DV Conference Report #3: 12-Year-Old Boys in Abusive Families Aren't Allowed to Go to Shelters with Their Mothers, but Instead Go to Foster Care
February 19th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
Background: The historic, one-of-a-kind conference "From Ideology to Inclusion: Evidence-Based Policy and Intervention in Domestic Violence" was held in Sacramento, California February 15-16 and was a major success. The conference was sponsored by the California Alliance for Families and Children and featured leading domestic violence authorities from around the world.
Many of these researchers are part of the National Family Violence Legislative Resource Center, which is challenging the domestic violence establishment's stranglehold on the issue. The NFVLRC promotes gender-natural, research-based DV policies.
I have been and will continue to detail the conference and some of the research that was presented there in this blog--to learn more, click here.
One morning during the conference I had breakfast with two remarkable ladies, Erin Pizzey and Patricia Overberg. Pizzey founded the first battered women's shelter in the world in 1971, and Overberg was the first battered women's shelter director in California to admit male victims of domestic violence to a shelter. As bad as things are, both of them told me things which were amazing and horrifying. Pizzey told the following story:
A woman was being abused by her violent husband and sought shelter. She had three children, two young ones and a 12-year-old boy. She wanted to go to a battered women's shelter and, of course, take her children with her. However, the feminists who run the battered women's shelters in England have a policy that no boys aged 12 or older are allowed into the shelters.
The woman was presented with the equivalent of Sophie's Choice. Either she could return to her violent husband, and risk both herself and her children, or she could submit to the feminist policy. She chose the latter. Rather than allow the boy to stay with his mother and his siblings in the battered women's shelter, the boy instead had to wait in the police station, while his mother and siblings went off to the shelter. The English equivalent of child protective services was called, and the boy was picked up and placed in foster care!
Overberg told me the same thing happens in California and in much of the United States.
I don't doubt what Pizzey and Overberg say, but I still find it a little hard to get my head around. For one, one could make the feminist argument that this policy keeps abused women in violent relationships because they will not want to leave their abusers if they cannot take all of their children with them. Secondly, I find it a little hard to believe that even the feminist true believers who run the shelters could be so bigoted and uncaring.
"));
19 queries. 0.412 seconds.
February 19th, 2008 at 12:25 am
"I find it a little hard to believe that even the feminist true believers who run the shelters could be so bigoted and uncaring."
You do?
Why?
February 19th, 2008 at 12:59 am
Please stop calling these bigoted hate filled women feminists -- they aren't. At best they are 'femi-nazis' and at worst they are intolerant, sexist pigs. We true feminists remember what our mothers and grandmothers fought for, complete and total equality between the sexes.
Any true, self respecting feminist (male or female) would be appalled by the idea of forcing a parent (male or female) to choose between giving up a child or taking their children back into a dangerous environment.
February 19th, 2008 at 1:02 am
If you remember what your ancestors fought for, why aren't you fighting for the same thing?
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it's Katie Couric - didn't she sock a male news crew member?
February 19th, 2008 at 1:07 am
Glenn wrote: "one could make the feminist argument that this policy keeps abused women in violent relationships because they will not want to leave their abusers if they cannot take all of their children with them"
Hey Glenn, you gotta look at the numbers. It makes a lot more sense to sacrifice one woman and maybe a couple kids, rather than risk the havoc that one twelve-year-old, eighty-pound hulk of a misogynist could wreak at a women's shelter.
February 19th, 2008 at 1:14 am
Katie:
Where are all these good feminists hiding?
If they’re not actively supporting us and speaking out against this at ever level, then your words are hollow, and your talk of well meaning feminists is meaningless rhetoric. I’m not saying this in anger, just pointing out the facts.
“History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people.”
Martin Luther King, Jr.
February 19th, 2008 at 1:25 am
I am fighting for the same thing, but I'm here in Australia. I'm not just fighting for it, I do my best to live it. Up until very recently I was a single working mum who's son spends 50% of his time at his father's (I'm no longer single and unfortunately no longer working). I have offered myself as a character witness to more that one male friend going through custody disputes and I have convinced a pair of separating friends that it is in the best interests of their children for both parties to get as much access as possible and interfering with that out of spite at the minimum hurts the kids.
I've never bought that because I'm female I have to do, think and behave a certain way, nor have I bought that because someone is male then they do, think or behave certain ways. I despise the "men are bad" culture that has developed because it doesn't protect children, it ruins their perspective of life, it doesn't help women because it allows them to either accept with things in a relationship aren't right because they just assume that it's how it's meant to be and it has devastating effects on men personally and on men as 50%~ of the adult population.
