I've posted here for years. Throughout that time, I've had online conversations with

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

women, who have also posted here, about being on the receiving end of domestic abuse. It's not uncommon, one in four women in this country will be in that severely unfortunate situation.

So what, you say. There you go being the victim again, you say.

Well, the point of my post is not to ask who here has been struck for saying something that pissed off the man in your life, whether father, brother, boyfriend, husband, whatever. I know without a doubt that there are women here can relate to that, it's a fact of American womanhood.

I'm wondering, though, how many posting here have perpetrated domestic abuse. Of course, I don't expect anyone to jump up and claim to have done so, that would be silly. But, I do wonder, since the act of domestic violence is so common, it's not just the victims who are numerous, but also their victimizers. Maybe even here. Probably even here.

So, I hope if there is anyone here who has ever lost their temper and hit the woman, or man, in their life, that they are pondering the ramifications of that action. It reverberates for years, decades, with the one at the receiving end of your rage. It does nothing but create misery and pain.

Anger, hate, rage are evident here, and it's not just for "fun". It's becoming a DU cultural norm. And, often that rage, anger and blind hatred can spill over from online to off line life and back again. I just wonder if my occasional requests to refrain from using violent language and imagery in describing not only Sen. Clinton, but other women in the public spotlight, are being read by those who are actually, in real life, acting out that very violence which I'm decrying.

It doesn't seem too far out of the realm of possibility.

Just musing. For years, DU was a haven for Democratic women to talk frankly about their experiences and feelings regarding women's issues. And, the Democratic men here were supportive in their recognition of women's rights being human rights.

It doesn't feel that way, anymore, and I wonder if it will again.

I will now sit back and anticipate the usual responses calling me all kinds of names, in response to my post. Name calling has become another cultural norm here, as well.

Happy Saturday, all.

:hi:

[Evergreen Emerald]

1. Amen.

Happy Saturday.

[emilyg]

2. As a mother of a daughter that

was physically and mentally abused by her ex - I thank you for this post.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

5. emilyg,

:hug: back to you.

[rodeodance]

21. oh my. my heart goes out to you and your daughter and family.....

best to you.

[emilyg]

30. She finally got the courage to divorce him

the children and my daughter are ok now.

[tekisui]

75. Good for her.

My heart goes out to her and her children and you. I am sure you are a great influence on her.

[Rosemary2205]

3. ..

:hug:


thank you.

[kid a]

My first wife used to beat the shit out of me. I got a restraining order and a divorce.

I'm happily married now to a kind, peaceful, sober woman.

Abuse should not be tolerated. Ever.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

7. I'm sorry you went through that. It's exactly why I tried to keep it gender neutral, except that

the violence tinged references here on DU on much more aimed at Sen. Clinton than Sen. Obama, at least at the moment. But, there is no shortage of women who hit men, sadly. It's just that scenario is repeated ten times over by men who strike women.

:hug: Thanks for your response.

[Chovexani]

114. I'm so glad you got out

:hug:

I was just a teenager when I was with the jerkface who abused me, and it took him nearly assaulting me in public and getting arrested to give me the courage to leave.

My heart goes out to everyone in these situations. I wish more stories ended like ours.

[PCIntern]

4. I know the feeling and we're not all assholes...

the whole tone around here has changed and it didn't start with the primaries, IMO. There is a peculiar trend here which is a combination of PC and intolerant, so it's sort of: "Well you may have suffered such and such but I on the other hand have been the victim of blah blah blah..." as though one's personal tribulations were more important/more urgent/more pressing than the others'.

The lack of humanism here is appalling these days.

We have a fair number of women and children in my dental practice who have been abused and believe me, they not only have a safe haven here for referrals and counseling, but we are more than willing to go to the mat for these people, and get on the phone with those who can do something for them. It is our professional responsibility to report and assist people who are the victims of domestic abuse and from that we do not flinch. I have stories which I will not expound upon here, but suffice it to say that I've been caught in the cross-hairs a few times myself.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

9. What a beautiful post. Thank you.

You rock, my friend! :applause:

[JimGinPA]

6. Is There A Reason You Posted This On The Primaries Board?

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

8. Because I mentioned Sen. Clinton.

:shrug:

[JoFerret]

46. You don't see the reason?

.

[merh]

10. Opposing hillary is not domestic violence

Opposing her candidacy is not opposing all women.

The name calling is just as bad on the hillary side as it is on the obama side.

What is she without bill's name and presidency?

When she was on the board of WalMart, what did she accomplish for the female employees? What did she do for labor?

She claims to have garnered her experience because she was his first lady and all that experience is not as real as she purports, she exaggerated what she did and/or her involvement and impact in his administration.

For me, hillary is an example of a woman abused who stayed in that emotionally abusive relationship because it provided her the political comfort she needs to be a whole person, not because she is strong or independent or the epitome of a feminist. She is the woman who got her MRS degree and stuck with that field to further herself and not the cause.

And the continued attacks on those those oppose her candidacy as an attack on all females, or as you post, some type of domestic violence, is just a continuation of the victim card that does not hold true.

It is her candidacy that has been attacked, not hillary, the woman. There is a distinction and if she were a man exaggerating as she has, telling the lies she has told, going negative as she has, she would be subject to the same type of "attacks". Thus, equal treatment is what she is receiving and hillary supporters don't like it.

If she can't stand the heat she needs to get out of the kitchen (her words); if she can't take the hits on the field then she shouldn't have suited up (paraphrasing bill).

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

13. No, that's not what I'm saying. Not at all. And, your words about her "taking hits" is kind of the

example of which I speak.

As you saw in my OP, I fully anticipated being called a "victim" which word in and of itself anymore is delivered contempt rather than sympathy or compassion. Victim is now a term of derision.

And, I mentioned other women, not just Sen. Clinton as well as men being at the receiving end of DA.

[merh]

15. Then if it is not about hillary and her supporters, why did you post

this here, in the primary forum?

