# Women-Abuse-self-worth



## Mr Blunt (Jul 18, 2012)

> *Originally Posted by turnera *
> IMO, she saw what she wanted to see in him after years of abuse which, as we all know, RUINS your self worth and your belief that you deserve anything good. So from THAT low point, any hand reaching out to her is valuable




By reading this Tam forum for years i think that what Turnera stated above happens a lot. How many times have we seen this happen? Dozens?, Hundreds? Thousands?

My question is about adult woman not children.

*Why do women allow the abuse to go on until it “ruins their self-worth”?

Are we to believe that adult women are so weak as to not be able to stop the abuse before it ruins their self-worth?*


----------



## Red Sonja (Sep 8, 2012)

Google "effects of emotional abuse", "effects of psychological abuse" and "traumatic bonding" in adults for the answer to your question.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

There is a lot of material on this all over the internet.

Abuse actually changes who a person's brain chemistry works... With abuse the brain starts producing Oxytocin (the bonding hormone) because it makes the person forget or numbs the reaction to the abuse. It's a survival mechanism. Children who grow up with abuse have the same response. 

Most of the people, men and women, who are abused as adults were abused as children. So they start out with this chemical "traumatic bonding". then the abuser just steps in where the previous abuser left off.

Abuse is seldom a constant thing. Look up cycle of abuse. It starts out with small things (I call them the tests). when a person with strong boundaries are tested by the abuser. .they run for the hills.

But a person with weaker boundaries (or previous abuse history) makes excuses, is numbed by Oxytocin, etc.

The abuser is nice most of the time and 'only' abusive once in a while... in the beginning.. over time the cycle gets shorter and shorter and the abuse escalates. By the time this happens, but abused has lost touch with reality (and their own self esteem if they ever had any).


----------



## Flying_Dutchman (Oct 29, 2014)

Mr Blunt said:


> By reading this Tam forum for years i think that what Turnera stated above happens a lot. How many times have we seen this happen? Dozens?, Hundreds? Thousands?
> 
> My question is about adult woman not children.
> 
> ...


Why is the question gender biased? Men have low self-worth too.

Women crumble when they lose self-worth but men, what? Flex their pectorals and punch their way out of it?

Among other things, a near-universal effect of low self-worth is an inability to make appropriate choices. 


Warped free will from a skewed perspective results in irrational choices.

In abuse cases,, their fear of leaving their abuser is greater than the fear of staying with what they know. A comfort zone needn't be comfortable.

That's logical to someone with no self-worth,., irrational to people with their worth intact.

It's not gender specific. Many suicides stem from low self-worth. If it's an indication of 'weakness', as opposed to an unfortunate state of mind, how do you figure 'strong' men are killing themselves at nearly three times the rate of 'weak' women?

The entire premise is rooted in ignorance of gender and comprehension of the effects of losing self-worth.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Yes.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## G.J. (Nov 4, 2014)

EleGirl said:


> There is a lot of material on this all over the internet.
> 
> Abuse actually changes who a person's brain chemistry works... With abuse the brain starts producing Oxytocin (the bonding hormone) because it makes the person forget or numbs the reaction to the abuse. It's a survival mechanism..


Interesting post
I wonder if a similar state occurs with troops who fight for their respective governments ?


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

G.J. said:


> Interesting post
> I wonder if a similar state occurs with troops who fight for their respective governments


There is no intimate relationship with the government.


But.. it might happen with the soldiers who fight together.... a strong bonding. don't know.. just speculating.


----------



## G.J. (Nov 4, 2014)

How would one diagnose an abuser ?


----------



## G.J. (Nov 4, 2014)

EleGirl said:


> There is no intimate relationship with the government.
> 
> 
> But.. it might happen with the soldiers who fight together.... a strong bonding. don't know.. just speculating.


I was thinking more on the problem e.g. at the minute the U.K. Government is pushing to have control of returning Syrian/ISA fighters who according to an article I read last week will have become numb to the process of killing


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

G.J. said:


> How would one diagnose an abuser ?


By their actions... words and deeds.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

G.J. said:


> I was thinking more on the problem e.g. at the minute the U.K. Government is pushing to have control of returning Syrian/ISA fighters who according to an article I read last week will have become numb to the process of killing


Interesting question. I'm sure that they have suffered some kind of physiological break.


----------



## Flying_Dutchman (Oct 29, 2014)

G.J. said:


> Interesting post
> I wonder if a similar state occurs with troops who fight for their respective governments ?


Ask combat vets who they fought for and most won't mention country, kings/queens or governments. In the thick of it they fight for their mates and units. They rely on each other for survival and the bonding is strong. It's among the reasons why some prefer 'the front' to civvy street. Incomprehensible to civilians.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## G.J. (Nov 4, 2014)

Getting off my side track I wonder what people on TAM think constitutes abuse 

.Your own view - *not goggles*

.As much detail as you think is necessary to say a relationship is abusive

if this is hijacking thread my apologies and I will delete post as question was 

*Why do women allow the abuse to go on until it “ruins their self-worth”?

Are we to believe that adult women are so weak as to not be able to stop the abuse before it ruins their self-worth?*

And I thought for some one to answer that question the poster would have perhaps a slightly different perspective of what constitutes abuse?


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

I would think that it also depends upon what the level of esteem was prior to the relationship, meaning their upbringing. Many people are raised in abusive households, so they recognize it as the norm and don't think about getting out as it is all they know. Many abused are attracted to abusers as this is their role model to learn from.


----------



## G.J. (Nov 4, 2014)

Squeakr said:


> I would think that it also depends upon what the level of esteem was prior to the relationship, meaning their upbringing. Many people are raised in abusive households, so they recognize it as the norm and don't think about getting out as it is all they know. Many abused are attracted to abusers as this is their role model to learn from.


That's why the individual perspective is so important I would have thought as your life experiences make up your own individual boundaries so what is abuse to one person is normal to the other


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

G.J. said:


> That's why the individual perspective is so important I would have thought as your life experiences make up your own individual boundaries so what is abuse to one person is normal to the other


I agree, but there also must be a community ideal as well, otherwise abuse may go unnoticed and unreported. The whole "what doesn't kill you, only makes you stronger" and "pain is a sign of weakness leaving the body" ideals could drive abuse to some very ugly levels if not kept in check.


----------



## G.J. (Nov 4, 2014)

The U.K. Government is to introduce a new law



> A new law on domestic violence, making it illegal for someone to exercise ‘coercive control’ over their partner, will be unveiled by the Government this week.
> Theresa May, the Home Secretary, is expected to announce new powers allowing the police to prosecute those who are guilty of psychological and emotional abuse
> It means for the first time men who control their partners through threats or by restricting their personal or financial freedom, could face prison in the same way as those who are violent towards them.
> It is thought as many as 1.2 million women experience some kind of domestic abuse in Britain each year.


How they are going to apply it in practice though as some one stated elsewhere they tend to isolate there victims 

This was on Maypole Womens site

Coercive tactics include:
•domestic violence: ‘violating physical integrity’, causing fear and physical harm 
•intimidation and humiliation: ‘denial of respect and autonomy’ using threats, surveillance (eg stalking), degradation (eg name calling), emotional withdrawal, destruction of possessions
•isolation: undermining and deprivation of social contacts and support 
•control: of resources required for autonomous decision making and independence, including 
•deprivation of money and food
•monitoring of time
•restricted mobility and transportation
•restricted access to communication 


Oh dear *some* of it looks a lot like R :scratchhead:


----------



## Mr Blunt (Jul 18, 2012)

*Originally Posted by turnera *
IMO, she saw what she wanted to see in him after years of abuse which, as we all know, RUINS your self worth and your belief that you deserve anything good. So from THAT low point, any hand reaching out to her is valuable


*Originally Posted by Mr Blunt* 
By reading this Tam forum for years i think that what Turnera stated above happens a lot. How many times have we seen this happen? Dozens?, Hundreds? Thousands?

My question is about adult woman not children.

*Why do women allow the abuse to go on until it “ruins their self-worth”?

Are we to believe that adult women are so weak as to not be able to stop the abuse before it ruins their self-worth?*



> *By Flying Dutchman*
> Why is the question gender biased? Men have low self-worth too.
> 
> Women crumble when they lose self-worth but men, what? Flex their pectorals and punch their way out of it?



*Please do not hijack this thread with your gender accusations.* This thread was started because Turnera (a woman) commented about another woman and said:



> *Originally Posted by turnera*
> IMO, she saw what she wanted to see in him after years of abuse which, as we all know, RUINS your self worth and your belief that you deserve anything good. So from THAT low point, any hand reaching out to her is valuable


In addition, if you have read TAM for years then you know that the majority of abuse that is posted involves women that are abused. I do not know if men have just as much abuse as women and that is not the intent of this thread. If your want to get a men vs women thread in abuse going then start your own thread on that issue.

*Now back to my original question.*

Why do women allow the abuse to go on until it “ruins their self-worth”?

Squeakr and Elegirl's post below makes sense to me.



> *By EleGirl*
> Most of the people, men and women, who are abused as adults were abused as children. So they start out with this chemical "traumatic bonding". then the abuser just steps in where the previous abuser left off
> 
> *Originally Posted by Squeakr*
> I would think that it also depends upon what the level of esteem was prior to the relationship, meaning their upbringing


.




*



Are we to believe that adult women are so weak as to not be able to stop the abuse before it ruins their self-worth?

Click to expand...

*I have read so many threads about women being abused and Elegirl and squeekr have honed in on one reason. Those women and men that were abused as children may be severely handicapped in stopping the abuse and need lots of help.

*Are there women that tolerate abuse that were not abused as children? *

I do not believe that those women are so weak that they cannot stop the abuse before it gets critical. However, I am not a woman so that is why I am asking the question.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

Mr Blunt said:


> *Are there women that tolerate abuse that were not abused as children? *
> 
> I do not believe that those women are so weak that they cannot stop the abuse before it gets critical. However, I am not a woman so that is why I am asking the question.


I think what FD was getting at is that the issue you are pondering, describing, and discussing is not gender specific, so why limit the question to a certain gender and was not trying to compare the two. Plenty of abused (both men and women) were abused as children or raised in abusive environments so they don't see it as abuse and more the norm, until it reaches a level in excess to their normal experiences. The effects of the abuse have framed their self esteem and what they are willing to handle and deal with, which is generally different than the other non-abused people experience.

This begs the question then, should someone unfamiliar with the persons thoughts, beliefs, standards, etc, be able to impart their viewpoints and charge abuse upon others because they aren't as accepting of a situation?? Certain communities have different levels and standards of acceptalility, so when does it become correct to place your morals upon another (think about what is acceptable in Amish, Polygamist, European, Western, or any other culture, religious group, race group, etc versus your own beliefs).


----------



## Pluto2 (Aug 17, 2011)

I, for one, was not abused as a child. In fact, my childhood years were great. When I first became involved with my ex there were no signs of abuse from him, although I was aware that he was abused as a child. Still, he was willing to work though his issues and sought counseling from time to time for depression. 

Then small things happened. He would raised his voice, then apologized. He threatened the kids, then apologized. He claimed he was under pressure and if I really loved him, I would cut him some slack. So I did. Always, always his outbursts were reinforced with little remarks about how lucky I was to have him, and how no one would ever be as good to me as he was. I believed him. He never lied. I trusted him.

Then things became worse and I guess I never thought it was unreasonable. He was my husband and spouses are supposed to love you, right? I tried to get him to go for help. He refused. He said the problems we were having were my fault. So I started thinking there were my fault. I started questioning whether I did sufficiently support him. Perhaps I was making unreasonable demands on him? At its worst, there was marital rape and walls punched in. I did nothing because I believed it probably was my fault. I thought I hadn't supported him the way he needed.


When his infidelity came to light and he was careless exposing my kids, I had enough. I knew with every fiber of my being my children did NOT deserve any of it.

I never told my family about the worst of it all, for a couple of reasons. First, my parents were older and while this was going on both of my parents died within a year of each other. Second, I was ashamed. Ashamed I might have brought this on myself, and ashamed I never put my foot down. I know now none of it was my fault. The ex is the one with the problems. 

It was a long process


----------



## lucy999 (Sep 28, 2014)

Mr Blunt said:


> *Are there women that tolerate abuse that were not abused as children? *
> 
> I do not believe that those women are so weak that they cannot stop the abuse before it gets critical. However, I am not a woman so that is why I am asking the question.