And no, I'm not Katie Curic, I'm taller, more Australian and I know violence solves nothing.
February 19th, 2008 at 1:39 am
@Katie
based on what you're saying, it sounds like maybe you're okay. Prepare for a blast of sh** though, because 90% of the guys on this board don't trust anyone calling herself a feminist. (It's late night here in the U.S., so you won't get lots of responses until later today - which I guess would be night for you?).
To tell you the truth though, I do myself doubt that we still need feminism in Western society. After all, any remaining "barriers" will be eliminated in the normal course of things. How much of your personal identity is tied up in being a feminist or a member of a "sisterhood"? I'm just wondering, cause I think some women have a lot invested in that, and they don't want to give it up.
BTW, I like tall women : - )
February 19th, 2008 at 1:41 am
No, Katie; those are gender egalitarians. "Feminism", and "feminists", are about promoting the institutionalization of women's interests and attitudes over those of men and children -- that only, and that alone Because that is, by the rules of language, objectively and inarguably, what the word means.
If you add "-ism" and "-ist" to "caucasian", you do not get words that mean "complete and total equality between the races". You get words that mean "the promotion of the institutionalization of the interests and attitudes of white people over those of non-white people", and people who do just that.
If you add "-ism" and "-ist" to "christian", you do not get words that mean "complete and total equality between the faiths" You get words that mean "the promotion of the institutionalization of the interests and attitudes of christians over those of non-christians", and people who do just that.
If you add "-ism" and "-ist" to "elite", you do not get words that mean "complete and total equality between the classes". You get words that mean "the promotion of the institutionalization of the interests and attitudes of the elite over those of the non-elite", and people who do just that.
And if you are inclined to wave that away, though erroneously so, as mere abstraction, I put it to you then as the complementary practical argument to identify one -- JUST ONE -- specific example of discrimination against men and in favor of women that has been generally and commonly identified as a "feminist" issue per se.
Just ONE, Katie.
Just ONE.
You will, of course, not be able to identify any. Because no such example exists. Which in turn is because your mothers and grandmothers did not, in fact, do dick-diddly-doo-wop-SQUAT "as feminists" about equality when it came to extending women's privileges to men, or ending discrimination against men, or pretty much anything along those lines.
If you want to be taken seriously by men's issues advocates and activists, the first step is to consistently and repeatedly repudiate the label "feminist" and castigate "feminism" for what it actually is, both in abstract semantics and functional action: promoting the institutionalization of women's interests and attitudes over those of men and children.
Because if you're not willing to display even just such a minimal amount of intellectual integrity and honesty as that, then it's clearly not worth our valuable time and energy to listen to you, let alone take you seriously, let alone change our behavior to suit your irrational, subjective, emotionalistic, and flat-out ERRONEOUS personal linguistic preferences.
If you're not willing to repudiate feminism, then you're clearly just another narcissistic, self-serving, egomaniacal waste of our time and energy.
We have far better things to do, and far better people with whom to do them.
February 19th, 2008 at 1:42 am
Glenn@ "I find it a little hard to believe that even the feminist true believers who run the shelters could be so bigoted and uncaring."
You keep looking for the good in feminism. Good luck, Don Quixote.
February 19th, 2008 at 1:49 am
Katie,
I appreciate the supportive comments. But please spare us the comments about "good" feminists. They had their chance. They chose evil. Feminism is as feminism has done. Please stop degrading yourself by identifying with that term. "I am a feminist" means "I am a female chauvinist sow." Your sisters crapped all over the ideals of gender equity. Identify with that term, and watch people crinkle their nose in revulsion at the stink. And be prepared to be treated as the enemy.
February 19th, 2008 at 1:56 am
"How much of your personal identity is tied up in being a feminist or a member of a 'sisterhood'? I'm just wondering, cause I think some women have a lot invested in that, and they don't want to give it up."
That's been my consistent experience as well. I have been testing people on that point for years now, and every single time that I have finally managed to drag some kind of sensible answer out of someone, it has always, without exception, turned out to be nothing more than their personal, subjective, emotional attachment to the label, and their self-identification with it.
Such a little thing to let go of, so easy to do, and so rational and so correct, and yet, "feminists" insist on resisting this one tiny miniscule change with every trick and deception and misrepresentation and such that they can possibly, desperately muster.
February 19th, 2008 at 1:57 am
God Bless Michael Robinson.
February 19th, 2008 at 2:35 am
I'm in the "feminism is as feminism does" camp as well, for those late to the program. The label is female-oriented, the issues are female oriented, and the common response to men's issues is "we're FEMinists, get your own advocacy". Well, we are, at that's scaring more than a few feminists...as it should. See, when we were still asking for help and approval, there could have been co-operation. Now, men will decide for themselves, by themselves.