And what say you about a woman who sticks it out in an abusive relationship out of "love"? Is that woman not an enabler and is she not the one that has subjected herself to the treatment that makes her a victim?

If anything, hillary's campaign is an example of equal treatment, she gets what she gives and she gets what any candidate would get if they lied and exaggerated and went negative against their opponent in the same party.

[Evergreen Emerald]

108. unbelievable

you are suggesting that the victims of domestic violence ask for it. Unbelievable.

It is ideas like yours that keep violence acceptable in our society.

And the fact that you do not understand why it is on GDP is more amazing than your blame-the-victim posts.

Sad, really.

[merh]

110. hillary is not the victim of domestic violence

unless you are referring to her staying with a philandering husband, and she has enabled the behavior and accepted her fate.

[Seabiscuit]

119. Similar to saying rape victims "ask for it".

[ellisonz]

109. "taking hits" is football lingo.

[msongs]

17. and she doesnt run around showing how well she can play basketball either darn it nt

[merh]

18. She could, if she could play basketball

no one is stopping her.

[TahitiNut]

27. Yup. And I doubt Don Imus would say anything about it.

:crazy: :dunce:

[tekisui]

77. She does show how she can take shots with the boys, though.

[MADem]

23. Wow, you couldn't have been more clueless as to the intent of the OP if you tried. NT

[merh]

24. if the OP wasn't about the primary, then why is it in the forum

the games folks play with the truth is absolutely amazing to me.

the sad thing is, they fool themselves more than they fool others.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

28. Did I somehow spoil GD-P with this post? You all are quite territorial.

:hi:

[merh]

33. No, there was no spoilage.

I simply called you on the inconsistencies of your OP and your denial that it has anything to do with hillary.

If it has nothing to do with hillary, why is it posted in the primary forum?

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

38. Well, thanks for that give and take.

That's why we're here, isn't it. :-)

[merh]

41. If that is why we are here

why have you refused to actually respond to my posts?

If the OP is not about hillary and her supporters why did you post it in this forum? What has it got to do with the primaries?

[MADem]

42. She TOLD you why she did that. Your entire post, though, is a piece of work.

And you aren't "fooling" anyone. That's certainly "sad" indeed.

[merh]

54. No, she never answered why the OP is in the primary forum

if it is not about hillary.

If it is not about hillary why is it in this forum?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzRQxxldBvk

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

62. The most recent, but certainly not the only, examples I've seen are in re: Sen Clinton.

And, since I mentioned that in my post, I posted it here.

[MADem]

85. She mentioned Clinton. The mods have been putting ANY posts mentioning candidates here.

You get some sad joy out of being deliberately obtuse.

[merh]

88. No, I like the truth

and I despise double standards and those who post some "issue" meant to insult folks hidden behind concern.

[MADem]

91. Oh, I doubt that. You seem to like to derail threads. If this really bugged the shit out of you,

you'd use that HIDE THREAD option or break out the LALALALALALA "Ignore" function that the heat shirkers enjoy.

Nope--you're "INTO" shitting on this thread. Digging on it. Why, I have no idea. That's for your own soul to contemplate.

[merh]

102. My posts have been on topic while your's have been deflection

and now attacks on me. Talk about thread derailer. There is a future for you in the movies, as the projectionist.

[MADem]

104. Yeah, right. You spent all your time hectoring the OP about a question she answered in post 8.

You show yourself for what you are.

[merh]

112. I have not hectored or heckled or lectured the OP

and she never answered the question I posed or responded to my posts. Like you she simply deflected, unlike you she has not derailed this thread with petty personal attacks.

[BlueCaliDem]

84. I have to agree with merh on this, MADem... the OP didn't answer merh's question.

Yes, I know you've probably seen my avatar by now and most likely would give a response based on that, but facts are facts and the OP did not answer merh's question.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand why. Merh's right, BleedingHeartPatriot's post sounded as if being tough on Senator Clinton is the equivalent to abuse.

Something it, may I add, is absolutely not.

Like Senator Clinton has said herself: "If you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen".

Unlike a lot of Hillary Clinton supporters, I will not base my decision on who I vote for because of anything other than how I believe they'll be for the country.

I have been against the Iraq war and now its occupation from the very beginning before the IWR was almost unanimously voted for with only 23 out of the 100 Senators voting against it - and Hillary was not part of the 23.

I still don't know the true reason why she voted to give Bush authorization to launch an illegal, hateful war against peaceful people that had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11, but I have my theories.

If Bush wanted someone punished for those deaths on 9/11, he should go after his own daddy who put those 50,000 American troops permanently in Saudi Arabia, and who ignored bin Laden's demands to get out of his country or else he would declare war with ours. Unlike our politicians, bin Laden kept his word, hence 9/11.

President Clinton nor either Bushs paid him any heed and nearly 3000 innocent Americans paid for that arrogance with their innocent lives. Now the wife of that one, incredibly bogged down Democratic President votes, not only for the IWR but the Kyl/Lieberman Amendment giving Dubya authorization to launch yet another war without Congress having to get their hands dirty and declare it formally - as the Constitution requires - and she wants to be our 44th President??

She, because she's a woman thinks she'll get this woman's vote? Uh-uh.

Obama wouldn't have gotten mine either, but he was smarter. He didn't vote "yea" or "nay" on the Kyl/Lieberman resolution proving via that act, he would not have voted for the IWR in 2002. Get this, neither did McSame, btw.

Only our tough-enough, "fighter" Senator Clinton did. Why? Why was her judgment so off in October 2002? Why was it so off again in September 2007?

No wonder she couldn't decry her vote for the IWR. It was only in September last year, she voted for an Iran war resolution and then to decry or at least apologize for her vote to send over 4000 men and women to their deaths for no reason, would make her look like a hypocrite wouldn't it?

