REBUTTAL TO: Glenn Sacks on PAS article July 10, 2006
I couldn’t get through all of his diatribe at one time, had to break it up into 2 different days. It is just a repeat of what he has been saying for years, citing the same cases, using the same labels, the same story rewritten over and over again…blah, blah, blah. Do not believe his proof of no abuse occurring in the Marks, Loeliger and Neustein cases. I believe that mothers will do whatever it takes to protect their children, even accepting guilt for crimes not committed.
Sacks and Leving do not support their claims with facts, as I personally have looked up some of their claims and found that the actual studies did not support what they wrote, and some of their true stories are actually fiction, as they put disclaimers near the end, stating that this is how "some men feel". Gotta read that fine print hidden in the body of their lengthy FR manifestos.
I questioned the motive behind the “longitudinal study published by the American Bar Association in 2003 followed 700 'high conflict' divorce cases over a 12 year period and found that elements of PAS were present in the vast majority of the cases studied.” I admit that I have not seen this study, but anything that is studied to justify the legal professions involvement in custody cases, in which they make shamefully large amounts of money to the detriment of the parties involved, makes me think this study could be self serving.
I also wondered about the 700 cases, how they were chosen for a study. Overall, 700 cases over a 12 year period really amounts to a miniscule fraction of contested custody cases considering that in San Diego County (CA) there were a total of 1,258 new divorce filings for June of 2005 alone. You can reasonably estimate that 10% were contentious (high conflict) with custody disputes. That would make 125 cases found in only 1 month, in only 1 county, in only 1 state, which could account for just over 1/5th of the supposed 700 cases found over 12 years in the ABA study.
What kind of study would be considered valid that uses such a small amount of cases, questionably chosen and then vaguely labels the presence of some "PAS" tactics as *“a common, well documented phenomenon”?
(*as per Glen Sacks article-July 10, 2006 http://glennsacks.com/enewsletters/enews_7_10_06.htm)
Propaganda perhaps, to support the continuation of very lucrative litigation, ostensibly to battle a syndrome that harms children and their innocent fathers.
Sacks and Leving do not support their claims with facts, as I personally have looked up some of their claims and found that the actual studies did not support what they wrote, and some of their true stories are actually fiction, as they put disclaimers near the end, stating that this is how "some men feel". Gotta read that fine print hidden in the body of their lengthy FR manifestos.
I questioned the motive behind the “longitudinal study published by the American Bar Association in 2003 followed 700 'high conflict' divorce cases over a 12 year period and found that elements of PAS were present in the vast majority of the cases studied.” I admit that I have not seen this study, but anything that is studied to justify the legal professions involvement in custody cases, in which they make shamefully large amounts of money to the detriment of the parties involved, makes me think this study could be self serving.
I also wondered about the 700 cases, how they were chosen for a study. Overall, 700 cases over a 12 year period really amounts to a miniscule fraction of contested custody cases considering that in San Diego County (CA) there were a total of 1,258 new divorce filings for June of 2005 alone. You can reasonably estimate that 10% were contentious (high conflict) with custody disputes. That would make 125 cases found in only 1 month, in only 1 county, in only 1 state, which could account for just over 1/5th of the supposed 700 cases found over 12 years in the ABA study.
What kind of study would be considered valid that uses such a small amount of cases, questionably chosen and then vaguely labels the presence of some "PAS" tactics as *“a common, well documented phenomenon”?
(*as per Glen Sacks article-July 10, 2006 http://glennsacks.com/enewsletters/enews_7_10_06.htm)
Propaganda perhaps, to support the continuation of very lucrative litigation, ostensibly to battle a syndrome that harms children and their innocent fathers.
posted by Valerie | 1:14 PM
13 Comments:
Ah, worry you not, my friend. These slick SOBs are manipulating semantics by using some simple, albeit at times clever, tactics:
* There is NO SUCH THING as Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS). Not then, not now, not ever, not recognized by the APA (American Psychological Association)and not in the DSM. Why? Because it is an entirely fabricated syndrome: no research, no subjects, no professional peer review: nothing. PAS came from the very demented, disturbed and now deceased mind of Richard Gardner, PhD who struggled with his own issues of pedophelia. Gardner committed suicide by stabbing himself to death in front of his grown son. Read about at:
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/
*Look at what Glenn Sacks is doing:
He writes: "Unfortunately, women's advocate Rev. Anne Grant misunderstands PAS, portraying it as a nonexistent fraud in her...column 'The discredited 'Parental Alienation Syndrome.'' Grant claims that judicial recognition of PAS has had 'devastating effects' on families, and cites a few cases where abusive or allegedly abusive fathers have used PAS to win shared or sole custody."
