note my injuries and the names of witnesses. He responded, 'We ain't takin' a report from you, buddy.'" The officer refused to take Stanley seriously because he was a man who had been beaten by his wife.
posted by moz (82 comments total)

in a class on gender, i recall the percentage of domestic abuse complaints by men against women to have been about 10%; this report claims 15% to 16%. either way, the number is significant and the lack of available support, as outlined in the column, for men in these situations is pretty sad.
posted by moz at 9:10 AM on March 28, 2002

Although the abuse in my family was coming squarly from the men, I've seen enough in my own life to know that this is a serious issue. I hope it begins to get the attention it deserves.
posted by silusGROK at 9:20 AM on March 28, 2002

wow, see im taking a constitutional law class and just yesterday our prof said that in a study done at a hospital of the % of patients who come in as victims of spousal abuse, the much larger majority of patients are men...
posted by adrober at 9:21 AM on March 28, 2002

There was a detailed report on this in The Washington Post circa 1990. They felt it necessary to relegate this deadly serious topic to the Style section rather than news or even columnists.

If memory serves (can't search right now), women were just as likely to inflict injury because they were dramatically more likely to use a weapon (such as the phone in the link).
posted by NortonDC at 9:26 AM on March 28, 2002

Few things in life are as comforting as knowing how to quietly and safely dispose of a human body.
posted by dong_resin at 9:53 AM on March 28, 2002

I'd imagine there's a far greater percentage of woman physically attacking their partners then men.
I often see female friends and aquaintances of mine smacking their boyfriends, whether in a joking manner or not, such an action is supposed to be "excepted" by the men because. "they're tough, they can handle it." Meanwhile if one of these men 'gently' whacks his girlfriend in the arm to get her attention he gets pounced on for being abusive. This seems to be the way it is regardless of the severity of the attack by either gender.

If the issue is about potential physical damage caused, I imagine there's a higher degree of physical injury for a woman on average, but for quantity, the women I know think nothing of using force against their partners, while the men have been trained from day one that, "you don't hit girls." In either case the mental dammage caused by the idea someone is angry enough to use force should be equal regardless of gender.

Without making any value judgements on where as a culture we need to draw the line, the social stigma of the "Macho" man seems to diminish the idea that men are only human and can feel things.
posted by KnitWit at 10:09 AM on March 28, 2002

the social stigma of the "Macho" man seems to diminish the idea that men are only human and can feel things.

Bingo. This is an enormous pet issue for me. So many people fail to realize how incredibly damaging sexist thinking is to men. It's that screwed up mindset from which we inherit notions such as "men are strong, therefore they are sturdy, therefore they can take it, therefore they are expendable." Or at least they have no right complain about anything, ever. Or be wrong ever. Or be hurt ever.

I once dated a man whose previous girlfriend beat him frequently, and he had virtually no recourse, because nobody would believe that he wasn't somehow the aggressor.

I have no wish to diminish the seriousness of domestic abuse against women. In fact, I think if we as a society would acknowledge that men suffer from it, too, it might go a long way toward fixing the problem regardless of who is the victim and who is the offender.
posted by Fenriss at 10:27 AM on March 28, 2002

Few things in life are as comforting as knowing how to quietly and safely dispose of a human body

Is this just an extremely creepy non sequitor or did I miss something?

^new mefi tagline, by the way
posted by luser at 10:43 AM on March 28, 2002

haha.
posted by Satapher at 10:45 AM on March 28, 2002

The last girl I lived with bloodied my nose for me one day. Here's how it happened:

She was asleep in the bedroom, while I was writing, late at night, in the living room. I fell asleep on the couch. She had a dream that I cheated on her, then awoke and, still groggy, the line between dream and reality blurring in her mind, she found me sleeping on the couch and assumed the worst. She woke me with unsoothing words and, as I struggled to comprehend what she was yammering about, she hauled off and decked me. It was more shocking than painful as I wasn't expecting the punch, and I had to grab her wrists to keep her from pummeling my face. I remember saying something to the effect of, "Settle down, you can't hurt me," and then, her fists securely bound by my grip, I sat her down on the couch and we worked through the confusion. Then we had a pretty good laugh about the whole thing.

Hitting her back never even entered my mind, of course, but thinking about it later reminded me of something my history professor said when addressing the subject. He said, "Women think that they are very, very tough. Until they get hit by a man. Once. And then they truly understand the difference between the sexes." It's that simple. Men don't hit girls because they already understand the difference.

This was only a one time occurrence, and I was hardly "abused", but I know a guy who's been routinely attacked by his girlfriend. We're talking black eyes and bloody lips and noses on a weekly basis. Not only is it a no-win situation for him, it's also extremely embarrassing for him to talk about. He can't fight back, and he can't stop her because she's a freakin' tiger when she wants to be. I have half a mind to tell him, "Just lay her out, man. One time, just to prove a point, put her tits up. That'll put a stop to this shit in a hurry." But, of course, he can't do that and we both know it. It's wrong to hit girls. Besides, she'd probably wake up and call the cops. He'd be in jail within the hour.

He doesn't call the police, because he's afraid of this type of thing. "We ain't takin' a report from you, buddy." Great. Thanks for nothing, Officer Friendly.
posted by David Dark at 10:57 AM on March 28, 2002

Some smart advice for women:
The six dumbest words that can leave a woman's mouth are "I can take care of myself". No you can't, and get any notion that you're some kind of tough girl out of your head. Men are bigger, stronger and meaner. Your little kickboxing lessons at the health club will not help you. If a grown man hits you full force you will be knocked unconscious and very likely break the bones in your face. The most effective way to survive is to be scared; anything that makes you brave makes you more likely to walk into a dangerous situation.
posted by patrickje at 11:23 AM on March 28, 2002

See, I think you're over generalizing, Mr. Dark. I've been hit by a man (one who fully intended to fuck me up) and while it did sort of bring home the fact that the average man is quite substantially stronger than the average woman, it did not change my mind about the fact that I am very, very tough. I'm a big girl of scandanavian heritage, and although I would never do so, I know quite a number of smallish men I could take down if I had to.

This isn't an ego trip for me, btw. I'm in favor of getting straight with the facts, and the facts are that most men are far stronger than most women, but it won't do to assume that it is so in every situation. I think that's exactly the root of the problem we are discussing. If she can get some kind of advantage (often a weapon, or surprise) a woman can often hurt a man, and we do a disservice to men to try and pretend that it's impossible.

