The Domestic Violence Against Men in Colorado web site was first posted in November 1999. There were just five chapters. The early work drew attention and I was strongly encouraged to found the Equal Justice Foundation, which we did in February 2001. At the time we were among a few lonely voices whistling in the wind in defense of abused men and with the temerity to denounce the actions of violent women and the ideology of radical feminists.
Today our Domestic Violence Against Men in Colorado site would total over 2,200 printed pages. To keep that site somewhat Colorado-centric we have added a Global Domestic Violence site that would total nearly 1,700 printed pages by itself. Unlike most other web sites we also include tables of content, lists of tables and figures, a bibliography, and indexes. Wherever feasible hyperlinks are also included in the text.
Our sites include a broad range of articles from a multitude of authors: a law professor, a number of attorneys, police, university researchers, authors, rational feminists, columnists, as well as many personal stories of abused men and women. And to describe what kinds of violence women are perpetrating there are innumerable vignettes describing the actions of violent women throughout the United States.
To my knowledge no rigorous scientific study has ever found valid evidence that intimate partner violence was dominated by one sex. But at the time the radical feminist dogma that all women were "victims" and all men were "batterers" in order to maintain the patriarchy, or similar nonsense, held sway in the courts and legislatures. Unfortunately, due to the unswerving efforts of radical ideologues richly supported by federal and state funds, the science is still largely ignored in those chambers.
But the tide is slowly changing and it is to be hoped that the work of the Equal Justice Foundation plays some small role in swinging the balance of justice back to equality.
In 1971 Erin Pizzey established a refuge for abused women in Chiswick, London, England, one of the first. Her 1978 book Scream Quietly Or The Neighbors Will Hear brought domestic violence to the world's attention. From the beginning she found that 62 of the first 100 women to enter her refuge (shelter) were as violent, or more violent than the men they left.
Research dating from 1980 by Straus, Gelles, and Steinmetz is unequivocal in finding that in intimate relationships women are as, or are more violent than men.
My colleague, Prof. Martin Fiebert, has now compiled a bibliography of references examining assaults by women on their intimate partners that includes some 286 references. John Hamel has reviewed the current state of knowledge about intimate partner violence, an effort that encompasses most research on this topic. The consensus is that the rates of female-perpetrated violence are higher than male-perpetrated (28.3% vs. 21.6%).
Research is also consistent in finding that in half the incidents of domestic violence both the man and woman are violent. However, the woman initiates the violence about 60% of the time in these incidents.
In the face of overwhelming scientific evidence for female violence in intimate relationships how are feminist ideologues able to maintain the legal fiction that women are only violent in "self defense" or in response to repeated and prolonged battering by their male partners, the "battered woman defense"?
Certainly well orchestrated parades of tearful women relating pitiful, if somewhat edited and embellished, stories while sobbing away sways legislators. Abused men who attempt to tell their stories are generally met with scorn and contempt. So, for the most part, men don't tell and everyone's rights suffer. Worse, the radical feminist ideology only makes the problem of intimate partner violence more destructive. But that suits their objective of destroying the patriarchy and restoring a more primitive matriarchy with the assistance of generous government funding.
The paper by Prof. Murray Straus describing the Processes Explaining The Concealment And Distortion of Evidence On Gender Symmetry In Intimate Partner Violence provides the background needed to understand how the fiction that women are predominately "victims" of domestic violence and men are consistently "batterers" is maintained. That ideology is fiercely defended by radical feminists whose funding and beliefs are dependent on maintaining this fiction. Advocacy research is a basic tool they effectively use in maintaining their illusion.
Ideologically driven advocates certainly do everything they can to ensure the "victims" are not cross-examined. Under the mantra of "believe the victim" law was established to issue restraining orders ex parte that take virtually everything a man treasures from him without notice or hearing.
When a "victim" of domestic violence didn't show up for trial, and many if not most don't, the proceeding continued based on other evidence, as in a murder trial. Until the 2004 US Supreme Court ruling in Crawford v Washington defendants were routinely denied their Sixth Amendment rights to confront and cross-examine their accusers. Even today many courts and prosecutors ignore, or do their best to evade this Constitutional stricture when the woman does not show for trial, or is obviously an unreliable witness for the prosecution. A bevy of "expert" witnesses who are paid to testify how domestic violence works according to their ideological model of a cycle of violence is also kept on tap at taxpayer expense.
