For those of you following the ex-husband Francis “Coyote” Shivers/Pauley Perrette ex-wife wrongful conviction, false accusations, trumped up restraining order, murder for hire soap opera, we’ve learned from independent investigators working for the various civil rights groups that one of precious Pauley’s boyfriends may have landed a bar-tending job at a cocktail lounge in Hollywood serving up Cucumber Dilettantes with muddled cucumbers and pink swizzle.

Mr. Shivers frequents the place where Boyfriend will be pouring drinks, popping beer caps, and flirting with movie star wannabees. Shivers and friends have frequented this area for over 15 years. He has worked at businesses within 100 yards of Boyfriend’s new job. And, tonight, Shivers is scheduled to work at the opening of an art gallery within a false accusation throw of Boyfriend’s swizzles. There are hundreds if not thousands of cocktail lounges (bars) in Los Angeles County and Boyfriend ends at this one. My bookie says, “20 to one against coincidence…putz.”

Network reruns watch out. This life size drama has all the telltale signs of another episode of NCIS with lab tech Precious Pauley discovering a restraining order violation in her very own laboratory, a laboratory wherein unknown to the show’s producers, copious quantities of designer drug consumption morphed into toe sucking bondage. Yikes!

Will Precious Pauley be sucking down Cucumber Dilettantes with bartending Boyfriend? Will she proposition little Ms. Mary showing way to much leg on at the bar three stools down. After laying in wait for hours at Boyfriend’s bar, will Precious Pauley miraculously discover that Shivers is working an art show down the street! OH MY GOD!  Aghast, shocked, shaking she’ll spill muddled cucumbers in her lap fumbling her cell-phone dialing 911. “Shit, it’s a new skirt. He’ll pay for that too,” she’s blurts. Who knew sweet innocence? He’s supposed to stay 100 yards away! Or maybe, LAPD Hollywood Division Detectives and Swat Team will chow down way to many stale doughnuts waiting to arrest unsuspecting Shivers?

As my trusted shrink Dr. T wrote,

“There is already an established pattern. Sociopathic borderlines/narcs are like Wile E. Coyote in that they use the same cockamamie tactics over and over again.  I find that when you shame and expose the transparent behaviors of these types before they act, you can head them off at the pass. When you shine a light on cockroaches, they usually scurry back under the baseboard. What you need here is the disinfectant properties of full exposure.”

I’m thinking Dr. T may have been suggesting shining a light on Precious Pauley, maybe even bartending Boyfriend with pink swizzle. Who knows, could be anyone, even an Assistant District Attorney or conjoined at the hip LAPD Threat Management Unit investigators whose jobs entail protecting celebrities from the good citizens of Los Angeles County, including the likes of harmless Mr. Shivers– could happen, cucumbers and all…after all, IT”S HOLLYWOOD, the land of make them believe you…

 __________________________

• ·  “Restraining Order Terrorism” — the Pauley Perrette/Francis “Coyote …

ncfm.org/…/restraining-order-terrorism-the-pauley-perrettefrancis-coyot…‎

Apr 13, 2013 – What happened to our Courts? They seem to no longer know right from wrong. Money and stardom in the Pauley Perrette case seem to control …

• ·  Pauley Perrette, Francis Shivers and yellow media | A Voice for Men

www.avoiceformen.com/…/pauley-perrette-francis-shivers-and-yellow-m…‎

Mar 25, 2013 – It appears that Ms. Perrette has a darker side, one that has exposed itself in her failed marriage to musician Francis “Coyote” Shivers, which has …

Coyote Shivers, Pauley Perrette Ex-Husband, Says NCIS Star of …

www.thehollywoodgossip.com › Celebrities › Pauley Perrette‎

Mar 25, 2013 – Pauley Perrette’s ex-husband says he broke up with the 43-year-old NCIS star after she slept with the pizza deliveryman, among other…

• ·  Ex-husband of ‘NCIS’ star accused of violating restraining order …

www.swrnn.com/…/ex-husband-of-ncis-star-accused-of-violating-restrai…‎

Feb 25, 2013 – Perrette, 43, testified last week that Shivers, a musician, showed up at a restaurant where the actress was eating, while Shiver said he just …