I don't think "it's wrong to hit girls" is the right message. I think a better one would be "it's wrong to hit people, and especially when they happen to be weaker than you."
posted by Fenriss at 11:28 AM on March 28, 2002

I'm not even sure why the gender of an abuser should even be an issue. Some people, of either gender, can be mind-bogglingly cruel. This is especially upsetting when it is done to someone they supposedly "love". Instead of charging these people with the nebulous(and usually minor) crime of "domestic violence" or "spousal abuse" just charge them with assault and battery and penalize them accordingly. Just because something happens inside a household dosen't make it any less vile.
posted by jonmc at 11:29 AM on March 28, 2002

Is this just an extremely creepy non sequitur or did I miss something?

Let's say that I've yet to feel myself really trapped in a bad relationship, luser.
posted by dong_resin at 11:31 AM on March 28, 2002

It really is kind of a scary situation to think of. She could be beating on me and I know that I can't hit back. I'm not able to raise my hand in anger at a female.

A friend of mine was in a situation until recently where his wife would come at him swinging hitting him hard. All he could do was push her out of the way and get out of the room and/or house if possible. then he would be in deep shit for pushing. Just an absolute nightmare if you ask me.
posted by srw12 at 11:32 AM on March 28, 2002

Some smart advice for women:
The six dumbest words that can leave a woman's mouth are "I can take care of myself". No you can't, and get any notion that you're some kind of tough girl out of your head. Men are bigger, stronger and meaner. Your little kickboxing lessons at the health club will not help you. If a grown man hits you full force you will be knocked unconscious and very likely break the bones in your face. The most effective way to survive is to be scared; anything that makes you brave makes you more likely to walk into a dangerous situation.

This is bullshit. I do not go around parading that I am tough as shit. I do know however (having been hit by a few losers in my lifetime), that I can take fullblown punches from a guy. I also know I can rip them to shreds and hold my own. I am cautious. I do not walk around with bragging that I can take anyone. I do not think I am Jet Li. I do know that I can hurt the hell out of anyone who tries to hurt me and if my daughter is with me, I will do everything I can to kill them.

Don't underestimate a woman, particularly not a mom.

Regarding the actual TOPIC of this discussion, male abuse is a huge problem. It is a national problem. It is short-shafted because a) it does not meet any political agendas. The feminists will NOT get behind this - it shortshafts their "Men are evil and we are the victims agenda; and b)the men do not want to admit to this looming problem as it changes the social mores. Men do not want to be perceived as victims. It does nothing for them - they do not want to herald a title of weakness. That, in and of itself, is the biggest problem here. If men truly wanted to set a political agenda for creating phonelines, safe houses, counseling and police advocacy, it would be done. This is the world we live in.
posted by gloege at 11:38 AM on March 28, 2002

David:

I have half a mind to tell him, "Just lay her out, man. One time, just to prove a point, put her tits up. That'll put a stop to this shit in a hurry." But, of course, he can't do that and we both know it. It's wrong to hit girls. Besides, she'd probably wake up and call the cops. He'd be in jail within the hour.

that "guys can't hit girls" seems like a narrow issue to me; i think the larger problem is domestic violence itself, and specifically our tolerance of the violence and our difficulty in escaping it. i want to say "why didn't this friend simply leave her," but i don't know enough; maybe he really liked her in spite of all this? maybe the threat of violence should he leave was too great? that there is a feeling that guys can't hit girls goes to the idea that the violence would be difficult to escape, but i can imagine there are other reasons it would be difficult to escape (like stalking).

in the former, which is tolerance, i think we need to reverse our social perception. if people are hitting each other, the relationship as a healthy entity is essentially dead. in the latter, well, i suppose we're stuck with the same problem that women often have in similar situations: how do you get out of abusive relationships cleanly?
posted by moz at 11:39 AM on March 28, 2002

I would really like to see some sweeping changes in attitudes from the police on domestic issues. Women have ALL the power and it is unacceptable. A friend of mine was going through a nasty divorce. His wife had moved out, but one day she decided to show up at the house and start wrecking the place (in front of the kid). He decided he had to forcibly remove her from the premises. He did so and she promtply called the cops and had him spend a night in jail. It didn't matter what the situation was, he was the aggressor.

Aside from that, my girlfriend likes to give me a swat when I say something smart. I always jokingly say, "Ow, you know men don't tell". She could never really hurt me without a weapon, and she doesn't mean to hurt me, it is just a swat to keep me in line. At the same time I kind of think to myself, "it would be unacceptable for me to act like that". I know I should tell her not to do it, but she really isn't hurting me and I don't want to make her feel like she is some kind of bad person. Mostly I just think it is funny, but the point of the story is how gender stereotypes somehow make things acceptable. If I touch my girlfriend in the slightest I have crossed the line, but girls slapping men is acceptable. In the movies if the scorned girl slaps the guy we applaude, and I think this should change.
posted by McBain at 11:44 AM on March 28, 2002

There's some very creepy comments in this thread, not the least of which is the "history professor" comment. What a freak!

Violence is never a good thing. (Duh. War is hell.) However, it comes from somewhere. It is almost always a learned response. Most guys don't hit just for the hell of it, they learned it from their parents or their siblings or whoever was being violent when they grew up. The same holds for women.

The notion that girls can't or aren't tough is bullshit. So, we'll just set that aside.

The fact that guys don't do anything about girl hitting them is probably the most troublesome thing. Why not? Why not just tell them to knock it off? Why tell the friend with a black eye to hit her back? Why not tell him to leave?

I don't understand that at all. Male or female, if I had a friend showing up with black eyes and bruises from their partner, I'd help them get out of the situation. What's wrong with you people?
posted by amanda at 11:55 AM on March 28, 2002

Am I the only one that thinks men need more liberation these days than women?
posted by WolfDaddy at 12:01 PM on March 28, 2002

most men are far stronger than most women, but it won't do to assume that it is so in every situation.

Exceptions prove rules, of course.

I'm a big girl of scandanavian heritage

Yummy. Wanna wrestle?

moz: I think it's impossible to get out of abusive relationships cleanly. For people who've never been in the situation, it's easy to say, "How can anyone stay with an abusive partner?" But an interesting note is that taking physical abuse from a lover doesn't necessarily erase all the feelings that one still has for that person. You don't get the shit beat of you on the first date, or sure, you'd probably never see that person again except in court. But in instances of domestic violence, there's always a history there, and the heart is not the most rational organ. While your brain tells you to leave, your heart disagrees. It doesn't make sense, but if you've never been there, why would it?

amanda, you seem very young. I hope you get to stay that way for your entire life. But come back after your "ifs" become "whens" and your "woulds" become "dids", and then we'll talk.
posted by David Dark at 12:08 PM on March 28, 2002

No hitting back necessary. She hits me, I'm gone. Next tidbit of polemics, please?
posted by alumshubby at 12:09 PM on March 28, 2002

Yes, WolfDaddy, you are.

