AbusersAnon.com – A help centre for domestic abusers

After reading quite a few questions and answers here about who’s more violent or emotional and mentally unstable, it seems that some men think that women are because they simply allow their emotions to control them and because of some of the statistics provided on MRA sites(they would have you believe every mother is a child abuser).
Women who believe men to be more violent and irrational say so because of the statistics which are provided by Feminist organisations(correct or not? I do know some good men) and also say that many American men are very irrational and disturbed… After reading about a fair few men here with their constant woman-bashing, I’m starting to wonder if they’re right, simply because of their own words.
Who’s more irrational and violent in your view?
Sharkboy, interesting answer(thumbs up). Yanno it doesn’t matter to me who is more of this or that, just hope to get accurate info.
This is a difficult one to decide on. So will go to a vote, but I appreciate all answers

I can’t claim to know who’s more rational, but considering white men have all the privilege, they are, and have been, the more violent gender. Privileged classes are always more violent because they can get away with it- privileged women can do this, as well.

hi guys, black english guy speaking,
in our country interraqcial relationships are not a bother, to the extent that we even just call them ‘relationships’

The U.S. only recently declared interracial relationships legal since 1967, and since then the ia,ge of two people of non similar somatic skin tones cholding hands has been basttling and seeking acceptance into the american psyche

now i dont know if the statistics are true, they probably are not
but something like 70% of black amrrican women have no men

due to pyschological shortcomings of marrying or dating stereotypes, this may be so

so i ask the question, rwhy do women fall for stereotypes

the players, the users, the abusers,
you have seen the movies, and you have seen what happenes to your friends, so why do you fall for the same guys, paying the same lines, wanting the same thing week after week?
consequentially

if adifferent guy, from a different race asked you out, one who was everything the player wasn’t. i.e. smart educatd with a job, would you simply turn him down because he wn’t the same colour or would you hear his case?

as for me, i think american accents are gorgeous, andthinknig of visiting, who knows where it may lead

i have no aversion to any race etc, but ok, do any of you feel an olbigation to these statisitics?

shold one visit america and try to rescue the 70% population by offering them a fresh of air as a black guy with a strange english accent who isn’t offering the same thing that all the players have been whispering in your ears,
or should onesimply date freely with the psychology in his mindset

i think one should date freely, but still, the tiny sense of purpose with regards to feeling sorry for the 70% of blak women out there with no guy does bother me a little

thoguhts and feelings please
I mean maybe i’m lending my worries to the wrong place. i certianly cant fix the problem, and maybe it’s something afro american women should work harder to resolve

but yet it’s a lke a litte something in my mind which wont go away…

i guessit’s just the english fairy tale, of prince charming rescue the afro american cinderella

and taking her to a new life in boring boring england

incidentally, how many americans (afro and others) would even consider leaving their beloved america to live in the uk?

or more to the point would they trust a black guy that dosent conform with the image they have in their minds…

not saying no black smart americans exist..not t all

jsut saying that women seem to put up with so many losers, then complain afterwards about the situation
infact it’s the same problem in the uk

well dressed black smart sceintist are like the bottom of the picking order as they dont psychologically coform with the identity of what a black guy should be like

however there are pelnty of less acadeicaly and socially noursihed guys who owmen seem to accept on a regualr basis, the idea of the gangsta wannabe seems to be a much more soothing hamrony for them as its something they identify with, as opposed to a guy who has actualy worked his stuff out and is not going to give them the normal social economy problmes that all their favourite R and B stars seem to sing about

what do you guy think

are we really scared of changefor the better?

let me know ladies and gentlemen
i hear you mellei, i guess i ma not being helpful with comments like stereotype, but i get so annoyed when i hear women moan about the same problems yet reject nice guys because they dont fit the images and perceived motions of guys the have in their heads, who are the same guys thaey keep moaning about

Hi there, this is a very long post, but I thought I would make a comment. I am a black girl from Canada and it is my experience that many black men only further ingrain the stereotype by bringing attention to themselves in inappropriate ways. I am not saying this is every black guy, but many that I have run into have done this. Maybe I’m just unlucky, but that’s what I have experienced. I say we forget about it and just refer to each other as people

"MALE VICTIMS, LIKE THE FEMALE VICTIMS BEFORE THEM , have encountered their share of critics and detractors, people who refuse to believe them, ignore prevalence statistics, minimize the impact of abuse, appropriate and deny males a voice, or dismiss male victimization as a "red herring."