Feminism is a dirty word.
February 19th, 2008 at 3:33 am
First, welcome Katie, please don't be put off by the negative reaction to the word "feminist", a concept which was STOLEN from egalitarian women like you.
Second, thanks Glenn for highlighting this important conference on domestic violence. Anyone else notice that apart from some men's issues websites, there appears to be a media blackout on this conference? (I noticed the same thing about the Fathers 4 Justice protest at the Lincoln memorial, also a fairly significant event).
It just shows who the mainstream media are more afraid of offending, and therefore who is "in power" now.
February 19th, 2008 at 3:59 am
if millions of men would get together and unite the rot would be over within a few short years, the best way is education and striking by the million THERE IS
NO OTHER WAY.I billion's all stay in bed for a week or until things change.
February 19th, 2008 at 4:02 am
Actually they would like to drop the age lower than 12 years old. Better yet they would like to prevent any male from entering their shelters. I read Erin Pizzey's story and she spoke of how some of the earliest feminists freaked out when she brought her newborn baby boy to a meeting. This happened before the death threats. How did our nation fall into the hands of a bunch of psychopathic harpies?
February 19th, 2008 at 4:21 am
Back to the subject at hand folks. Forget the Katie distraction for the moment.
Refuges do frequently have rules prohibiting any boy over twelve from entry. I'm hoping somebody here can cite the instances where this has occured and the boy has ended up dead after returning to the abusive father's presence. I have seen these cited elsewhere. They do exist.
Thirteen seems to be a problem age for boys the world over. From that age on their presence in war zones renders them subject to the classification of "combatant" by the UN and thus they are not seen as innocent victims if they die. They are not even given a number.
There is also the instance of the Brewster Centre in Arizona which tried to cover up one of it's clients raping the twelve year old son of another client. Seems some victims are more equal than others. Probation for woman in sex with boy. This rapist was protected from the police by the refuge for nearly three months. They cleaned up the scene of the crime avoiding any opportunity for forensic examination. The rapist was eventually apprehended during - note this - a supervised access visit with her own children. During sentencing the judge said to the victim "It appears to me that you were the aggressor in this case whether you want to admit it or not". This is one judge I would personally beat the living crap out of. She is lucky I don't live in the US.
Refuges are not safe places for any boy regardless of age. Any form of contact with feminists, directly or indirectly, is toxic for boys. In Australia we recently had a feminist sexual abuse researcher, Professor Freda Briggs who holds an Order of Australia for her "work", stating that all teenage boys should be treated as though they are paedophiles. Meanwhile, with dozens of opportunities, not one woman has ever been jailed for sexually abusing a boy regardless of age.
@Katie the "feminist"...
If you want to know about feminists in Aus talk to me. The only reason Australia doesn't have all the problems of the US is, I hate to say, ten years of conservative federal government. And even then it's bad enough. If you haven't noticed you're not looking.
The clasic was the attorney general of Tasmania who, when asked about men being imprisoned for DV without hearings, or even any evidence, responded "they're only men". Or the federal equal opportunity commissioner's response that airlines moving men away from unaccompanied kids was a "good idea"?
Katie I bet you've seen the TV ads - "Australia Says NO to Violence Against Women". I've seen them positioned between ads showing men being hit in the nuts and laughed at while they writhe in agony. Did you see the Violence against Women ads with seven time murderer Chopper Read threatening to break the necks of men imprisoned for DV? He spent most of his prison time in Tasmania(see above) incidentally.
Katie, seriously, you are not looking.
February 19th, 2008 at 4:58 am
So to summarize, feminists are evil. I think the likes of Katie know this already, yet she still associates with them........
February 19th, 2008 at 8:46 am
So what is their reasoning behind not allowing a child their protection? A damn shame that something so noble in cause can become something that has the potential to start a boy down the path to perpetuate their self worth by instilling in this young mind that he is a worthless man at age twelve and molding him in to a person that continues the need for these shelters.
Humm, did I stumble onto a dark secret?
b
February 19th, 2008 at 9:03 am
It's not surprising at all! These places aren't there for the benefit of any child. They knowingly perpetrate child abuse when they help many violent, unfit mothers keep child custody and permanently remove the father from his children's lives.
Every one of these places is run by a women's violence service that provides women with free attorneys and all expenses paid in order to get what she wants in court- whether fit or not. That's exactly why there are so many false accusations in order to get these services.
We've had to fight against one of these places in Family court for years now. The judges allow the attorneys that work for these places to run the courtroom. The judges bow down to them as soon as the words domestic violence are uttered, and never even ask for proof.