One way that radical feminists have managed to maintain the fiction that women are exclusively "victims" and men are always "batterers" is to constantly expand the definition of what constitutes domestic violence and abuse.
The following are current types of violence and abuse reflected in both law and custom. The review is not politically correct or delicate, and is incomplete in the eyes of many radical feminists. The ultra-sensitive should skip this section:
Physical One would be wrong to assume that physical abuse is limited to the use of fists and weapons. Examples are presented below as to the many types of female violence observed.
It is no secret that normal couples argue and fight, and during such arguments they often push, shove, or she slaps him. That suffices for an arrest today as feminist dogma insists that if not stopped immediately by an arrest and reeducation of the male that such violence will inevitably escalate through a cycle of violence to femicide.
Further, dogmatic domestic violence advocates regard even such acts as a pillow fight as physical violence. Nor can couples play, wrestle, or make loud, passionate love without committing domestic violence in Big Sister's world. And BDSM is definitely abuse though widely practiced. Nor is there any allowance for accidents if she visits a doctor or hospital with an injury. She will be asked if she is safe at home or in fear of her partner by medical personnel, or they may call police on their own initiative without consulting the woman. But a man who reports injuries inflicted by a woman is generally ignored.
Much of the hysteria about intimate partner violence (IPV) is based on relatively rare cases of severe assaults, and even homicides. Examples are presented here of women doing that as well. And apparently the most violent relationships are among lesbian couples. Recently it has even become politically acceptable to publish such stories, e.g., Denver Sheriff Deputy Debra West was arrested for assaulting her wife in December 2014.
But feminists and DV advocates only bring forward male "batterers," as those are the only ones who exist in their lexicon. That works well with legislators who are congenitally unable to distinguish possibility from probability and thereby incorporate draconian punishments into laws that treat the trivial and cases of life-and-death as equal.
He may also cuss and swear, particularly if he is a veteran. Or he may not spend enough time with her due to the pressure of work while he attempts to support her and the kids. And a thousand other reasons she is unhappy...
Sexual Couples usually come together because of a mutual enjoyment of sex with each other. Many couples engage in a variety of sex games, e.g., bondage, and may employ a variety of sex toys. All fun and games until the woman gets jealous, wants a divorce, is seeking sole custody of the kids, etc. Then these games quickly become sexual abuse to be put forward in lurid, one-sided detail.
Then there is the problem of sexual assault. In the lexicon of radical feminists, e.g., Andrea Dworkin or Catherine MacKinnon, every act of sexual intercourse is rape. For example, Cupcake gets drunk and has sex. Now ever since beverages containing ethyl alcohol were invented men have been trying to get women drunk in order to couple with them. But today if Cupcake sobers up and decides she didn't like the experience she can claim sexual assault (rape) even three or six months later and without any evidence as an allegation will suffice.
Actual rape is an ugly crime and if a woman doesn't shower, douche, or wash her clothes, and has a rape examination within 72 hours after there is almost always indisputable evidence against the perpetrator today. But if she waits for months, sends him emails, even has sex with him again, then this isn't "rape" or any kind of sexual assault by normal standards though such claims are now routinely made.
Of course in the above I've assumed a male attacking a female constitutes rape, as that is where the hysteria is generated. But there is evidence that more sexual assaults on campus are perpetrated by lesbians than by males.
The secret for mature women who don't want to be "victims" is don't get drunk and have sex. Sober women are seldom raped. The more intelligent ones carry pepper spray or mace ready to hand, i.e., not buried in the bottom of their purse. Even better is a concealed-carry permit for a gun, or a rubber-handled screwdriver with a 6"-8" shank and a thin blade. Those defensive weapons are effective against both male and female attackers if used soberly.
Financial abuse In many, if not most couples one or the other handles the finances. But today if that is the male and he doesn't give her everything she wants then it is considered financial abuse and controlling behavior.