Grant means: When judges allow the fraudulent syndrome, PAS, to be used it has devastating effects because abusers are using it as a tactic (albeit criminal) to further abuse and obtain custody. It's simply a criminal defense strategy--attack & defame the crime victim. But what Sacks leaves out is that Grant wrote, "The so-called Parental Alienation Syndrome...has been discredited by the American Psychological Association, and, recently BY BOTH THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JUDGES AND THE CHILDREN'S LEGAL RIGHTS JOURNAL [emphasis added]." Grant writes this prior to her "devastating effects" statements. How convenient for Sacks to leave this out... here's a guy with an agenda..read on:
Then Sacks writes: "Grant is correct that there are fathers who have alienated their own children through their abuse or personality defects, and who attempt to shift the blame to their children's mothers by falsely claiming PAS."
See what Sacks did? Grant never once stated that "there are fathers who have alienated their own children through abuse or personality defects..." Never once. He read her article. So can you (see below). Grant's article doesn't state that. It's another tactic used by criminal defense attorneys: obsfucate the truth and make the invalid valid. But he made a slip-up: Grant didn't cite "personality defects" but most abusers using this tactic are personality disordered (Axis II personality disorders).
Sacks further writes: "Yet parental alienation is a common, well-documented phenomenon. For example, a longitudinal study published by the American Bar Association in 2003 followed 700 'high conflict' divorce cases over a 12 year period and found that elements of PAS were present in the vast majority of the cases studied."
WOW! Talk about twisting the truth.
1) It is NOT well-documented period.
2) It doesn't exist, so how could it be documented? There is NO RESEARCH.
3)The American Bar Association is pointing out that this FRAUDULENT tactic of abusers claiming "PAS" or elements of "PAS" as a defense were present in the vast majority of cases... Don't believe me, check it out for yourself and read what the National District Attorneys Association and the American Prosecuters Research Institute has to say on the matter: http://www.ndaa-apri.org/publications/newsletters/
update_volume_16_number_6_2003.html
Also read Grants article for yourself at: http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/
content/projo_20060627_ctgrant.184a360.html
I love the truth--it supports one when one tells it....
Habeas Corpus
Each and every one of you who wants to think or imagine that PAS (Parental Alienation Syndrome), SPA ( Systematic Parental Alienation) or whatever you want to call it does not exist, have your heads in the sand. Those of you who spend in ordinate hours refuting truth need to examine the basis of your motivations.
The case of myself and my daughter is classical. You can read a tad of it on http://www.helpstoppas.org. Go to Message Board, then to 'parents Lounge' then to 'Wolves in Sheeps Clothing y mas'.
Much of the reason for certain individuals vitriolic rejection of PAS-SPA as a credible and epidemic symptom of disease is that they themselves are suffering from DENIAL. Today in America and in many other places, e.g. England, Australia, Canada the systems we have placed, and allowed to rule and decide over us are themselves suffering from similar types of disease. Thus these systems cannot allow themselves to see. Its called advanced symptomology of progressed addiction.
My daughter and I fought the good fight but everybody we encountered would not do their jobs. They cared not for truth or justice. They only wanted the money. Today my daughter, twenty years old, returned to her mother by some deeply confused zealots from the Justice for Children, Houston, Texas just had a baby moved back in with her mother, haivng dropped out of high school two years ago. Dont one of you tell me PAS does not exist. Had she remained with me she would likely be now about to finish her college education and headed onward for a medical degree.
I think "amanwhocares'" posting is a wonderful example of the fuzzy logic spewn by maligned, arrogant and irrationally minded batterers. His is a typical, asinine and patently denial-laden, delusional response from batterers: his assumed superiority and his accusing his victims of his own criminal conduct and malevolent motivations. His response also shows the depth of a batterer's personality disorder..
E.g. Refuting extensive peer-reviewed scientific evidence by throwing a temper-tantrum and stomping one's foot asserting that one's childish and inherently inferior biased slant is "truth" and that all the legitimate reserach from learned scholars is just "lies" is a good glimpse into the defective psyche of a batterer.
His posting also shows that the only successful approach in holding batterers accountable is an aggressive criminal justice response from legitimate men in law enforcement.