I had an idyllic childhood. No abuse whatsoever. I stayed w/my abuser for 12 years for a host of reasons:

1). Early on, I did indeed love him.

2). My love ceased but yet I stayed because I knew someone in their right mind wouldn't act the way he was acting. I felt sorry for him. He was a sick mother effer and I just _had_ to help him. (oh brother!)

3). After that got me nowhere, and he FINALLY got a job after two years of unemployment and a shaky work ethic before that, I knew I had to get my ducks in a row. Yes with HIS money. Hell, he sponged off me for years so now it was my turn. That's why I stayed. for the $. It took me over a year. I paid off some debts, got a much-needed new car, and got put on a waiting list for an apartment.

Sure, I had low-self esteem but it wasn't to a point where it was crippling.

I have SO many regrets for staying so long. So many. I have a tremendous amount of self-loathing which is puzzling because you'd think I'd suffer that _during_ my abusive relationship.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

I could say that I was with an abuser as well. Since we have been apart and I am working on me, I can now see how abusive she was. It was all mental and generally not done to my face, so it was harder to see. The put downs, cheating behind my back, yelling, controlling, and other mental games were all there, but I either refused or didn't want to see it. I now see it in spades and am doing my best to right those wrongs, so matter what it takes.

This is why I say it is not a gender specific thing, as I am the stronger of the two, and as such I guess I felt the need to stay and protect even though I never measured up.


----------



## Mr Blunt (Jul 18, 2012)

> Originally Posted by Mr Blunt
> Are there women that tolerate abuse that were not abused as children?
> 
> I do not believe that those women are so weak that they cannot stop the abuse before it gets critical. However, I am not a woman so that is why I am asking the question.





> By Pluto
> 
> I, for one, was not abused as a child. In fact, my childhood years were great.
> At its worst, there was marital rape and walls punched in. I did nothing because I believed it probably was my fault. I thought I hadn't supported him the way he needed.
> I know now none of it was my fault. The ex is the one with the problems.


Thank you Pluto for your answer. I do not know if you consider your abuse as critical but you did prove my theory and that is that some women are not so weak that they cannot stop the abuse. Pluto stopped the abuse and knows that it is not her fault and that he is the one with the fault. That tells me that Pluto has good working mind.



By Lucy999

I had an idyllic childhood. No abuse whatsoever. I stayed w/my abuser for 12 years for a host of reasons:

1). Early on, I did indeed love him.

2). My love ceased but yet I stayed because I knew someone in their right mind wouldn't act the way he was acting. I felt sorry for him. He was a sick mother effer and I just had to help him. (oh brother!)

3). After that got me nowhere, and he FINALLY got a job after two years of unemployment and a shaky work ethic before that, I knew I had to get my ducks in a row. Yes with HIS money. Hell, he sponged off me for years so now it was my turn. That's why I stayed. for the $. It took me over a year. I paid off some debts, got a much-needed new car, and got put on a waiting list for an apartment.

Sure, I had low-self esteem but it wasn't to a point where it was crippling.

I have SO many regrets for staying so long. So many. I have a tremendous amount of self-loathing which is puzzling because you'd think I'd suffer that during my abusive relationship.

Thank you Lucy for being brave like Pluto. I liked the part where you made a plan and got your ducks in order and left him. You put an end to his abuse so that shows you are a strong woman just like Pluto. I do not know why you have a tremendous amount of self-loathing but you have enough self-esteem to not let him make you door mat!



*Pluto and Lucy you do not have to answer this question but I am curious. Did either of you cheat and used the excuse that you were abused?*


----------



## Mr Blunt (Jul 18, 2012)

> By Squeak
> I think what FD was getting at is that the issue you are pondering, describing, and discussing is not gender specific, so why limit the question to a certain gender and was not trying to compare the two.


Squeekr, I am fully aware that abuse is not gender specific but for this thread I was concentrating on the women. You and FD can start another thread about abuse of all genders and I may join in as that would probably be interesting.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Mr Blunt said:


> *Pluto and Lucy you do not have to answer this question but I am curious. Did either of you cheat and used the excuse that you were abused?*


I'm not Pluto or Lacy, but... 

I'm not sure that I would say that I was abused as a child. But it was a crazy household in a lot of ways. I think that my mother had some kind of mental health issue or personality disorder. She was often cruel. When we'd complain to our father, he'd say that she was cazy, there is nothing he can do about it so we just needed to deal with it. So I guess I was taught to just deal with crazy stuff.


I was in an abusive marriage. I knew it was abusive. It took me a long time to get out of it because of a stupid judge...

But, no I never cheated. So no I did not use abuse as an excuse for anything. Now he cheated, a lot. He said he did not need an excuse because he's a man. His mother agreed.


----------



## Cabsy (Mar 25, 2013)

I can understand why the actions of an abused person might not make sense, but that's an important observation to make, because it's a symptom of the larger problem. 

Sticking with the psychology of the thing, which Ele and some others touched on here (and I think it's the most important element here), I was reminded of this video. Specifically, about half-way through, and especially around the 7-10 minute mark onward, where he discusses attachment, stress, and uncertainty:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixQbCXLUUj8

Abusers don't throw you into boiling water to cook you - no, because then you would logically jump out. They make the water nice and cozy, and then when you're relaxed, and attached to your surroundings, wondering why you didn't get this awesome hot tub sooner and if you could ever live without it - that's when the abuser cranks up the boiler makes stew of you. 

Abusers subjugate. They do this: (NSFW)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VO1UKbaA5W0

I think most people within a situation like that have a hard time seeing outside of their own type of fog/steam to have any kind of hope that transcends their current lot in life. That is often by the design of the abuser. Yes, some people fall into the role of victim more easily than others, and there often are family histories to go along with that, but it can happen even to the strong. 

I just re-watched Slingblade the other day, and I was reminded while posting here that the movie touched on the issues of both infidelity and abuse, and the combination of it all touched home for me in a way that it did not the first time I saw it.

To clarify where I'm coming from, aside from my apparent love of video media: I'm a guy, but perhaps my earliest memory (certainly my most vidid) is an event of physical abuse against my mother... and there were more... and I saw other abuse in my family as well. I had to be restrained from attacking my drunk grandfather (mother's side) after he struck my grandma on the head with a frozen ice cube tray. That said... I had a great family, including my grandfather, who was not the same breed as my father.

I do not remember this, but my mom told me that her breaking point with my father was my asking her, as very young child, why she put up with it. So I see why you wonder, Mr. Blunt. If it's so simple even a tiny child could understand it, then why couldn't my strong, independent mother? Hopefully my answer to that question is clear from my comments above.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

G.J. said:


> That's why the individual perspective is so important I would have thought as your life experiences make up your own individual boundaries so what is abuse to one person is normal to the other


it is true that on some level, abuse is defined by a person's individual boundaries. 

But there is abuse that is just flat out abuse no matter if the person it's directed at recognizes it.

For example physical abuse. Hitting someone, pushing/shoving, twisting arms, etc.

Standing over someone screaming at them, calling them names, belittling them.. is abuse.


----------



## Cabsy (Mar 25, 2013)

EleGirl said:


> it is true that on some level, abuse is defined by a person's individual boundaries.
> 
> But there is abuse that is just flat out abuse no matter if the person it's directed at recognizes it.
> 
> ...


Yep. But that's part of the art of it - playing with those boundaries. The abuser may pay you a compliment, but then he may take a deep dig at your ego in the next breath... it may even seem joking or lighthearted, but the abuser keeps that position of strength often with the least amount of force possible. The best (or worst) abuse is usually subtle - no hitting or yelling required. Most of it is maintenance.

Wear down self-esteem -> keep control. That's the abuser's bread and butter. No strong woman with strong vision and hope for the future would stand being beaten and/or belittled day in and day out if given a choice.

But if he convinces her she's weak, that any future without him is hopeless, if the abuser makes her feel inferior and isolated... then he doesn't need to beat or yell at her every day, or even at all, to keep that once strong person under his thumb.


----------



## lucy999 (Sep 28, 2014)

Mr Blunt said:


> Thank you Lucy for being brave like Pluto. I liked the part where you made a plan and got your ducks in order and left him. You put an end to his abuse so that shows you are a strong woman just like Pluto. I do not know why you have a tremendous amount of self-loathing but you have enough self-esteem to not let him make you door mat!
> 
> 
> 
> *Pluto and Lucy you do not have to answer this question but I am curious. Did either of you cheat and used the excuse that you were abused?*


Thank you for the kind words. I'm happy to answer. I've never cheated.


----------



## Flying_Dutchman (Oct 29, 2014)

Mr Blunt said:


> *Please do not hijack this thread with your gender accusations.* This thread was started because Turnera (a woman) commented about another woman and said:
> 
> 
> 
> In addition, if you have read TAM for years then you know that the majority of abuse that is posted involves women that are abused. I do not know if men have just as much abuse as women and that is not the intent of this thread. If your want to get a men vs women thread in abuse going then start your own thread on that issue.


Thing is,, I (and many others) don't have either a crystal ball to your motivations nor, necessarily, have we read relevant, previous threads.

Had you said this thread stemmed from another, Id've read the other before commenting. You didn't so I treated the thread on a stand-alone basis.

Not a threadjack,, just responding to what was there when I opened the thread.

If you want replies that're cognizant of another thread the onus is on you to say so,, not on the rest of us to guess or go hunting for one.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Pluto2 (Aug 17, 2011)

Mr Blunt said:


> Thank you Pluto for your answer. I do not know if you consider your abuse as critical but you did prove my theory and that is that some women are not so weak that they cannot stop the abuse. Pluto stopped the abuse and knows that it is not her fault and that he is the one with the fault. That tells me that Pluto has good working mind.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for the kind words.
And no, never cheated. Honestly, I can't conceive of any circumstances that would ever cause me to betray someone like that. My ex did, multiple times.


----------



## Mr Blunt (Jul 18, 2012)

> Pluto and Lucy you do not have to answer this question but I am curious. Did either of you cheat and used the excuse that you were abused





> By Lucy
> Thank you for the kind words. I'm happy to answer. *I've never cheated*
> 
> By Pluto
> ...




Ok so we have two women that were abused and one (Elegirl) that was raised in household that was crazy and with a mother with a mental health issue. *NONE of them cheated even though two of the husbands cheated on them.*

This leads me to think that my theory is correct and that theory is that abuse is just a strong emotional excuse for cheating for some. How many times have we read on TAM about the abused woman that cheats but then tells everyone how abused she was? Was that an attempt at an excuse or just her telling us that back story? Lucy, Pluto, and Elegirl did not cheat and they (Pluto and Elegirl) had a spouse that was cheating on them!!

I think that an abused woman should be given ALL the help that she can get because being abused is horrible! In fact we should go the extra mile for an abused woman. Nothing will get a son more fighting mad than to see his mother abused. However, I wonder if being abused kind of clouds the woman’s thinking so that she will compromise herself and get involved with cheating? Do many cheaters use abuse as an excuse? I remember reading a lot of posts by abused women that AFTER they cheat and the affair blows up then they have told us that cheating is NOT a good excuse.* However, what about before the affair or before affair blows up, is abuse a dangerous motivating excuse for cheating?*

I do not want to come down real hard on women that have been abused but the three women above suffered a lot and did not cheat. *Is Cabsy’s statement below true?*



> By Cabsy
> No strong woman with strong vision and hope for the future would stand being beaten and/or belittled day in and day out if given a choice


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

I think you can widen the question beyond abuse and ask why people tolerate all kinds of bad behavior. This is something I struggle with, the amount of doormats I see here just boggles my mind. There are a variety of reasons for it, but I'd suspect a lot has to do with the little bits of decency a jerk displays; if they were abusive or a jerk all the time it might be easier but they'll throw in just enough good behavior to pull someone back in. And my father used to tell me that people in general have a very difficult time fully moving on from anything because they're always afraid the decision will turn out to be a bad one and they'll never do any better.....he was right. And just maybe the jerk will actually be a good partner for the next one and be just what you wanted.....kind of like gambling and losing a bunch of money and you always wonder if that next one will make things better. It's hard to cut losses. Just look at the number of people desperate to save a marriage to someone who treats them like garbage, whether it be cheating or just lousy behavior. They'll often use the kids as an excuse but if you dig deep down you'll see it in fact has little to do with the kids.....they for whatever reason don't want to pull the plug and it's face saving to cite the kids rather than admit you still want a jerk.


