Return to Gender 101

[LadyShea]

Did you read the manifesto?

[beyelzu]

I think my typo of wet himself on fire is cute, i am going to leave it.

[beyelzu]

Yes, i did read it, i agree it is over the top and he did set himself on fire, I just don't think it was the best case pluasible scenario except insofar as since it happened its probability is now one.

[Qingdai]

I'm finding a distressing lack of information on outcomes of treatment of abusers, but I may not have my search terms refined enough.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/n16457333583l7u3/

[Demimonde]

Well the counseling was offered ten years ago when he might have been more accessible. Though his pride in "not lifting a finger to save his marriage" nor his willingness to follow the court order to gain custody of his kids does suggest you may be right. However, his version of events is a narrative after the fact and may be rationalizations that were not present at that time. No one can know whether this guy could have been reached sooner in my opinion.

I still see him as a victim. Not of the legal system but of the cultural biases about mental health. There is some serious medical gazing going down.

[Demimonde]

LS, suicidal ideation is a medical condition that is often terminal. I dislike using "choice" in connection with it. That is comparable to discussing the "choice" in addiction or other compulsive disorders.

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by beyelzu

Once he makes bail indeed. A person accused of crime x should be allowed to return home. If there is a danger yes protective orders, family court etc should be used to work it out perhaps having him put out of th ehouse or whatever.

Of if yo uwere to put it another way "a man who didn't actually do anything but was accused of something" would "be allowed to return to his home immediately"

Not just accused. Charged. Charged and released under condition that he stay away from his alleged victim. In his quote, he is talking about cases in which the accused has a) been charged with domestic violence, and b) had a court determine that he posed enough of a danger that he shouldn't have contact with his alleged victims. So in the situations he's talking about a family court has added those conditions in that specific case. If you go back and read it, you will find that I am now repeating myself.

Nice quotes around his, why did you put them there?

Yes, they are. And thank you, as the quotes are the only part I actually typed myself! I'm quoting the statement you took exception to. I cut and pasted it, then added the quotes by hand. See, the point being that the statement you were finding fault with makes literal sense.

I would think it'd go without saying that it sucks when anyone is wrongfully accused and charged with crimes they did not commit, and that the conditions they're subjected to are unfair. However, the response to those injustices should be to reduce the number of wrongful charges levied, rather than to assume those accused of violent crimes are innocent, and allow them close personal access to their victims in an uncontrolled setting.

While, from a legal perspective, people accused of crimes should be presumed innocent, from a victim safety perspective, it is important to ensure that the courts do not send violent criminals back to attack their victims again while they await trial. That is unfair to those who are wrongfully accused, and in cases in which the accused criminal and the alleged victim live in the same household, it is especially unfair.

What's the reasonable alternative, then? To send everyone accused of domestic violence back home to the partners they allegedly assaulted? Remember that a good portion of these people, despite being legally designated at that point as 'accused,' actually are, in reality, people who beat up their domestic partners.

yeah, perceived, its just in my head. I also don't think something was bound to go down resulting in the loss of life, I guess I do appreciate that you own that you think what happened was the best plausible scenario.

Yes, it is much more generous and charmingly optimistic to assume that people who have some positive take on the situation are actually just bloodthirsty and uncharitable, rather than to entertain the notion that they might simply be expressing relief that nobody else was hurt.

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by Demimonde

Well the counseling was offered ten years ago when he might have been more accessible. Though his pride in "not lifting a finger to save his marriage" nor his willingness to follow the court order to gain custody of his kids does suggest you may be right. However, his version of events is a narrative after the fact and may be rationalizations that were not present at that time. No one can know whether this guy could have been reached sooner in my opinion.

I think it goes without saying that the ideal solution would have been early intervention. I don't think he was born like that or anything by any stretch, and I can't even speculate at which point he became set enough in his thinking that a peaceful resolution was plausible.