Sheesh.

I just wanted to point out that that linked piece is not a news piece but an editorial opinion. The difference is that news pieces need to be backed up by facts and editorials are the opinion of the writer or news source.

The first line of the piece just seems grandly stupid to me. I mean, is it really taboo or is that an exageration? The next paragraph is a nice little anecdote that could be entirely made-up.

It is not that I don't believe that men can be the victims of domestic violence. However, I get frustrated when people starting frothing and salivating over these issues and start bringing up all the services which women have fought for and built to protect themselves. The number of women's shelters funded in this nation is not in any way related to the number of men battered in this nation. They don't have an effect on the other. The two things are not linked.
posted by amanda at 12:12 PM on March 28, 2002

DavidDark -- you're so pretty.

And, why do I seem young exactly?
posted by amanda at 12:13 PM on March 28, 2002

amanda- I wouldn't dimiss WolfDaddy's statement out of hand. There are a number of areas where I don't think men get a fair shake and domestic abuse is one of them. Child custody is another. Warren Farrell, the former male feminist, has some interesting things to say.
posted by McBain at 12:21 PM on March 28, 2002

>But in instances of domestic violence, there's always a
>history there, and the heart is not the most rational organ

Not only that, but in the case of husbands, wives & children, guess who holds all the cards? If the husband walks out, boom there goes any hope in hell of seeing his kids, because the legal system will never believe we wasn't the agressor. So he stays, because he loves his kids. Would you want to leave, and leave your children with someone who is physically abusive? How long before the punches are aimed at the kids?
posted by jkaczor at 12:23 PM on March 28, 2002

>The notion that girls can't or aren't tough is bullshit. So, we'll just set that aside.

Men are bigger, stonger, and faster. Can you really dispute that? Why do we have seperate leagues in athletics for women? Because they are inferior athletes. Sure most WNBA players are better athletes than me, but you know what I mean. There is a reason we don't see anyone dunking in the WNBA.
posted by McBain at 12:33 PM on March 28, 2002

amanda
I agree and disagree with you on several points. First I agree with you that this 'article' is actually an op-ed piece none of the incidents described are backed by fact.

The notion that girls can't or aren't tough is bullshit.
I agree women are tough, I would never hit a woman, and there are a lot of women who I would not want to get hit by. However the point I was trying to make was, too many times women think they are tough, and this fact makes them vunerable. The 240lb jelly-belly they are laughing at the club does not look dangerous, but if he sucker-punches them, they will either be unconscious, or severly disoriented. Man or woman, a lot of times the first punch is the last punch you will see.
posted by patrickje at 12:46 PM on March 28, 2002

amanda:

The number of women's shelters funded in this nation is not in any way related to the number of men battered in this nation. They don't have an effect on the other. The two things are not linked.

i think my question would be -- should they be linked? i will be honest and i will say that i don't know enough of the facts as i would like. would a women's shelter welcome a male abuse victim (heterosexual or homosexual)? could they be adapted to do so, and what reasons are there not to? it seems like there has been some headway in acknowledging that men can be abuse victims in homosexual relationships as well, but i am not clear on how that is handled; are there seperate shelters? why need there be?

McBain:

Men are bigger, stonger, and faster. Can you really dispute that?

i should have responded to these sentiments earlier. i don't think a man is not necessarily bigger, stronger, or faster than a woman. really, though, even if a guy was larger, it's wrong to assume violence is necessarily caused through direct confrontation where such advantages would be most useful. if your back is turned, there's not much you can do to defend yourself.
posted by moz at 12:50 PM on March 28, 2002

Men are bigger, stonger, and faster Um, no. Men have stronger upper bodies. Women have stronger lower bodies. Men can run faster for shorter distances. Women clean men's clocks when it comes to endurance.

Comparing women's and men's bodies is comparing apples and oranges. Would I prefer to get face punched by a woman? Yes. Can I take it (and have) if punched by a man. Yes. Will I go after him and try to take him down? Yes. Can he hurt me? Hell, yes. Can I hurt him? You better believe it. I am not a big scandanavian girl but let me tell you what, this tall, scrappy Irish chick can hold her own. Am I so arrogant as to think I can take out anyone (male or female) - no.

Do I have the confidence in my ability that I can hurt them enough to hold my own as opposed to silently acquiesing to their abuse? You better believe it. I am against people fighting anyway. There is simply no need or excuse for violence ever. However, do not tell me because I am a woman (and cannot dunk- where the hell did THAT come from) that I cannot hold my own.

Back to the issue at hand, assuming women hold all the cards is crap. My father got legal and physical custody of me back in 1978. I cannot believe he was a landmark case. Men today are treated better than ever in the court system. Women often get custody because the men do not want the responsiblity. That is not true for all cases. I recognize this. That said - back to the original topic...

I don't understand that at all. Male or female, if I had a friend showing up with black eyes and bruises from their partner, I'd help them get out of the situation. What's wrong with you people? amanda- this is grossly naive. Most people will not want your help and will misconstrue it as pity or interference.

Am I the only one that thinks men need more liberation these days than women? Wolfdaddy yes, but they need liberation from their own set of stigmatized ideals. Men need to realize they are not required to be strong, tough, etc. On the other hand, they don't need to be manipulative SNAG's either! *wink*

Obviously we need gender neutral policy that effectively states if you HIT for any reason you are wrong. I wish I had a grandiose platform to present here stating how to bring this about but I don't. However, to change law I do believe we need to change society's opinions of what constitutes difference between the sexes.
posted by gloege at 12:54 PM on March 28, 2002

Clarification before ranted at - when I said "Will I go after him and try to take him down? Yes. " this was not me chasing him down to take him. This was will I defend myself to get out of a sticky situation - yes. I wrote that poorly.
posted by gloege at 12:55 PM on March 28, 2002

Whoa.

Before this discussion veers way off track into female athletics, Will Farrell and his whiny self, whether men get a fair shake in divorce proceedings or whether men need to be "liberated", I think we need to stop and look at the real-life scenarios presented in this thread.