----------



## dignityhonorpride (Jan 2, 2014)

Just quickly, on my phone, I disagree with that quote from Casby. I come from an abusive home/childhood. Had I not had the resources (capital, health insurance, time, transportation) for therapy, I doubt I ever would have realized that a lot of my childhood was completely, unacceptably, screwed up and abusive. I probably would've gone out and married an abusive spouse and let him perpetuate the abuse because that was my normal. It has nothing to do with strength or self respect. And, in many, many cases, financial abuse and deprivation is a factor. It is not really possible to quickly extricate yourself when you have a moment of clarity if your abusive spouse has all the cash, credit, credit history, assets, the only job/source of income, etc.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## phillybeffandswiss (Jan 20, 2013)

Mr Blunt said:


> *Is Cabsy’s statement below true?*
> [/COLOR]


No, too many variables.


----------



## turnera (Jan 22, 2010)

Mr Blunt said:


> *Why do women allow the abuse to go on until it “ruins their self-worth”?*


*It never ceases to amaze me that people - particularly men - can't understand how women are raised. The myriad ways in which women are raised to be quieter, more polite, less aggressive, less sure of their worth, not supposed to be as smart, seen as *****es if they speak up, I could go on and on and on. 

So when women find themselves in a relationship in which aggressive men take progressive steps to 'put a woman in her place' - even if the man has no clue he's doing it - they often have no clue what to do about it. After all, they were raised to believe a man was going to come along, be romantic (forever), treat her logically and not emotionally (i.e. lower her standing to improve his), and, well, be FAIR.

Yes, women DO expect men to be fair. It's how we're raised. It's how we believe everyone is. We think everyone's growing up to look forward to romance and marriage and babies and families. While the men are often being raised to look forward to sex and girls and sex and families and sex and friends and sex and video games and sex and sports...

I'm not blaming the men here. In fact, I blame parents for not opening up the girls' eyes to what life is really like.

Did you know that men who teach women self defense say that the #1 worst problem they face when teaching women to defend against a rapist or mugger, is to YELL? Women are SO conditioned to not make a stink, to not be loud, to not stand out, to not BOTHER people, that the trainers can't even get the women to be ok in their own skins yelling "RAPE!" loudly. They're scared to do so!

Maybe that will help people understand why it's so easy for women to fall into patterns like abuse, to blame themselves first and not the abuser, to believe him when he says it's all her fault...after all, that's how women are raised.*


----------



## Mr Blunt (Jul 18, 2012)

> Originally Posted by Mr Blunt
> *Why do women allow the abuse to go on until it “ruins their self-worth”?*


*




By Turnera
It never ceases to amaze me that people - particularly men - can't understand how women are raised. The myriad ways in which women are raised to be quieter, more polite, less aggressive, less sure of their worth, not supposed to be as smart, seen as *****es if they speak up, I could go on and on and on.

Click to expand...

I am very close to my sister and I know how she was raised and she did not allow abuse until it ruined her self-esteem. She did allow it for a while but not until it ruined her self-esteem. My sister was not raised like you have described. However, I do not pretend to know about how other women were raised.

Turnera, I do think that what you said generally plays a part in some women allowing abuse to go on too long. However, do you think that applied more to the women being raised before 1970 than now?

I am a man and am appalled at the number of women on TAM that allow such abuse. I admit that I do not fully understand the large number of women on TAM that are abused to the point of their self-esteem goes right into the sewer.



Now I am going to switch gears. I am now going to ask a question about those women that are abused but then tell us that because of abuse and neglect they got into an affair. I have no doubt that they are weakened and tempted to get into an affair but is that a motivation that is a dangerous excuse?


*


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Mr Blunt said:


> I do not want to come down real hard on women that have been abused but the three women above suffered a lot and did not cheat. *Is Cabsy’s statement below true?*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have some issues with Cabsy’s statement.

Abuse seldom starts when the couple first gets together. Abuser usually waits until the potential victim is deeply bonded. It usually does not start until after marriage. Then its’ often (but not always) introduced slowly. Abusers are good at measuring the right dose of abuse to not scare off their target. 

Abuse is seldom day in and day out. There is a pattern to abuse called the Cycle of Abuse. Below are the 4 stages of the cycle.. it goes from stage 1 to stage 4 and then restarts at stage 1 again. The length of the cycle is unique for each abuser and can even vary for an individual abuser. Often the Calm stage can last weeks, months or years. The BAM out of nowhere things go to stage 1 and escalate. The level of abuse escalates over time. 


*Tensions Building* – Tensions increase, breakdown of communication, victim becomes fearful and feels the need to placate the abuser (walking on egg shells)
.
*Incident *- Verbal, emotional & physical abuse. Anger. Blaming. Arguing, Threats. Intimidation.
.
*Reconciliation* – Abuser apologizes, gives excuses, blames the victim, denies the abuse occurred, or says that it wasn’t as bad and the victim claims.
.
*Calm* – Incident is “forgotten”, no abuse is taking place. The “honeymoon” phase.

For example; when a victim of abuse makes a statement like .. “He’s not a bad guy. He’s only beaten me 3 times in 15 years. Well that abuser is on a 5 year cycle. So the victim has 5 years of peace before he blows up again and puts her in the hospital again. 

Then there are abusers with much shorter cycles. 
The cycle, over time, wears down the self-esteem of the victim. They get confused, they have PTSD, and so forth. So they don’t respond the way a person would if the abuse knocked them out the day they met the guy.

We know that constant reinforcement is actually a weak way to train a dog… or a person. The best way to control (train) any creature is with intermittent reward and punishment. This is why the cycle of abuse works for too well.



Cabsy said:


> No strong woman with strong vision and hope for the future would stand being beaten and/or belittled day in and day out if given a choice


I agree with that statement. But a strong woman can be beaten down over several years of abuse that starts slowly and escalates with the cycle of abuse. One good beating can put her so deep into PTSD that she cannot function normally without a lot of therapy and help. Cabsy’s does not understand much about abuse, how it works and how it can destroy a person who started out with a strong vision and home for the future.

Now back to your topic. Some victims of abuse do cheat. Usually when this happens with a victim of abuse, her self-esteem is so low that he cannot get out. Then she meets a guy who treats her well. The affair is an exit affair and she’s basically using it to rebuild her self-esteem and strength enough to get out of the abusive relationship. This comes with problems of its own but some victims do this. So when a woman who has had an affair says that she’s been a victim of abuse in her marriage, she might not be rewriting history. It might be true. 

Most abuse is done behind closed doors. Abusers generally do not abuse in public. So until we are in the home with the couple, in private (a fly on the wall if you will), we have no way of knowing the truth... Well except if there are gross injuries and the police are called and the police take it seriously. And it helps to establish abuse if the victim ends up in the hospital with a serious injury. 

So usually only the couple knows the truth. And almost always, when there has been abuse, the abuser will deny it. So when we have one person accusing abuse and the other denying it, we have no way of knowing the truth.

Now about women who do not cheat. The major difference between an abused woman who cheats and one who does not cheat is that the non-cheating victim of abuse simply takes a different path… we can argue that they are more moral, or they are stronger and don’t need the self-esteem boost from cheating, or some other thing that someone can think up. I just think that this is individual.

An important thing about abuse victims (physical abuse) is that the most dangerous time for them is when they leave the relationship. This is when the worst injuries occur. A woman who is a victim of abuse is not really very smart if she cheats. If her abusing SO/husband discovers the affair, the chance of serious physical abuse skyrockets. 

Whether she cheats for not, when she leaves, she better leave once and never go back. The single most dangerous time for a woman who is abused is when she leaves the 3 time after having left and returned 2 previous times. A high percentage of abuse victims are killed by their abuser the 3rd time she tries to leave. The guy snaps.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

One thing that happens to a lot of women is that they find themselves stuck in a situation in which they cannot get out.

For example, a women is a SAHM. She married fairly young. She has no work experience to speak of (whether she’s has college or not). The abuse often does not start until after she’s pregnant.

Now she has a child and is financially dependent on her abusive husband.

She might be afraid to tell anyone what’s going on so she keeps to herself.

Or she might tell people. But the abuse happens behind closed doors. No one believes her. Or even if they do, they tell her she’s married with a kid and needs to make this marriage work.

And then the abuser goes into the Honeymoon stage and she thinks that finally her marriage is working. She is of course having sex with the abuser because it’s the honeymoon stage. And she gets pregnant again.

So now she has 2 kids. The abuse escalates. She might try to find help from family and friends. They tell her it must not be too bad since there is another child. 

And this repeats.

She’s trapped. How can she leave? She cannot support herself and her kids. Her husband does not support the idea of her working. If she calls the police on him, unless she’s beaten to the point of having visible injury he’s not going anywhere. And then she has to deal with him after he police goes. And if he is arrested and loses his job. How is she going to feel her children and pay the bills?

We have had a fair number of women come here with this exact scenario. They started out as bright, happy young brides. They reduced to this and no one in their lives will help them.

I’ve been through a lot of counseling for abuse and some of it was group sessions. Most of the women in those groups were wash and repeat copies of the above scenario.

ETA: 

In my case, as I said earlier, I tired to leave early on but was not able to due to the judge I had when I field for divorce.

The above scenario does not fit my situation. I was had a very good paying job. I was the bread winner since he was in medial school and then residency. 

I spent the years after the first filing for divorce getting a lot of counseling and getting stronger. I was not just sitting there being a victim. I learned to shut down most of the physical abuse and a lot of his angry outbursts. He said in the end that he became afraid use violence because he knew that the next time he was going to jail. He knew I had enough evidence to back it up. He was still mean and cold. But I got stronger. 

As I said earlier, I left when I was in the right legal situation. And he was so frustrated that he could not control me any longer that he let me move out with our son.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

woman said:


> I'm hesitant to post this here, but I had an exit affair at the end of my basket case relationship. I didn't blame the abuse I experienced, or use it as an excuse and at the time felt horrible about it. I didn't tell him because I was scared of him, and as far as I know, he still doesn't know.
> 
> I reconnected with an old friend I hadn't seen in years and it was mostly emotional but there was one incident when it escalated to physical before I terminated the relationship.
> 
> ...


I have a sister who was in a very emotionally abusive relationship. She ended up having an exit affair. Her self esteem as shot and apparently the affair helped her regain it. Her husband did find out. When he started to brow beat her about her affair, people came out of the woodwork and told her about his affairs throughout their entire marriage... some with a couple of her 'good' friends. She divorced him.

It's been 18 years and she and the guy she had the affair with are still together. Like you, her new relationship has worked out well.. with respect, love and kindness. 

She does feels no guilt for her affair.


----------



## woman (Aug 19, 2011)

Good, I'm glad it worked out for her.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

turnera said:


> It never ceases to amaze me that people - particularly men - can't understand how women are raised. The myriad ways in which women are raised to be quieter, more polite, less aggressive, less sure of their worth, not supposed to be as smart, seen as *****es if they speak up, I could go on and on and on.


There are always two sides to everything. Without having lived it, no one can say what the other has experienced or truly understand it (as our natures are completely different as are our instincts). The same could be said for anyone when regrading men's upbringing. Just with the thoughts changed to: be strong, athletic, outgoing, protective/aggressive, in control of the situation, show little emotion, "be the man", never hurt, never show pain, be strong and stoic, etc. 

The same idyllic thoughts about the male gender and the female gender are always at play. It never ceases to amaze me (and was exhibited here perfectly), that women are under the impression that men are only raised to think about and do one thing, and that is to be one track driven in our lives and that is to think about sex every waking minute and constantly seek it and to service as many women as possible through our lifetime and that is our main and only purpose in life. If only it were that simple. It is always the way that gender differences are played out The man is non-emotional and uncaring with only sex on his mind, whereas the women are rational, thoughtful, and the only reason that man is not dragging his knuckles and beating his chest every waking minute. 

The gender's are much deeper than that until these preconceived notions completely disappear, we will never meet on any terms.


----------



## turnera (Jan 22, 2010)

Mr Blunt said:


> Turnera, I do think that what you said generally plays a part in some women allowing abuse to go on too long. However, do you think that applied more to the women being raised before 1970 than now?