• ·  Pauley Perrette’s Ex-Husband Charged with Violating Restraining …

tv.yahoo.com/…/pauley-perrettes-ex-husband-charged-violating-restraini…‎

Mar 24, 2013 – Shivers is currently on probation for sending Perrette’s lawyer “harassing emails,” TMZ reports, and has now been charged with violating a …

• ·  “NCIS” Star Pauley Perrette Awaits Sentencing of Convicted Ex …

www.showbiz411.com/…/ncis-star-pauley-perrette-awaits-senten…‎

by Roger Friedman

Mar 23, 2013 – Scheduled for sentencing this week in a Los Angeles court room is Francis “Coyote” Shivers, whom Perrette managed to divorce after a short …

Star of CBS’s NCIS Pauley Perrette Accused of Hiring Hitman!

diaryofahollywoodstreetking.com/ncis-pauley-perrette-accused-hiring-hi…‎

Sep 18, 2011 – Star Of NCIS Pauley Perrette Accused Hiring Hit Man! … me for Pauley Perrette and Angela Garber”, said the now murdered, Lisa Williamson.

See Pauley Perrette at CBS NCIS.

Follow Pauley Perrette on Facebook. You’ll have to look it up.

Share and Enjoy:

]]> http://ncfm.org/2013/05/news/false-dv-allegations-news/will-francis-coyote-shivers-be-arrested-tonight-because-of-a-trap-set-by-ex-wife-pauley-perrette/feed/ 0 http://ncfm.org/2013/05/action/ncfm-calls-for-closer-scrutiny-of-violent-women-who-abuse-men-in-light-travis-alexanders-murder-by-jodi-aris/ http://ncfm.org/2013/05/action/ncfm-calls-for-closer-scrutiny-of-violent-women-who-abuse-men-in-light-travis-alexanders-murder-by-jodi-aris/#comments Thu, 09 May 2013 18:51:23 +0000 NCFM http://ncfm.org/?p=12767  

Press Release

San Diego, California, May 9, 2013

Contact: Marc Angelucci, Esq., NCFM Vice President, marcangelucci@hotmail.com   626-319-3081

SUMMARY: Travis Alexander’s murder by Jodi Aris was horrific by any measure. It may not have happened if more attention were paid to female perpetrators and their male victims. 

In light of the tragic murder of Travis Alexander by his ex-girlfriend Jodi Arias, the National Coalition For Men (NCFM) calls for more attention to the neglected side of domestic violence where the perpetrator is female and the victim is male.  The neglect of male victims is so prevalent that most people do not know Alexander’s name and the public rarely calls this a case of domestic violence.

Female-on-male domestic violence is not rare.  In 2011 the Centers for Disease Control announced that ”More than 1 in 3 women (35.6%) and more than 1 in 4 men (28.5%) in the United States have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime.”  (See executive summary at www.cdc.gov/ ViolencePrevention/pdf/ NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf)

The CDC’s data says 25% of domestic violence deaths happen to men.   www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dvp/ipv_factsheet.pdf   And a study funded by the CDC examined heterosexual relationships throughout the U.S. and found: “Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence,and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocallyviolent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases.” www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/5/941

Hundreds of empirical studies have found “women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, as men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners (and that men account for 1/3 of physical DV injuries). See www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

Male victims frequently find themselves trapped in a living situation with a violent partner whose violence arises from impulse problems, alcohol, drugs, or even mental illness such as borderline personality disorder, as Arias was diagnosed with.  Weapons and the element of surprise are used to compensate for strength difference, as Arias did.  Male victims often do not want to hit back for fear of being arrested.  Children are often present, and the male victims need a place to escape with their children for safety and to get help so they and their children are no long subjected to the violence.

Some countries, like Switzerland and The Netherlands, government-run battered men’s shelters where male victims and their children can go to escape the violence and avoid any escalation.  But most have no shelters for males.  In Calgary, Canada, a man named Earl Silverman who established Canada’s first battered men’s shelter had to fund it out of his own pocket because the government refused to help, and he recently commmitted a widely publicized suicide after having to close the shelter for lack of funds.

In 2008, NCFM won a landmark appellate case on behalf of battered men in California called Woods v. Horton (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 648 that held it is unconstitutional to exclude male victims from state-funded services and that found domestic violence is a “serious problem for both women and men.”  More recently, NCFM helped establish an official Task Force on Male Victims of Domestic Violence within the Los Angeles County Domestic Violence Council.  Yet male victims and their children still must travel to the remote desert community of Lancaster because no other state-funded services in Los Angeles County will provide them shelter or even a hotel voucher.