McBain is "swatted" by his girlfriend, this bothers him but he doesn't ask her to stop.

Dark claims to have a friend who regularly gets black eyes and bruises.

These are both things countless women have experienced and the answer to the situation is always the same. In the first instance, McBain clearly doesn't feel "battered" but "bothered" -- he should ask her to stop.

In the second instance, Dark's friend needs to leave. No ifs ands or buts -- he needs to leave.

Back in the old days where whipping up on your woman was a socially-accepted behavior and society looked the other way (society still does but to a lesser degree), women had little or no recourse. If she left, she lost everything -- her children, her property, her livelihood, her place in society, sometimes her life. However, regardless of the consequences, the only answer is to leave.

Now, she has recourse. This is a good thing. But even with recourse, the answer is to leave.

It's the same answer for men.
posted by amanda at 12:58 PM on March 28, 2002

amanda- this is grossly naive.

No, it is not.

Perhaps I should have clarified all the things that I would do and have done in the past. But, I'm not going to.

When I say help them to leave, I mean it. If they won't leave there's nothing I can do about it. However, I would never turn my back and I would always be there if they need/want/can/will leave. None of that has to do with pity, either.
posted by amanda at 1:05 PM on March 28, 2002

Trying to think of a way to fit this into my "why I like being gay" list. "If my boyfriend hits me, I can hit back," is the closest I can come, but it still doesn't sound right.
posted by CrayDrygu at 1:05 PM on March 28, 2002

>Men have stronger upper bodies. Women have stronger lower bodies. Men can run faster for shorter
distances. Women clean men's clocks when it comes to endurance.

BALONEY! Name one event in any sport or athletic competition where the men aren't better. Men run faster marathons, lift more weight, jump higher, jump further, sprint faster, throw further, throw faster, hit the ball harder.

The one situation where maybe, just maybe, some women might have an advantage that I have seen is rock climbing, and that is because of the strength to body weight ratios.

>if your back is turned, there's not much you can do to defend yourself.

There are always situations to equalize, I am thinking in more in an "all other things being equal" scenario. It doesn't matter how big and strong you are if you're looking down the barrel of a gun.

Sorry this is so trolly, but I was just responding to someone.

Ultimately, I am guessing most abused men could fight back but choose not to. It isn't that they are incapable of responding physically.
posted by McBain at 1:07 PM on March 28, 2002

David Dark: No fair flattering me! It's distracting.

There are a number of areas where I don't think men get a fair shake and domestic abuse is one of them. Child custody is another.

(Is a "male feminist" like a "lady driver"?)

OK, this is an interesting link. I will agree with this Farrell guy that men often get their domestic rights trampled. However, this notion he has that men's libidos are a great vulnerability, and that men are victims of some kind of sexual tyranny by women is absurd. I don't buy that anymore than I buy the claim that women are victims of their tender emotions for their partners. Sex drive, like emotional attachments, can be tough to wrestle with, but they do NOT control our actions.

Then there's this:

"Throughout history, says Farrell, men have been encouraged to be "disposable," that is, ultimately willing to sacrifice themselves for the greater good of the community."

Jesus Christ, I've been saying that all my life, and my feminist mother and father have too! It is one of the central concepts of my own feminism; that if the qualities that we think of as "feminine" were valued as highly as the ones we consider "masculine" men would be freer, safer and would live much more fulfilling lives. They would be allowed to be nurturing fathers, and to lean on the women in their lives sometimes, without shame. And they would not be expected to cheerfully lay down their lives for the first questionable cause some politician decides to start a war over.

This whole thing is a world of frustration for me. What people think of as feminism these days is not the belief system I was raised with.
posted by Fenriss at 1:11 PM on March 28, 2002

Women clean men's clocks when it comes to endurance
Uhhhh.....this is so wrong. My brother is a professional long distance road racer. (usually 5k-10k range).

Some of his racing results.

S-No-W Fun Run (5 Miles)
25:19.5 5:04/M (2nd place)
Closest finishing woman
30:48.7 6:10/M (42nd place)

Heritage Run - 10K Results (Rockford, IL)
32:56 5:19/M (1st Place 25-29)
Closest finishing woman
35:45 5:46/M (1st place, Women's Open)

Crazylegs (5 miles)
25:58 5:06/M (9th place, Men's Open)
Closest finishing woman
27:56 5:37/M (1st Place, Women's Open)
posted by patrickje at 1:15 PM on March 28, 2002

There is this TV movie from a while back that deals with this subject too. If I recall correctly, it was the first time the idea of battered men got airplay, much less actual recognition that such a thing occurs.
posted by PeteyStock at 1:18 PM on March 28, 2002

PeteyStock- That is what I meant with my "Men Don't Tell" joke earlier.
posted by McBain at 1:22 PM on March 28, 2002

I would point out the whole having babies thing but you men would throw the vitriol then...
posted by gloege at 1:23 PM on March 28, 2002

Oh, women do that by themselves?
posted by McBain at 1:41 PM on March 28, 2002

Will Farrell is the guy from Saturday Night Live. Warren is the guy who wrote the article.

The reason athletics is relevant is because fighting requires strength, agility, quickness, and coordination. Much like athletics. The difference is that fighting in a passionate domestic dispute isn't like squaring off against an opponent in the ring. There are absolutely no rules. In most cases, it comes down to brute force and men (generally) have the upper hand, if they're willing to use it.

Amanda, from Webster's:

Young: lacking experience.

I said: you seem very young. I hope you get to stay that way for your entire life. But come back after your "ifs" become "whens" and your "woulds" become "dids", and then we'll talk.

Makes more sense, yes? Please know I wasn't trying to hurt your feelings. Your first comment seemed to be speaking in hypotheticals about imaginary friends based on ifs and woulds, which conveyed to me you have no idea what you're talking about in real world specifics. Your opinions generally seem to be garden variety militant feminism... "You've been hit? Dear God, out, out, out!! No ifs, ands, or buts! To the shelter!" Real life is a little more complicated, dear. See, I'm more than willing to open my home to anyone who needs a place to crash while they get their shit together, but it's not really about me, is it?

you're so pretty.

Oh, well.... thanks for noticing.

*blushes*

Wait a minute...

*peers out window, suddenly frightened*
posted by David Dark at 1:43 PM on March 28, 2002

Oh, women do that by themselves?

So... you're saying that men have babies? Not that I'm aware of, but I'm always interested in new information...
posted by Fenriss at 1:49 PM on March 28, 2002

My name is Norm and I'm an abused husband. (Just felt like saying that.) This topic raises all sorts of feelings in me because I was often verbally abused by my first wife, to the point where I would have to stop myself from hitting her; and because my second wife would physically attack me when she was drinking.