The women being abused in this primary, in this country, is a not a group Hillary should ever gratuitously be placed in. In fact, most mothers who have lost their sons and daughters, or are mothers of surviving but severely maimed sons and daughters... they are the abused ones, and because of her vote, Sen. Clinton has become one of the abusers.

That's why I'm voting for Obama. I refuse to reward an abuser.

[MADem]

87. Yes, she DID answer. In post EIGHT, way, way WAY upthread.

At the very START of this discussion.

You should read the FULL thread and get the FULL flavor of the conversation before you accuse the OP of anything.

She mentioned a candidate. THAT's why she posted it here. Not because of the reasons upon which you speculate in your dissertation.

I've seen benign mentions of candidates in GD get shoved off here by the mods FREQUENTLY. If you ask which recipe Obama might prefer, it's going to get moved if it doesn't start its life here.

As for your disgraceful characterization of Senator Clinton, I think you should be ashamed of yourself. What an embarrassing thing for you, to sink to that level. That last little sentence of yours is probably the cheapest shot and the lowest blow I've seen here thus far. Pretty damned desperate.

Senator "General Dyanamics--Our Business is WAR, and ONLY WAR" Obama, who votes to continue funding our fiasco and plans on keeping troops in Iraq for another year and a half, at least, and longer if "uh, the generals, uh" tell him to, has clean hands, and Senator "Bring 'Em Home Starting in Sixty to Ninety Days--No Waffling" Clinton, is an 'abuser.'

That is the thesis of a frantic supporter of a failed candidate. Lotta Hope-Change-Believe in calling an opponent to your favored candidate an abuser. I'm sure your candidate is real PROUD of you for your behavior--not.

:eyes:

[BlueCaliDem]

92. I didn't accuse the OP of anything. That would be merh and rightly so.

If the posting by the OP isn't a veiled attack on Obama supporters in defense of her candidate, and was sincerely a post regarding abuse of women, pointing out the alleged abuse here on DU, why didn't she just say so when asked?

She denied it when confronted by merh. Even I could read the veiled attack directed at Obama supporters in her post disguised as an appeal against abuse of women and others. Come on, MADem! You know it's true.

After all, were it not, why didn't she just omit the Senator's name and post her appeal under "Women's Rights"? Why here in GD-Primaries?

So thanks, but I really did get the full flavor of the discussion that's why I agree with merh.

I'm sorry if you believe I should be ashamed of myself for my characterzation of Senator Clinton - even though it's the truth backed by the facts, however painful they may be.

I didn't write it to offend Clinton DU supporters. I wrote it because it's why I, as a woman and a liberal Democrat sick and tired of the same-o, same-o, do not and cannot support her, and why I'll never vote for her.

To me, to vote for her would be condoning her arrogant refusal to apologize for the IWR. Of course, I didn't know back then (which is, at the start of this primary) she'd also voted for the Kyl/Lieberman Amendment giving Bush the authorization for war with IRAN and to then announce that if IRAN or any other country in the middle east would attack Israel, America would retaliate full force...

I'm just flabbergasted it doesn't seem to bother Democrats supporting her candidacy.

Oh, and I'm not desperate and Obama is not losing. Hillary has already lost. There's no way she can overtake Obama's lead even IFshe wins Indiana. No matter how you want to slice and dice the numbers, they don't favor her for a win, but they do favor Obama.

The only way Senator Clinton can win this primary is to create a scenario like the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 and get the SDs to usurp the will of the majority and vote for her. That is the ONLY way, and everyone knows it.

However, I apologize for offending you. I really didn't mean to, but I understand you being upset with me. You're a fellow Democrat from one of the most liberal states of the union, they say, and for that alone, I respect you and apologize for offending you, but I can't, in good conscience, retract a single word I've written because it's what I believe to be true.

[MADem]

93. Well, I suspect her reasoning had more to do with the misogynistic LANGUAGE we see around here,

not so much the candidates.

I have seen the "C with the United Nations in the middle T" word, the non-barking use of BITCH, and a number of vile phrases (just yesterday I was confronted with "rhetorical GANG BANG" which appalled me no end) when some 'so-called' Democrats speak about Senator Clinton. The mods will take action when alerted, but what kind of people even PUT that crap on a progressive message board? And I'm not talking about newcomers, or even sock puppets for old disruptors--I've seen this shit from people who have been here awhile.

I think THAT's where she may have been going. The abusive language, is there an ABUSER behind it?

Really, it's a valid question. I would assume that anyone, absent a massive amount of context, who used words like Darky, (sounds like) knicker, or Step and Fetch It were racists, wouldn't you?

So why wouldn't one wonder if people who used vile-- and violent-- language to describe the fairer sex were either abusers, or came from abusive households where that sort of invective was permissable?

I wouldn't be surprised if there was a correlation, actually.

[Cha]

107. The OP bristles with

red herrings and wallows in its own self anointed cleverness. "Cleverness is not wisdom".. Euripides

This is why I know Obama would not have voted for the IWR and I didn't read this until this year after I was already supporting him or I would have started a lot sooner..


<snip>

"What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

<end snip>

"The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not -- we will not -- travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php

Very prescient, full of wisdom, and sound judgement.

[MADem]

121. If it bugs you, HIDE THREAD is your friend. NT

[asjr]

40. You honestly may not have intended

for your reply to be a punching bag of Hillary Clinton but that is what I take from it. I am not for Hillary Clinton because she was a victim. I am for her because she refused to be a victim. It seems 3/4th of this blog is turned over to Clinton bashing. It is senseless. She ran the gauntlet for 12 years; she has done a good job of senator for the state of New York. She is my kind of woman because she will not give up. Those who post she needs to get out now, she is toast, and she is dividing the party, are projecting their own problems on Hillary Clinton. Hells bells, the Clintons have been blamed for everything but sinkholes. And that may come next. Bill, who was admired previously is now the boogy man. Such hypocrisy is mind-boggling. Hillary and Bill are lambasted more than John McCain, the village idiot. You want more of Bush? Keep on bashing a good candidate then. And yes, when I was married I was verbally abused. And when I see the threads bashing others on DU, I feel it all over again. It makes me go back 30 years and I do not like it. It must make those of you who constantly bash others feel really great. What a pity.