I'm speaking entirely from the point at which he wrote the manifesto. By that point, his reasoning is so irrational and so apparently ingrained that I can't even fathom anything that would have gotten through to him.

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

A coworker of mine was gunned down by her abusive estranged husband in the parking lot of our workplace, then he killed himself (lisarea this was in Aurora CO in the early 90's, do you remember it?).

No, but I was just around the corner, less than 100 yards away, when some woman's husband gunned her down in a parking lot on my college campus in the late 80s. He killed her, and I think injured a bystander and killed himself as well.

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by lisarea

Not just accused. Charged. Charged and released under condition that he stay away from his alleged victim. In his quote, he is talking about cases in which the accused has a) been charged with domestic violence, and b) had a court determine that he posed enough of a danger that he shouldn't have contact with his alleged victims. So in the situations he's talking about a family court has added those conditions in that specific case. If you go back and read it, you will find that I am now repeating myself.

I did read it, thank you.

I would think it'd go without saying that it sucks when anyone is wrongfully accused and charged with crimes they did not commit, and that the conditions they're subjected to are unfair. However, the response to those injustices should be to reduce the number of wrongful charges levied, rather than to assume those accused of violent crimes are innocent, and allow them close personal access to their victims in an uncontrolled setting.

I presume all people are innocent when charged. its just one of those zany things I do. I certainly do agree that there should be a system in place to protect victims of abuse, not sure where those lines should be drawn.

While, from a legal perspective, people accused of crimes should be presumed innocent, from a victim safety perspective, it is important to ensure that the courts do not send violent criminals back to attack their victims again while they await trial. That is unfair to those who are wrongfully accused, and in cases in which the accused criminal and the alleged victim live in the same household, it is especially unfair.

What's the reasonable alternative, then? To send everyone accused of domestic violence back home to the partners they allegedly assaulted? Remember that a good portion of these people, despite being legally designated at that point as 'accused,' actually are, in reality, people who beat up their domestic partners.

and remember that a good portion at that point as 'accused' aren't guilty of shit in reality.

Yes, it is much more generous and charmingly optimistic to assume that people who have some positive take on the situation are actually just bloodthirsty and uncharitable, rather than to entertain the notion that they might simply be expressing relief that nobody else was hurt.

almost as generous and charmingly optimistic as suggesting that a man setting himself on fire was the best plausible outcome.

[Demimonde]

I do agree with you there, lisa, though his letter to the paper legally could be seen as cause to commit him as he obviously posed a threat to himself and others. I wish they could have stopped him on the court house steps at least.

As a side note, many resources have been made available to battered women for mental health treatment. There have been great advances there. Biy little has been done for the abusers, as Kael said they are perceived as monstrous and beyond saving. Ditto for those with anger disorders that lead to assault. Ditto substance abusers. Instead they are treated punitively which can exacerbate the situation.

So long as we focus on treating the victim as opposed to treating both this will continue. Hell yes they should be separated to prevent further violence. But while we have focused on treating women not to enable abuse we ignore treating men at the same time. That must be done to really prevent future violence.

The stats for success rates in treatment are hard to find, as the treatment is hard to find. Anecdotally, I know of many success stories of people who were treated for depression, substance abuse, anger, and anxiety which resulted in reform. They stopped abusing once they were mentally stable.

As this is the gender thread I want to point out that men are fed from the time that they are in diapers that aggression is their domain. Many lack the coping strategies that replace violence in such situations. Additionally, the stigma for a man to receive mental health treatment is greater than women's. Men are enculturated to suppress emotions and behave aggressively. This cultural construct makes a tinderbox.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Demimonde

LS, suicidal ideation is a medical condition that is often terminal. I dislike using "choice" in connection with it. That is comparable to discussing the "choice" in addiction or other compulsive disorders.

I assume you mean my sentence

But he chose to go out in a spectacle. People like that will often choose to take others with them.