No, I don't. I used to, but watching DD24 grow up and knowing all her friends intimately, I've seen nearly every one of them find themselves in a demeaning or harmful relationship.

There are tons of books on the subject, so I'm guessing it's not a thing of the past. I think the only difference now is that women have better options for escaping a bad situation.


----------



## turnera (Jan 22, 2010)

Squeakr said:


> The man is non-emotional and uncaring with only sex on his mind, whereas the women are rational, thoughtful, and the only reason that man is not dragging his knuckles and beating his chest every waking minute.


WAY over exaggerated (as usual). But I'd like to see someone go back and count the number of threads started by men because they aren't getting enough sex. And I get that that's how they feel loved, as opposed to a woman's feeling loved by emotional connection, so I'm not discounting men's needs. Just that sex IS that important to men. So let's not pretend it isn't.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

turnera said:


> WAY over exaggerated (as usual). But I'd like to see someone go back and count the number of threads started by men because they aren't getting enough sex. And I get that that's how they feel loved, as opposed to a woman's feeling loved by emotional connection, so I'm not discounting men's needs. Just that sex IS that important to men. So let's not pretend it isn't.


Once again this is entirely your perception and as you said it correctly, entirely wrong as usual. I don't understand how your impressions of men are always so shallow and always so wrong. I understand you have been wronged and therefore take any and all opportunity to put men down but we are not all your ex nor do we hold his values or do his actions. 

Yes sex is important to men (and that is a given) but the drive for sex is something internal to men and not a taught or expected behavior and expectation. You perceive it as all men are pushed for from birth is the 3 f's (fighting, f$&@ing, and fun). Sorry but men are also raised to be good upstanding citizens, family men, and overall human beings. Having never been raised as a guy you'd have no expectation of what it is to be a man. 

You can say you were raised with a family of guys so you know (not saying this is true but always seems to be any woman's response to anything related to men's issues), but you have no idea really. I was raised as 1 of 2 guys with 12 girls in the family and as such I don't perceive to know what it is like growing up as a girl not what it is like to grow up as one. I can say what I saw at the dinner table and around the house but there is more to it than that and I realize it. 

Just for once recognize that you didn't write not do you hold the manual on how to raise the sexes correctly and there is no standard or manual that exists nor is followed.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Mr Blunt (Jul 18, 2012)

*By Blunt*
I am a man and am appalled at the number of women on TAM that allow such abuse. I admit that I do not fully understand the large number of women on TAM that are abused to the point of their self-esteem goes right into the sewer.

Now I am going to switch gears. I am now going to ask a question about those women that are abused but then tell us that because of abuse and neglect they got into an affair. I have no doubt that they are weakened and tempted to get into an affair but is that a motivation that is a dangerous excuse?

I am a man and have a hard time understanding how so many women allow such abuse until it almost destroys. However, these posts and especially Elegirl’s very informative posts have helped me see and understand this tragedy better.

I also wonder if some of the intrinsic differences in most men and women; are that some women seem to take the blame for a man’s failures and his negative emotional actions and take it as their fault for some reason. I know that I am generalizing but I am comparing my (man) life with some abused women stories that I read on TAM. 

In my teens I wanted to be accepted and thought that the other very dominate males were the ones to look up to and of course I wanted to please them so that I could be included in the “cool” group. One very funny, tough, respected, talented boy/man, I will call him GP, fit all these descriptions. He would ask me to do things, such as start a fight so that he could come to the rescue and beat the hell out of the other boys and then he would be feared and respected. I never wanted to do those things but because I was young and gullible I did them. When I got older I started assessing the situation much better and decide that I no longer wanted to hang with him. He did not take this too kindly so he started verbally running me down in front of others until I finally told him off. He did not take to kindly to that and sucker punched me in the face. I got in my car and drove off but he followed me. I got so mad that I jumped out of my car and picked up a piece of a brick and told him to stop his can and get out and fight. He saw that I was raving mad and did not stop but drove away. Now if he had got out he probably would have kicked my AZZ big time but I just wanted one good hit to his face before I got beat up and he knew that. He never tried to force me to hang with him again. I also got something better than a brick to protect me for future occurrences

I know that my situation cannot be compared exactly to a woman being abused in a relationship with a man but that is why it is hard for me to understand a woman allowing themselves to be abused until their self-esteem is ruined. Maybe what Squeakr said plays into this a little bit. He said



> By Squeakr
> The same could be said for anyone when regarding men's upbringing. Just with the thoughts changed to: be strong, athletic, outgoing, and protective/aggressive, in control of the situation, show little emotion, "is the man", never hurt, never show pain, be strong and stoic, etc.


Then again, as Eligible said, maybe it depends on the individual.




> *By Elegirl*
> “…the non-cheating victim of abuse simply takes a different path… we can argue that they are more moral, or they are stronger and don’t need the self-esteem boost from cheating, or some other thing that someone can think up. I just think that this is individual.



Actually, I think that several things come into play as to why some allow abuse. *I think that the circumstances that Elegirl explained are defiantly valid as well as the way we are raised within our culture, our individual personalities, our own strengths and morals, and self-esteem.*

Do some women use mild abuse as an excuse to have an affair? Yes

Do some women leave the abuser and find another man that helps make her life better? YES

Do some women have circumstances that make it extremely hard to leave the abuser? YES

Can some women be trusting and gullible and get in a relationship with a mean abuser? YES

Can some women get trapped and her options are slim to none? YES

Can a woman get help and get stronger and use the legal system to shut down the abuser?	YES

Here are a few conclusions above that I think are true after reading this thread and thinking about this issue. As I have said, *I am not a woman and do not know all the situations that women face so if there are any other conclusions or corrections then I am open to hear them.*


*One last very important thing. I think that Elegirl’s statement below should be engraved on the forehead of every abused woman*.




> By EleGirl
> An important thing about abuse victims (physical abuse) is that the most dangerous time for them is when they leave the relationship. This is when the worst injuries occur. A woman who is a victim of abuse is not really very smart if she cheats. If her abusing SO/husband discovers the affair, the chance of serious physical abuse skyrockets.
> 
> Whether she cheats for not, when she leaves, she better leaves once and never go back. The single most dangerous time for a woman who is abused is when she leaves the 3 time after having left and returned 2 previous times. A high percentage of abuse victims are killed by their abuser the 3rd time she tries to leave. The guy snaps


.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

Although I can see and somewhat agree with your points I think you need to differentiate as you started out talking abuse and now it had been narrowed to specifically physical and violent abusers yet that hasn't been made entirely clear except given context. 

I don't think some of the generalizations hold true for emotional abusers as they generally seem to escalate to a certain level (yes still heinous levels) but never progress any further beyond that and that may be the reason that some remain. They gradually increase in level so from within the situation the abused and abusers never see the escalation progress and once it tops out they see that it never gets any worse and they don't feel as threatened as the level has been there for some time. 

Just my perspective as once we are accustomed to certain situations we see no reason to exit a situation as we don't see the "risk" at that point having lived with it for so long. Violent and physical abuse is a different animal in that respect. Once again just my thinking and perspective (and this applies to both genders as men can equally be abused as can women, abuse doesn't discriminate in that respect).
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## the guy (Aug 3, 2010)

As an abuser/POS you kind of work your way up......you see what you got away with and then you take it to the next level and then you can get away with that and soon you figure out what you can and can't get away with. That's the physical aspect...emotionally hell we didn't even notice we were phucking up until we got the tools to know better.We both grow up with this kind of thing we knew to be normal.

I could have continues for years but that was not what I want to be.


On a lighter note ...with the holidays and all... we saw our kids and how they interacted with their spouses?SO and I can only hope I broke the cycle in time....those many years ago we got our sh!t together and stopped beating on each other emotional and physicaly..

I mean everything looks good from the outside. If my daughter is putting up with the crap I did to my old lady I'll beat his @ss. If my son is behaving like I was towards his GF I'll beat his @ss.

I can do the time just keep me out of state and send me a lot of food and mags.


----------



## turnera (Jan 22, 2010)

Mr Blunt said:


> some women seem to take the blame for a man’s failures and his negative emotional actions and take it as their fault for some reason. I know that I am generalizing but I am comparing my (man) life with some abused women stories that I read on TAM.


There are whole shelves in the library on just this phenomenon. How women genetically blame themselves first. I just gave someone a bunch of links to articles on the subject yesterday. I was sent to a stress therapist once, and the therapist told me that nearly all her patients were women because, well, it's just what women do - take on everyone else's problems and put themselves last.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

There is an issue about women and abuse that has not been touched on yet but that is important.
Historically women have been taught to accept physical abuse. In the past, laws against physical abuse on prosecuted a man if he seriously injured his wife. By that I mean broken bones or killed her. And under certain circumstances even that was excused.

We see this still in many places worldwide where the laws allow a man to beat his wife. It’s justified by saying that the man has the obligation to govern/control his family and thus his wife.

In many countries a man who kills his wife in a crime of passion, he finds out that she’s cheated, he just thinks she’s cheated, the is not prosecuted. Places where these types of laws are still prevalent today are basically everywhere but the USA, Canada and Europe. There is no place on earth that I know of that gives a woman leniency for beating or killing her husband.

Here in the USA, for example there used to be a law on the books in New Mexico that stated that a woman.

Prior to the late 1800’s in the USA a man had an absolute power of chastisement (hitting/beating) of his wife. These laws changed slowing across the USA thought the early 1900’s.

1911 - The first family court is created in Buffalo, NY. In 1914, the first adult psychiatric clinic is directly linked to a court in Chicago. Professionals believe that domestic relations courts will better solve family problems in a setting of discussion and reconciliation engineered by social service intervention. This is the beginning of the systematic official diversion and exclusion of violence against wives from the criminal justice system.

1920’s & 1930’s Psychoanalysis develops a myth of female masochism into its conception of the normal female psychology. It is argued that women derive sexual gratification from the violence they experience.

It was not until 1966 that beating, as cruel and inhumane treatment, becomes grounds for divorce in New York, but the plaintiff must establish that a “sufficient” number of beatings have taken place. After this other states started to follow suit.
Spousal rape did not start to be against the law until the 1970’s. 

Interesting list of info about this topic.

History of Battered Women’s Movement

This may all seem like things in the very distant past that means nothing now. But keep in mind that the late 1880’s to today are the generations of my grandmother, my mother, me and my daughter. When I was born in 1949 a woman could not get a divorce for domestic violence. When, in 1966 women finally started to be able to get divorces for this, they had to prove a significance number of beatings.

The changes in the laws related to domestic violence against women that occurred even in my lifetime are astronomical. When I was a kid, there were no places that helped women who were victims of domestic violence. It was considered a family issue to keep quiet about.

When I was young, women were taught that they have to put up with domestic violence. There was very little that they could do about it. The laws have changed. But the attitudes still exist in much of society today.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

But these changes are not just about domestic violence but more violence and equality in general. The same laws about beatings and the prosecution of them applied to other races as well. It was very unheard of beating a black person, indian, chinese, and even yes, children, at the same time and was standard practice. With the modernization of things and equality, things have changed. The laws you are quoting were from a time when the only people considered "citizens" and not just subservient or property but with real rights and values were the white males of society, as unfortunate as it is that was the thought of the time. 


As to the therapist comment, I think the patients were mainly men, because seeking out advice from others and help is basically something only women do. Men take on all the stress and responsibilities as well, but they have a basic inert sense of pride and drive to solve on their on and not to seek help or assistance. Ask any man that is lost and you will find that he has driven many more miles than he should have before he will ever seek assistance in finding his address (and generally he will ask another man for the assistance so as to not look or appear weak in front of the opposite sex).


----------



## Blossom Leigh (Mar 27, 2014)

I know I was raised in abuse and it took me a long time to gain the strength I have today. Stockholm Syndrome has played a big part in my struggle with recovery.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Squeakr said:


> But these changes are not just about domestic violence but more violence and equality in general.


No, the laws were not about violence in general.

A law giving women the right to divorce is she is phyaclaly abused (but habign to prove many beatings) is not about general violence. It’s about women being beaten.

Laws giving men the right to chastise (beat) their wife are not laws about general violence, they are about men being allowed to beat wives.
The later laws making it illegal for men to beat their wife are not laws against general violence, they are laws directed at men who beat their wife.