I would recommend that readers to go to his internal posting to read his inane, incoherent ramblings.
Normal people will be delighted to read that Justice for Children came thru for his victims: his daughter and her mother:
"I want to inform any about to be dragged down this road into the demons lair, that advocacy groups are out there who will participate with these predators to suck your blood until you expire. In my case it was the (JFC) Justice for Children-Houston, Texas and they have other offices in other cities. Go to thier site and see for yourself how they negate the credibility of PAS while they purport to be the child's saviour! And its founder had been an employee as a lawyer for the Texas Child Protective Services. Beware too they they have the ability to put the largest law firms on your back to rip and eviscerate your flesh like ravenous harpies from the sky. I like to call them the 'legal lynching party' as they have the moniker LLP behind thier name, in my case it was one of the largest law firms in the vertible world, Fulbright and Jaworski, LLP."
The best cure for "amanwhocares" is an aggressive, forceful one from real, legitimate men in law enforcement...
Your response to the commenter named "amanwhocares" attacks him as a batterer, also questioning his motives and reasoning by maligning them as the thinking of a batterer. This is an ad hominem attack. You attack the messenger rather than (sufficiently) addressing the message. Moreover, the notion that fathers represent batterers moreso than mothers do is inherently misandric, hostile to the male sex. You concede any claim to credibility when you try to marginalize men who disagree with you simply because they are fathers, or because they are men. You may deny that this was your intent, but the sentiment is clear. A father who insists that he has been alienated from the lives of the children he loves is portrayed as violent and menacing because of the depth of his confidence in the depth of his own parental devotion and parental effectiveness.
Lastly, I would encourage you to brush up on your research as pertains to battering women. Overwhelming research indicates that women batter men as often -- if not more, depending on the study -- as the reverse. This is based on peer reviewed academic studies and scholarly analyses of research that reveals that women not only batter at parity with men, but in fact initiate violence in relations with their intimate partners at a rate exceeding that of men. In other words, self defense was not a factor in such cases. All this by the self reports of female survey takers, who admitted that they engaged in abusive behavior, and initiated it more often than their partners. Incidentally, the men in the same studies indicated agreement with that conclusion.
Check it out, if you care to be enlightened:
DVstats.com
John Dias
John,
I certainly hope that you've posted your real name because the DOJ is increasing its efforts to identify those affiliated with the child-abuser/sex-offender/batterer lobby. You see, they've had enough of you guys trying to legitimize yourselves by attaching yourselves to the "all men" category and by defining your criminal behaviors as the conduct of most men--which thereby defames most men.
Having spent most of my entire interactions with men: most of my friends are men, most of my colleagues are men, most of my doctors are men, most of my associates are men, most of my prior employees are men (military men, that is), most of my mentors are men, etc., etc, etc.; I can tell you--and, as an empirically University trained researcher, back it up with scholarly, peer-reviewed statistical data--that the majority of men are really, really angry, enraged and outraged by CRIMINALS like you.
See, John, the majority of men are good, loving, decent human beings. They don't rape or sodomize their children; the don't terrorize and traumatize their wives, their kids, their families; they don't solicit criminals to kidnap their kids or to decimate their kids' mothers or to defame seasoned, respected clinicians and other professionals who provide ample historic evidence on behalf of abused children. They're flawed, they make mistakes, they succumb to human foibles, they may even yell and lose their temper; but NEVER, NEVER, NEVER do they do what YOU GUYS do. And what YOU GUYS do is despicable.
You guys are vile, human criminal garbage. YOU GUYS are why the death penalty still exists. YOU GUYS are the pox on humanity. YOU GUYS are the ones who hate kids, women, AND most men; who consume kids and women; who rape kids, women--and even men; who kill kids, women and most men. But NEVER, NEVER are you "most men." You're just vile, human criminal garbage--most of you HAPPEN to be men, but NEVER are ANY of you MOST MEN.
It's YOU GUYS who defame MEN. It's ONLY YOU GUYS who make MOST MEN look bad whenever you try to posture yourselves as "most men." YOU GUYS play bait-n-switch. I'll use a direct quote from your post as an example: "You concede any claim to credibility when you try to marginalize men who disagree with you simply because they are fathers, or because they are men."
RE-READ my previous posts. NEVER ONCE did I make reference to men as a group. Never once. Never once did I "try to marginalize men... simply because they are fathers, or because they are men." I made reference to child-abusers and batterers. Read it for yourself. And thanks for the freebie: you divulged yourself as a deceptive misandric misogynist and child-abuser.