[merh]

51. You can check my past posting.

I've never found bill to be the hero others thought him to be, especially when he wrote in his memoirs that he had the relationship with monica "because he could".

Challenging someone's OP trying to equate the opposition to hillary's candidacy to some type of domestic violence is not making hillary a punching bag.

Hillary is getting equal treatment and you all don't like it. Elizabeth Edwards said it best.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzRQxxldBvk

[Adelante]

11. Very sensitive OP

I appreciate your thoughtfulness. I have objected to sexist language on DU many times, as I have to racist language. DU does not condone either. In relation to Senator Clinton and this primary, I think part of the problem has been a lack of discernment at times about what is seriously sexist and when to shrug it off. I abhor violent sexist language or ordinary sexist language, but at the same time, it is too easy to turn an offhand remark into an inter-gender incident. Clinton is in the rough and tumble world of politics. If Olbermann, for example, had said what he said yesterday about two male politicians, nobody would have blinked an eye. There is a disconnect between Clinton's self-proclaimed image as tough and able to take it as it comes and the backlash against something relatively tame as an off-PC metaphor. I think overreacting to such minor incidents diminishes the dead seriousness of true violence against women, which is experienced every single minute somewhere in the world. I think, as feminists, we need to be judicious and weight for intention. Did Olbermann mean Clinton should be taken into a room as a woman and physically beaten? No, he meant she should be taken into a room as a politician and given a talking-to. That was obvious from the video to anyone who wasn't on a crusade.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

19. I really like what you're saying, decrying all statements delivered in less than

perfect ways in regard to Sen. Clinton cheapens the discourse, when there are very real examples before us that should be addressing.

I've found myself responding in hypersensitive ways to things to which I would have laughed a few months ago, so I struggle with discernment myself. But there are some posts I've seen here recently that "ping" for me as being close to advocating and lobbying for violence against her or her supporters, as they do for others, here, as well.

The most surreal threads for me as those where I jump in to try to ask posters to see that using hateful, overtly sexist terms against Malkin, Coulter or any other RW woman are not OK. Me defending those purveyors of division and destruction is too wierd, but it's not OK to threaten violence against anyone, especially when using deragatory terms like, bitch or the c word.

It's been a tough primary for sure. Thanks for your thoughtful and thought provoking post. :toast:

[blue sky at night]

12. I am going to call you a name...

a very erudite poster, and Thanks...it all runs true. WE need to watch what we think, and say, or it could come around to punish us later.

[Armstead]

14. I agree about the tone, but I resent the political implication

I'm guilty of saying a lot of mean things about sen. Clinton....Although I do refrain from anything I would consider a gender-based insult or attack, which I find offensive too.

Apart from the obvious jerks, I would say that both sides in this primary are about equal in the tone and ratio of reasonable differences and flame fests.

Clinton generally gets slammed on terms she would get slammed about whether she were male or female.

Anyone who believes she should be given special treatment because she is a woman should take heed of Hillary's own advice: "If you can't stand the heat...."

[Upton]

16. What does this have to do with the election

except to portray Hillary Clinton as a victim?

[ScarletSniper]

20. I agree. Hillary is no victim nor is she the recepient of domestic violence..

[Medusa]

25. Although boy does Hillary (and her supporters) love to play the

"Victim" card.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

31. Yes, victim is the word of the day.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

22. Ah, victim. There's a loaded word.

I was just wondering if on this large message board, there are those posting who are perhaps not just victims, but those who victimize them.

I guess I should just assume all who read and post here are kind and compassionate and don't believe in physically assaulting those who are weaker or less inclined to violence than they are.

[ScarletSniper]

36. Actually, I witnessed domestic violence as a child for a number of years ..so its not as if I'm not

familiar with it..I just don't see how it applies to Hillary.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

43. It was my response to some posts about her

or her supporters.

I'll give the mods a lot of credit, they zap a good number of them, but they are breathtaking in their overt rage and hostility, with the worst sexist terms thrown in for good measure.

One that's currently up says something like "I'd rather be a Bot, than a sheep (meaning Clinton supporters) because sheep are sheared and then slaughtered."

I still remember one saying that he only hit women who deserved it, and that Sen. Clinton deserved it for saying, whatever it was she said.

If you've experienced DA, that statement is chilling.

Fortunately, that one didn't last too long.

A couple of years ago, that would have been an instant TS. Not so much now.

BTW, I like your posts, I've enjoyed reading them lately. :hi:

[ScarletSniper]

58. Nice to meet you!! And thanks for staying nice and friendly!

:bounce: :hi:

[dailykoff]

26. You didn't even TRY to connect this to the primary candidates or their records.

This belongs in the lounge.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

29. I feel a mass alert coming on.

:hi:

Heaven knows, I brought down the usually high minded, well researched dialog about the candidates' issues here. :-)

[Armstead]

39. No you got called on an inappropriate connection

Domestic abuse has nothing to do with the primary campaign.

Your basic point about the tone of DU would have been reasonable. But trying to connect that to Clinton is flamebait.

(The only connection I can make is the politically incorrect observation, that if Hillary has been an abused spouse, it has been at the hands of her philandering husband.)

[EFerrari]

48. Imho, pointing out that prominent women are casually insulted

and even threatened is legitimate.

What is not legit is ascribing that behavior to one camp because unthinking people, period, engage in that behavior.

[Armstead]

55. That is basically the point I was trying to make

Although I wouldn't exclude noting that prominent men aren;t excluded from being casually insulted and threatened either.

[EFerrari]

64. As we just saw, where Jeremiah Wright got death threats

over a Fox News scam. That's right.

[dailykoff]

56. Imho, you're flogging a wedge issue for the benefit of a ringer.

Sorry to be blunt.