While the concept of verbal spousal abuse gets "lip service" (ouch), it's not often acknowledged that some of us would rather be beat up than endure it. I've never been able to deal with confrontation well, and when disagreement turns into vitriolic name-calling, I become frustrated with my inability to express my anger. Was I less abused in my first marriage because it didn't leave a visible mark? I don't think so. I could restrain my second wife from hurting me, but I couldn't stop my first wife from damaging me emotionally.

So where do we go with this? I don't know. I don't believe in the "violence is never justified" or "violence never solves anything" credos. Both statements are easily demonstrated to be false. If they were actually true, why would we need policemen or soldiers? Sometimes I think our society would be better off if we admitted that violence is an integral part of the human psyche and attempt to mitigate it's effects rather than pretend we can make it go away.
posted by norm29 at 1:53 PM on March 28, 2002

Sometimes I think our society would be better off if we admitted that violence is an integral part of the human psyche and attempt to mitigate it's effects rather than pretend we can make it go away.

You make a good point, Norm (Jeebus, will I never shut up today!?!)

While I'm not overly found of it when people go around proclaiming "human nature" I think we have to accept that if we are ever to transcend our tendency toward violence, it is not going to happen within the lifetime of anyone here. You can't solve a problem while pretending it isn't there.

Also, a recent NYTimes article (which I think got some mention here) suggests that females have just as great a predisposition toward violence as males, but that they usually express it in non-physical ways.
posted by Fenriss at 2:08 PM on March 28, 2002

However, this notion he has that men's libidos are a great vulnerability, and that men are victims of some kind of sexual tyranny by women is absurd.

Really? Then get this off the stage and this off the air.

I don't know about you, but I'm tired of seeing sexually empowered women celebrated while sexually empowered men are degraded, and worse, self-degrading. I love my genitals as much as Eve Ensler loves hers, but were I to express such a belief in public, I'd be ridiculed, not celebrated. I'd be forced to, I don't know, become a puppeteer or something.

If this is not a form of sexual tyranny, I don't know what is. Why is PMS a perfectly legitimate excuse for a women's bad or off-putting behavior in social situations, but blue balls isn't allowed to be an equivalent excuse for a man? Why is this okay? Why do we put up with one medical condition, and not the other? Is this one of the side benefits of "the whole having babies thing"? :)
posted by WolfDaddy at 2:16 PM on March 28, 2002

>So... you're saying that men have babies? Not that I'm aware of, but I'm always interested in new information...

Mass divided by volume equals...
posted by McBain at 2:23 PM on March 28, 2002

...the answer is to leave.

Amanda presented this solution while pointing out it that, historically, it has not always been a realistic one for women because the problem was "where do you go when you leave?"

The traditional problems women had in leaving an abusive relationship were almost all financially related. The man was the main money earner -- how would the woman cope on her own without marketable skills? The recognition of these problems led to the addition of financial and legal assistance in the shelters for battered women.

The problems that a man faces in leaving an abusive relationship are not likely to be financial. Like it or not, there are gender prejudices when it comes to violence: men shouldn't hit women, men who get hurt by women aren't real men, etc. If a man is being beaten by his wife (or any other form of abuse) and wants to leave, the question of "where do you go?" morphs into "what sort of life will you have?"

What are the grounds for divorce? What are your chances of getting the kids? Can you afford alimony and child support? You would have some sympathy if she had been cheating on you, but beating on you? Come on, be a man and shake it off.

I just checked the referral lists from a crisis center in Dallas. There are a couple of pages of resources for battered families. None provide shelter for a battered male, yet all provide counseling for the abusive male. That seems to be the theme -- protect the women and children from the man. OTOH, I polled the counselors on duty and, with a collective 11 years of experience on the lines, none of them had ever gotten a battered man call.

A woman who leaves an abusive spouse these days can look to some agencies for help -- she didn't have that help until just a few years ago. It seems that a man leaving an abusive spouse is expected to do it alone (or if he's lucky, with the help of a friend like some of the posters here). That's where the "just leave" solution comes up a little short for some men.
posted by joaquim at 2:25 PM on March 28, 2002

...any sport or athletic competition where the men aren't better

Uneven parallel bars comes to mind, particularly that move where they swing from one bar and hit the other with the groinal area. I have this mental picture of the men breaking out in tears when it comes their turn to compete.
posted by joaquim at 2:29 PM on March 28, 2002

CrayDrygu: Trying to think of a way to fit this into my "why I like being gay" list. "If my boyfriend hits me, I can hit back," is the closest I can come, but it still doesn't sound right.

Actually, I'm thinking that heterosexual men are going to start reaping the rewards of legal precedent created by homosexual couples. Right now there is a lot of court action going on concerning rights of parents when separating (especially where one half of the couple has zero biological ties to the child) as well as healthcare rights for parters and ownership rights of property when a couple splits up. I think that this is going to bleed over into a legal area typical reserved for heterosexual couples.

Heterosexual men may find themselves riding the legal coattails of homosexual men.

Put that in your pipe.

Moz: i think my question would be -- should they be linked? i will be honest and i will say that i don't know enough of the facts as i would like. would a women's shelter welcome a male abuse victim (heterosexual or homosexual)? could they be adapted to do so, and what reasons are there not to? it seems like there has been some headway in acknowledging that men can be abuse victims in homosexual relationships as well, but i am not clear on how that is handled; are there seperate shelters? why need there be?

I don't think they should be linked at all. I think men need separate help than women and should not be lumped together with each other. It seems like that could set up an environment where both men and women feel unsafe.

There is, apparently, a male domestic violence shelter in San Francisco but it is geared towards gay men.

WolfDaddy -- Thanks so much for that link, that is a real gem.

Joaquim -- I agree with everything you're saying. I wanted to comment on this point, though: That's where the "just leave" solution comes up a little short for some men.

I agree. But, "just leave" comes up short for everybody. It sucks. Even if it's just an SO who you don't share financial, housing or child connections with. It sucks. Abuse sucks. Just leaving sucks. It will always suck and there's never enough resources for those who are getting beat up by the people in their lives.
posted by amanda at 3:17 PM on March 28, 2002

Why is PMS a perfectly legitimate excuse for a women's bad or off-putting behavior in social situations, but blue balls isn't allowed to be an equivalent excuse for a man?