So you feel he was compelled to commit suicide by self immolation in front of the courthouse, rather than use some other method? You don't think he made a choice, at least in the method/setting? You don't think that his manifesto, including spelling out his motives and intentions, indicate some level of agency and choice?

I agree that he was mentally ill, but I don't believe mental illness always prevents people from making choices nor do I believe it absolves them of any and all actions.

He was functional enough to dress himself, travel from A to B, stand trial etc...he wasn't completely delusional, catatonic, or unable to control his body.

[Demimonde]

bey, you seem to be playing the contrarian. You say that steps should be taken to protect alleged victims but refuse to recommend any solution. Is it "his" house and she should GTFO? What happens to any kids in that scenerio, especially if they are victimized as well? No custody has been addressed. Erring on the side of caution is far better than letting a potential violent abuser back in the home. And a quick question, you are suggesting this for domestic violence, what about "accused" sexual abusers? Should they be allowed back.

Though Ball did have a point about the homelessness problem, he blew it way out of perspective. I think men's shelters, with counseling available would be an excellent solution.

[wildernesse]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I wonder how many abusive people actually get counseling and become functional? I am really curious as to how successful counseling is for unbalanced people. My very small sampling of observed people indicates that there isn't a very high success rate.

This was something I thought a lot about after working with a domestic violence shelter. The focus has tended to be primarily on 1) Getting those abused to safety and 2) Teaching the abused how to avoid those situations again.

#1, I do not have a problem with at all. That is an immediate need. However, #2 is more like victim-blaming (although dv is part of a relationship dynamic and most relationships involve multi-person interaction) and I wondered occasionally whether focusing on the abuser might be more productive. (And, granted, there are many other things that are done by dv orgs, but this is what most time was spent doing IMO.)

The problem is that the abusers don't tend to think THEY have a problem. Their problem is that the person/people they abuse won't do what they want, when they want it, or that the system is rigged against them, or that the world isn't fair, etc. If they just got their way 100%, then everything would be fine. And it is nearly impossible to teach someone who doesn't want to learn, even if they have the capacity to do so.

[Demimonde]

LS, suicidal ideation is a compulsion. The earliest manifestation is planning, and fantasizing about it. I do think he was compelled to kill himself. The manner in which he did it is a manifestation of his personal issues.

The catatonic don't ever kill themselves BTW. That is a danger in early treatment, as a patient can become strong enough to carry out what their mind is telling them to do. That they are able to get out of bed does not mean that they are acting out of choice.

[Demimonde]

wildy, if I could thank your post twice I would.

Incidentally, in the not too distant past treatment for the victims was ignored as it was assumed they didn't have a problem. That was due to the normalization of domestic abuse and ideas abiut a woman's place. A tinderbox that is in the process of being deconstructed. If only work could be done to change those perceptions of the abusers, treatment might just be achieved more easily.

ETA, and also an amen to the connection to victim blaming and treating the victim. "If only we could stop women from enabling abusers and wanting to be abused then domestic violence would disappear!" seems to be the message. Only it hasn't and it won't. Not until the other side of the equation is addressed.

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by Demimonde

bey, you seem to be playing the contrarian. You say that steps should be taken to protect alleged victims but refuse to recommend any solution. Is it "his" house and she should GTFO? What happens to any kids in that scenerio, especially if they are victimized as well? No custody has been addressed. Erring on the side of caution is far better than letting a potential violent abuser back in the home. And a quick question, you are suggesting this for domestic violence, what about "accused" sexual abusers? Should they be allowed back.

I didn't want to get into the nuts and bolts of the situation because I don't know it. It seems from his perspective that there wasn't or isn't alot of due process which is what bothered him. I do not particularly like how either group, mra and feminists are talking about this sordid sad affair. I neither think he was a hero nor do I think he was this horrible monster and glad that he killed himself. It is a tragedy. Maybe this is the best outcome possible, but if so shit is really fucked up.