“Victims are victims,” said NCFM Vice President Marc Angelucci, an attorney who represent the plaintiffs in Woods v. Horton.  “We cannot stop the cycle of domestic violence without addressing this problen honestly and in its entirety.  NCFM calls on the public and media to recognize this reality and take action to stop all forms of domestic violence regardless of gender.”   

Jodi Aris is not the only violent woman who murdered a man. And, her defense team still tried to blame Travis’s corpse.

San Diego, California, May 7, 2013

The National Coalition For Men (NCFM) proudly announces the first annual International Foreskin Awareness Week, from May 6 to May 12, 2013.

Contact:

Steven Svoboda, Esq., NCFM PR Director, arc@post.harvard.edu   925-395-2065

“One of NCFM’s goals is to educate the public about the lesser known issue of discrimination against men and boys.  In light of the recent announcement of International Clitoris Awareness Week by Clitoraid (an organization that focuses on advocacy against female genital mutilation while also opposing male genital mutilation), the importance of raising awareness about male genital mutilation is more critical than ever,” said NCFM President, Harry Crouch. “That’s also why we’re scheduling International Foreskin Awareness Week for the same days as International Clitoris Awareness Week.

As part of International Foreskin Awareness Week, NCFM encourages men and women around the world to educate themselves, and others, about male genital mutilation and take action to stop it.

NCFM Public Relations Director J. Steven Svoboda said:

Male genital mutilation, or ‘circumcision,’ is comparable to removing a girl’s clitoral foreskin, one of several forms of female genital mutilation.  Female genital mutilation is illegal in the U.S. and many other countries, as it should be, despite being credited with purported health benefits similar to those attributed to male genital mutilation and despite certain cultural practices that support or even require such genital mutilation.

Unfortunately, U.S. constitutional guarantees of equal protection are violated by our failure to as yet extend similar safeguards to baby boys.  While even a small ceremonial incision on a girl’s genitals is illegal, every year approximately one million American baby boys have their foreskins sliced off without their consent.

National medical associations in Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Finland have all recently condemned infant male circumcision as harmful, unnecessary, and a violation of medical ethics.  Recent studies in Belgium and Denmark confirmed the importance of the foreskin for penile sensitivity, overall sexual satisfaction, and penile functioning, and found circumcised men are five times more likely to experience sexual problems.   Moreover, a recent legal case in Germany held that circumcision violates the right to bodily integrity and is illegal.  A law that subsequently overturned the German court decision appears to be constitutionally unsound and thus inapplicable.

Svoboda added, “The male foreskin is one of the most sensitive parts of the entire body, with over 20,000 nerve endings.  The foreskin also serves important protective, immunological, and erogenous functions, acting as a natural buffer and lubricant during sex.”

The National Coalition For Men is a non-profit, educational organization that advocates for equal rights for men and women.  While NCFM in no way endorses circumcision, neither does it oppose men and women choosing to be circumcised once they legally become adults.

Foreskin – a man’s best friend.

The reason attorney’s fight against alimony reform.

NCFM NOTE: Notice the editorial below opposing alimony reform says, “If she finds herself divorced after 16 years, she would be expected to re-enter the workforce and become fully self-supporting within eight years. This simply ignores the harsh realities of today’s job market, and it tells parents they cannot risk staying home with their young children,” which is absurd on its face. First, stay at home moms divorced after 16 years often have used the “stay at home” time to get a college degree or other skills training; or, they achieved professional licensing or other proficiencies before they were married. In eight years a person can get an AA, BA, a Masters Degree, and graduate  law school. Or, they can go to a trade school and develop a well paying skill in six months to two years. I don’t care how bad the job market is. If a person can’t find a way to make a living in eight years they’ve been dead for four or more of those years; or, they haven’t cared enough to seriously seek employment. Whoever wrote this article apparently believes that stay at home parents, in this case women, are so stupid they have not developed any skills managing a home and family. If I were a woman I would be offended by such buffoonery.

The Bar’s real motivation

The letter below was published in The Tampa Bay Times on Saturday, April 27, 2013 and is followed by the Editorial to which it responded.

Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D.