Squeakr said:


> The same laws about beatings and the prosecution of them applied to other races as well.


Laws given men the right to beat their wife, did not give them the right to beat people who where not their wife of other races. For example laws giving men the absolute right to chastisement (beating) his wife did not give him the right to beat his male gardener who was of a different race. He was not married to his gardener.



Squeakr said:


> It was very unheard of beating a black person, indian, chinese, and even yes, children, at the same time and was standard practice.


The laws related to a man’s right to beat his wife, etc, applied to all races. It did not matter what race the guy was, he had the right to beat his wife though most of human history. And this still applies to day is a lot of countries. This is the point… It’s a very new thing for men to be taught that they don’t have the right to hit and beat their wife (and children). And it’s a very new thing for women to be taught that they don’t have to accept the physical abuse.



Squeakr said:


> With the modernization of things and equality, things have changed. The laws you are quoting were from a time when the only people considered "citizens" and not just subservient or property but with real rights and values were the white males of society, as unfortunate as it is that was the thought of the time.


Again the laws related to domestic violence applied to all men and women regardless of race. Different races and women might not have had the right to vote, etc., but the laws still applied to them. Men of every race had the right to beat their wife. And was the laws changed to make it illegal, the laws also applied to every man regardless of race.

Many of the laws I quoted, and in that list, were still laws in the 1940’s, 50’s and 60’s when I was young. I was showing the progression of how society and laws have changed on the issue of domestic violence since the late 1800's. Now that the laws have changed, people still have a lot to learn. It will take a few more generations for the changes to become more solidified in people.



Squeakr said:


> As to the therapist comment, I think the patients were mainly men, because seeking out advice from others and help is basically something only women do.


No, therapy/counseling is not something that only women do. I think that more women do. But far from only women use counseling. It does not matter if the reason men came up with such a stupid, theory is because they had female patients. What matters is that it is just one more attempt for some men to justify physical abuse. 



Squeakr said:


> Men take on all the stress and responsibilities as well, but they have a basic inert sense of pride and drive to solve on their on and not to seek help or assistance.


Men do not take on all the stress and responsibilities. Women have always done this as well. What do you think women have been doing since the dawn of time? Working with men to raise families, to keep the farm running, to feed the children, etc. 

And do not forget that there have always been a good percentage of women who were left to do it all by themselves when the father of their children became disabled, died, or just walked away.


Squeakr said:


> Ask any man that is lost and you will find that he has driven many more miles than he should have before he will ever seek assistance in finding his address (and generally he will ask another man for the assistance so as to not look or appear weak in front of the opposite sex).


This reminds me of drive up to Durango, CO in the middle of a very heavy snow storm, late at night… with about 12 passengers. My youngest brother was driving. We were getting stuck in the snow. We were lost. But my brother would not stop to get directions. Nope, driving in circles in a white out with temps below zero made a lot more sense. 

You are right that a lot of men will not seek help. It’s not so that they don’t look weak in front of the opposite sex. A lot of men won’t get medical help when they need it. No woman needs to know that he goes to the doctor. This is one of the reasons that many men die younger.. because they don’t get the help they need. 

I’m sorry, that does not show strength.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

EleGirl said:


> No, the laws were not about violence in general.
> 
> A law giving women the right to divorce is she is phyaclaly abused (but habign to prove many beatings) is not about general violence. It’s about women being beaten.
> 
> ...


Sorry but you are taking this too literally (and I am not going to break down every one of your quotes and state how wrong each individual one is). I am not saying the laws you quoted were about general violence, but am stating that in general the laws were about violence and it being acceptable at that time. Men could beat women that were not their wife legally if they were belligerent and disrespectful, and definitely it was acceptable if they were another race so this shows that the law changes are in relation to violence in general and its changes of acceptability in society and not just limited to marriage aspects. You are reading way more into this than was stated or implied.


Also not being a man, you can't say why a man does something is or is not for a certain reason. Until you have been there you can't say. Men of more modern generations are changing as being more empathetic and emotional is a little more accepted, but the prevous generations were raised to be a rock. Figure out and solve the problem upon their own without help from others, and never show weakness (that means when lopping off part of your finger you just wrap it in a greasy rag and continue on, you don't show weakness or pain and never go to the Dr until it is dire necessity). Stupid? Yes, but it was the prevailing attitude, just as it was acceptable to discipline your wife and family and showing any indifference or weakness in front of women was looked down upon. Like it or not that is the way it was, and somewhat still it.

It amazes me how women seem to know exactly what it is to be a man, the way we were raised, disciplined, and how our mentality works, yet claim we have no understanding of them. Guess what everything applies the same for your sex as ours. We both have little understanding of the other sex, even after all these years of evolution.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Squeakr said:


> Sorry but you are taking this too literally (and I am not going to break down every one of your quotes and state how wrong each individual one is). I am not saying the laws you quoted were about general violence, but am stating that in general the laws were about violence and it being acceptable at that time. Men could beat women that were not their wife legally if they were belligerent and disrespectful, and definitely it was acceptable if they were another race so this shows that the law changes are in relation to violence in general and its changes of acceptability in society and not just limited to marriage aspects. You are reading way more into this than was stated or implied.


Ok.. your point is much clearer here.



Squeakr said:


> It amazes me how women seem to know exactly what it is to be a man, the way we were raised, disciplined, and how our mentality works, yet claim we have no understanding of them. Guess what everything applies the same for your sex as ours. We both have little understanding of the other sex, even after all these years of evolution.


Do you mean like this:

* “1920’s & 1930’s Psychoanalysis develops a myth of female masochism into its conception of the normal female psychology. It is argued that women derive sexual gratification from the violence they experience.” *

See, old literature and psychology texts are full of writing by men who think that they know exactly what it’s like being a women and even forcing these beliefs on women.

Nowhere did I even imply that I know what it’s like being a man. I gave my opinion on being lost and driving in circles and refusing to go to the doctor when it’s needed. See, that’s my personal view.


----------



## lisamaree (Nov 2, 2014)

I think many women who are abused as adults were also abused as children, so their self worth is already destroyed. This is why many don't run from the warning signs.


----------



## lisamaree (Nov 2, 2014)

> Men take on all the stress and responsibilities as well, but they have a basic inert sense of pride and drive to solve on their on and not to seek help or assistance.


While there are good men out there, the high instance of women becoming single parents and caring for the family needs alone in cases of divorce or separation would indicate otherwise.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

lisamaree said:


> While there are good men out there, the high instance of women becoming single parents and caring for the family needs alone in cases of divorce or separation would indicate otherwise.


Not a fair assessment or statement. The court systems are biased agains the men and make them the scapegoat in most cases and generally the women wanted the divorce and the custody. The courts remove the dad's basic needs and rights to the children, yet make them overall financially responsible for them (I know as I am currently going through this). I am not saying they don't have a responsibility, but it is just so unfair that the mothers have the preconceived notion of getting primary custody, the house, and the majority of the possessions, unless she is some awful example of human life and a man must fight for even the most basic of visitation rights with his own children. 

The court couldn't care less if the man has anything to live on as long as his children and wife get their share first and adultery or abuse generally has nothing to do with the situation's outcome either, so several stay at home moms reacted and now are living the supported single life. I have known several men that can't be in their children's lives as they can't afford to see them, as they are working 2 jobs just to make ends meet because of this inequity in the courts. 

My STBXW was investigated by CPS and I was flat out told that if I had done the same thing, I would have been arrested and defending myself from behind bars, yet she was dismissed of all charges as "she was just reacting to a situation"!


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

EleGirl said:


> * “1920’s & 1930’s Psychoanalysis develops a myth of female masochism into its conception of the normal female psychology. It is argued that women derive sexual gratification from the violence they experience.” *
> 
> See, old literature and psychology texts are full of writing by men who think that they know exactly what it’s like being a women and even forcing these beliefs on women.
> 
> Nowhere did I even imply that I know what it’s like being a man. I gave my opinion on being lost and driving in circles and refusing to go to the doctor when it’s needed. See, that’s my personal view.


Yep that is wrong as well, but hen again psychology texts are all full of ideals and notions based upon research (which let's be truthful, anything in any science can be proven if you word the hypothesis in such a way). I never said it was right, but I am tired of being told I think or act a certain way because I am a man when that is not the truth, as I know why I did/do something.


This was your statement: 



> "You are right that a lot of men will not seek help. It’s not so that they don’t look weak in front of the opposite sex."


How else am I supposed to take that. It didn't seem to be a statement of hypothesis or opinion, but a statement of fact as if you knew some truth otherwise as to why this is done. If it is not to look weak in from of the opposite sex, then what it is, as you seem to know the drive behind it? That is what I was responding to.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Squeakr said:


> This was your statement:
> How else am I supposed to take that. It didn't seem to be a statement of hypothesis or opinion, but a statement of fact as if you knew some truth otherwise as to why this is done. If it is not to look weak in from of the opposite sex, then what it is, as you seem to know the drive behind it? That is what I was responding to.


 It’s my opinion. The reason it’s my opinion is that the men who do this, do it even when there are on women around so there is no need to do it to prevent appearing weak in front of the opposite sex. There has got to be something else in play (IMO).
I gave an example where a guy does not get help for medical issues even when there is no woman around who he might be afraid to look week in front of.

My ex-FIL did this. He refused to get help for a heart condition. His doc told him he had a heart condition. He blew the doctor off and refused any medical help. A couple of months later he had a heart attack. Then he left the hospital too early, against the doc’s advice. There were no women around. Only his son was there. He died at home a few days later because he was too pig headed to listen to the doctor. Now what women was he trying to not look weak to?

It’s my opinion that it’s not just about not looking weak to the opposite sex based on observation.

So I just asked a guy friend who is here at my house about this. I asked him why do so many men not seek help. Why do they not ask for directions when lost or not get medical attention when they need to?

*HIM:* “Because they are stupid.” 

*ME: *Oh come on there has to be more to it than that.”

*HIM:* “It’s about pride.”

*ME:* “How much of that is to not look or appear weak in front of the opposite sex?”

*Him: *It’s pride. It’s about no appearing weak. To themselves, to others and not just to women. It's more about being insecure and covering it up with bravado to make yourself look resolute.

Apparently even men cannot agree on why men do things. 

.


----------



## Blossom Leigh (Mar 27, 2014)

My FIL cut his leg open with a chainsaw and drove himself to the hospital.

For some, it is pride and culture.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

EleGirl said:


> It’s my opinion. The reason it’s my opinion is that the men who do this, do it even when there are on women around so there is no need to do it to prevent appearing weak in front of the opposite sex. There has got to be something else in play (IMO).
> I gave an example where a guy does not get help for medical issues even when there is no woman around who he might be afraid to look week in front of.
> 
> My ex-FIL did this. He refused to get help for a heart condition. His doc told him he had a heart condition. He blew the doctor off and refused any medical help. A couple of months later he had a heart attack. Then he left the hospital too early, against the doc’s advice. There were no women around. Only his son was there. He died at home a few days later because he was too pig headed to listen to the doctor. Now what women was he trying to not look weak to?
> ...


Actually go back and read my comment that you quoted and you will see I never stated nor implied what you state I dd.

I'll save you the time and post it here:


> As to the therapist comment, I think the patients were mainly women, because seeking out advice from others and help is basically something only women do. Men take on all the stress and responsibilities as well, but *they have a basic inert sense of pride and drive to solve on their on and not to seek help or assistance*. Ask any man that is lost and you will find that he has driven many more miles than he should have before he will ever seek assistance in finding his address (and generally he will ask another man for the assistance so as to not look or appear weak in front of the opposite sex).


The comment about looking weaker in front of the other sex (the only mention or reference of it) was about a specific situation (stating a man would generally ask another man instead of a woman for directions so as to not appear weak.) Nowhere else was it mentioned that men do it to not look weak in front of the other sex, but in fact was their "inert sense of pride and drive". Pretty much what your H said, and I even bolded it to show that. I even used the same word....pride. So once again not so much what you are saying that even men don't know, hmmmm we basically said the same.

Please read and comprehend better in the future if you are going to pick apart everything about my posts as being wrong. I have no issue being wrong, but I hate when people say I am wrong for their perceptions of what they "think" I have written and not what I actually have written.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

Blossom Leigh said:


> My FIL cut his leg open with a chainsaw and drove himself to the hospital.
> 
> For some, it is *pride* and culture.