In many respects, male victims are where female victims were 25 years ago. Most of us forget the enormous opposition the women’s movement encountered as women began to organize and claim a voice to speak against violence and name their abusers/offenders. The services and supports that exist presently for women were hard won and yet are still constantly at risk of losing their funding. By comparison, there really is no organized male victims "movement" per se. Males, generally, are not socialized to group together the way women do, to be intimate in communication or to see themselves as caregivers for other males. In short, much of what male victims need to do to organize a "movement" requires them to overcome many common elements of male socialization, all of which work against such a reality ever happening."

SO WHY DON’T YOU LEARN FROM THE ACTIVISTS WHO CAME BEFORE YOU – THE FEMINISTS – ABOUT HOW ITS DONE?
Instead of BLAMING feminists, wouldn’t it be smarter to WORK ALONG WITH THEM?
*krickets chirping*
*krickets chirping*
"Working along with the feminist? Are you joking…"

AHA! That’s at the core of it. You guys really don’t care about boys being abused because you would be learning ways to help them. YOU CIRCLE JERKERS DON’T GIVE ONE WHIT ABOUT THESE KIDS.
Michelle, when WILL men learn to support their "peers"? They’re doing precious little. THEY DON’T WANT TO LEARN HOW because then they would have to take responsibility – and responsibility is not what they want. What they REALLY WANT is to blame women for their failures, This concern for molested boys, for the men "raped" by women they pretend to have, its all just a SMOKESCREEN.

Boys are taught to be strong in the "boys don’t cry sense." Further more, they are taught to dominate sexual events well before they have even an inkling of an idea of what a hard-on feels like, let alone knowing what sexual urges are.

Furthermore, they are taunted for being pu88y whipped if they so much as care what their partner thinks, and all the more so when they are prepubescent and pubescent.

Men and boys are exactly where women were before feminism because they are still taught the same thing we were (and, all to often, still are): What happened is, some how, their fault. They are simply not man enough: not strong enough, not masculine enough. Worse, yet, somehow they liked it. If they didn’t they would have fought back harder.

It’s a social failure to not realize that men can be molested and raped every bit as much as women. It is a social failure to think that it doesn’t hurt men as much, if not more given our misogynistic society. I mean, really, how strong, emotionally and physically must a man, let alone boy, be to be considered "man enough"?

The organizations for support do exist but, unfortunately, with far less frequency and numbers. It takes a absurd amount of strength and courage for any victim to speak out against rape and molestation. Men just get the added perk of being considered even more weak then women already are.

Don’t hate us for having fought for this and won a few battles (certainly not the war!). Realize that the same things that make it hard for you still do make it hard for us. Fight for yourself no matter what anyone says, thinks, or does.

It took decades even before protofeminist movements, let alone feminist, to help women to realize that they weren’t weak simply for being less physically strong. We had to convince ourselves, first, that we were every bit a valuable as men. Men have to be able to realize that they deserve it as well.

Rape is wrong no matter what. Even prison rape, as far as I’m concerned. No body, male or female, has the right to do that to another, and no single person, no matter how evil, deserves to have their body taken from them.

WHAT IS YOUR OPINION ABOUT IT.???

* Alcohol. Estimated annual cost: $166 billion. Binge drinking hits the unemployed harder on a per capita basis — 10.4%, vs. 8.4% of employed people. It is most prevalent in small metropolitan locales, rather than big cities or rural areas. The $18 billion spent on alcohol and drug treatment last year represented 1.3% of all health care spending.

**************

* Smoking. Estimated annual cost: $157 billion. The tab includes $75 billion in direct medical expenses, with the rest in lost productivity from ill patients missing work. Given the low-tax (or no-tax) underground cigarette economy on the Web and on Indian reservations, it’s unlikely that sales and usage have dropped much over the past decade, official government statistics notwithstanding.

**************

* Drugs. Estimated annual cost: $110 billion. Like alcohol, illicit drug use is more prevalent among the unemployed. Most addicts are also heavy drinkers, though only a small minority of alcoholics are drug abusers. Crystal meth has followed marijuana, cocaine and heroin as the drug of choice among the young set.