Verbal During arguments couples commonly say hurtful things to each other that they often regret later. However, anything a man may say today to a woman, particularly if he swears or yells, as men often do, is considered verbal abuse. Nor is there any statute of limitations on anything she may have taken offense to.
Religious/Spiritual It is quite common today for couples to be of no or different religious faiths. All is well when love is young but they may differ radically on the education and religion the children are to be raised in.
Forced marriage Used to be if Johnny down the road knocked up Susie there was commonly a shotgun wedding. Mostly the couple worked things out and it provided the child a father. But modern feminists are out to destroy marriage and fathers so this is now abuse.
Female genital mutilation (FGM) A cruel practice of a few cults and religions. Most find it repulsive and it appears to be primarily practiced in the United States by illegal immigrants from the Middle East and Africa. But again it only applies to females.
Conversely, male genital mutilation (MGM), or circumcision is routinely practiced and often forced on boys by the State on pain of imprisonment.
Stalking and Harassment What is now termed stalking is almost universally practiced by young lovers, both male and female. Of course it can become annoying if a rejected suitor persists, and criminal if they begin destroying property, e.g., breaking windows, slashing tires, committing arson, killing pets, etc.
Rejected men and women can also harass the other by such acts as phone calls every half hour night and day, calling the other's employer, making or filing false allegations, spreading malicious rumors, or any other way fertile and passion-deranged imaginations can derive. The problem is action is generally only taken against men who are stalking and harassing a female.
If the above criteria were put in mathematical terms the problem would be considered overdetermined. And consider that prior restraint is government action that prohibits speech or other expression before it can take place. Clearly, under the above criteria, every action that a man might take in an intimate relationship falls under one of more of these criteria, and by these definitions every woman in the country has been, or is being abused.
The overarching issue is not that the above constraints can't be taken to extremes but at what point does the State have a compelling interest to intervene? Current laws go far beyond any rational need for intervention by the State. Worse, these laws are based on the false dogma that only men are committing these crimes.
Experience suggests these draconian policies have only made the problems of intimate partner violence worse.
Another problem with current laws and courts is that they invite false allegations. Restraining (or protection) orders are issued ex parte, hearsay is now admissible in many cases, perjury is almost never challenged, and men are punished before a trial or hearing or without one.
All that is required for these actions to occur is that a woman allege that a man has harmed or abused her or children in some fashion. Evidence isn't necessary, or can be fabricated. State-supported advocates and attorneys stand ready to assist the woman in making these allegations, suborning perjury at every opportunity, and prosecutors and judges are schooled to "believe the victim," but only if female.
I wanted to go beyond statistical analysis and one of our first major papers was Controlling Domestic Violence Against Men by ErinPIzzey, Martin Fiebert, and myself. First presented at a conference in San Diego the evening of September 10, 2001, that article has become a standard reference on the topic.
Knowing that women are violent in intimate relationships is only a part of the problem and leaves the question of what kind of violence is the distaff half likely to initiate unanswered? Thus, with help from many contributors I began compiling documentation of female violence in intimate relationships. Although some clear patterns of misbehavior are evident, our documentation was never intended to be a valid statistical sample, simply a survey of female violence and misbehavior.
Feminist dogma is insistent that men engage in domestic violence in order to maintain power and control over their female partners. Presumptively that is done in order to maintain the patriarchy. However, in the few cases I've seen where men were violent simply to maintain power and control, on enquiry the men haven't had the education or intelligence to know what the hell the "patriarchy" is. One is reminded of the induhviduals in Scott Adams Dilbert comic strip. So I suggest this is an unlikely hypothesis to explain why some men are violent in intimate relationships.
One more readily turns to vengeance, jealousy, adultery, mental disorders, pimping, and substance abuse (particularly methamphetamine) to explain male violence against females, as well as female violence against males, rather than simply power and control. However, as discussed in the next section there is an undeniable relationship between post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and intimate partner violence.