Hmmm....there's that same word I originally used. Starting to see a pattern develop here.


----------



## Blossom Leigh (Mar 27, 2014)

I have some of those traits too.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

Blossom Leigh said:


> I have some of those traits too.


Yep not something reserved for men only, but definitely something that all men WILL have instinctively when raised with a male influence in their life (be it father, uncle, brother, or any male that takes a boy under his wing).


----------



## Blossom Leigh (Mar 27, 2014)

Squeakr said:


> Yep not something reserved for men only, but definitely something that all men WILL have instinctively when raised with a male influence in their life (be it father, uncle, brother, or any male that takes a boy under his wing).


Yea, my H was laughing at me and shaking his head at me for hopping myself down the hall to get to the bathroom with an air cast on my leg in the emergency room when I had my car wreck last year.


----------



## wmn1 (Aug 27, 2014)

Squeakr said:


> Actually go back and read my comment that you quoted and you will see I never stated nor implied what you state I dd.
> 
> I'll save you the time and post it here:
> 
> ...


well put Squeakr !!! I agree


----------



## turnera (Jan 22, 2010)

Squeakr said:


> Yep that is wrong as well, but hen again psychology texts are all full of ideals and notions based upon research (which let's be truthful, anything in any science can be proven if you word the hypothesis in such a way).


Not being a psychological researcher, you can't say whether psychological researchers (like my daughter) fills textbooks full of ideals and notions (I gather you're saying as opposed to 'real science'?) nor that their science is proven by wording hypotheses in a certain way.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

turnera said:


> Not being a psychological researcher, you can't say whether psychological researchers (like my daughter) fills textbooks full of ideals and notions (I gather you're saying as opposed to 'real science'?) nor that their science is proven by wording hypotheses in a certain way.


I see you went back and changed it from your original flippant attack against me (once again showing your hatred for males).

Funny how you claim to be a writer and wordsmith but simple comprehension is escaping you once again for your biases. But go ahead and read into things whatever you want and twist them to meet and support your agenda, whatever it may be at the time. Reread it and you will see "as with all sciences" meaning including it in that group. I understand your pride with your daughters studies and works and that many don't include psychology as a "real" science but that doesn't mean all are out to discredit her or put down the discipline, like you are out to discredit and better everyone no matter the issue or argument. 

I am now interested, is your daughter primarily a researcher or a student as your defining of her seems to differ depending on the situation (prior she was a doctoral candidate studying psychologyl. Doing research in your studies doesn't make one a researcher, an actual paying job and the accompanying title are what make someone the job they say they are, otherwise anyone that has an interest in something and does so in their spare time could equally claim they are something they are not in reality and the reason that many student discoveries have been denied credit to the student based upon their academic standing (I write in my journal, for sanity and fun at times, have kept a blog, and written a poem or two, can I claim I am a writer? )
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Pluto2 (Aug 17, 2011)

Squeakr said:


> Not a fair assessment or statement. The court systems are biased agains the men and make them the scapegoat in most cases and generally the women wanted the divorce and the custody. The courts remove the dad's basic needs and rights to the children, yet make them overall financially responsible for them (I know as I am currently going through this). I am not saying they don't have a responsibility, but it is just so unfair that the mothers have the preconceived notion of getting primary custody, the house, and the majority of the possessions, unless she is some awful example of human life and a man must fight for even the most basic of visitation rights with his own children.
> 
> The court couldn't care less if the man has anything to live on as long as his children and wife get their share first and adultery or abuse generally has nothing to do with the situation's outcome either, so several stay at home moms reacted and now are living the supported single life. I have known several men that can't be in their children's lives as they can't afford to see them, as they are working 2 jobs just to make ends meet because of this inequity in the courts.
> 
> My STBXW was investigated by CPS and I was flat out told that if I had done the same thing, I would have been arrested and defending myself from behind bars, yet she was dismissed of all charges as "she was just reacting to a situation"!



Squeaker, sorry you didn't accomplish the results you wanted in your divorce, but I ask you to honestly consider whether you are bringing your pre-concieved notions of bias into this discussion. ALL courts are biased against men because you lost? No, I don't think so. All men lose on custody and visitation? No. Even here on TAM there are men with full custody or 50/50 custody, so there clearly are situations where no bias is present.

Elegirl and Turnera don't need my help in supporting their position, but I honestly wonder how much of your (IMO) animosity is because the posters who don't agree with you are women. You say "if you had done the same thing" you would have been arrested. Well, that wasn't the situation the police were faced with was it.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

Pluto2 said:


> Squeaker, sorry you didn't accomplish the results you wanted in your divorce, but I ask you to honestly consider whether you are bringing your pre-concieved notions of bias into this discussion. ALL courts are biased against men because you lost? No, I don't think so. All men lose on custody and visitation? No. Even here on TAM there are men with full custody or 50/50 custody, so there clearly are situations where no bias is present.


 Actually this has nothing to do with what I have accomplished nor wanted in my divorce. your assumption is incorrect here as I am basing this on general custody awards.

Very few men have full, primary, or majority custody, it is quite rare, but more common in these days than prior and is a very true statement, and 50/50 is generally not a fair assessment and the best most men will ever get assessed by the courts and even then not have primary custody awards (as someone has to be the primary even in 50/50 assignments). I believe that this makes it a fair statement and assessment given that unless the women is doing something completely detrimental or decides to relinquish her custody, 50/50 is the worst they will get and generally they will get full, primary or majority awards in those cases.



> Elegirl and Turnera don't need my help in supporting their position, but I honestly wonder how much of your (IMO) animosity is because the posters who don't agree with you are women. You say "if you had done the same thing" you would have been arrested. Well, that wasn't the situation the police were faced with was it.


I will admit that the "animosity" (as you perceive it) is because the statements presented are biased against men and made by women that have no idea what it is like to be a man, yet claim that it is so much "easier" than being a woman (and lots feel this way as they have sons, they think they know what it is like to be a boy, watching and experiencing directly are 2 different things). Being that the genders have differences in physical, psychological, and emotional growth and the standards and expectations for each are different, how can someone whom has not lived it be able to say "exactly" what it is like for the other side (which is something I try to avoid, but am called on it if I do, so I do the same in reverse). 

It would be no different than I claiming that my military disability (which hurts and plagues me everyday) has no comparable pain infliction a female could experience and that would include child birth. That statement would be biased and would be degrading to women whom have experienced that pain, and there is no way that I will ever be able to experience such pain nor know for sure the level it is to claim such. It is the same with saying that all men do is seek sex and are born and raised to do so. This is not true and insulting to any man, especially those that have raised their sons, nephews, brothers, etc to be caring and involved humans.

This is what I take offense to, anything where people make claims based solely upon their observations and not experiences. In this particular disagreement, them being women is a key factor (as some of the claims they could never back with proof or know as truths yet present as such), but it holds just as equally for anything else, beauty vs ugly, blond vs brunette, obese (especially for medical reason) vs high metabolism thin people. If you have not experienced the other side it is not fair to make statements of truth or position without proof. that is what I find offense in and hope it explains my point better.


----------



## turnera (Jan 22, 2010)

Squeakr said:


> I see you went back and changed it from your original flippant attack against me (once again showing your hatred for males).


No, just irritation for you.


----------



## turnera (Jan 22, 2010)

Squeakr said:


> I am now interested, is your daughter primarily a researcher or a student as your defining of her seems to differ depending on the situation (prior she was a doctoral candidate studying psychologyl. Doing research in your studies doesn't make one a researcher, an actual paying job and the accompanying title are what make someone the job they say they are, otherwise anyone that has an interest in something and does so in their spare time could equally claim they are something they are not in reality and the reason that many student discoveries have been denied credit to the student based upon their academic standing (I write in my journal, for sanity and fun at times, have kept a blog, and written a poem or two, can I claim I am a writer? )


Wow. You really seem interested in me. Enough so to drag through 26,000 posts to find what you need to try to spear me. Have fun. 



> I will admit that the "animosity" (as you perceive it) is because the statements presented are biased against men and made by women that have no idea what it is like to be a man, yet *claim that it is so much "easier" than being a woman* (and lots feel this way as they have sons, they think they know what it is like to be a boy, watching and experiencing directly are 2 different things).


Um...ok.


----------



## turnera (Jan 22, 2010)

Squeakr said:


> Very few men have full, primary, or majority custody, it is quite rare, but more common in these days than prior and is a very true statement, and 50/50 is generally not a fair assessment and the best most men will ever get assessed by the courts and even then not have primary custody awards (as someone has to be the primary even in 50/50 assignments). I believe that this makes it a fair statement and assessment given that unless the women is doing something completely detrimental or decides to relinquish her custody, 50/50 is the worst they will get and generally they will get full, primary or majority awards in those cases.


Interesting article: 


> According to DivorcePeers.com, the majority of child custody cases are not decided by the courts.
> 
> In 51 percent of custody cases, both parents agreed -- on their own -- that mom become the custodial parent.
> In 29 percent of custody cases, the decision was made without any third party involvement.
> ...


Dispelling The Myth Of Gender Bias In The Family Court System | Cathy Meyer


----------



## Pluto2 (Aug 17, 2011)

Squeakr said:


> Actually this has nothing to do with what I have accomplished nor wanted in my divorce. your assumption is incorrect here as I am basing this on general custody awards.
> 
> Very few men have full, primary, or majority custody, it is quite rare, but more common in these days than prior and is a very true statement, and 50/50 is generally not a fair assessment and the best most men will ever get assessed by the courts and even then not have primary custody awards (as someone has to be the primary even in 50/50 assignments). I believe that this makes it a fair statement and assessment given that unless the women is doing something completely detrimental or decides to relinquish her custody, 50/50 is the worst they will get and generally they will get full, primary or majority awards in those cases.
> 
> ...


You're making it sound as though the only people who can make a statement about any injustice is someone who has personally experienced that injustice. That, sir, is an unreasonably narrow position.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

turnera said:


> Wow. You really seem interested in me. Enough so to drag through 26,000 posts to find what you need to try to spear me. Have fun.


Nope, not interested just wanted clarification and the truth and just proving my point that you twist things to fit your ideal at the time. 

Once again, you have presumed incorrectly that I had to dig to find information. I have a good memory and didn't have to probe through anything to recall these facts as the last time you chastised me (a usual thing for you), you stated your were a writer and knew about all things english and writing and you took offense (nothing new for you) to my posts because this was your career/discipline. You then proceeded to pick apart my theories and opinions as they didn't agree with the doctoral studies your daughter was doing in psychology and you enjoy'd reading the books together and discussing the concepts within, and since I wasn't either a writer or psychologist or doctoral student in psychology, I had no right to voice my opinion in such a way (which you perceived incorrectly there yet again). Sorry but just because I may to be a SME in an area doesn't mean I can't have an educated opinion on said subject.

Don't flatter yourself thinking that I am on a personal vendetta or stalking you, as I do agree with lots you state, but I am not going to sit by when you state something incorrect or I don't agree with it. That is what makes an open forum the place it is, open and lively interaction.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

Pluto2 said:


> You're making it sound as though the only people who can make a statement about any injustice is someone who has personally experienced that injustice. That, sir, is an unreasonably narrow position.


Reread it and you will see that you are missing two things in your assessment of the paragraph. 1) the making of a statement of truth (and not opinion, all can have opinions but state them as such) and 2) the part about proof in backing that statement (through either experience or proven backing evidence). This gives anyone the right to make a statement as truth when they have the proof to back it up, if not then make a statement of opinion, state it as such, and not hold it as a truth. By your assessment I should be able to make statements of truth about racial inequality or sexual inequality without having any other proof than my opinion and that is what I am saying is not allowed to do. Would it be fair for me to state as a truth, that concentration camp and slave treatment was acceptable, as had they have produced better they would have been treated better, therefor their treatment was justified based on their actions? No that would be insulting to anyone that ever had to experience such things.

It don't feel that is narrow minded at all to expect for people to make statements of opinion and not hold them as truths and I don't view being a male as an injustice.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

That is an interesting article, but also it is based upon respondents and mediation is recommended by most courts in this day and age, so is still technically a court action (as the mediators are doing the will of the court and the court must accept it therefor it is in agreement with their thinking, thus showing the bias).