In our case the mother has been proven to be unfit- the child abused, neglected and abandoned. Mom (the shelter's client) is a meth addict and drug dealer- proof shown to all, including arrest records. Yet the "shelter" continues to fight against anyone but the mother having custody.
To them the children are collateral damage in their feminist fight for power over all. The entire system knows these places care nothing about the children involved, but only that the female "wins" at any cost, in order to rake in more funding and further their feminist agenda.
We've even been told by the shelter attorney that the children aren't their concern.
February 19th, 2008 at 9:26 am
I've deleted Evan's comment and will make it into a separate blog post this morning.--GS
February 19th, 2008 at 9:32 am
That is awful. Does not surprise me at all. DV shelters are all about the money.
February 19th, 2008 at 9:52 am
The reason for this policy, which you don't mention, is that many shelters take younger women, including girls in their teens, and the boys in families are often older than some of the females in the facilty and there are no provisions to monitor their behavior-- violent or sexual.
There are apparently no provisions to monitor the violent or sexual behavior of females present in the shelters either. And that was the action of an adult woman that the shelter protected and hid from authorities after she raped a 12-year-old boy. The theory behind not allowing boys into shelters seems to be fueled by the notion that because they have hit puberty the boys are somehow dangerous and a threat. This a ridiculous sexist notion and it also is a rather destructive one. Any boy subjected to that kind of treatment is going to assume there is something wrong with him. He may make the assumption that he is bad or abusive like the abusive man his mother was with. And if he has suffered abuse (either at the hands of the man or his mother, which are both equally as likely), the further assumption he may make is that it has tainted him and he is less deserving of help. That is a horrible thing to do to a child, especially with such an inane excuse and in light of the fact that apparently abusive women are allowed to remain in a shelter whilei they abuse children.
February 19th, 2008 at 10:24 am
This has been a hot button topic for me for some time. A widely known battered women's advocacy organization puts out a directory of domestic violence shelter programs across the country and in it is the contact information and mailing address of each program then a list of whether or not each shelter does a, b or c etc such as; Do you have a shelter, is it confidential, do you shelter pets, do you have a batterer's program, maximum length of stay, "age limit for male children." While many of the programs leave this question blank some say 10, 11, 12, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.
There was an article related to this topic in the Seattle Times in November 2006 http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=2003448202&zsection_id=2002111777&slug=turningpointe25m&date=20061126
February 19th, 2008 at 10:57 am
You see, males are like werewolves -- we don't need a full moon to turn us into monsters, it happens automatically when the full force of testosterone hits us around age 12.
In light of the recent news story where an 8-year-old boy was arrested for rape (!!!), these shelters might want to think of lowering the age to 7.
You see, no woman is safe so long as there are any males around.
February 19th, 2008 at 11:06 am
"We true feminists"
What right do you have to say as to what is a 'true' feminist? If the majority of feminist activists are sexist, then that is the meaning of a feminist, not the other way round.
If you look objectively at it, things like NOW (the largest feminist organisation in the world) and Ms. Magazine (largest feminist publication) represent the movement. These things represent the majority of feminists, if they didn't, then something else would grow and take their place.
It's not that THEY aren't feminists, it's that YOU aren't a feminist. You may believe in gender equality, so do I. But that doesn't make you a feminist.
TS, I think the idea of not letting boys in after they hit puberty is that that is when they stop becoming and child and start turning into a MAN. Man = rapist/batterer/patriarch/conspirator etc...
February 19th, 2008 at 11:07 am
P.S. The 'what right do you have to say' part wasn't meant to sound aggressive. The point stands though. If the majority of feminists disagree with you, then it is you who are not a feminist.
February 19th, 2008 at 11:09 am
There is also the instance of the Brewster Centre in Arizona which tried to cover up one of it's clients raping the twelve year old son of another client. Seems some victims are more equal than others. Probation for woman in sex with boy. This rapist was protected from the police by the refuge for nearly three months. They cleaned up the scene of the crime avoiding any opportunity for forensic examination. The rapist was eventually apprehended during - note this - a supervised access visit with her own children. During sentencing the judge said to the victim "It appears to me that you were the aggressor in this case whether you want to admit it or not".
So what you're saying is that the judge was letting the rapist off by blaming the victim? The reason I mention that is because one the biggest causes feminists getting all in a tizzy about is how when women are raped the victim is blamed and excuses are made for the rapist. But they seem to have no problem letting at 12yr old take the blame for being raped by a grown woman...
Feminism and hypocricy...and you think peanut butter and jelly went together so well...