Conversely, I have observed power and control issues widely in radical feminists, particularly those who put themselves forward as advocates against domestic violence. The common form is some sort of passive-aggressive behavior, especially among those women who have a position that gives them a modicum of power over males, e.g., a feminist bureaucrat or, worse, a judge or lawyer. While their behavior may not take the form of physical violence it certainly meets the criteria for emotional abuse, and may take many other forms such as sexual, financial, and verbal abuse, as well as harassment and stalking as in this example of a black widow.
Incidentally, ladies if you are going to harass and stalk your boyfriend do not do it by trying to climb down his chimney. One female medical doctor has died doing that and in another case the fire department had to tear the chimney apart to free her. But such bizarre behavior seems to go hand-in-hand with power-and-control issues in females.
Hypocrisy also seems to be a handmaiden to power and control. Consider the case of a 5 foot, 125-pound socialite professor at Columbia University who taught conflict resolution to executives in the New York police and fire departments and advocated against domestic violence. Under the covers, so to speak, this cougar had a much younger Boy Toy living with her in her swank West End apartment who she took to beating, claiming he cheated on her.
The endless imperial wars of the 21st Century have added more than a million wounded warriors to the ranks of America's disabled veterans. It is becoming ever more clear that upwards of half these veterans have, or will suffer from some level of post traumatic stress disorder (see Endnote for symptoms). PTSD is particularly prevalent among veterans who have been on multiple deployments and among National Guard units.
Note that one distinctive symptom is "a need for unconditional control of almost every situation in order to feel safe." Such control is essential for survival in combat but in an intimate relationship is seen as "power and control."
A nation that sends its warriors into hell must not destroy them when they return. As Kipling pointed out "...single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints." For them cursing, swearing, drinking, and fighting are normal, not criminal. When the demons come back and veterans lash out in blind anger; pound on the walls; kick and fight when the nightmares come because they must sleep; hide in terror or go away into flashbacks; these are not crimes but the price a warrior pays and a debt society owes.
Various studies show a close link between PTSD and domestic violence with at least one showing:
"81% of veterans suffering from depression and PTSD engaged in at least one violent act against their partner in the past year; and over half of veterans with PTSD performed one severe act of violence in the past year a rate more than 14 times higher than the general civilian population."
As the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan drug on more and more women were spread throughout the battlespace in a variety of roles. Thus, we are now seeing more and more female veterans with PTSD. Some evidence suggests women may be more susceptible to PTSD than men but there is no evidence to suggest female veterans suffering from PTSD behave markedly different from males.
Of course there are far more cases of PTSD among the civilian population, notably among police and corrections officers, as well as other high stress occupations. Women who have been raped, assaulted, or survived disasters or accidents also suffer from PTSD and manifest the same symptoms and violent behavior.
Whether men or women suffer from PTSD is irrelevant to the issue of how society addresses this problem. To the disgrace of our society we have made wounds of war a crime and made criminals of accident victims. I think it is clear that treating PTSD as a crime, as presently done, is counterproductive solves nothing, and almost certainly makes the problems worse for both society and the individual.
A basic mantra of radical feminists is that women are only violent in self defense. Perhaps the primary promoter of this falsehood is Lenore Walker and her advancement of the "battered woman syndrome" as a defense for women in criminal trials. But Walker was by no means the inventor of this idea as a 1911 case demonstrates.
While there is no question that some women are violent in self defense against an abusive partner, in the hundreds of stories of violent women in Colorado and other states describing some of the most horrific and violent acts by women imaginable I have not seen a clear-cut case of self defense.
There are, however, innumerable cases where the woman acted out of a desire for vengeance, jealousy, a mental disorder, or financial gain. It is but a small step for such a woman to imagine and portray herself as a "victim" in these situations and claim she acted in "self defense." That is particularly true when DV advocates encourage such delusions.
Serial killers, male or female, are supposedly rare yet my very incomplete sampling turned up twenty such female cases. Going back in history Ranker lists twenty-one such female monsters. Wikipedia tabulates some thirty-eight female serial killers.