The Bar’s real motivation

http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/letters/saturdays-letters-no-alimony-for-the-able-bodied/2117628#comments

Here is why Gov. Rick Scott should ignore the Divorce Vultures of the Family Law Section of the Florida Bar and sign the Alimony Reform bill.

The Florida Bar is motivated only by greed — not the best interests of the child or even those of the divorcing parents. In crafting and opposing legislation, the Bar’s goal is simple: write family law to maximize judicial discretion in order to maximize litigation. The Bar wants to maximize litigation so that divorce lawyers can charge vast sums to pick the last remaining dollars off the bones of the formerly intact family.

I urge Florida citizens to wake up to this hypocrisy and ask Scott to sign the alimony bill that passed both chambers by more than a 2-1 margin.

Gordon E. Finley, professor of psychology emeritus, Florida International University, Miami

Editorial: Gov. Scott should veto alimony bill

http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/gov-scott-should-veto-alimony-bill/2117210

It’s true that the 1950s are long past and men and women are more economically equal. But a bill sent to Gov. Rick Scott goes too far in taking alimony support from lower-earning spouses and stay-at-home parents, who are still overwhelmingly women. State law governing divorce is ripe for reform, but the Legislature has gone too far. Lawmakers have approved a whole new set of rules that unfairly rebalance the alimony scales to free higher earners of their long-term obligations to a former spouse. It’s not fair, and the governor should veto the bill.

Abolishing permanent alimony has been a long-standing goal of advocates for primarily divorced men and their new spouses. The group, Family Law Reform, says judges in the state sometimes provide permanent alimony in marriages that last as little as 15 years. This shackles the divorcing spouses to each another for life and may provide little incentive for alimony-receiving spouses to re-enter the workforce or remarry.

The group has a point. There are abuses. But the bill’s pluses don’t outweigh its minuses. The legislation dictates a series of formulas and unreasonably limits judicial discretion. What is fair in divorce is highly dependent on individual circumstances.

Under the legislation, alimony would be based almost entirely on the duration of the marriage without giving due weight to the needs of the parties and the capacity of the higher-earning spouses to pay, as it is now. There would be a presumption against any alimony for marriages of 11 years or fewer — longer than about half of all marriages last. That would preclude even a brief period of financial support for a spouse to obtain job training or a degree. And even when alimony is awarded, it could be for no more than 50 percent of the length of the marriage, unless a judge determines in writing why there is a need to depart from the rule.

Consider the woman who leaves a career to raise children upon mutual agreement with her husband that this division of labor is best for the family. If she finds herself divorced after 16 years, she would be expected to re-enter the workforce and become fully self-supporting within eight years. This simply ignores the harsh realities of today’s job market, and it tells parents they cannot risk staying home with their young children.

This is a full-employment bill for divorce attorneys. The legislation applies retroactively and allows alimony payers to reopen their finalized divorce settlements. Not only will this overwhelm the courts, but ex-spouses who were promised alimony and structured their lives based on that income stream could soon find it comes to an abrupt end. When divorces are settled, lower-earning spouses often agree to give up property or other marital assets in exchange for that alimony. It isn’t fair to have those payments yanked away.

The family law section of the Florida Bar opposes the bill because of its impact on children. Divorce law needs work, but the Legislature went overboard and Scott should veto the legislation.

The reason alimony reform is so difficult.

Alimony is a Florida divorce lawyer’s best friend.

Permanent alimony is a staple of the Florida Bar Association.

Harry and Earl at a conference. Thank you Mr. Silverman for all you did.

Social service types might still tell you that no one is to blame for a suicide, except the person who chooses to take their own life.   Everyone is responsible for their own actions, they say.

Of course, the latter has changed dramatically in the last 20 years or so. Now only men are responsible, they say, not just for their own actions, but for the wrongful actions of women.

Though I’ve never thought of it until now, perhaps that’s one reason (of the many reasons) the Feminist State refuses to provide emergency shelter services for men and their children. Perhaps that’s one of the reasons my friend Earl Silverman is dead.

Maybe that’s why he hung himself in his garage.

Maybe in a split second of regret, eyes bulging in terror, he dug at the tightening noose around his neck trying for a second chance at life.   But alas here we are today and no one to blame but Earl, so they say.