February 19th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Excellent point TS: "Any boy subjected to that kind of treatment is going to assume there is something wrong with him. He may make the assumption that he is bad or abusive like the abusive man his mother was with."
What they are saying to boys is "to hell with you; we don't care about you because you are one of THEM."
I can scarcely think of a more immoral, wrong-headed, sexist attitude. Not one penny of taxpayer money should go to these places if they discriminate against victims just because they are male.
February 19th, 2008 at 11:12 am
You see, no woman is safe so long as there are any males around.
I'm just waiting for women to start saying that a woman pregnant with a son is being raped by her child while he is in the womb so they can justify abortion against baby boys. I know that's mean but I'm not in the best of moods right now.
February 19th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Danny you didn't go too far with your remark about pregnant women. Not at all. Look at all the other forms of lunacy feminists have perpetrated over the years. Your idea plays right into their ballgame. I made a statement a few days ago that soon women are going to start aborting boys simply because they're boys. Don't worry, you've got your head on straight.
February 19th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
[...] my recent blog post DV Conference Report #3: 12-Year-Old Boys in Abusive Families Aren't Allowed to Go to Shelters with ..., I discussed domestic violence shelters' policies of excluding all males ages 12 or older from [...]
February 19th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
"He's only a man"
Gotta love it
February 19th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
I'll go out on a limb and make a prediction.
As feminism slowly but inevitably comes under increasing fire and critical media coverage due to the ascendency of the men's and father's movement, feminists will first seek an accommodation. (Trojan Horse tactics...)
They could give up some crumbs by renaming VAWA as the Intimate Partner Anti-Violence Act and put in some fake "gender-neutral" language. Maybe they could look the other way as school systems experiment with same-sex classrooms to help boys. Lay off exterminating men's sports on college campuses via Title IV. Throw a little support towards presumed joint custody in divorce. Stop waving the gender wage-gap 77-cents flag all the time. ETC.
Just little concessions to show "solidarity" with men. A tiny olive branch as a faux-apology.
Yeah, all this will come to pass.
When pigs fly.
February 19th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
To RoySays
The hardcore feminists are mad as hell that it was their dad that determined their gender. They won't be consoled.
DanH
February 20th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
roy, I like your predictions about feminism. I even believe that they'll trot out that tired old "We're all in this together." I'll plan my strategy accordingly.
February 23rd, 2008 at 3:55 pm
[...] my recent blog post DV Conference Report #3: 12-Year-Old Boys in Abusive Families Aren't Allowed to Go to Shelters with ..., I discussed domestic violence shelters' policies of excluding all males ages 12 or older from [...]
February 25th, 2008 at 2:36 am
Just to be clear. Pizzey says she's "outraged" that I supported excluding older boys from all shelters. I just explained why some shelters find including older boys is a problem. In fact, I also explained that most shelters in the U.S. accept boys and that in England, this is much less of a problem today than it was 25 years ago, the last time Pizzey had anything to do with shelters, because most refuges there now use free standing apartments where families can stay together. I explained that some shelters exclude older boys because they worry about possible violence between the boys and younger mothers or other girls. Pizzey admits that "some boys and girls may be violent or sexual." But she thinks we should monitor and control this behavior. She says she did this at Chiswick, which she describes as a "therapeutic community." She also admits that she segregated older boys in a separate house, but says that boys always had the option of staying the in the refuge with their mom.
Many of the shelters that exclude older males simply do not have the staffing to monitor, let alone regulate violence or sexual behavior among adolescents. Shelters are not social service agencies. They are safe spaces where women can get temporary respite from abusive partners and consider their options, often the first time in years. Pizzey ran Chiswick House like a mother superior. But the philosophy in most refuges here and abroad is that the residents themselves run the house. We don't treat battered women as problem women, but as women whose major problem is being abused. We may give them counseling, but don't run their lives or tell them how to run their lives. Some letter writers think my explaining why older boys are segregated means I am anti-male. To the contrary, this policy can protect boys as well as the girls. This may have been true. But when I visited Chiswick a few years after it opened, all of the older boys were staying in the segregated facility. Some letter writers claim my feminist bias comes out because I don't acknowledge girl's potential for violence or want to exclude them. This too is nonsense. Separating the boys from the older girls also protects the boys and not only from other adolescents. Many women come to shelter after long histories of violence and abuse by men and are as threatening to the boys as the boys may be to some younger women.