**************

* Overeating. Estimated annual cost: $107 billion. Overeating increases the risk of many health problems, including heart attacks. Obesity causes 14% of attacks suffered by males and 20% of those suffered by females, the National Institutes for Health says, and fewer than a third of adults get regular exercise. The bulk of the $107 billion is the direct cost to treat heart disease, osteoarthritis, hypertension, gall bladder disease and cancer.

**************

* Gambling. Estimated annual cost: $40 billion. Addicted gamblers often feel compelled to chase after bad bets with more money in the hope of winning back their losses. And some who catch the fever develop the need to periodically raise the betting stakes to keep the same thrill. Also, addicts often face job loss, bankruptcy and forced home sales, and they are at greater risk to commit crimes like forgery and embezzlement.

**************

i think any kind of addiction is bad.but all 5 addictions that you have pointed out are the worst.but i love to eat and at the same time i exercise a lot.

Things like how often it happens, what % of people get better, what % do it again, what are the best forms of treatment for abusers and those abused…

Hi Amber,
the links below are for websites with lots of info about DV. I hope you find the answers you’re after there.

Things like how often it happens, what % of people get better, what % do it again, what are the best forms of treatment for abusers and those abused…

Hi Amber,
the links below are for websites with lots of info about DV. I hope you find the answers you’re after there.

I copied each segment, from my source.

Some bold lettering that I found.

Among a large group of feminists,

1.) Increase Women’s Retirement Security

2.)Support Women-Owned Businesses,
"Increase the proportion of federal contracts awarded to women-owned businesses from 3.4 to 10 percent "

3.) Keep Women and Girls in the Picture

4.) Appoint Feminists to Key Positions

5.) Ratify CEDAW (International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women)

6.) Expand HIV-AIDS Prevention and Treatment Programs for Women and Girls.

7.) Provide a path to citizenship that allows immigrant women to have work permits (as opposed to the current dependent visas that prohibit any work, keeping abused women effectively captive to their abusers)

Best one for last,
"End federal funding of untested marriage promotion programs and "fatherhood" programs that take funding away from the parent who is actually raising the children in need "

This was posted,
"Of course I’ve heard it, it’s the excuse men use when they don’t feel like taking responsibility for their actions. Yes, children need their fathers. I mean look at the statistics on children who didn’t have fathers."

You can comment

I understand protecting women. But excluding men from gender netural problems.
What good does that do?

Now, to be fair, this can be done for MRA’s just as much.

Point being, why exclude either gender? What good does that really do?

Can someone explain to me?

Oh and sources,
Just one,
http://www.now.org/issues/agenda2009.html

I’m not sure what percent of Feminists openly support these goals, and what percent of them get orga*ms just reading them, but personally I find all of them gynocentric.

What’s with their victimizing single-fathers? Don’t they deserve support too?

They then of course chose the answer that supported there belief and even responded claiming it was sad we Catholics did not face up to it.So i did a quick search and found this article and see if you agree??

Making your church safe for children

(Published by Disciples Today, an online publication of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ, April 2002)

When you attend church this Sunday, take a look around at the people in your congregation. For every five women and eight men in your church, statistics show one woman and one man were sexually abused by the time they were 12. The majority of these people knew the person who abused them.

Since congregations are microcosms of our society, we can’t ignore that sexual abuse and pedophilia can occur within a congregation. With media attention focused on the Catholic Church and allegations of clergy sexual misconduct shrouded in years of secrecy, be aware that the problem is not confined to the Catholic Church. Nor is the crime of pedophilia related to celibacy.

"It’s in every denomination," said Carol Q. Cosby, retired director for Social Action Networks in Disciples Home Missions, "including the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)."

Late last year, Patsie Sweeden, regional minister, Christian Church in Kansas, learned that a former associate pastor and youth director from the Kansas Region had reportedly abused at least six young boys between 1979 and 1981. The pastor was serving in the Mid-America region at the time the abuse was reported to the Kansas regional office.

"When [the Mid-America] interim regional minister became aware of the situation, he acted on it immediately," said Sweeden. "We had excellent cooperation across regional lines, we all exited a horrible situation feeling like a process had worked well." Sweeden said the pastor’s standing in the denomination had been removed meaning he no longer had access to the relocation system of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and could not function as a pastor in the denomination. The legal system has acted on this situation as well.