Well, for one thing, the two conditions are not even slightly comparable.
posted by kindall at 3:32 PM on March 28, 2002

The fact (?) that the police officier wouldn't believe that man is probably caused by his machoism or plain-old ignorance of facts of life. Unfortunately such people is
allowed to be a police officer, which should be absolutely not discriminating ..once an offence is reported he/she must investigate the report.

Unfortunately, unless you're a dead body, many such offences are considered "secondary problems" not worth investigation, expecially when homicides and other "primary problems" are being investigated. At the same time we don't want to live in a police state.

So some people learn hitting somebody is not profiteable on the long term (read, you're in trouble) ..some forget..some don't. Certain women react in a cold-blooded way..like remember Lorena Bobbit ?

It's not a gender issue at the end..it's a cultural problem..people learn that they can take advantage on people that don't react, and many times they don't learn how bad is to be punched because nobody smacks them.
Circular problem..mhh

Anybody got some idea about solving this problem ? Personally I haven't any rational one at the moment.
posted by elpapacito at 4:43 PM on March 28, 2002

being as i have a history of this, i can understand.

being in a physically abusive relationship, well, it sucks no matter what your sex is.

it's not really about male/female dynamics. men being stronger, or women being more sensitive. it's about being able to get away with it.

also, social stigma has something to do about it.

when i actually fought back one time, i did so with a single slap. sure it was more than 90 degrees, but it was open handed. she called the cops, they took me in for 'questioning', next thing i know i got a letter in the mail about a court date. apparently i was arrested. oops.

anyways... i had to go into drug screening, and had to go to court 3 times. the final time i was fined 800$.

a few years later, the same situation occured. except this time, i didn't protect myself. i let her hit me as hard as she could, until she stopped. the cops showed up, due to the neighbours calling the police, and they saw that i was horribly bruised and actually bleeding.

she got arrested. she went to court. and she was fine 100$.

and you wonder why men don't speak up.

begin the trolls.
posted by jcterminal at 5:07 PM on March 28, 2002

Well, for one thing, the two conditions are not even slightly comparable.

Gee, kindall, I'm no doctor, but here I was thinking that both conditions were symptoms or warning signs caused by the human body's wholly natural processes used to eliminate itself of unneeded reproductive material.

But then that's probably my patriarchy-sponsored brainwashing talking. I'm wrong for thinking that using PMS as a convenient excuse for women to explain away everything from crankiness to murder is inherently wrong, and actually hurts the feminist cause.

I'm not saying that PMS is trivial. I am saying that equivalent pathologies in men are trivialized. I'm not saying that domestic violence against women is trivial. I am saying that equivalent behavior against men is trivialized. By both genders.

Would it help if I amended the male condition to 'wet dream'?

Glad you found the link amusing, amanda.
posted by WolfDaddy at 5:15 PM on March 28, 2002

elpapacito: The law on assault varies from state to state. An example: in some jurisdictions, physical conflicts or threats involving roommates or former housemates may be handled under domestic violence law. You'll find knowledgeable people at domestic violence organizations, in community policing, in your local emergency rooms, and in your local bars, working as bouncers.

"I NEVER BELIEVED SHE WOULD ABUSE ME!"
Information on domestic violence for men
brought to you as a public service by MenWeb

Menstuff® Domestic Violence Safety Plan for men.

The Verbally Abusive Relationship. Highly recommended for anyone experiencing painful verbal interactions with a family member or romantic partner, although it was written for women.
posted by sheauga at 6:02 PM on March 28, 2002

she got arrested. she went to court. and she was fine 100$.

and you wonder why men don't speak up.

So, your assertion is that men don't speak up because the women don't get fined the same?

WolfDaddy -- come on. A man is sexually aroused and doesn't get release -- blue balls. Every month, a woman's hormones fluctuate wildly which may cause her to bloat, her skin to feel sensitive and break out, and her emotions to hit highs and lows -- PMS.

It's. Not. The. Same.

By the way, I've only heard of one case in which a woman tried to use PMS as a defense. I don't think it worked. Which ones have you heard of?

Here's some info for you from a quick web search.
posted by amanda at 6:06 PM on March 28, 2002

WD -- you're just pulling my leg, aren't you?
posted by amanda at 6:07 PM on March 28, 2002

jcterminal: there is no trolling to be done. Both situations were terribly unfair to you.

Wolfdaddy, everything done from 72 on has hurt the so-called feminist agenda. Read an Elizabeth Wurtzel book and prepare to wretch. I refuse to define myself as a feminist given the current social creed, methodology and mores of a typical so-called feminist.

Feminism came about to get women opportunity. Society viewed women as working class (aka teachers) or married class. There was no in-between. Only the girls coming from relative wealth could afford private college education. The women's movement was founded to demand opportunity- for women to be able to have the same options available to them as men. This meant public schooling and the right to work if married. No more, no less. Somewhere during all the acid trips of the late 60s, it mutated into something ugly. It became what we don't have and you do damnit and cause we have a vulva you should give it to me. It stopped being about opportunity and a woman's right to earn her place in the world and about how you are a man ergo you have done me wrong.

The ACLU snagged onto the coattails of feminism and affirmative action was born. This did more damage to minorities than any other action since the suffrage movement. Civil rights accomplished good things. The early feminists accomplished good things. By the 1980s, all purpose went right out the window and it because screw the white male - and we shot ourselves in the foot.

We could argue all day about the equalities of the sexes. We could also compare apples and oranges and cry about the plight of men or women everywhere. Until we embrace such differences overall and admit that women have their particular strengths, men have theirs and sometimes the two shall (or shall not) meet, until we realize it is more about respect and doing a good job and not your penis or the fact you can scream "I PMS - HEAR ME ROAR" then women AND men will continue to suffer in relative silence from all sorts of abuses perpetuated by others and society itself.

I think it really is as simple as that.
posted by gloege at 6:10 PM on March 28, 2002

I think the notion of feminism as anti-male is, like, so 1988. The backlash is over, man. Get with the times.
posted by amanda at 6:14 PM on March 28, 2002

Um. It IS still anti-male. Like get with what it is in 2002 woman. Stop being naive. Times have not changed much in the last 14 years.
posted by gloege at 6:17 PM on March 28, 2002

Amanda
It's. Not. The. Same. I didn't say it was equal. I said it was equivalent and analogous. Again, take the nocturnal emission analogy (and think about WHY there's a need for it when all else fails) if you prefer.