Also many men (and possibly women, can't speak for them only the men as I know several that have went through this), take the mediation as that is the least costly and the same judgement that they will receive in court. The bias is that men know going into a situation better than 90% of the time the best that they can expect is a 50/50 custody agreement, whereas the women generally (and not talking about extreme cases), 50/50 is the least that they can expect.

My lawyer is female and she has told me this time and again and admitted the courts are biased (why would they admit this otherwise, and every one I consulted with said the same thing). I know several men going through D as well and all are being offered the exact same settlement. Funny how in all of these cases the father had been the primary caregiver throughout the children's lives in all situations, and the mother was a serial cheater, not as involved with the children, career oriented, and subjected the children to unhealthly situations (car accidents, drinking, drugs, and adultery), but since the proof wasn't 100% irrefutable, the women were given the primary custody and 60/40 custody. 

Like I have stated before that all can b proven if you want to word the hypothesis in such a way. 

I can find several medical research journals that state eggs, carrots, red meat, wine, or the subject of the day is bad for your health. Then I can find several prior and after that which state the opposite. All are researched and "proven" so which ones are the truths? Your article was on dispelling the myth of bias in the court system, do you honestly think that someone is going to go to the trouble of publishing such an article and in the end say, yep they are biased??? If researchers find their theory to not be true, then the results are somehow always "inconclusive" rather than state their theory is incorrect.


----------



## Pluto2 (Aug 17, 2011)

And your statements about the bias of courts are not truth, only your opinion, based solely on your individual experience.
Your spat with other statements made in this thread then boils down to the fact they were not prefaced with In My Opinion!

So *IN MY OPINION*, the historically documented legal privilege men enjoyed to beat their wives and children has contributed to the present psychological mindset of many women in society who tolerate brutality, both physical and verbal, at the hands of their family members.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

Pluto2 said:


> And your statements about the bias of courts are not truth, only your opinion, based solely on your individual experience.
> Your spat with other statements made in this thread then boils down to the fact they were not prefaced with In My Opinion!
> 
> So *IN MY OPINION*, the historically documented legal privilege men enjoyed to beat their wives and children has contributed to the present psychological mindset of many women in society who tolerate brutality, both physical and verbal, at the hands of their family members.


You can look at it any way you want, but when lawyers and law enforcement tell everyone facing this that the courts are generally biased against a certain sex, and they are trained professionals in those fields, so that is my stance and proof enough for me. Yes it is my opinion, but also my experience. Heck several lawyers and law enforcement people on TAM have stated the same when it comes from everything from DV to custody, but it seems that many women don't feel that way or want to concede it, so it isn't truth, right??? Take a poll on here and see how many divorced posters had to fight for the custody that they got, and the majority of those that had to fight will be men (they had to fight to get custody), whereas the women were negotiated down from a better position they held going in (this is a bias). Head over to LMJ's case and see how his wife has been abusive, an adulteress, violent, and yet she was given the kids and allowed to move them in with the OM (even though the D isn't even final). There are numerous examples around here (and the ones that the man gets the primary are few and far between) and if you think the father getting 50/50 but no primary is fair division and not biased then I concede. All courts have said that generally the children share a bond with the mother and it is in their best interest to remain with her primarily. How is that not biased??


----------



## Pluto2 (Aug 17, 2011)

My last comment on this since we are threadjacking, but honestly, your personal observations are not supported by empirical facts.

Divorce Statistics - How Is Child Custody Decided?


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

Pluto2 said:


> My last comment on this since we are threadjacking, but honestly, your personal observations are not supported by empirical facts.
> 
> Divorce Statistics - How Is Child Custody Decided?


Almost 20 year old data only proves past actions and it is a study conducted in CA, so not a good representation of the court system overall. Also these empirical facts don't tell all. Just because custody is settled outside of courts, doesn't dispell the belief that courts are biased. When the lawyers and law enforcement tell clients that the courts are biased and what you are "possible to get as a judgment based on case and precedent", why would one spend the extra dollars to arrive at the same custody that they are going to get whether court is involved or not? That is nothing more than throwing good money out the window with little chance of different outcome (unless you have some strange and unique case). 

If you are a man and told that it will cost you $2500 to negotiate a settlement (and that is not including mediation fees, but just lawyers fees, as these outside settlements are led to believe that it is done between the parties when it is in actuality negotiated by lawyers and not the parents, so misleading fact number one) that would be 50/50 based findings upon case and precedent that courts use to decide issues, but it is going to cost $5000+ to go to court and the best that they could hope for given the facts is 50/50 (based on case history and precedent), then why would a man take that gamble and added expense? He doesn't unless the 
case is unique and he saves the money.

Also mediation is a court enforced and accepted action, so it is in essence court without a judge making the final ruling and judgement, but a trained mediator acting on the courts behalf and honoring it's belief (so in essence the mediator is handing down the same judgement the courts would). With mediators giving more custody to the mothers that shows bias. 


Considering the overall breakdown of the division of custody it is biased. Interpret it however you like, but that itself shows the issue is and should be a concern. 

I wouldn't call it empirical data as it is open to interpretation and skewing just like most data. It is no different than calling the unemployment statistics as correct and empirical, but the fact is that it only takes into account those drawing unemployment and not those whom have dropped from the scale as they are neither employed, nor are they eligible for unemployment so their numbers go uncounted and uncontributing to the true overall picture. 

I did a quick google search and there are several reports that state the courts are biased, but then they go on to justify and skew the statement by exempting data for whatever reason that fits them. Search on the Father's Rights Movement and you will find lots of research and backing to prove this ideal. Is that data not empirical as well??

T/J over.


----------



## oneMOreguy (Aug 22, 2012)

Mr Blunt said:


> By reading this Tam forum for years i think that what Turnera stated above happens a lot. How many times have we seen this happen? Dozens?, Hundreds? Thousands?
> 
> My question is about adult woman not children.
> 
> ...



...boy....how far we have strayed from this question.

while I think woman have in some sense been culturally trained to be the ones to suck it up and "keep the peace"........I think in our modern culture this is starting to not be so much the case.

I actually think it is more the case of why it works to start boiling a lobster in cold water........maybe not the best example, but my point is that abusive behavior of all types seems to advance in stages, not all at once. Its like the abuser starts slow to see what they can get away with.......and before you know it, the abusee is putting up with a lot of nonsense. But this could apply to both males and females. So yes, this is happening to females, but most certainly is also happening to men.

ok....I guess we can let the threadjacking start again........unfortunately........


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

oneMOreguy said:


> ...boy....how far we have strayed from this question.
> 
> while I think woman have in some sense been culturally trained to be the ones to suck it up and "keep the peace"........I think in our modern culture this is starting to not be so much the case.
> 
> ...


This is what I have been saying from the beginning. Agree 100%, although I don't know if it is an actual just keep pushing further to see what they get away with (abusers that is) as much as they just fall into that routine. Like gaining weight. No one sets out see how much they can pack on, it just happens little by little over time, until one day you wake up and wonder how you ever got to where you currently are.


----------



## oneMOreguy (Aug 22, 2012)

Squeakr said:


> This is what I have been saying from the beginning. Agree 100%, although I don't know if it is an actual just keep pushing further to see what they get away with (abusers that is) as much as they just fall into that routine. Like gaining weight. No one sets out see how much they can pack on, it just happens little by little over time, until one day you wake up and wonder how you ever got to where you currently are.


...I actually think that most abusers do not intend consciously to abuse, but over time feel more and more comfortable with letting their inner abuser personality show through. But it all is about the same.......the abuse steps up over time and the abused starts getting desensitized over time until it is way past acceptable.


----------



## turnera (Jan 22, 2010)

oneMOreguy said:


> I actually think it is more the case of why it works to start boiling a lobster in cold water........maybe not the best example, but my point is that abusive behavior of all types seems to advance in stages, not all at once. Its like the abuser starts slow to see what they can get away with.......and before you know it, the abusee is putting up with a lot of nonsense. But this could apply to both males and females. So yes, this is happening to females, but most certainly is also happening to men.


That's exactly what the books and studies show. 

The best book on the subject - Why Does He Do That? Inside The Minds Of Angry And Controlling Men - describes the way abusers see it as sort of a challenge, even fun sometimes, to see what they can get away with. And to hone in on those things that the victim shows really gets to them. Of course, at first, he's total charm; she can't believe she finally met a guy SO wonderful. Once she's committed to him, he starts picking her apart. "You're going to wear THAT?" or "I should have known you'd hurt me too." Stuff like that. Not wanting to over-react, the woman will question herself, never him, and try to see how she messed up, and correct her actions so as not to let that happen again. So he picks something else. The next time it might be a comment about her hair, or past lovers, or how she cooks his steak. On and on, always changing, always finding NEW things to critique her on or make her feel guilty about. And if she fixes one thing, he's likely to reverse it - "What? I never told you I liked my meat medium rare; don't you listen? Boy, you're selfish. I like it well done!" And then she starts to doubt her sanity - did I really not listen to him? Why am I so stupid? Before you know it, she AGREES with him that she's just a mess and she's lucky he puts up with her. 

One interesting thing is that these men often really believe they love their wife because they feel so much intense emotion; but they can't differentiate between the emotion they feel at controlling the woman and love.

By the time the few abuse victims who actually DO leave, leave, they are usually a shell of a person, haven't laughed in years or decades, have morphed into what they think will stop the verbal assault and thus have no idea who THEY are, and firmly believe they are incapable of being a worthwhile citizen let alone a valuable lover to any other man.

However, this is not exactly true:



> ...I actually think that most abusers do not intend consciously to abuse, but over time feel more and more comfortable with letting their inner abuser personality show through.


Barring the really psychotic ones, who clearly don't give a flip if they hurt someone, most men who are/were abusers have dysfunctional backgrounds going into the relationship: They nearly always have low self esteem, the thought of losing the partner feels threatening so they do what they can to keep that from happening (thus the isolation from others who would warn you to leave him); they may feel they aren't masculine enough, don't measure up, so they overcompensate. They're usually extremely jealous because of these traits even if the woman hasn't given him any reason to doubt her; again because he believes she'll find someone better than him and leave him. He'll also start to control her activities so she doesn't enjoy life away from him more than life with him. And because he 'knows' he's unlovable by anyone else, he'll expect his partner to become everything for him - that way he doesn't HAVE to deal with all those haters out there. My H used to tell me that he'd be perfectly fine never interacting with anyone other than me and our daughter - for the rest of our lives; whenever she starts dating someone, he goes ballistic, cos this guy is 'taking her away from him.' At 24 years old. 

They also want this partner to show 100% support in all ways - spend their whole lives making sure he's happy (which of course is impossible because he keeps changing what 'happy' is so that she can never feel safe. Abusers are notorious for never accepting blame - for anything; and of course, never apologizing - not because they don't believe they are wrong but because they fear being 'found out' for the POS they are, and thus can't show weakness; and of course, blaming the woman for everything somehow gets her to acquiesce and become more and more convinced she has no worth. Abusers are extremely sensitive to criticism; again, because of their low self esteem.

And, as much as some here don't want to hear it, a belief in male supremacy is a very common trait of abusers - BEFORE they meet the woman; they'll believe, and convince the woman, that the man is doing 'everything' for her so she should be grateful and do everything HE wants; they often believe the wife should do all duties except the 'manly' ones like construction/yardwork/etc. because it's where women belong. They see sex as how the woman 'proves' she loves him and very often make no effort to be mutually satisfying, or even consensual. They are more likely to be drug/alcohol abuser as they have poor coping skills. And they will not 'talk' or do other 'female stuff' unless they are in the pursuit stage and are busy charming the woman. Many women have reported being 100% blindsided after being married - even on the honeymoon - by the night and day turnaround in personality; once he 'owns' her all the fake mask comes off and he feels safe to be himself again as he expects her to be too 'wedded' to being married to just walk away.

So to be clear, these traits are all in place BEFORE the woman enters the picture, so it's not like this totally nice guy is 'driven' to abuse. It IS true that they don't see themselves as abusive, however. They simply can't see it from the outside.