February 25th, 2008 at 3:13 am
Pizzey is "outraged" that I support excluding older male children from all shelters. But I never said anything of the kind. What I did was explain that some shelters exclude older boys because they lack the staffing to regulate violence and sexual acting out by these adolescents, females as well as males. In fact, this is no longer as much of a problem as it was 25 years ago, when Pizzey worked in a shelter. Today, most refuges in England use free standing apartments, so families stay in tact. Here, the picture is mixed. Many of our shelters lack the funding or staff to regulate violence or sexual acting out in the facility and are not equipped for older males. Pizzey admits "some boys and girls" may be violent or sexual, but she thinks we should monitor these behaviors rather than try to prevent them by separating older boys from girls. Shelters in this country and most in England are not social service agencies. They are spaces where women can be temporarily safe and consider their options. Critical to this experience is the idea that we do not tell women how to lead their lives or set any but the most basic rules to maintain the house. Pizzey's approach was more like a mother superior who treated the residents at Chiswick as if they were immature and needed her personal guidance. We treat women who use the shelter not as problem women but as women who have had problems with abusive partners. In many of these relationships, they were punished, often brutally, for any behavior their partner considered inappropriate or disloyal. Restoring confidence in their own decision-making is a critical phase in recovery. This means letting women make their own mistakes. But many shelters feel they can't extend this philosophy to violence or sexual acting out. Painting all shelters as feminist is also wrong. While many shelters in the U.S. were started by women's groups and some remain feminist in their orientation, the majority of U.S. facilities were started by the Y, the Salvation Army and other religious, community-based or free standing organizations. Unless these facilities have the staff and space, they too exclude older boys. So this policy has nothing to do with feminism or man hating. And it is designed to protect boys as well as girls. Many shelters also exclude women with addictions or serious psychiatric problems. Since many battered women suffer from these problems, this policy also sets limits on what we can do. Again, however, it reflects widely held beliefs about what is safe, not a bias against addiction or mental illness. I pointed out that Pizzey herself segregated older males in a house behind the main refuge. She admits this, but claims boys had the choice to stay in the refuge with their moms. This may be true. But when we visited Chiswick several years after it opened, there were no male adolescents in the refuge. The most absurd part of Pizzey's response is her description of Chiswick as a "therapeutic community." When we visited, there were 90 women and children staying in the 5 bedroom house, more than l5 in a room. Pizzey claimed "if they can manage this, they can manage anything." Since even this chaos was preferable to the violent situations women and children had left behind, it may ultimately have helped women gain confidence in their ability to survive on their own. But there was nothing even remotely resembling therapy taking place. As several letter writers and GS claims, I am a feminist as well as a man. This means I believe in full equality, liberty and justice for women as well as men. Women in the U.S. earn a third of what men do for the same work; still do 90% of child care, 90% of housework, 85% of all cooking; represent a tiny proportion of those in political power (though they register and vote in larger numbers than men), etc. It is only in my life time that women in many advanced countries got the right to vote, to sit on juries, to go to the top universities and professional schools, to charge husbands with rape or to enter corporate board rooms. I have no question that women can be as violent and abusive as men. But these inequalities and numerous others I could list with more space, mean that women enter personal relationships on an unequal footing with men, though ostensibly both have the same formal rights, and it is this unequal footing, exploited by too many men with coercion and control, that drives the millions of women to seek shelter or legal or police protection each year.
February 25th, 2008 at 3:21 am
@Evan Stark...
You originally said this...
"The issue Pizzey raises, of young men not being able to come to shelter with their moms, has been a serious problem since the beginning of the shelter movement. The reason for this policy, which you don't mention, is that many shelters take younger women, including girls in their teens, and the boys in families are often older than some of the females in the facility and there are no provisions to monitor their behavior-- violent or sexual.
So now you claim that discriminating against thirteen year old boys in the provision of safe accommodation is somehow to their benefit. Oh, and you do manage to slip in some not too subtle criticisms of Pizzey.
Your weasel words come far too late.
The reason you originally gave WAS that teenage boys would engage in violent or sexual behaviour. We've already seen one example in this thread of a refuge covering up the sexual abuse of a boy and protecting his female abuser. Refuges operating to feminist ideology put politics before concern for victims. The sooner this feminist ideology is forced OUT of anything to do with any form of abuse - whether it be service provision, advocacy, outreach, enforcement, judiciary or research - the better. This includes you.
Many of the shelters that exclude older males simply do not have the staffing to monitor, let alone regulate violence or sexual behavior among adolescents. Shelters are not social service agencies. They are safe spaces where women can get temporary respite from abusive partners and consider their options, often the first time in years.
Then the shelters should be for women only and ALL kids should be turned away. Your preference is to discriminate ONLY against male children and you base that on an assertion that those male children will abuse others.
Please God, deliver us from the bigots in our midst.