In reviewing stories of female-initiated homicides in Colorado, and the rest of the country, it is apparent that females have few compunctions about shooting their partners. However, it is apparent that women tend to favor stabbing him about as often as shooting, perhaps because a knife is handy in the kitchen. But, given the opportunity, they will drive over the man with a car, as in the case of an assistant U.S. attorney who backed over her boyfriend, twice. Or the Westminster, Colorado woman who rammed and killed her husband with their car simply because she wanted "the last word."
One thing that seems evident after the passage of draconian domestic violence laws is an increase in murder-suicides in couples. Typically the reports indicate the man shot his wife or lover and then himself. But is this always true? Take for example the case where teenage daughters found their parents dead in bed in the Denver area. Investigators told the press the husband had shot his wife. But the gun was in her hand!
There are also the very sad cases where a woman kills their children to take vengeance or get back at the father.
Having the police present has not proven to provide safety for men. Witness the case of a University of Colorado professor in Boulder, or a Las Animas attorney, both of whom were shot to death by their wives in the presence of police officers.
There is also the case of a female FBI agent hitting her husband in the face with a shovel. Many a man has had hot grease, boiling water, or boiling oil thrown in his face and males are well advised to stay out of the kitchen when Cupcake is mad. Women also like to wait until a man is asleep and then attack, e.g., pour boiling water in his groin or chop on his head with a meat cleaver. So one sees a variety of weapons used by women in attacking men and usually taking them by surprise.
Even more astonishing are the admittedly rare cases of cannibalism by females; Consider the case in Alamosa, Colorado, where a woman butchered and cooked her boyfriend. I have now found three cases of female cannibalism to two for males. Of course when a man talks about eating his girlfriend he usually has something entirely different in mind.
In our sampling, when women do set out to kill their intimate partners two favored methods are by poison or hiring a hit man. I have tabulated over eighty cases of women either hiring a hit man or attempting to. Overall the success rate for this method seems to be rather low but that may be an artifact as unsuccessful plots are more likely to come to light.
There are many reasons a woman tries to hire a hit man to kill her husband or lover. For example, consider the case of the Greeley, Colorado woman who wanted the insurance money. In another case a Newton, Kansas, woman tried to hire a hit man to kill both her husband and her lover's wife. Custody battles for children also turn deadly. Take the case of a Gilpin County, Colorado prosecutor whose Israeli ex-wife tried to have him killed in order to gain custody of their child. She also filed false allegations of domestic violence against him in order to gain citizenship and was smuggling diamonds and working as an "escort," i.e., a prostitute, to pay for her activities.
Sometimes it appears the murder-for-hire plot was a success, as in the case of Aspen, Colorado, socialite Pamela Phillips, who hired a hit man to blow up her ex-husband in his car at a country club north of Tucson, Arizona, in 1996. She lived the high life on his $2 million insurance policy for 13 years but was arrested in Austria in 2009, convicted in 2014, and sentenced to 25 years to life in prison.
Clearly women who intend murder and mayhem for a man in their life are fond of the idea of hiring or seducing another man to kill the poor sod who has angered them, or who carries a large insurance policy they might well profit from.
Antifreeze (ethylene glycol) is the most common poison used in cases I've seen as it is readily available and easily administered in coffee, tea, orange juice, etc. Arsenic has also been used, as this tale of a serial murderer demonstrates, but it is a bit more difficult to obtain as it is no longer used in rat poison. But when used, arsenic is best served with watermelon and croton oil.
In one case a deputy sheriff was served foxglove in his salad. Methamphetamine and overdoses of other drugs have also been used by women to poison their lovers. In another case insecticide was used by a jilted lover to poison her ex and his new girlfriend.
Thallium, widely used in rat poison and coyote traps, was used to poison a Meeker, Colorado, man in 1969 whose wife was having an affair with a prominent state legislator and rancher. But the murder wasn't discovered until 1996 and the rancher brought to trial in 2004 after the adulteress was dead. So some cases of poisoning go undiscovered for many years and others are probably never discovered.
From personal experience I am all too aware that women going through perimenopause can become violent. Unless they have a hysterectomy women will normally go through a change of life sometime between the ages of 35 and 50 before entering menopause, i.e., the cessation of their menstrual cycle. This period is called perimenopause and is characterized by changes in the woman's hormone levels, notably estrogen. The average age at which a woman's estrogen levels begin to decline is 43 and perimenopause typically lasts about seven years before the onset of menopause around age 51.