By the way, I've only heard of one case in which a woman tried to use PMS as a defense. I don't think it worked. Which ones have you heard of?
I linked in a document in my prior comment (click on MURDER) which cited two cases in Britain in the 80s. Both cases resulted in a lowered sentence due to "diminished responsibility". The two women in question admittedly suffered PMS to an extreme degree, a degree rarely, if ever, experienced by the vast majority of women extant. That didn't, and doesn't, stop criminals and defense attorneys from trying to use PMS as an equivalent-to-temporary-insanity defense. Not that temporary insanity carries much weight in my personal book. Not since John Hinckley, anyways.

WD -- you're just pulling my leg, aren't you? Now why would I do that?

The backlash is over, man. Get with the times. I dunno, have you logged on to *shiver* AOL lately and seen how many supposedly straight (not to mention married, not to mention married with children) men are experimenting with homosexuality these days? Sorta like, you know, how some feminists flirt with (or outright adopt) lesbianism. Check it out, you might find out some interesting things about men. Or you may find a lot of juvenile burping and farting and locker room antics. Depends on what you want to see.

gloege
You rock.
posted by WolfDaddy at 6:44 PM on March 28, 2002

This is my last post in this thread (~And then they ate the minstrels and there was great rejoicing.~).

I'm sure that I've said this before on MeFi in similar topics (probably many, many times) and I think it's true for this one: this has nothing to do with feminism.

Women hitting men and men not reporting it has nothing to do with feminism.

Women now have recourse against batterers. The fact that women may have more options and recourse against batterers does not mean that more men are being battered. They are unrelated.

Is this not obvious?

Women do not hit men because they are feminists. Are men who hit women masculinists?
posted by amanda at 6:51 PM on March 28, 2002

On endurance: this link discusses some of the questions raised by women's performance in ultradistance running. This one provides a somewhat more technical analysis, which also points out that women tend to beat men in "ultradistance" as opposed to "mere" marathon competition.
posted by thomas j wise at 7:16 PM on March 28, 2002

ohmigod! i was right? *boing boing boing* I love being right. *dance around*

*ahem* so sorry. I am under control... really....
posted by gloege at 7:21 PM on March 28, 2002

Last post for me in this thread, too, since it really has veered off topic (not surprisingly, I suppose), and partially due to a one-liner I tossed out. I apologize. Besides, I'm full of minstrels, and I need to use the bathroom.

However, amanda, to my mind you yourself linked the issue of domestic violence to contemporary feminism by stating: However, I get frustrated when people starting frothing and salivating over these issues and start bringing up all the services which women have fought for and built to protect themselves.

The implication of that very interesting statement--"protect themselves" from whom being the salient question to ask--ties right into modern feminist thought that male=bad. You'll note that shelters for battered women didn't even appear in the United States until the feminist movement started to become co-opted by its more radical elements. Do you think that all these services for which "women have fought for and built to protect themselves" beginning back in the early 70s were done completely free and independent of feminist thought and influence? That's naive.
posted by WolfDaddy at 7:58 PM on March 28, 2002

Okay, I have to step in and defend the social awareness brought about by the feminist movement.

1. Roe v. Wade - imho is a VERY good thing.

2. Women's shelters are imho a VERY good thing and quite necessary.

Radical elements promote political agenda and get money thrown at it. As much as I do not like the guise under which feminism falls and while it bothers me that yes, you are correct that radical elements brought about many social and structural support changes for women, I also find myself quavering because some of those changes were good things [tm]. However, instead of women shelters we obviously need and needed a place to which people of any gender can run in times in need.
posted by gloege at 8:11 PM on March 28, 2002

Whether women's shelters were built by people influenced by feminist thought is irrelevant. They serve to fulfill a need that battered men often do not have -- the need for safe shelter, free of charge, completely inaccessible to their abusers, open to them regardless of their physical condition or the time of day that they're able to break free. Battered women are often victims of more than physical violence; they are routinely cut off from the outside world by abusers who not only brutalise them, but control them as well. If they've been isolated enough, they may be left with no one to turn to. Many of these women do not work outside the home, and their abusers control all of the money, and limit the ability of the women to come and go as they please.

I work with a local shelter, and in the past year we served more than 400 women, a startling number of whom came to the facility with bare feet because their abuser took all of their shoes in an effort to keep them stuck inside the house.

There are certainly men who are domestic violence victims who are also isolated, controlled and so on. Should there be a place where they can go? Well, if you agree that victims of crime ought to be the ones who have to run and hide, then absolutely. But by and large, they are men who have regular, every day lives and a terrible secret lurking in their homes. They often have the means and opportunities to leave their abusers, why they don't is a psychological issue which would be a massive discussion in and of itself.
posted by Dreama at 8:23 PM on March 28, 2002

"So, your assertion is that men don't speak up because the women don't get fined the same?"

no offense, but you're an idiot if you didn't get it. yes, that's one of my assertions. when a woman is beaten, it's *really bad*, when it's a man, it's a woman defending themself. whatever.

the point SHOULD BE, that physical violence is bad, no matter who is the perp and who is the victim. but unfortunately, that's not how it is.

christ woman, you need a beating.

just kidding, shut up.
posted by jcterminal at 8:55 PM on March 28, 2002

Gee, kindall, I'm no doctor, but here I was thinking that both conditions were symptoms or warning signs caused by the human body's wholly natural processes used to eliminate itself of unneeded reproductive material.

Well, for one thing, it's a lot easier to get rid of blue balls than it is to get rid of PMS.
posted by kindall at 9:58 PM on March 28, 2002

Not really - believe it or not sex gets rid of them both.
posted by gloege at 11:02 PM on March 28, 2002

Not exactly. Sex can be helpful in reducing some of the pain from, say, menstrual cramps, but it doesn't do much for the general PMS symptoms, in my experience. Even what it does do I wouldn't call "getting rid" of anything. It dulls the cramps for a while, but then they come back.
posted by litlnemo at 12:07 AM on March 29, 2002

The thing is, domestic violence (usually defined as male-on-female violence, leaving female-on-male violence as invisible or merely abberant) and Feminism are intricately entwined - to suppose that can be seen "merely" as a civil issue is missing the point, in the same way that supposing that abortion can be seen as purely a medical issue is. The founder of Women's Refuges had a run in with the Separatist Movement in the seventies - an article here. Although it is, of course, on one of those "men's rights" sites, don't know if that puts you off. There's a lot of similar stuff and statistics on those kinds of site, with the obvious proviso that tthey have their agenda (as feminists have theirs).