[EFerrari]

63. No, I'm not.

:)

Edit to add: Not trying to be a smartass here. I did live with the threat of violence and in isolation with that threat for a long time. So, my druthers is for the topic to be aired if it can be, reasonably. That's all.

[dailykoff]

57. Not a bad idea now that you mention it.

:hi:

[countingbluecars]

32. You turned an important issue

into flamebait by posting it in GDP.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

35. It was a coin toss. Since the most recent examples have been

regarding Sen. Clinton, I figured it should be here. Boy, did that coin land wrong.

Oh well, I did get some very nice, thoughtful responses from Sen. Obama supporters, gives me "hope". :-)

[rodeodance]

34. Thank you for a thoughtful and meaningful post

[Forkboy]

37. No woman ever has been, or ever will be, on the recieving end of my rage.

But I have done violent things in the past to men that I'm not overly proud of, even though it felt justified at the time, as they were pretty lousy individuals who did the type of stuff you speak of. But their violence doesn't excuse my own, something I learned later on.

I've come to realize though that the capacity for violence is in all of us, though biologically men are more apt to employ it. Some of our beliefs themselves, regardless of which sex holds them, can lead to violence, whether we personally enact it or not, something else I've tried to learn and understand.

Basically, humans are a pretty psychotic species. And animals as a whole, which we are, tend to victimize the weak, the sick, and the "other" for their own benefit or out of their own fear. I truly believe most men who abuse their wives or girlfriends do so mostly out of fear of strong women.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

47. Forkboy,

what a superb post.

Wow. Just wow. You sound like an amazing person. Thanks so much for that response. :loveya:

[Forkboy]

53. No, thank you for the OP.

I just find human nature to be fascinating, though quite often disturbing. But sometimes it's quite positive too. What drives each of us is such a complex house of cards that it's amazing we can function at all. :)

[EFerrari]

44. The problem is, in part,, that the Clinton campaign has declared

that women are their domain.

I'd post a pro-Obama thread from a feminist perspective to prove the point, but I'm sure that you can see where I'm going with this. I was once told I was untrustworthy and should not be discussing women's issues at all.

The abuse goes in both directions. And I imagine a lot of people, from different perspectives, are feeling somewhat unsafe here at this point.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

49. Absolutely and I, myself, would love to hear how Sen. Obama is in regard to those

issues which I hold so near and dear, reproductive rights, equal pay, real teeth in DA laws, protecting children, the elderly and the ill and so forth.

With the detrius that is flying about, I've not had the opportunity to pursue that conversation with those who are feminists supporting Sen. Obama.

[EFerrari]

59. When you have the time:

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/DomesticViolenceFactSheet.pdf

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

61. Thank you!!!

:hug:

[yurbud]

45. I think the most strident voices in this forum are paid to be so.

When certain issues pop up, and especially around election times, there are oddly well worded but vacuous posts, and the posters seem unwilling to respond in anything other than canned talking points like you would hear on TV but few use here.

[seaglass]

89. Frankly I think that's a convenient excuse. There are many vile

posts from members who have been here for a number of years. Members who should know the rules and should care about the civility on DU, no matter how much the rules have been relaxed in GDP this year.

It's easy to say they are not US but they are US. I have learned after being on DU since 2001 that Democrats, or those who purport to be, are really NO BETTER than the Republicans I abhor. The evidence is available daily in this forum.

My only hope is that when the primaries are over, the rules will again be enforced and those who cannot communicate without attacking will find someplace else to play - either by choice or not.

[barack the house]

50. Yeah wife beating isn't a name at all, these accusations didn't really help Hillary's cause at all.

I haven't even got a wife, been very un fortunate in love. I don't remember the labels that Obama supporters haave cast to ALL Hillary supporters. Statistically most crimes aginst women have been by Republican men so if defecting it's something to note.

[emilyg]

52. I hope you don't mind if I add

I see a lot of demeaning words on DU about Clinton. I always wonder if those people call the women/men in their lives by the same names. Words can escalate to physical harm.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

60. I know what you mean.

Words hurt and incite, they are powerful.

And, the relentness name calling, which dehumanizes the subject, has me wondering if those who post that with such ease, express that as well, in their real life.

[Jamastiene]

111. Verbal abuse is still abuse.

Sometimes, the verbal abuse can leave lasting wounds that take much longer to heal.

[Bonobo]

65. How, in God's name, is this a subject for GD:P!?

[EFerrari]

66. You could frame it this way: Abusive behavior (where speech is behavior)

against women with public lives is connected to the lives of all women.

And, that would be true.

[merh]

70. I call bullshit

come on, clinton is getting everything that she dishes out, the "attacks" are to her campaign, her persona, her choices, - they aren't happening because she is a woman and only because she is a woman. Those attacks were made on all the other candidates before they dropped out, are made against obama and are most certainly made against bush and cheney and mccain.

This is a load of hooey, as a woman I resent like hell that this is twisted into some sort of domestic abuse issue. She is being treated as an equal and that is what she wants and is what should be expected.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Mc3GQmGGms

[EFerrari]

72. But that's a different layer. If the OP meant to twist this

into some kind of new "Evita" opera for Hillary, you're right.

Independent of that, how women in public life are treated does affect all women.

They're not the same argument and shouldn't be twined together, as I said up thread.

[merh]

79. But they are entwined and that is what the OP intended to do

when she posted it in this forum.

What has a greater impact on the women's right issues is not how they are treated but how women react when in public office. They are the "role models" and they can't be the instigators and the aggressors and then complain when they are actually treated as equals, when they are given back just what they are giving.

And the truth is, obama has not given back to hillary 1/10th of what she has dissed out. Her behavior is why her favorability rating is so low.

[EFerrari]

80. Obama has handled the filth tossed at him like a champ. n/t

[merh]

81. Most definitely.

The OP is an attack on obama supporters here at DU.