In an early attempt to quantify the relationship between age and extreme violence by women a volunteer tabulated the age of 183 women who had committed murder, attempted murder, arson, poisoning, and similar crimes before she became nauseated with the evil these women were capable of. We plotted this data and it shows a clear peak in age for extreme violence between 35 and 44 that correlates with the age of onset of perimenopause. In a March 2011 report Crime and Justice in Colorado 2008-2010 the authors note (p. 46) that the largest proportion of females convicted of crimes (24% of total) are in the age range of 35 to 44, providing further evidence for a peak in female violence during perimenopause. The case where rancher Kathleen Denson was out of estrogen and she had a gun so her boyfriend died, is an example.
However, most cases of violence by women during perimenopause are not so extreme. Consider the erratic and dangerous behavior of Colorado Springs mayoral candidate Justine Herring during her 40's. And is there a better reason why Navy Captain Lisa Marie Nowak (née Caputo), a Naval Academy graduate (Class of 1985), naval aviator, NASA astronaut, and mother of three, at age 43 had an affair with another astronaut and stalked his new girlfriend?
While correlation does not imply causation, after accumulating hundreds of vignettes about female violence it is clear that a very large percentage of female violence occurs during the years they are going through the change of life. Thus, it is reasonable to infer that the erratic and often violent behavior of these women is induced in large measure by changing body chemistry associated with perimenopause.
They have also managed to require that such orders be issued in court proceedings where one of the parties has not received notice and, therefore, is neither present nor represented, i.e., ex parte, so the male under attack has no warning. Due process has thus gone out the window and hearsay is allowed to blow in. Perjury and subornation of perjury are standard practice as well. Nor does there need to be any factual basis for issuance of such orders that routinely take away everything a man has dreamed and worked for, and too often his life.
Restraining, or protection orders are almost exclusively issued against men and are commonly issued on any pretext a woman, the prosecutor, or DV advocate might invent, e.g., "fear" or "emotional harm." I have witnessed a magistrate handing out these orders at the rate of one a minute to women, yet men with obvious issues needing a protection order were denied.
No actual evidence of violence or harm need be produced in order to obtain an eviction, or restraining order against a man. There is no penalty for making false statements when filing for such orders, or for the subornation of perjury in advising or helping a woman to get a restraining order. And such orders magically transmute into criminal charges if any violation of the order is alleged, leaving the man to attempt to prove a negative.
A personal example will illustrate the insanity that often lurks behind women's requests for a restraining order. In May 1996 I gave a lecture on solid state physics to faculty and students at MIT. Later my then wife and I went to dinner with the professor who sponsored my talk. Some months later she obtained an ex parte temporary restraining order against me, then at the hearing to make the order permanent she claimed she was in fear of me as a result of this lecture and dinner. Both the MIT professor and I are former Marines, i.e., "trained killers," and we had discussed our extensive use of explosives and swapped sea stories. Thus, she was left in "fear" of the dangerous men she was with. Fortunately the magistrate didn't find her "fear" sufficient grounds to issue a permanent (lifetime in Colorado) restraining order against me and dismissed her case.
Not content with voluntary participation of women who want to destroy their families, marriage, and children, increasingly we are hearing from women who are told by DV advocates (redfems) that they cannot get any help if they don't agree to file a restraining order against him, or are threatened with charges of perjury if they refuse to cooperate and testify against him in domestic violence cases.
It has long been noted that a restraining order is but a piece of paper and offers no real protection from any individual bent on violence. Conversely, because of the draconian impact on a man of such orders, they may actually serve as a catalyst for violence. I've tabulated fourteen examples of women and one man who were murdered shortly after obtaining a restraining order against their attacker. Although I know of many other such cases, these examples make it self evident that taking out a restraining order may well increase the danger for an individual rather than provide protection. And the Castle Rock v Gonzales case reaffirmed once again that the police are not obligated to provide protection for individuals.