Though Ball did have a point about the homelessness problem, he blew it way out of perspective. I think men's shelters, with counseling available would be an excellent solution.

I do obviously agree, his numbers were well odd and he manipulated data in very odd ways. he blew everything way out of perspective, he was very disturbed.

[Qingdai]

So it's quite possible that the men that don't kill and/or their families, actually realized there was a problem and sought help. There could be long range studies I'm unaware of, seems like one could take a population of children from abused homes and follow outcomes.

Yep. http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/bul/114/1/68/
Fucking for profit research companies.

[LadyShea]

Well, I stand by my statement, however I can remove the word choice without changing my meaning.

Many abusive and controlling men kill others, often the victims of their previous abuse and control, in the process of killing themselves.

Originally Posted by Wildy

The problem is that the abusers don't tend to think THEY have a problem. Their problem is that the person/people they abuse won't do what they want, when they want it, or that the system is rigged against them, or that the world isn't fair, etc. If they just got their way 100%, then everything would be fine. And it is nearly impossible to teach someone who doesn't want to learn, even if they have the capacity to do so.

As lisarea mentioned, some personality disorders such as NPD, ASPD, even OCPD (not to be confused with OCD) have an abysmal treatment success rate, for the very reason that those with the PD's simply do not believe they are the one with the problem nor do medications seem to work on PDs.

All the controlling/abusive types I have met seemed to be personality disordered. Another thing I have noticed as that they follow a pattern so closely that once you identify one you can often predict their actions. I can't consider them victims. I may be wrong in that, but I simply can't.

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by beyelzu

I did read it, thank you.

I presume all people are innocent when charged. its just one of those zany things I do. I certainly do agree that there should be a system in place to protect victims of abuse, not sure where those lines should be drawn.

OK, you realize that is the entire point of what I'm talking about? The. Entire. Point.

The point is that lines do have to be drawn, and that while it is absolutely vital that, from a legal perspective, people accused of crimes are presumed innocent; it is also vital that the legal system have measures in place that protects alleged victims from their accused attackers. Some of which, legal definitions aside, are factually violent abusers and victims of violent abuse.

I am confused as to what you think you're addressing, unless you somehow believe that I or anyone else is saying that people who are wrongly accused should be punished. WTF?

What you seem to be missing here is that nobody--not me, not the original quote you took exception to, and not anyone I've seen here--has denied or maligned the legal notion of 'innocent until proven guilty' or the fact that some people charged with crimes are factually innocent. And nobody has expressed any support for those preventative measures being applied to those innocent parties. The closest thing to that is that I'm saying that it is a serious and unjust punitive measure in those cases in which the charges are false, but I don't see a way to prevent unjustly accused people from suffering the consequences without also facilitating further violence against victims in those cases in which the accused is actually guilty. And I think the risks of releasing abusers to further abuse their victims is greater than the admittedly serious consequences to innocent parties, so I would err toward the latter.

And you do have to err, so it's not like I'm taking some bold pro-erring stance. That's just reality.

and remember that a good portion at that point as 'accused' aren't guilty of shit in reality.

Wh...wh....WHAAA?

OMG, I hadn't thought of THAT before!

What a new and interesting perspective on the issue! That sorts everything out, then!

Your solution is? You approach that issue how?

[wildernesse]

Originally Posted by beyelzu

I presume all people are innocent when charged. its just one of those zany things I do. I certainly do agree that there should be a system in place to protect victims of abuse, not sure where those lines should be drawn.

In the states I am familiar with, people who are able to have their abuser removed from the home without a criminal charge, etc., must generally show some kind of imminent threat of harm. Judges have the discretion whether to grant those temporary orders, and many have interesting interpretations about what imminent means. Usually that order is only allowed to stand for a short period of time before an actual hearing is held--IIRC, it is 10 days in Georgia.