Yep, he did it all to himself.  He put the noose around his neck.  His hands tightened it.  Only he, a Man, is responsible so they say.

Earl was married a couple of decades ago. He was abused, so abused that he reached out to his community for help. He received none. Everyone in his community knew whatever happened had to be his fault. He must have made her do it, made her beat him, made her demean and emotionally abuse him.  It, (all of “It”) – his doing… He deserved what he got. It couldn’t be any other way. He was, after all, a MAN; she, the ever innocent and hapless woman, victimized by history and her rape culture patriarchal schmuck of a husband. Everyone knew… They knew…

Abused men, Earl thought, bleed just like women do. He had. Did. Men hurt, have feelings, they need support, especially when being abused, just like women do. So Earl believed. So abused had been Earl that he devoted his post divorce life to making the world better for the rest of us, especially abused men and their abused children, the marginalized and underserved who his country refused to help. They refused.

Death by asphyxia, no oxygen to the brain, his fault… No turning back. How often must he have contemplated the Darkness, an end to his unbearable emotional pain?  Could death be worse than the loneliness left by the flippant betrayal of his country?  A betrayal (as surely as he once breathed), that’s the “cause of death” of many others, beat down dead men swinging ever so slightly from a noose in the musty stillness of their garage? Do they care? Not one Canadian dime.

The Feminist State doesn’t care about men, except for their ability to work and fill their wallets for plunder.  After all, the money for shelters for abused women has to come from someone, right?  However it happened, Earl’s wallet was picked clean; then government bled out the rest of him at the morgue.

He, Earl, just didn’t get it. He figured some of the money taken by government should help men as well as women. Dumb. Men, entitled? That’s a Feminist State concept, “entitle,” as in “I’m entitled;” or, “what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine too,” I, Liberated Woman, stand on “Her” two feet after we pick him clean, dispose of, and bury him.

He gasped, convulsed a few minutes, then urinated and defecated down his legs, in what the day before was his own garage. Having sold his house, the shelter for abused men, he became just another man without a home. He had achieved male disposability, his hardest and final reality.

Over the years since his divorce Earl petitioned the rich provincial and Canadian governments for money to keep his shelter for men and their children open. Except for one small token grant he received nothing, while the same governments lavished millions upon millions on abused women shelters and programs!

Noose pulled tight by his body weight… Suspended, swinging, kicking, fingers digging to loosen the noose, desperately trying to turn time around for another chance… Lost and isolated; all thoughts of anyone he might turn too gone. He was alone in a maze of confusion, unable to navigate to safety. He was not crazy. He was defeated. Resolved. But would they say… his fault entirely.

Earl spent the last years of his life trying to make the world a better place for all of us. He tried one thing after another to raise funds for the shelter. He staged informational booths at various events, spoke at conferences, developed educational materials, became a liaison for the National Coalition For Men, tried to organize like minded organizations, did whatever he could to help others understand that domestic violence is not gender specific and abused men needed help too.

Did the air stir when the new homeowner and a friend found him?  Did Earl swing ever so slightly in the stench of his own murder?  And that’s what it was as surely as it was a suicide – murder, murder by disinterest by the Feminist State of Canada. What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is or will be mine too, especially in death, they say.

I don’t think he had any heirs, though I hope he does. I hope someone inherits whatever Earl left behind. I hope it’s not the Feminist State of Canada. One more insult to Earl that would be. Pay his abuser for murdering him. Ironically, for those of you in the know, that’s a not unusual truth – just macabre.

Alone he died. Together we cry. We love you Mr. Silverman, my friend, our compatriot. You will be sorely missed.

He was one of my heroes.  He towered tall for a short guy.  He helped so many in so many ways…He hung himself, alone, kicking, grasping at the noose…

They murdered Earl by suicide.  We will flush out your killers my friend, we surely will…

Maybe now, in light of Mr. Silverman’s premature death, the Feminist State of Canada will find funds to help abused men, establish several “Earl Silverman Abused Men Shelters,” and finally realize that women and feminized governments are capable of abusing men to death, even if it takes 20 years. They certainly should…

_____________________________________________________________

More about Mr. Silverman:

Man who ran Canada’s only shelter dedicated solely to male victims of domestic abuse dies in apparent suicide, National Post, April 28, 2013

Because nobody cares about men and boys , Dean Esmay, A Voice For Men, April 26, 2013

Fundraiser for Earl Silverman Center , The Moderate Voice-Apr 29, 2013

 Sometimes others cause suicide besides the victim.