Despite the obvious danger a restraining order is the weapon of choice for a woman seeking a divorce, involved in a custody battle, or seeking vengeance or revenge against a man. As a result the abuse of these orders is incalculable. Worse, subornation of perjury by advocates helping women get these orders is standard and protected by law and the courts. However, with ~2 million such orders issued every year in the United States these orders are serving the redfem goal of destroying the patriarchy admirably.
Family law attorneys and judges estimate that charges of domestic violence or abuse are used to gain advantage in at least one third of divorces in Colorado today. But in such actions the man is driven from his home, his children, and all he possesses without prior notice, and virtually no recourse or rights. Once the father is out of the house it is almost certain mother will get custody of the kids and the house in the divorce. But this is all too often the beginning of a downward spiral for all concerned.
If the woman is vindictive or seeking vengeance, once the restraining order is in place she can likely put him in jail as well by alleging violations of the order. And now she has a place to live as the man can't go near his home.
Billions have now been spent establishing shelters for battered women. Such shelters can presently be found in virtually all metropolitan areas. However, there are increasing questions about their effectiveness both in terms of cost, results, and credibility.
Few begrudge money spent to provide a safe haven for women and children in distress. Since long before the sinking of H.M.S. Birkenhead, our society has put the safety of women and children first. Indeed, any society that is to survive must make the safety of pregnant women and children one of its first priorities.
Today, despite every indication that crime in general is dropping, e.g., see Crime and Justice in Colorado: 2008-2010, we are met with a barrage of propaganda indicating that domestic, now intimate partner violence is an ever-growing problem. Factoids such as "One in four of American women reports that she has been physically abused by husband or boyfriend." "One third of all emergency room visits by women are the result of domestic violence." And the list of abuses seems to grow exponentially until every man is a "batterer" and every woman a "victim." Common sense has disappeared in mass hysteria. Ever-broadening definitions in the law of what constitutes domestic violence and abuse are noted above and under those definitions the factoids are claimed to be real data.
When the source of such hysteria is sought, one primary origin keeps showing up: Women who operate shelters for battered women. And underlying their utterances is an ever-increasing appetite for public funding by which they make their living.
The same appetite for public funds can be seen in other such laudable enterprises as scientific research, flood relief, or most charitable organizations. However, the bureaucracy resulting from such public funding always becomes bloated and drifts ever further from its intended purpose, whatever the original problem. So in part we are dealing with human nature.
It is our belief that a woman, man, or child should be able to call the police and expect to receive help and succor. But commonly we hear from women whose lives are destroyed by the police and "justice" system after they ask for help. Under current laws calls for help are all too frequently used by ideologues to destroy families, or as a weapon of vengeance by individuals.
Because child abuse is a common add-on charge in domestic violence cases, draconian DV laws are used to fuel child "protection" services with the tears of children. Never in the radical feminist literature do we find the follow up of what happens to the children after their father, or mother, or both, are taken from their innocent young lives with no notice, often no warrant or court order, and little pretext except an often-anonymous phone call.
You needn't take my word for this tyranny. We have posted numerous stories In Women's Own Words that describe their personal experiences under the regime of Big Sister.
Read what these women have to say about current radical feminist ideology and the insane domestic violence laws they have spawned;
Even more women describe their experience under current domestic violence laws, how little help is provided, and the great damage these draconian laws have done to them and their loved ones;
While redfem ideologues demand that we "believe the victim," look at the damage false allegations are doing in women's own words; and
The words of women describing what child "protective" services are doing to children are heartrending.
The evidence is in! We are all humans, men and women together. We are roughly equal in our desire for love, family, children, good health, and happiness. And men and women both experience jealousy, rage, hate, vindictiveness, stress, brain injuries, mental disorders, hormonal imbalances, etc. about equally. The expressions may be different between the sexes but in toto violence in intimate relations is a human problem, not a gender one.
Unfortunately, based on false neo-Marxist ideology, a massive industry has grown around the hysteria surrounding domestic violence and abuse. Fed by federal, state, and local funding, draconian laws now reach into every relationship and family.