So, a person is deprived of his/her rights without a chance to respond for 2 weeks max. Then, they get a chance to show up and tell their side of the story and present evidence. Personally, I don't think that this is a huge burden on the other side when weighed against the possible harm to the victim(s).

What most people seem to be outraged about is the fact that when they show up for their hearing, they don't win [what they think they deserve]. (This seems to be the rule for all but the most sophisticated parties, whether we are talking about dv or family issues or pretty much anything--I have represented and observed the representation of people who won their cases, and won more than any reasonable person would think possible, but were furious at everyone involved--but themselves--because they didn't win what they thought they deserved.) Which turns out to be less about being thought guilty/liable without proof, than about being accountable in general for their actions.

[Demimonde]

And to clarify my response to your question LS, no I do not believe that his manifesto is indicative of his motive or intent. I think it is a manifestation of is delusions. In the same way, the delusions of worthlessness in a depressive personality, might lead them to write a suicide note such as Virginia Woolf, in which she apologizes for hurting her husband and family and states that she wishes to alleviate their burden of knowing and loving her. That led to her going off and drowning herself in private, far from home in the hopes of sparing them the heartache of finding her. I don't believe that she chose to end her life that way. She was compelled to based on her delusions.

I can't link her note but it is googleable and worth a read.

[wei yau]

Is this the sock puppet mafia thread now? If so, I think ITSOZAZ is pretending to be bey. He could have at least tried to change his posting style.

[wildernesse]

Originally Posted by Demimonde

The stats for success rates in treatment are hard to find, as the treatment is hard to find. Anecdotally, I know of many success stories of people who were treated for depression, substance abuse, anger, and anxiety which resulted in reform. They stopped abusing once they were mentally stable.

As this is the gender thread I want to point out that men are fed from the time that they are in diapers that aggression is their domain. Many lack the coping strategies that replace violence in such situations. Additionally, the stigma for a man to receive mental health treatment is greater than women's. Men are enculturated to suppress emotions and behave aggressively. This cultural construct makes a tinderbox.

(I know, I am being annoying and quoting things out of order, but that's because I can't read in a straight line or something.)

THIS, THIS, THIS. Mental health treatment, especially for people who fall in the gap between having health insurance and Medicaid, is almost impossible to find in this country in many areas. That's just basic old mental health treatment, much less effective mental health treatment that meets some kind of quality standard.

Now try to find effective substance abuse treatment beyond AA in a church basement! Especially if you have done something stupid as a result of substance abuse, because you are probably dealing with a host of other stressors from the system that are purely punitive.

The state of these services in our country is pathetic and in many cases might as well not exist. It is hard to find a better example of a basic quality of life factor that is available only to those of significant financial means than when we talk about mental health care or substance abuse treatment in the United States.

[Demimonde]

I highly recommend Michel Foucault's book Madness and Civilization also released in 2009 as History of Madness

To guide the thread back to gender, imagine now that symptoms of mental illness are given a gendered stamp of approval. The hysterical woman is made that way, the aggressive man is born to that role. Foucault discusses how unreason can illuminate truth or a lie.

Take for example what I call the Crazy Brilliant Modern Woman Author Suicide Club, (a reference which once made a professor of mine physically recoil, despite her familiarity with Foucault and that she studied under Derrida.) Woolf for example illuminated great truths about the roles of women in her society despite her illness and attempts to confine her. Art liberated her through unreason to criticize her society that forbid her from entering the library. She found a truth that was outside of society. Many women with similar mental issues failed along side her, indeed eventually she lost her own battle.

I can see Ball's manifesto as a discourse of delirium. There is a great deal of gendered pressure that he embodies and informs his writing even as he loses touch with reality and falls into the lies of massaging facts to support his reality. Ball pleads to his reader that he is a "coffee and cheeseburger kind of guy" and a "good soldier." There is no art to his writing though, only pain.

Then consider Hemingway as a counter point to Woolf. Conversely, as a brother to Ball.