The passive/aggressive crap grates on my last nerve. It is a phony as the plastic turkey bush used that thanksgiving in iraq.

:grr:


:hug:

[EFerrari]

82. I live in California. Plastic is in our blood here.

lol

:hug:

[merh]

83. plastic?

from all the toxins we have in our environment and systems here since Katrina, our blood has to have some plastic in it too :freak:

that doesn't make this load of kaka any easier to take.

speaking of toxins and Katrina, that is one of my personal pet peeves with the health care, female loving candidate. Her subcommittee still remains inactive, still hasn't begun to investigate our health concerns.

[tblue37]

67. Abuse isn't just hitting--it is also deliberately threatening and intimidating, even if

hitting doesn't occur. I know someone whose boyfriend and brother have (separately, at different times--not both together) yelled at her and come at her, yelling and flailing their arms in a threatening way. Each one is also guilty of once grabbing and shoving and pulling her--though, again--not hitting. But even if they had never touched her, the loud "roaring" of their anger, the throwing and breaking of things, and the deliberate physical intimidation of a much smaller and weaker person are forms of abuse, too. Just the threat of physical violence is abuse, and a certain sort of yelling or violence done to inanimate objects is just as threatening as actually "fronting" her (which they also did.

[tblue37]

68. BTW, why not post a poll asking people if they have abused. They could then weigh in without

identiifying themselves.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

74. That's an intriguing suggestion.

I would like to mention that if anyone has at one time perpetrated violence on others, it doesn't mean they are bad or evil or anything like that.

They are reacting in anger and there are plenty of instances of those who at one time lashed out physically getting a handle on that anger and completely ending that behavior. They are to be commended for making the effort to understand themselves in an effort to stop doing that which is harmful.

Now, I have to tear myself away, but :loveya: the wonderful responses.

[woo me with science]

113. Unfortunately, you will get the recovered memory people chiming in

along with the people who were actually abused. If you ask a question about abuse experiences here at DU, a significant percentage of your respondents will be people who never discovered until adulthood that they were savagely abused as children. The problem of recovered memories is still so rampant that researchers in child abuse have to take special measures to screen out such respondents in their research studies. If you have seen previous threads about abuse on DU, you have seen the emphatic defense of survivorship staples including satanic ritual abuse, "body memories," preschool pornographic sex rings, and government mind control projects to turn children into color coded multiple personality sex slaves. If you ask about abuse at DU, you WILL hear from these people.


If you could restrict the question to those who have always remembered their abuse, the results would be much more interesting and enlightening.

[tblue37]

120. The point was that the OP said she didn't want to ask people if they were

ABUSERS, because she was repsecting their privacy. I said that if they could take an anonymous poll, many people would admit to having abused someone. We weren't referring to those who had been abused (whether in reality or in false recovered memories), but to those who had abused others.

[il_lilac]

69. great post

Rascism and sexism have really touched a lot of nerves in people. Tho a late coming Obama supporter, I have cringed at people I respect (here and outside) using violent and/or sexist terms.I repeatedly call people on their Clinton bashing. Watching the interview with Wright last night he enlightened me to my own lack of racial understanding. No matter how openminded I think I am, I can only see the world clearly through my own experiences. Having never been black (or a man, jew, muslim, etc) I can not fully grasp how the world looks to them. If we can admit that what we have been taught or shown about women, people of color, our country, ... might be skewed or misleading or dangerous, we stand a chance of becoming closer to whole. Sorry if I rambled- too many thoughts to put clearly into words.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

71. Thank you, your post is great. :-)

I certainly have had to do my own share of personal introspection in how I filter my views of the world, and that's not a bad thing.

I really like your post, thank you again. :-)

[reggie the dog]

73. all I can say is that

I never hit any of my girlfriends or my wife ever.

[Straight Shooter]

76. Well done. The usual rationalizers are seeking to distract.

I like the way you stay focused on-topic.

This election is like squeezing the pimple of America's psyche. The stuff that's oozing out, ugh. Just plain ugh.

[Celebration]

78. What is the corollary to this?

It seems to me that you are implying that men here use hateful language toward women, and that they might be abusers.

I agree that there is sometimes hateful language used, but very little of the time is it gender specific. It is also directed to both candidates, in about the same proportion of posts as there are supporters for each candidate. However, you may be thinking that Clinton is getting the brunt of the abusive posts (when really Obama just has more supporters here, by far).

But you got me thinking--I wonder what the polls would say if they divided up women by whether or not they have been victims of abuse. Would the women who have suffered domestic violence be more likely to vote for Clinton than those who haven't? I have a feeling there would be a strong correlation there. The women who have been abused might be more likely by far to generalize the feeling toward the abusive husband or boyfriend to all men, and be more empathetic to Clinton, who had her husband cheat on her in a very public way.

I always thought I was an Obama supporter who mostly fit the demographic of a Clinton supporter. But I have not suffered from domestic abuse, and I am not voting for my candidate because of gender. If the polls carved out women who had negative feelings about men due to being victims of domestic abuse, I bet we would learn a lot.

[hfojvt]

86. I decided that I disagree

From my life experience that this is not true: "if there is anyone here who has ever lost their temper and hit the woman, or man, in their life, that they are pondering the ramifications of that action. It reverberates for years, decades, with the one at the receiving end of your rage. It does nothing but create misery and pain."

A single punch or two does not constitute domestic violence, although many will announce a zero tolerance policy on it. I think there needs to be more of a frequency, a pattern, a deliberate use of violence to control and limit another person, and a more pervasive lack of respect or affection. I can still remember a few times my father hit, threw me and screamed at me and it does not reverberate with pain through the years. I don't whimper with fear remembering it, or shake with rage. I do however, still shake with laughter at the time my sister and I were having a minor food fight and my dad told us to settle down and I flicked a piece of pasta at him and it stuck to his forehead like I knew it would. He sat there for a minute or so, oblivious to the macaroni noodle stuck to his head while my sister was cracking up. My parents and siblings are pretty cool, but not perfect.