February 25th, 2008 at 4:30 am
Jeez Evan, ever heard of the paragraph? That's nearly twelve hundred words in three paragraphs.
Pizzey is "outraged" that I support excluding older male children from all shelters. But I never said anything of the kind. What I did was explain that some shelters exclude older boys because they lack the staffing to regulate violence and sexual acting out by these adolescents, females as well as males.
You originally mentioned only boys engaging in violent or sexual behavior. It's at the top of this thread if you care to look. You DID NOT include females at all. You were in the process of justifying the refusal of safety to some based only on their gender if you recall.
You are also a victim of feminist agit prop...
Women in the U.S. earn a third of what men do for the same work; still do 90% of child care, 90% of housework, 85% of all cooking; represent a tiny proportion of those in political power (though they register and vote in larger numbers than men), etc. It is only in my life time that women in many advanced countries got the right to vote, to sit on juries, to go to the top universities and professional schools, to charge husbands with rape or to enter corporate board rooms. I have no question that women can be as violent and abusive as men.
A third for the same work? Seriously? I'm a tax consultant Evan and see the complete income detail for thousands of folks every year. There is no pay gap. You clearly believe feminists' deceptive use of the statistics which only look at average full time incomes without even referencing the hours actually worked. I'd have expected you to be smart enough to see through that one.
And it seems you believe political representation should have some kind of quota attached to it. Vale democracy.
I'm not that much younger than you Evan and none of those things have been true in my lifetime apart, possibly, from marital rape. And if you wish to harp on that one the rape I experienced as a child in the sixties was legal BECAUSE it was committed by a female.
As for this I think you're just trying to promote your book...
But these inequalities and numerous others I could list with more space, mean that women enter personal relationships on an unequal footing with men, though ostensibly both have the same formal rights, and it is this unequal footing, exploited by too many men with coercion and control, that drives the millions of women to seek shelter or legal or police protection each year.
I take it you are an adherent of the Duluth Model. Unequal footing? Male coercion and control! Millions of women seeking shelter? Your hyperbole is almost as sizable as your paragraphs.
This premise that all abuse is a consequence of "male domination and control" is the biggest load of snakeoil ever foisted on an unsuspecting public. It has led to discrimination in provision of services to victims. It leads to poor treatments because they are based on false premises to begin with. It has marginalised significant numbers of abuse victims. It has resulted in bad law making. You have no solutions Evan. And you are very much a part of the problem.
February 25th, 2008 at 9:10 am
They are spaces where women can be temporarily safe and consider their options.
I thought the point of shelters was for abuse victims to be safe. But I see you saved us the trouble to thinking that males and females are abuse victims. Thanks, I guess.
Women in the U.S. earn a third of what men do for the same work;
Wait a minute I read feminists tout the line that women make 70-75cents to a man's dollar but now its 33 cents? If there is already a difference then why lie to make it look worse? Must be that perpetual victimhood right?
still do 90% of child care, 90% of housework, 85% of all cooking;
Where did you get those figures from?
represent a tiny proportion of those in political power (though they register and vote in larger numbers than men), etc.
Of that whole sentence this is the only one that's actually true. You gotta do better than that.
I have no question that women can be as violent and abusive as men.
Yet you have no problem with the assumption the only young boys are so sexual and violent that they must separated?
As several letter writers and GS claims, I am a feminist as well as a man. This means I believe in full equality, liberty and justice for women as well as men.
If that is the case then I hope that means you disagree with the Duluth Model right?
February 25th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Evan is a dishonest man.
February 25th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Evan Says:
February 25th, 2008 at 2:36 am
I explained that some shelters exclude older boys because they worry about possible violence between the boys and younger mothers or other girls.
Just remember that vioence goes both ways. So why punish the boys?
Many of the shelters that exclude older males simply do not have the staffing to monitor, let alone regulate violence or sexual behavior among adolescents.
Girls are not adolescents? So again, why were the boys the ones that were chosen to be isolated?
They are safe spaces where women can get temporary respite from abusive partners and consider their options, often the first time in years.
and apparently infant boys, girls, and adolescent girls only. Sounds bias and exclusive to me
Some letter writers think my explaining why older boys are segregated means I am anti-male. To the contrary, this policy can protect boys as well as the girls. This may have been true.
OK let us then take the girls and put them in a seperate building or into foster care
Some letter writers claim my feminist bias comes out because I don't acknowledge girl's potential for violence or want to exclude them. This too is nonsense. Separating the boys from the older girls also protects the boys and not only from other adolescents. Many women come to shelter after long histories of violence and abuse by men and are as threatening to the boys as the boys may be to some younger women.