Yours is a wonderful example of bait-n-switch: guys like you trying to legitimize yourselves by attaching yourselves to the "all men" category and then making false claims that I, who have correctly identified you, have also attached you to the "all men" category. Nice try. No dice.
Sorry, Charlie, you're not ALL MEN, you're not MOST MEN. What you ARE is part of a very despicable and dangerous lobby known as the Child-abuser/Sex Offender/Batterer Lobby. All of you (men AND women) who are part of this lobby are vile, human criminal garbage. And where do I get my data from? All the LEGITIMATE domestic and International authoritative bodies and scholars on the subject. Here’s one you can relate to: the DOJ. I’ll point out that most of the DOJ is comprised of MEN. And MOST of the MOSTLY MALE DOJ loathe CRIMINALS like you. They see the data, the statistics, the repeated horrors day after day after day--and they rightfully loathe you for it. And where do you get your data from? Martin Fiebert who uses the extremely flawed Conflict Tactic Scales (CTS). Who said the CTS was flawed? The AUTHOR OF THE CTS! From http://trishwilson.typepad.com/blog/womens_issues/index.html :
The CTS is rife with problems, the least of which is that they isolate individual physical "hits" between men and women in a relationship without taking the hits within the context of the abusive incident or abusive relationship. They also don't consider other, existing problems of domestic violence, such as emotional, mental, legal, and economic abuse. They don't consider sexual assault or rape in their tabulations. They don't consider the severity of a physical "hit," counting a slap as the same as a hard punch that leaves bruising or worse. Strauss, Gelles, and Steinmetz are the researchers who created the CTS. Gelles himself has said the following regarding the CTS and men's rights types who take them out of context in their drive to "prove" that men and women are equally abusive:
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FACTOIDS
by Richard J. Gelles
University of Rhode Island Family Violence Research Program
[Excerpt]
MYTH: WOMEN ARE AS VIOLENT AS ARE MEN, AND
WOMEN INITIATE VIOLENCE AS OFTEN AS DO MEN.
"This factoid cites research by Murray Straus, Suzanne Steinmetz, and Richard Gelles, as well as a host of other self-report surveys. Those using this factoid tend to conveniently leave out the fact that Straus and his colleague's surveys as well as data collected from the National Crime Victimization Survey (Bureau of Justice Statistics) consistently find that no matter what the rate of violence or who initiates the violence, women are 7 to 10 times more likely to be injured in acts of intimate violence than are men."
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE:NOT AN EVEN PLAYING FIELD
By Richard J. Gelles
"[S]elf-described battered husbands, men’s rights group members and some scholars maintain that there are significant numbers of battered men, that battered men are indeed a social problem worthy of attention and that there are as many male victims of violence as female. The last claim is a significant distortion of well-grounded research data."
[...]
"[W]hen we look at injuries resulting from violence involving male and female partners, it is categorically false to imply that there are the same number of "battered" men as there are battered women. Research shows that nearly 90 percent of battering victims are women and only about ten percent are men."
I would encourage you to brush up on your research as it pertains to battered women AND abused children. Overwhelming research indicates that most batterers are male and that women are 7 to 10 times more likely to be injured in acts of intimate violence (CTS author) and children 12 to 15 times more likely to be injured by males (that would be males in your group, not most males--check out research from PROTECT and The Leadership Council--they‘re great guys, heroes in my humble opinion). I also encourage you to brush up on logical fallacies since you clearly don’t understand what exactly is an ad hominem attack: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
Lastly, the only enlightening thing you have to offer is your address and a list of your affiliates--to the DOJ.
Why don't you wake-up and smell the gun powder.
PAS is ALİVE AND DESTROYİNG KİDS.
But you don't care do you.
Because it's feminazis like you that
have destroyed families in USA.
You are nothing but a vermin.
Men are More Likely Than Women to Be Victims in Dating Violence, UNH Expert Says
Contact: Erika Mantz
603-862-1567
UNH Media Relations
May 19, 2006
DURHAM, N.H. -- A 32-nation study of violence against dating partners by university partners found that about a third had been violent, and most incidents of partner violence involve violence by both the man and woman, according to Murray Straus, founder and co-director of the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire. The second largest category was couples where the female partner was the only one to carry about physical attacks, not the male partner.
Straus’ new research also found that dominance by the female partner is even more closely related to violence by women than is male dominance. These results call into question the widely held belief that partner violence is primarily a male crime and that when women are violent it is self defense.