Might it be useful to have some scale by which we can measure physical violence inflicted, independant of the nature of the perpetrator?
posted by Grangousier at 2:14 AM on March 29, 2002

"amanda, you seem very young."

Patronising much?

Amanda, there are going to be people who don't appreciate your strength, either physical or intellectual. But that's neither here nor there. You are smart enough to keep hold of it and have the independence of mind to do so.
posted by lucien at 2:35 AM on March 29, 2002

Mmm. On further reading, Pizzey is perhaps not the most reliable of references. She does have issues, perhaps understandably. This book seems better, although so far I'm only up to chapter 2. Still, it's all grist to the mill, eh?
posted by Grangousier at 2:55 AM on March 29, 2002

Would it help if I amended the male condition to 'wet dream'?

wolfbuddy, do guys you know actually have these? in my 30 years of life, i'd say i've had about 3, the last time being about 11 years ago. I'm a strong supporter of, er, preventive medicine.
posted by th3ph17 at 5:15 AM on March 29, 2002

i'm sorry, but am i the only person who was unnerved and freaked out by the vitriol in this thread? i think that the posts here totally speak to how BOTH genders have it pretty bad right now—the overreliance on stereotypes, the complete demonization of the other gender, etc etc. it's important to not let anger and op-eds with agendas cloud the debate; it's also sad, to me, that the word feminism, which to me means the fight for equality between the sexes (and you can't argue that there isn't a long way to go on ALL ends of that debate), has been co-opted by its enemies to mean 'the exact gender reversal of the conditions around the world right now.'

you could say that the regressive tendencies of the world caught up with any progress feminism might have made—the idea that women could work in an office and the corresponding ratcheting-up of minimum income levels for families so that women had to work could be, probably, the most egregious example—and that i think could be very true.

but seriously, this thread is so fucking depressing. i'm sorry. one-downmanship and 'i have it worse than you!!'ness doesn't really serve to further any debates.
posted by maura at 8:20 AM on March 29, 2002

maura:

i'm sorry, but am i the only person who was unnerved and freaked out by the vitriol in this thread? i think that the posts here totally speak to how BOTH genders have it pretty bad right now—the overreliance on stereotypes, the complete demonization of the other gender, etc etc. it's important to not let anger and op-eds with agendas cloud the debate;

i agree with you, maura. i think a few people in this thread have made some pretty tasteless comments. i'm glad that some people felt they could open up, but i thought we got preoccupied with how men compare athletically to women (which i thought was a non-point and i'm sorry i didn't mention so earlier) and the conversation degraded into a partisan fight.

that seems to be the nature of discussion, though. it doesn't seem often that controversy ends amicably. it's not metafilter per se.
posted by moz at 8:53 AM on March 29, 2002

lucien says: patronising much?

As he pats amanda on the head and says, "that's a good girl."
posted by David Dark at 10:48 AM on March 29, 2002

Interactions on message boards often come off as patronizing, because (a) we're strangers, so there is no 'that's how Ash is, I know he respects my opinion, he just talks like he was raised by a committee of academics'; (b) the written word is more formal, and formality often appears patronizing; (c) the written word comes with no non-verbal cues, so we supply our own to please (or offend) ourselves.

Anyhow, regarding physical fights between real people, most men could beat up most women without much difficulty, because most men are taller and heavier than most women. I estimate that a given woman of the same height and weight as a given man stands about a 40% chance of beating him up in a no-holds-barred fight. Factors like age and fitness level are relevant: a woman aged 25 could probably beat up a 15-year-old boy of the same height and weight, and would have no problems cleaning the clock of an 75-year-old man.

However, as with fights between men and men, it's usually not physical brawn that determines the outcome, but sheer viciousness. Women are much less inclined to beat up other people, and when they do, they do so with much less intent to harm. The lady who beats away the mugger with her umbrella is not trying to kill him, she's trying to force him away, and she won't pursue him if he flees. A man who gains the advantage over a mugger, on the other hand, is more likely to try to put him in hospital. The blood pounds louder in a man's ears.

Many battered women are standing between their brutal husbands and their kids, which is a complication that doesn't work the same way the other way around. Kids give men a lot of power over women, and to some extent vice versa.

FWIW if any male friend of mine said his girlfriend had beaten the shit out of him, I would do what I would do for a female friend: (a) believe him; (b) not make fun of him; (c) offer him shelter if he needs it; (d) when he's ready, suggest he reassess why he's with her, and what he can do about it.

Ash.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 7:52 PM on March 29, 2002

aeschen:

I estimate that a given woman of the same height and weight as a given man stands about a 40% chance of beating him up in a no-holds-barred fight.

where does 40% come from? i'm not sure why you feel you need to attach a number to the chances of a woman beating up someone else when you cite no sources in support of that number.
posted by moz at 9:32 PM on March 29, 2002

lucien says: patronising much?

As he pats amanda on the head and says, "that's a good girl."

God, can't you do better than that by simply over-laying your own motivations onto others DD? First of all, I think the poster is likely older than you and I are, they are certainly more intelligent and able to conduct a discourse on a far more mature level than yourself. And neither by act or intention, would I have reacted differently were the poster male.

The comments -"I have half a mind to tell him, "Just lay her out, man. One time, just to prove a point, put her tits up."

And -

"I'm a big girl of scandanavian heritage"

"Yummy. Wanna wrestle?"

Were simply other instances of your passive-aggressive and belittling behaviour.
posted by lucien at 7:18 AM on March 31, 2002

I think the poster is likely older than you and I are

I think you missed this. Nothing to do with age, friend, sorry that you only seem to acknowledge the most common definitions of words, but you would do well to at least read the thread before attacking people.

As far as belittling behavior... funny, I meant "yummy" in a flattering way, which is how it was taken by its intended audience and "wrestle" as a little joke given the topic of the thread.

So, who exactly is overlaying motivations onto others, lucien?

*holds up mirror for lucien to gaze into*

I'm sorry, lucien, that you don't agree with me, but that's really all you have to say. This overanalyzation of comments doesn't serve anyone, least of all you or I. If you want to construe my words as patronizing, that's your prerogative. My point in responding to you was that your words can just as easily be construed in a patronizing manner. Here's a couple of reasons why.

God, you should really read before you write.
Now, that was patronizing and belittling.

If you want to comment further on my intellect or writing style, please email me as it has nothing to do with this thread. You can find my address in my user profile, and thanks for playing.
posted by David Dark at 4:00 PM on March 31, 2002