When the stress and distress become unbearable suicide seems acceptable.

My address to the NY state libertarian party convention

Hi, everyone. Firstly, I want to thank Gary for inviting me to speak here, and thank all of you for being open to the different perspective I’m hoping to present to you.

Some of you–maybe all of you–might be asking yourselves, what on earth is an anti-feminist gender theorist doing speaking at a libertarian party convention. What the heck does gender, or feminism, have to do with libertarian politics and philosophies? The answer to that question is at once extremely complex, and very, very simple.

The simple answer is this: Gender influences everything. Including the size, scope and decisions of government.

And now, to complicate things a little.

In the microscale, gender affects the way men and women think, how they feel, how they process their interactions with the world, what motivates them, what influences them, what is important to them, what incentives are going to affect their behavior, and how. It affects how we perceive other people depending on whether they are male or female. It impacts on what we feel is appropriate, regarding both the behaviors, responsibilities and roles we expect of others, and the behaviors, responsibilities and roles we feel are appropriate for ourselves. It affects what roles and vocations, on average, a given person will find themselves suited to or interested in.

On the macroscale, gender affects the way society feels about people, depending on whether they’re male or female, what expectations society has of them, what obligations society is prepared to place on them, how, and how much, society cares about them. It influences whose voices society is prepared to trust on what issues and in what situations. It affects society’s willingness to punish or forgive, who society is interested in holding responsible and accountable for wrongs done, who society is prepared to devote resources to help or protect, and who society is prepared to cut loose.

So gender is kind of a shortcut societies and governments use when sorting priorities. Who is deserving of our help, support and protection–socially, legally and governmentally–and who is less deserving, or perhaps not deserving at all? How should that help be implemented, and how should it not, how much are we willing to spend, and how much institutional power and scope should government have to involve itself in the lives of citizens?

To demonstrate these effects of gender I’m talking about, I’m going to make a few statements, and I want you all to pay attention to how you feel when I say them. They’re statements I’ve culled from published books, newspapers, or the speeches of politicians, though you’ll notice I’ve flipped the genders for effect:

Men can do anything women can. And do it better. And do it with one hand tied behind their backs. –Barack Obama

When a woman strikes a man, she strikes all of society. –Hillary Clinton said exactly that about violence against women.

Women CAN stop false allegations of abuse and rape. –The “Men can stop rape” poster campaign is making an appearance on campuses across the US and Canada.

It cannot be assumed that women are bound to be an asset to family life, or that the presence of mothers in families is necessarily a means to social cohesion. –This gem, about how unnecessary fathers are, is from UK equalities minister Harriet Harman. She might be forgiven this sentiment if it wasn’t grossly inaccurate.

A mall roof caved in yesterday, killing 23 people and injuring more than 100. Tragically 4 men and one child were among the dead. –all right, that’s from any newspaper story about any tragedy. We hear about women and children because that makes a tragedy more tragic.

I want to see a woman beaten to a bloody pulp with a workboot shoved into her mouth like an apple in the mouth of a pig. –Change woman to man and workboot to high heel, and you’ve got second wave feminist Andrea Dworkin’s attitude.

Or even this: “It is an amazing thing to see in our city the husband of a laundress, or a fishwife, or a housemaid dressed in velvet with chains of gold at the throat, with silver buckles and boots of good value….and then in contrast to see his wife washing the clothes, chapped and bedraggled from the day’s labor, poorly dressed…. but whosoever considers this carefully will find it reasonable, because it is necessary that the gentleman, even if low born and humble, be arrayed in such fine form for his natural excellence and dignity, and the woman be less adorned as if a slave, or a little ass, born to his service.” –And this is perhaps the most interesting of all, since a gender-flipped version of it was written by Lucrezia Marinella, and published in her book “The nobility and excellence of woman and the defects and vices of men” in the year 1600.

Feels kind of weird, doesn’t it? These are statements you would NEVER hear or read in mainstream culture as I changed them–not even in the year 1600–some of them because they’d be repulsive to us, and others because it would just never occur to us to think or feel in those ways. All because of the way we as humans perceive, and have always perceived, men and women.