Following precedents set by the War on Drugs, domestic violence laws were passed circa 1994 at both the federal and state level that disposed of due process and other protections of the Bill of Rights.
To keep the money flowing it has been necessary to continually expand the definition of domestic violence and abuse. At present there is virtually no action a man can take in an intimate relationship that cannot be construed under current laws and feminist dogma as intimate partner violence and abuse. The resulting injustice is particularly destructive for veterans suffering from PTSD or other wounds and injuries.
Laws and ideology have virtually destroyed marriage and families and every year the marriage rate sinks lower. Social scientists and economists dance around the causes while ignoring the facts that with "no fault" divorce, corrupt "family" courts, and the ease of making false abuse allegations, under current laws a man has to be functionally insane to marry and a drooling idiot to sire a child.
Men today are all too aware of the underlying truth to the Cinderella fable: for every Cinderella there are two wicked stepsisters. Far too many men, or their close friends have made the mistake of marrying one of the stepsisters and then been dragged through the "family" courts, lost their children, their homes, their jobs, and far too often their lives, for there to be any mistake as to the reason men are not getting married today.
Unfortunately, no evidence suggests the underlying issues of intimate partner violence have been solved, improved upon, or even rationally addressed. As a result, "domestic violence" is now the most common crime in Colorado. Of course if the DV industry were to actually solve the problem the money tap would dry up.
This is a massive human tragedy as many families need help dealing with issues common to raising a family and marriage. However, the radical feminist ideology insures that whenever possible the family be destroyed in order to end the patriarchy. The fact that patriarchal families are the building blocks of civilization is ignored.
It is of interest to note that I have not found a matriarchal society that has advanced beyond Stone Age technology. Say goodbye to dishwashers, microwaves, vacuum cleaners, etc., if radical feminists win this cultural war. Worst of all, under current laws and practices children frequently lose their parents and all data show they perform poorly throughout their lives afterward. So the chances of today's children reversing the societal degradation underway today are diminishing.
Hundreds of vignettes about violent women in Colorado and other states put life into the statistics and demonstrate conclusively that many women are just as malicious, vindictive, evil, sadistic, corrupt, deranged, and money grubbing as their male counterparts. With intimate partner violence we are not dealing with a gender issue but a human one.
Reducing the number and complexity of laws is certainly advisable. Perhaps it would help if the crime of domestic violence was limited to cases of actual violence between partners who are currently intimate? Restraining orders would also benefit from restoring due process and ending the ex parte orders so beloved of radical feminists who don't think evidence is necessary.
Certainly more laws will only make the problems worse by destroying ever more children and families. Mental health problems do not lend themselves to micromanagement by legislators, courts, or bureaucrats. In most cases these problems were dealt with within families for millennia and could be again with a modest amount of assistance rather than criminal sanctions.
The proper use of science rather than advocacy research and ideology is also advisable. But that would require DV advocates to actually have a science education and use the scientific method rather than the dogma, emotions, and feelings currently in use.
Nightmares often accompanied by kicking, fighting, or choking a partner in one's sleep and are much more persistent and disturbing than what Grossman and Christensen (2007, 2nd Ed., p. 156-157) call the Universal Warrior Nightmare;
For a comprehensive diagnostic description of post traumatic stress disorder see the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-5, pages 271-280.
Dr. Corry is a Senior Fellow of the Geological Society of America and an internationally-known earth scientist whose biography has appeared in Who's Who in the World, Who's Who in America, Who's Who in Science and Engineering, among others, for seventeen consecutive years.
After service with 1st Marines Dr. Corry became involved with the early space program in 1960, doing preflight testing and failure analysis on Atlas and Centaur missiles, including all the Project Mercury birds. In 1965 he switched to oceanography and did research at both Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego and Woods Hole Oceanographic on Cape Cod. He has also taught geophysics and field geology at university and worked as a research manager for a Fortune 500 company.
Among other pursuits he has climbed high mountains, been shipwrecked and marooned on an unexplored desert island, ridden horseback through Utah, Arizona, and Colorado, and enjoyed many other adventures during his long career.
Presently Dr. Corry is president and founding director of the Equal Justice Foundation.