“In the 35 years since I began research on partner violence, I have seen my assumptions about prevalence and etiology contradicted by a mass of empirical evidence from my own research and from research by many others,” Straus said. “My view on partner violence now recognizes the overwhelming evidence that women assault their partners at about the same rate as men. However, when women are violent, the injury rate is lower.”
Straus will present his controversial research at the Trends in Intimate Violence Intervention conference in New York City May 22-25, 2006. This research is part of the International Dating Violence Study, a multinational study of violence against dating partners by university students. A consortium of researchers around the world collected data from 13,601 students at 68 universities in 32 nations.
In the paper, Straus calls for an end to the focus on men as the only perpetrators of dating violence, saying the refusal to recognize the multi-causal nature of the problem is hampering the effort to end domestic violence and ignoring half the perpetrators. As recently as December 2005, the National Institute of Justice refused to consider applications for funding that dealt with male victims.
“Changes in policy that acknowledge men are not the only perpetrators of partner violence are needed immediately,” Straus said. “It is time to make the prevention and treatment effort one that is aimed at ending all family violence, including spanking children, not just violence against women.”
Straus is the author or co-author of more than 200 publications, including "Beating the Devil Out Of Them: Corporal Punishment By American Parents and Its Effects on Children." More information on the International Dating Violence Study and papers reporting results are available at http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/.
Editors: Murray Straus can be reached at 603-862-2594 or murray.straus@unh.edu until 10:30 a.m. Monday, May 22. Beginning the evening of May 22 he will be in New York. Interview requests can be faxed: May 22-24: Washington Square Hotel, fax: (212) 979-8373. May 25-27: Garden Inn, fax: 212-974-0291. He will also be on e-mail: murray.straus@unh.edu.
A little late to ask but I have to ask:
Welcome2hapeascorpus:
1. How can you tell that John and amanwhocares are "batterers" - i.e. have physically assaulted someone, merely based on their posts? Is the mere fact that they disagree with your position on PAS sufficient "proof" that they must be?
2. How in your world can you distinguish between the "batterer posing as a victim" and a bona-fide victim? I ask, since it appears that anything a real victim might say could be interpreted as a "batterer posing as a victim", and so you'll never be convinced that any male, for instance, could be a victim of his partner or the "system". What would a real, male, victim say or sound like that's different?
3. If you changed the gender of "amanwhocares" and John to female, but left all their statements intact, would you be inclined to still call them batterers? Do you even accept that such a thing as a female batterer exists?
Just asking...
For those of you who do not think this disorder exsists, you are wrong. I am a woman, and you have to understand that the mothers, and fathers who do this are not like you. They have other mental disorders. It is very real, and more devastating than you will ever know. Just for a second imagine that someone, anyone, keeping your child from you. Hurting your child to keep them from you, you would do everything in your power to see, and have contact with your child. Now imagine the person doing this is your childs other parent, mother or father, how much would that hurt and scare you. To know the person hurting your child was supposed to be the other person who loves that child as much as you do. And for those women who insist that this disorder does not exsist, why, women do bad things too? Why do you protest so loudly, that this does not happen, that would be the same as a man saying there is no such thing as a battered woman, only because he doesn't hit his wife.
Habeas Corpus, Latin for "you have the body" is a writ borrowed from English law that seeks to safeguard individual freedom against an arbitrary attack by the government, typically the state.
As such, it would be expected that a person selecting this screen name would be interested in preserving the individual freedoms of the wrongly accused - regardless of their gender.
DV against men is not well understood, but is a growing societal concern. https://www.achievesolutions.net/achievesolutions/en/Content.do?contentId=10721
A 1997 survey of dating couples revealed that about 30% of women admitting using physical aggression against their male partners. http://www.cyberparent.com/abuse/maleabuse.htm
In 1985, a National Family Violence Survey of 6000 cases funded by the NIH, revealed that 50% of spousal murders are committed by women.