Sometimes the language of violence we use is just ridiculous. I remember when Trent Lott was removed as Senate Majority Leader and Frank Rich wrote that he had been 'decapitated' and I wrote and said "please, he's still a wealthy man and a Senator. He's not dead." The news now is all about how Hillary is "fighting for her political life" as if having to stay a Senator and multi-millionaire is somehow equivalent to being dead. Yet Biden, Dodd, Kerry, Kennedy, and Edwards manage it (although Biden is not a multi-millionaire and I don't know about Dodd).

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

95. "A single punch or two does not constitute domestic violence" I disagree.

And I'm sorry your father hit you, threw ayou and screamed at you. :hug:

You're among friends, here. :hug:

[Jed Dilligan]

90. Almost did once at age 18

Checked my swing.

I won't say the woman didn't deserve to be punched. But I wasn't going to be the one to do it.

Men, if you run into one of the ones who is constantly "asking for it," I suggest you walk the fuck away like I did.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

96. That's good advice. Better than the alternative, for sure.

:-)

[graycem]

94. I agree with with some of your points

certainly the statistic, so chances are, there are abusive men in our midst, just like there are abusive men in my own family. The only problem I have with part of your post, is that's the problem and biggest misconception about domestic violence. It is not, and has never been about anger. It is all about power and control. And the myth is often that men behave in the same way in public as they do in their homes, well, simply isn't true. In fact some (most) of the most horrendous cases I encountered as a domestic violence counselor involved men who could give you a list of 52 people in their communities willing to vouch for them on their upstanding, charming characters. They would never reveal that ugly mask to people who might take away their power. They would never validate their victims claims. Sure, some do, but that is WAY more rare than men who commit these acts in secret.

Domestic violence advocates have fought many battles for years getting the wording in legislation changed to reflect that. The reason is, when an individual that is the abuser, faces a judge, more times than not, the judge will sentence them to anger management which does NOTHING to address it because it is not about anger. That is such a fraud and it harms the victims in the long run, and further enables the abuse. It is equivalent to sending an alcoholic to gambler's anonymous. The abuser uses anger and hitting as tools, much the same way they use money as a tool, the same way they use guilt as a tool, the same way they use alienation from friends and any support system as a tool. In fact, a person can be an abuser without ever lifting a finger or curse and threaten the victim in some fit of rage.

This is a great topic by the way, but I think the people who use the language they do against Senator Clinton is more about raw aggression than how it relates to domestic violence.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

98. I struggled with articulating the OP, and did not even begin to approach your understanding.

I learned more about this reading your post and I thank you for kindly offering corrections and further insight.

In my experience, it seemed unbridled and unhinged anger was the culprit and the person targeted was on the receiving end of that rage. Of course, the control issue is huge, my own experience had me moving literally thousands of miles away to escape the man who refused to believe that I didn't "belong" to him, anymore.

I'm no expert, but I wonder if the control issue contributes to some of the language I've seen used in regard to Sen. Clinton and other powerful, influential women. I recall recently reading, here on DU, a "scolding" from a dad with two teenage daughters, who was chastising Sen. Clinton in his post because he compared her with them and said that if either of his two daughters had been drinking they would have been in trouble and THEN said Sen.Clinton should be grounded.

It was disturbing, because, first he equated a woman who was most likely older than he is to his own daughters and seemed to say he SHOULD have control of her and then talked about disciplining her as if she was an adolescent girl.

Your post should be an OP, it's very insightful.

[graycem]

99. I agree with you that

in the case of the man "scolding" Senator Clinton, to me, would actually be more of a red flag regarding d.v. than an outburst of ugly words. Abusers are rarely openly visible. Their power and control depends on their ability to hide it well. My sister has been a victim of some of the worst abuse over a period of about 25 years. Only recently did she attempt to leave the relationship AGAIN, and one of her close friends, not best, but certainly someone she's known for years was absolutely shocked. She always thought he was a "good guy." They are so freaking sneaky and manipulative.

And I certainly empathize with your own personal experience. It is atrocious the things that men get away with in the privacy of their own homes. I would ask you to evaluate your own experiences of violence though to understand it. For example, I once met with a victim who was literally beaten over lumps in mashed potatoes. She tried to walk on eggshells and do everything just right but she never could. He always seemed to get "angry" over the dumbest things. The reason why she couldn't find logic in it, was because he wasn't "angry" he was using anger as a means to terrify her on a whim, and that was to keep her under control. He wasn't really pissed about lumps in mashed potatoes, he did it to keep her off balance, she never knew what would "set him off" because he chose things at random. If he had been truly the type of person that angers over silly things like that, he would've punched the cashier at Wal-Mart just as easily. He didn't, because it wasn't about anger.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

101. I see exactly what you're saying.

Thanks for continuing this dialog, it's providing me, and hopefully others, much understanding.

[graycem]

100. Also,

I meant to add, I'm glad you were able to get out of your situation. It is a shame that the victim is often the one who has to take the drastic measures of uprooting her life, but I can tell you that is the most dangerous time for the victim, when she chooses to leave. So many women have lost their lives at that exact point, so I am glad you are safe. You should volunteer at a shelter or something if you ever had the opportunity. That is some of the most helpful things for current victims, are hearing the stories of encouragement of former victims. It gives them a chance to see that they could actually pull it off too.

[quantass]

97. Interesting Post: Curious...I dont understand something about Women... please help me understand!

Please dont take what i am saying as anything offensive because seriously i am not in any way...i am very interested in understanding why women just dont leave an abusive relationship....when i see it on tv or hear it from people i get the impression that in some insecure way women enjoy being dominated by a man or something because if women really wanted to leave they could. I know if i was a woman i know i wouldjnt take that shit and fight back or better yet, LEAVE!

So can you explain to me what is going on in your mind or other womens minds that have been abused because this is very interesting and insightful.