----------



## oneMOreguy (Aug 22, 2012)

turnera said:


> That's exactly what the books and studies show. The best book on the subject - Why Does He Do That? Inside The Minds Of Angry And Controlling Men - describes the way abusers see it as sort of a challenge, even fun sometimes, to see what they can get away with. And to hone in on those things that the victim shows really gets to them. Of course, at first, he's total charm; she can't believe she finally met a guy SO wonderful. Once she's committed to him, he starts picking her apart. "You're going to wear THAT?" or "I should have known you'd hurt me too." Stuff like that. Not wanting to over-react, the woman will question herself, never him, and try to see how she messed up, and correct her actions so as not to let that happen again. So he picks something else. The next time it might be a comment about her hair, or past lovers, or how she cooks his steak. On and on, always changing, always finding NEW things to critique her on or make her feel guilty about. And if she fixes one thing, he's likely to reverse it - "What? I never told you I liked my meat medium rare; don't you listen? Boy, you're selfish. I like it well done!" And then she starts to doubt her sanity - did I really not listen to him? Why am I so stupid? Before you know it, she AGREES with him that she's just a mess and she's lucky he puts up with her.
> 
> By the time the few abuse victims who actually DO leave, leave, they are usually a shell of a person, haven't laughed in years or decades, have morphed into what they think will stop the verbal assault and thus have no idea who THEY are, and firmly believe they are incapable of being a worthwhile citizen let alone a valuable lover to any other man.


tunera....I guess I am somewhat an innocent since I have never encountered anyone who abuses another and gets joy or fun out of it. But of course I am also the guy who never in a million years thought an inappropriate friendship would loom over my marriage.......

I have always thought the best of humans, and still believe in most cases that abusers just are unable to be honest with themselves about their behavior and its impact. I just cannot wrap my head around hurting another on purpose...........it sucks that someone would do that to their spouse.


...and as a ps...........I also believe your statement could just as easily apply to females abusing males.........it may not always be the exact same type of abuse......but certainly does just as much damage to the man's self image.


----------



## turnera (Jan 22, 2010)

Agreed. I always give people an initial benefit of the doubt. This description fits my H to a T; on the good side, he's amazing - dedicated, never cheats (that I know of) despite plenty of opportunities. But his insecurity - and it is severe - drives everything. And he was severely afraid that I'd leave him, and he basically took all the steps in the description, to keep that from happening - while still being a decent person, relatively speaking. 

It doesn't make him a monster. Those guys ARE psycho, literally, and people should run from them. Most abusers are middle of the road and have enough good qualities to keep women hoping they'll just see the light and change. Unfortunately, it almost never happens until the woman is so fed up, so out of love, that she IS ready to leave, and only then will he consider the scary prospect of looking at his inner demons.

And of all the guys my DD's dated, two have turned out to be abusive and both times, she got sucked in despite her knowing better! After the first one, in high school, she started researching it, even did a presentation for the girls at her school, and she STILL got sucked in again; as I've said, they are MASTERS at charm. But anyway, I've seen it firsthand and watched its progression from start to leaving. I remember having doubts about the first one, but saying nothing, until one day he called her and she was bawling her eyes out and apologizing to him over and over on the phone...over not talking to him appreciatively enough! That's when I sat her down and asked her to start thinking logically about what was really going on. She broke up with him after dating only a month during the summer (it only took a month to get her to that point of abuse victim); on the first day of school, he approached her in front of all her friends (to shame her) and said 'so, are we together?' She said no. He then proceeded to stalk and harass her for the entire school year - turned many friends against her, befriended her old boyfriend just to get to her...on and on. Abusers see their victims as property, you see. Property doesn't get to stop BEING property without the abuser's permission.

There's a lady on another forum who finally - at our urging - told her husband go to this weekend retreat or I'm leaving. He went to it and came back a changed man (so far). He finally SAW what he's been doing to her, and he saw that it was ok to be vulnerable and accept blame for once in his life. 

We've seen tons of cases here of women becoming the aggressor in marriages and yes, it usually takes a quite different path.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

I don't understand though how when the women take charge in the marriage and it becomes different, it is her taking charge and becoming an aggressor. When a man does the same thing, he is a controller and an abuser. It seems there is a fine line and double standard as to what is abuse and what is aggression. Several men her are told by their spouse that they are to do this or else. They need to start doing x or the woman will do y. They belittle and call them names and are considered liberated and standing up for themselves. Somehow I see it as the same treatments just with a different label and no matter which sex does it, it is wrong.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

ere is a real life example:

When my STBXW was living with me, I would say we couldn't do something because we didn't have the money. She told everyone that I was a control, freak, lauded over the money, and would not let her spend and abused her emotionally for it. None of which was true, but she showed friends all the markers of abuse and they believed it and she called me names, hit me, and degraded my family still everyone thought I was the culprit.

She is now on her own (her bills only take a small portion of her income and she had the budget figured out before she moved out to prove it and she is also getting CS from me and her legal paid by a relative. She should be golden). She is however eternally penniless. Now she is borrowing money from her family, telling my girls they can't afford anything, lauding over them, and controlling their spending (while spending at will for her). We have no communication other than through lawyers and she is still telling people I am an abuser and emotionally controlling her. Amazing how she has swayed a new group of people as to me being a bad person, parent, and abusive when I have no dealings with her and her failures are entirely her own. It is so easy for the abuser to claim to be the abused and never see the truth that they may have a part in it as well.

It is way to easy to blame the other and not see our own faults or actions in things. I realize that there are goos people (both men and women) that are degraded and abused for no other reason than the spouse is broken, but sometimes abuse isn't as simple as it seems. Accoring to the definitions and the above, both situations would be deemed abuse, but in reality it wasn't anything more than lying and disagreements on many parts.


----------



## turnera (Jan 22, 2010)

Who cares what they think? The people YOU care about - the ones who won't be swayed by quack talk - know you aren't that person.


----------



## turnera (Jan 22, 2010)

Squeakr said:


> I don't understand though how when the women take charge in the marriage and it becomes different, it is her taking charge and becoming an aggressor. When a man does the same thing, he is a controller and an abuser. It seems there is a fine line and double standard as to what is abuse and what is aggression. Several men her are told by their spouse that they are to do this or else. They need to start doing x or the woman will do y. They belittle and call them names and are considered liberated and standing up for themselves. Somehow I see it as the same treatments just with a different label and no matter which sex does it, it is wrong.


Never said it wasn't wrong. And I didn't say it was the woman was 'taking charge' - I said she's being the aggressor, i.e., the one to call the other person out for their behavior/actions/words.

The inherent psychological makeup of men vs women creates differences in the way men react to aggression as opposed to women. Women tend to soak up the blame as a PERSONAL attribute, and thus it's easier to stay in belittling situations, whereas men tend to not take it personally and consider what they're doing 'wrong' as an operational thing, not a core failure of themselves. If they don't just get right back in the woman's face and it becomes Mr. and Mrs. Smith. Women, believe it or not, are still being raised to be less aggressive, to not upset, to be aware of everyone else's feelings; so when someone becomes aggressive, her training kicks in and she typically doesn't return the fire and get back in his face about it; thus the slippery slope toward acceptance of the abuse.

Men get emasculated, but they generally try harder and harder to please the nutty woman, not understanding why it's not working. Women don't get emasculated, they just come to BELIEVE that they are worthless.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

turnera said:


> Who cares what they think? The people YOU care about - the ones who won't be swayed by quack talk - know you aren't that person.


Were you not the same one that said you were run out of a town for the bad being said to your family (I apologize if I am getting this mixed up with someone else), but if that is the case, wouldn't your advice apply to this situation as well, with the who cares what they think so why uproot an entire family (the same shame and mental cruelty applies here)?


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

turnera said:


> Men get emasculated, but they generally try harder and harder to please the nutty woman, not understanding why it's not working. Women don't get emasculated, they just come to BELIEVE that they are worthless.


So being emasculated for a man doesn't make him feel like he is worthless? Trying harder and harder to please her is different than the steak cooking incident where the the wife constantly changes how she cooks the steak to please the man is different how?? Is that what you are really saying here??

If you have never been emasculated or experienced it, how can you say that it is something different than being given a sense of worthless. Masculinity and identity means everything to men (so when women belittle them and call them cuckold they don't realize the damage that is done, just as emotionally damaging I can imagine as screaming and putting down a women).

It is like women telling men that if they aren't giving their wives sex, then they need to use their hand and mouth and just go to the doctor and get themselves fixed. They don't understand that this is not something that just happened one day, it is gradual, and the change causes a man to not desire sex at all, it just isn't about performance but your overall identity as a man. It is the most demeaning thing to have to go to a Dr and admit their physical shortcomings and age setting in. 

Emasculation is telling a man he IS worthless.

And not all mean react to aggression the same way, just as not all women react the same expected way. That is the issue with arguing things from a psychological standpoint. The results of studies take time to gather and analyze and by the time they are amassed things have generally changed so rapidly, that just like technology the tallied results are outdated. Since our society has gone away for the blue collar ideal to more white collar ideals and laws have changed the reactions of society are molded and changed as well. It is like the Census is so outdated by the time the results are posted that it really is skewed data.


----------



## turnera (Jan 22, 2010)

Squeakr said:


> Were you not the same one that said you were run out of a town for the bad being said to your family (I apologize if I am getting this mixed up with someone else), but if that is the case, wouldn't your advice apply to this situation as well, with the who cares what they think so why uproot an entire family (the same shame and mental cruelty applies here)?


You're talking about yourself, right?

The reason WE moved is because kids started coming up to our daughter in school and repeating the rumors to her.


----------



## turnera (Jan 22, 2010)

Squeakr said:


> If you have never been emasculated or experienced it, how can you say that it is something different than being given a sense of worthless.


It just is. But whatever. You're a woman hater just as much as you accuse me of being a man hater. I'm done.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

turnera said:


> You're talking about yourself, right?
> 
> The reason WE moved is because kids started coming up to our daughter in school and repeating the rumors to her.



So why not just put the daughter in another school or tell her "who cares what others think" than move completely??

I bet you didn't offer up the new information in the new area (of course why would you, but then again, Who cares, right??

I understand that you do what is best for you, your family, and the situation. I wasn't trying to be flippant here but it is easy to point the finger and just say "so what" when it is someone else's life, but when it is your life, things are handled entirely differently (you didn't get the legal writ to keep your Dad from being embarrassed). Told you I had a good memory.


Same thing in my case. People coming up to the kids, picking on them on the bus, and telling them what Mommy did, and then telling them they heard what Mommy said Daddy did, and the whole your Mommy and Daddy are this, that, etc. Made R entirely impossible as not only were we facing our own issues but those raised within the community. We even had one couple accuse my daughters of being the reason that they broke up, as they claim my daughters saw something they shouldn't have and told others which facilitated their breakup. It was a total lie, but it is what the girls are now learning about "behaving" as adults. So much for who cares. And even if it were just only me, people need friends and after she had done those things I/ we had none left in the area, so I can say I did care and I do have feelings and emotions even as a man.


----------



## Squeakr (May 1, 2013)

turnera said:


> It just is. But whatever. You're a woman hater just as much as you accuse me of being a man hater. I'm done.


I am not a woman hater, to the opposite. In fact most things I try to paint in an even and balanced standpoint so not to make it a mars/ venus thing. I have never called you a man hater either just stated that you are biased against them, so once again stop presuming things about me that I have never said nor done.

If you haven't been emasculated you can't say it is different as you wouldn't know. Just like I can't say childbirth is the same level of pain as experienced in stubbing your toe or having a mastectomy does nothing to the psychological and emotional being of a woman, as come on it was just a breast, right?? I never would as I know both are not something I will ever experience but I am not going to down play them because of it and try to make them less than they are.


----------



## oneMOreguy (Aug 22, 2012)

turnera said:


> It just is. But whatever. You're a woman hater just as much as you accuse me of being a man hater. I'm done.


...come on, both of you relax 

neither of you is a hater....you just view the world thru different filters. At the end of the day, if you were actually in the same room discussing, rather than posting a few words at a time on the internet, I think you two would agree more than disagree. 

For me, I do believe that there are biological differences between men and women (surprise, surprise, huh!!...lol) and our culture certainly does treat girls and boys differently in many ways.....

meaning that it is likely that differences exist when men and women are subjected to long term abuse........but overlap is also gonna occur in many cases. That is why each case must be treated and discussed individually........the "stereotypes" being discussed are only a good starting point for figuring things out for that individual. 

And as far as pain.....well........I for one am glad to avoid that childbirth one and only have to deal with stubbing my toe, etc.....grinning


----------