http://www.sheridanhill.com/batteredmen.html
In 1986, a study revealed that 2 million men suffered abuse at the hands of women while only 1.8 million women were abused by men. http://www.sheridanhill.com/batteredmen.html
Male against female DV decreased between 1975 '85, but female against male DV increased.http://www.sheridanhill.com/batteredmen.html
The National National Family Violence Council states that "The fact that women had higher mean and median rates for severe violence suggests that female aggression is not merely a response to male aggression.” http://www.sheridanhill.com/batteredmen.html
Women overcome size and strength disadvantages by resorting to the use of weapons more than men. In 6,200 domestic abuse cases, 86% of the female attackers used guns, knives, boiling water, bricks, fireplace pokers, and baseball bats as weapons. 25% of male attachers used weapons. http://www.sheridanhill.com/batteredmen.html
The U.S. Department of Justice reported in 1988 that more than 50% of defentants charged with killing their children were women. http://www.sheridanhill.com/battered.html
The Justice Department announced in 2000 that for two years, 1993 and 1998, the rate of domestic violence by males against women decreased by 21%. For the same two years, the rate of domestic violence by females against males did not decline - it remained unchanged. http://www.sheridanhill.com/battered.html
According to the Justice Department, females abusing males may be remaining constant, but the women appear to becoming less successful at killing their male victims. The number of men killed by female domestic violence abusers declined 60% from 1976 through 1998. A steady 4% decrease each year. http://www.sheridanhill.com/battered.html
The criteria for battered men is the same as the criteria for battered women.
http://www.batteredmen.com/batabuse.htm
There must be some reasons that men report DV less frequently than women.
"Men often suffer physical abuse in silence because they are afraid that no one will believe them or take them seriously. In fact, some men who do try to get help find that they are mocked and ridiculed. No one would even think of telling a battered woman that getting beaten by her husband wasn’t a big deal, but people often don’t think twice about saying that to a battered man." http://physical-abuse.suite101.com/article.cfm/male_victims_of_domestic_violence
"Many men are too embarrassed to admit that they are being abused. Traditional gender roles confuse the matter. A "real man" is expected to be able to "control" his wife. Aside from the embarrassment over admitting abuse, abused men may feel that they are somehow less of a man for "allowing" themselves to be abused. But just like abused women are told when they suffer physical violence, abuse is never the victim's fault. This is no less true just because the victim happens to be male." http://physical-abuse.suite101.com/article.cfm/male_victims_of_domestic_violence
"Another issue that prevents men from reporting abuse is a lack of resources, which may be real or imagined. Many domestic violence services are aimed mostly at helping a female population. While the broader term "domestic violence shelter" is becoming more common, many shelters are still known colloquially as "battered women shelters." http://physical-abuse.suite101.com/article.cfm/male_victims_of_domestic_violence
For all like Habeas who are underinformed about the true DV statistics and the favorable standing automatically, and wrongfully, given to women by the police and courts in such matters, I urge you to get educated and remind you of the brilliant words of Voltaire:
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you committ atrocities."
The absurdities are that men are always abusers and women are always victims.
The atrocities are that male victims of DV do not get the attention and support the equally deserve.
I love the truth--it supports one when one tells it....
Perhaps it is because society expects men to be in control of the relationship, to tough it out and shake it off, to not hit girls, or to otherwise excuse the manipulative, moody, and abusive behaviors of women as problems belonging only to the "fairer sex," such as mood swings, mind changes and witholding sex.
"Experts aren’t certain how common domestic violence against men is. The rate probably is under-reported due to legal, psychological and social factors. Recent studies indicate that about 800,000 U.S. men report being assaulted by their wife or domestic partner each year. Additional studies show that women report committing “less injurious” violence on their husbands or male partners at about the same rate as men report abusing their intimate female partners." Doing the math, that is 1.6 million abused men each year. https://www.achievesolutions.net/achievesolutions/en/Content.do?contentId=10721
Women who abuse men often have unrealistic expectations, alcohol or drug dependencies, or psychiatric disorders. https://www.achievesolutions.net/achievesolutions/en/Content.do?contentId=10721
"Women seem to show more brutality than men with mental and emotional abuse. In many cases, men are more deeply affected by emotional abuse than physical abuse." https://www.achievesolutions.net/achievesolutions/en/Content.do?contentId=10721
Women are responsible for 33% of the sexual abuse of boys, said the Journal of American Medicine in 1988. http://www.sheridanhill.com/battered.html
HABEASCORPUS, I LOVE YOU!!!
GLEN SACKS IS STUPID THROW ROCKS AT HIM!!!
mmm very nice Kim, maybe we should throw rocks at you, oops i forgot that it ok for women to abuse men, but not the other way around
I've seen abuse from men and women both.. The true victims are always the children.. If we do nothing but argue amongst ourselves we become part of the problem & not the solution.. We despertly need to unite if we're ever going to even come close to fixing this issue.
Post a Comment
<< Home