I definitely feel for you and other women in their situation and so you making me understand will highten my sympathy.

Thanks very much

[dana_b]

103. Some get used to it or sometimes it's all you know.

if dad was an abuser or if others in the family are, sometimes a woman is more likely to be drawn (although unknowingly) to someone who also is an abuser.
Other reasons could be not wanting to take kids away from dad, financial concerns - nowhere to go, scorn from people in your life who are enablers, etc. There are a list of reasons and probably some I've never thought of or heard of.

[LWolf]

105. I can explain some of the factors.

I grew up the daughter of a single mother who was abused by both her husbands and every boyfriend save one. He died.

I endured 10 years in an abusive marriage before I finally emerged from the conditioning I grew up with.

Women from my mother's generation were raised to be obedient. The man wore the pants, the woman submitted. There was no equal power in the relationship. Women were dependent and subservient. In better situations, men actually loved and valued their wives, mothers, and daughters. In others, they didn't.

Women who were raised in homes with authoritarian and/or abusive men are conditioned to believe that it's normal. That's the "way men are." They accept the unacceptable. They often believe what their abusers tell them: that they "deserve" it.

My mother finally, in her 40s, just stopped having relationships. She figured out that, for some reason (My guess: early conditioning,) she was only attracted to abusers, and she stepped out of the game.

I grew up watching my mother allowing abuse, and being furious about it. Two of her abusers abused me as well. I just believed that's the way men were. I had, unfortunately, not a single positive male example. So when I married the first time at way too young an age, I thought it was "normal." I was determined not to let my husband walk all over me though; I fought back. That actually resulted in more violent encounters than if I'd meekly accepted it, but I didn't figure this out for some years. I thought that was the obvious response. It took ten years and further education in the real world for me to realize that not ALL men are abusers. I got free and never looked back.

When women are raised to believe that men are supposed to be "the boss," that women deserve "discipline" from men, and that they can't make it on their own without a man, they put up with abuse. Some are afraid to make it on their own financially. Some are afraid of the social stigma attached to being single. And yes, there is still a social stigma to being without a partner.

Just a few of the factors.

[graycem]

106. That is the most common

thing that people say. Why doesn't she just leave???! The truth is so much more complicated but I will tell you the basics. When a woman is in an abusive situation, often she's deeply in the relationship, before she's ever aware of it, because it starts out in subtle ways, like jealousy for example. Many women find this endearing or even flattering. Not that all jealous people will become abusers, but it is one of the most prominent warning signs.

Next, once she's in that relationship, it becomes a game of cat and mouse. Usually the abuse occurs, then he's terribly sorry, and they go from shock and usually even shame and embarrassment that this is happening to them, back to the honeymoon phase (where he continues doing "nice things" like sending flowers, etc.) many times. The manipulation of an abusive man is very intentional, and he's got plenty of knowledge about it, because usually abusive men had abusive fathers and they've watched the techniques become perfected for years.

Ok, once she is in the relationship, especially when children are involved, it becomes more dangerous, because often they threaten that if she leaves, he will kill her and "her" kids. He usually sees the children as just another tool. Financially, he's in control. Abused women never are allowed to control the bank accounts. He severs her support system from friends and family, by accusing her of cheating, etc. He keeps her in this controlled environment, all the while telling her she's fat, stupid, ugly, nobody else would ever want her, and after years of this, the damage to her psyche many times cannot be undone, and certainly not overnight.

And the justice system does LITTLE to protect them. Restraining orders are nothing more than a piece of paper if the police officers don't enforce them, and laws are geared to enable the lack of enforcement. Some states require the police officer be an eyewitness which is a JOKE. That coupled with the fact that abusive men usually encourage alcohol or drug addictions, they subject women to cruel punishment for the sake of making them appear "crazy" to outsiders who can't find an explanation for her erratic defensive behavior, all the while, being model, upstanding citizens, and the "good guy." Police attitudes enable it, because when a woman does get the courage to call in law enforcement, they see a "mutual" fight if the woman has done anything, like scratching or kicking to defend herself. The male law enforcement officers too, have a tendency to put themselves in the shoes of the abuser, by saying well he had a bad day at work, she was nagging, or any excuse they can find to benefit the abuser.

Finally, when a woman leaves, that is the absolute most dangerous time, and she knows it. He threatens to kill her and he means it. So she weighs the benefits of having the world against her with just staying and putting up with it. Shelters are there, but many of them are no picnic. It is set up in a way that is communal so you and say your 3 kids, share the facilities that are usually sparse with 15 other women and their children. You have to leave everything you own behind, your kids don't understand why you are leaving daddy, why they can't bring their toys, why they have to change schools, it goes on and on the things that work against leaving. So, sadly, usually it's easier for her to stay. The whole system is the problem. It enables it and not enough people call these men on their actions, from neighbors, to family members, to the police, to the courts. Until all of those people work in conjunction, things will ALWAYS be tilted in the abuser's favor.

[bhikkhu]

115. Roles become hardwired into the mental framework.

A girl who is treated badly can become a woman who is treated badly, and it is in a way this treatment becomes a "comfort zone", a familiar role where action and reaction are known and predictable.

Someone who is so conditioned has difficulty in a healthy relationship, or one where partners are equally responsible and equally strong. In such a relationship the sense of order would then be lacking - things are out of place, there is a feeling of wrongness, of doubt and uncertainty, of a void beneath the feet. There may be happiness but it is tenuous and opens into fear of loss rather than comfort and security.

Not to go to far, as I have observations rather than solutions.

[OneBlueSky]

116. I do some work (writing) for a battered women's shelter . . .

and you'd be amazed at how prevelant the problem of domestic violence (along with sexual assault and dating abuse) is in our culture . . . if you have a chance to support your local domestic violence service provider, please do . . . it's important . . .

[JNelson6563]

117. The abuse here is staggering

though I have noticed there is little difference between the genders on the abuse here in DU GDP.

Julie

[pecwae]

118. K