No you misundrestand. You show you feminist bias because of your one way, one gender thinking. If you are not bias, have not been sucked in, and are a smart person, to offset this you should have offfered the sugestion I made above. See if it would fly if you said to protect the girls from the boys lets move them into an isolated dormatory.
So you did you not do that?
b
February 25th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Evan Says:
"Women in the U.S. earn a third of what men do for the same work; still do 90% of child care, 90% of housework, 85% of all cooking; represent a tiny proportion of those in political power (though they register and vote in larger numbers than men), etc."
I have no idea where you get these numbers from, but each and every one of them is incredibly wrong.
Just some food for thought... many college educated women become teachers still... take a wild guess how much a man teacher gets paid versus a woman teacher who has been in the system for the same amount of years and who has the same level of education.
I'll give you a hint... they get paid exactly the same... no difference whatsoever because the teaching establishment is unionized and have contracts with the communities within which they function.
Similarly, men and women who work in minimum wage jobs aren't seeing the women get paid an everage of 8 dollars an hour while the men get 24 when they have the same level of education and have been in the company for the same period of time... visit your local walmart and ask around to see if the men working the floor are getting 20+ dollars per hour while the women are pulling in around 8.
One thid the pay for the same work is the most insane statistic I think I've ever heard.
February 25th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Evan Says:
One thid the pay for the same work is the most insane statistic I think I've ever heard.
= = =
Besides it is illegal and ther is recourse.
b
February 25th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Jason, I too noted Evan's use of clearly bogus data. While I try never to assume that I know what someone else is thinking, I find it hard to believe that someone who works in this field can be completely ignorant of the current research which shows the real numbers.
Thus, I cannot help but be very suspicious that Evan's use of such bogus statistics falls into the category of lying political dogma. This suspicion, logically applied to the rest of his 1200 word paragraph, make me wonder if he actually said anything of value.
This is unfortunate, since we need to understand the 'other side'. If the other side we get to see is comprised of lying political dogma, how are we supposed to not demonize it?
February 25th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Stephen,
I agree, it is very difficult to even understand where someone else is comming from when they tell you things that are utterly outlandish.
This Evan fellow seemingly want's us to believe that if the typical male college graduate can expect to find a job that pay's him around 50K (this is actually slightly higher than what most can expect)... that the typical female college graduate will get paid 16.7K.
16.7K over the course of a year with a 40 hour work week equates to 8 dollars an hour with a college degree... you can do better than that working at a mcdonalds straight without even having a high school diploma.
At least when I hear the 80% statistic I can understand it as being mathematically feasible... but 33%?... it is just completely illogical.
February 25th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Evan,
That's a really long paragraph.
February 25th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
I think Evan meant "one third less". That would be the old 77% factoid. It puts Evan's indoctrination at about ten to fifteen years ago.
Evan...that particular statistic is a simple comparison between male full time workers' earnings and those of full time working females. It does't take into account the actual hours worked which are quite varied for those classed as "full time". Full time means anybody working thirty two hours or more. In Australia feminists are currently pushing this issue by claiming a gap of $100 per week. It equates to about seven hours(2006 42hrs/wk to 35hrs/wk). Look at the hourly average rate and the difference disappears almost completely. Adjusted for hours on Australian 2006 figures women earn 98.7% of mens' earnings. Given that men enjoy a workplace death and injury rate of 95% I think the womens shortfall of 1.3% is a small premium to pay for their relative safety and comfort in the workplace. Wish I could get insurance at that rate.
It's getting bad when somebody like me has to alert a feminist that their propaganda is out of date relative to the current propaganda and also has to fix their agit prop for them.
It is typical of the simplistic analysis applied by feminism to so many things. It also makes me wonder about the past attacks by feminists(Newton's work on gravity was a "rape manual" for example) on science. They certainly demonstrate little grasp of basic mathematics.
February 25th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Gwallen,
Even if he meant to say "1 third less"... that implies 66%... not 77%.
That doesn't put him 15 years ago... that puts him 40+ years ago.
February 25th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Jason...
Thankyou yes! I should be capable of better.
I've heard various "numbers" over several decades and the 66% version was around at one point - possibly the seventies. In my work I see the full income detail for thousands of people. If anything I analyse more incomes than those surveyers who produce the stats the "gap" claims are based on. As I keep saying there is NO pay gap. If anything women are earning a little more than men.
September 14th, 2008 at 9:35 am
[...] Glenn Sacks [...]
October 15th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
[...] In fact, such shelters are so incredibly hostile to members of the male sex that, when a woman with children flees to a shelter, she is allowed to keep her female children with her while male children must be placed in foster care. [...]