While Disciples have no central office to collect statistics on sexual abuse cases related to pastors, according to Cosby, United Church of Christ denominational officials report that during the past decade, credentials are stripped from a minister, on average, once every two weeks. Furthermore, the majority of cases were related to "some form of sexual misconduct," including pedophilia. (http://www.cpsdv.org/Articles/UCC_Response.htm)

And a 1997 article in Christianity Today reports clergy are not the only offenders in a church. A 1996 profile in the Church Law and Tax Report concludes "volunteer workers are the most frequent abusers, constituting half of all sexual misconduct offenses in churches." (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/7tb/7tb090.html)

So who will protect the children? According to Father John Heagle of Therapy and Renewal Services, "In a community, not all of us are guilty, but all of us are responsible." So what can we do?

"There are some basic things every congregation needs to do to keep children safe," said Kaye Edwards, director of Family and Children’s Ministries in Disciples Home Missions. "We cannot assume that abuse is not going to happen simply because we are a Christian community."

Edwards added that congregations should consider the following:

Evaluate your building;
Raise awareness and educate members of your congregation;
Appoint a task force to develop and implement policies and procedures to protect the children and youth of your church;
Screen all paid staff and volunteers who work with children and youth;
Hold regular trainings for all paid staff and volunteers who work with children and youth.
Protecting our children against sexual abuse is one of the most important things we can do as a church community. Before you leave your church this Sunday, take another look around, this time at the children in your congregation. Then pray for them … and act to make your congregation a safe place for those children.
No i did not miss the point. But you apparrently have.You all act like the Catholic Church is the only ones who covered up such evil behavior and that is the point this article was making.It look’s as if were more than willing to admit it but you Protestants are still in denial..
Looks like no one read the article but then again that does not surprise me as all you anti Catholic’s would not accept any thing that just might prove your thinking is misguided.Hate has it’s own way of destroying those who folow it being as it’s one of Satan’s better weapons at decieving and blinding.

I read the article.

I used to belong in the Disciples of Christ congregation. Some great People. Looks like they are being pro-active about the issue instead of pretending it is not there.

The Catholics came late to the game, but now that Catholics have addressed it, other congregations should also and adopt the changes that the Catholic Church has made.

Background checks for Everyone that works with kids as well as a facility check and rules about being alone with kids.

google Catholic Virtus training.

Be careful, our Protestant Brothers and sisters, it is happening there right now, failure to act pro-actively will hurt you also.

Find statistics and facts on religious people. Like how southern baptists have the highest % of alcoholics and child sex abusers?

You forgot lowest IQ’s and astronomical violent crime rates. Obesity is also up there.

What are your thoughts on this statistic with respect to the safety of homeschooling versus that of a public or private school?

Also, are the homeschoolers reading this aware that if your parents ever do anything like that to you, it isn’t your fault, you won’t get in trouble and you should call: 1-800-4-A-CHILD (1-800-422-4453) so they can help you?

Wow. You really have no life, no friends, and no concept of reality, don’t you… You must realize how ridiculous these questions you post sound, don’t you? Perhaps you’re a satirist who simply isn’t very good at writing satire. Either way, you’re a sad case, and you should probably consider either finding a hobby, or giving psychiatric therapy a try.

To answer your question, not that it’s really worthy of an answer as anyone with half a brain can see how ridiculous you sound and what a fool you’re making of yourself, if a parent or guardian is abusing their child, the difference made by the child attending a public school is statistically insignificant. There are so many teachers today who are afraid to report abuse when they see the signs because they are afraid of being wrong and losing their job or getting in some other kind of trouble, and the child will likely be just as afraid to come forward. A socia worker is just as likely to hear of the case and take the appropriate actions whether the child attends school or not. Child abuse is horrible in any situation. To use this as an argument against homeschooling or to present it as a reason to abolish home education is as absurd as saying that public schooling should be abolished because of occurrences of severe peer bullying or teacher abuse which is reported in the news much more frequently than domestic abuse cases (at least in my own home state). Furthermore, if this is your reasoning for abolishing homeschooling, you must also logically be against parenting in general since such abuse can take place unnoticed no matter where a child goes to school.

But as I said, you’re only making a fool of yourself by posting such absurdities.