And while feminism claims to have worked very hard to dismantle all of these individual and society-wide assumptions about men and women, if you scratch the surface of their ideologies and their efforts, what you find is all of those assumptions human societies have always held, dialled up to 11. Not only has feminist activism manipulated and exploited all of these age-old perceptions about gender, for political, legal, economic and social gain, it has only amplified them in the cultural zeitgeist.

It is very much a case of, “Say hello to the new boss, even more sexist than the old boss.”

Go to http://owningyourshit.blogspot.com/ to read the rest of this amazing piece of writing…

Feminism has been misused.

Complacency has allowed those of ill will to take over what could have been a great social movement, Feminism.

NSW Rape Crisis Centre executive officer Karen Willis repeats the discredited claim that domestic violence is about masculinity (”Mosman woman’s death puts spotlight on domestic violence”, April 26).

Research shows domestic violence is most prevalent among young people and is linked to social disadvantage, drug and alcohol abuse, mental health issues, and inadequate conflict management and emotional regulation skills. ”Masculinity” simply cannot account for the one in three reported victims of domestic assault in NSW who are male, nor the one in five offenders who are female. We won’t reduce domestic violence rates by incorrectly identifying the causes.

Greg Andresen senior researcher, One in Three Campaign

http://www.smh.com.au/national/letters/object-was-a-better-life-for-those-oppressed-20130426-2ik46.html#ixzz2RbpwhL5i

Mosman woman’s death puts spotlight on domestic violence

It was the horrific end to an already terrible tale. The death of 32-year-old Mosman resident Kate Malonyay was followed a few days later by her ex-boyfriend Elliott Coulson plunging to his death from a Gold Coast hotel. NSW police are still investigating the circumstances surrounding both deaths.

A police officer was reportedly present when Mr Coulson fell to his death from the hotel’s 26th floor, and attempted to grab the man’s arm before he fell.

Ms Malonyay also reportedly called police this year after a domestic incident. Friends who spoke to Fairfax Media did not believe she had been hurt previously, but questions have been raised about the nature of their volatile relationship that ended at Christmas.

Fatal end to relationship: Kate Malonyay and Elliot Coulson. Photo: Supplied

Statistics show a victim is often attacked by the person closest to them, with 43 per cent of the 115 females and 100 males killed [emphasis ours] in domestic homicides in NSW between 2003 and 2008 attacked by their partner.

Over three-quarters of offenders in all domestic homicides were male, the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research report showed. In 2010, almost half of all domestic assaults were inflicted by a man on his female partner.

NSW Rape Crisis Centre executive officer Karen Willis said in incidents of domestic violence people often ask ”why doesn’t she leave?” but the question should really be ”why doesn’t he stop?”

”It’s about masculinity and how men make meaning of themselves and their lives and their role and position,” Ms Willis said. ”The majority of men do that in non-violent and excellent ways. What they need to do is encourage the minority to step up to the mark.”

Ms Willis said it was often psychological dominance that made it difficult for victims to see a way to escape abuse.

”The message needs to be: domestic violence is unacceptable, the offender is responsible. The offender’s behaviour is wrong here.”

The statistics showed domestic assaults and homicides have been relatively stable since 2003, while non-domestic assaults, murders and killings declined.

Ms Willis said the stability in the rates of the domestic crimes showed there was more to be done, in particular making communication between agencies like police and health and welfare services much easier.

Minister for Women Pru Goward said the government was developing a domestic violence framework that would address privacy laws to make communication between agencies more effective. Police now issue their own apprehended domestic violence orders, which Ms Goward said would make a difference.

”We are increasingly focused on getting women to stick with their court process and have men charged with assault.”

Domestic violence line: 1800 65 64 63

Lifeline: 131 114

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/mosman-womans-death-puts-spotlight-on-domestic-violence-20130425-2ihj6.html

Domestic violence has nothing to do with masculinity.

Alimony laws are archaic and need revision. This is a historic opportunity to do just that. Mr. Finley, the group Floriday Alimony Reform, and numerous other organizations and individuals have labored for years for these reforms. If the good governor of Florida signs the reforms into law it will signal other states to do the same. Click here to sign the petition.

NOTE:  If you support Alimony Reform and Equal Shared parenting, please to the petition on Change.Org and sign it to urge Governor Rick Scott to sign the legislation.  There is massive and well-financed opposition from the Family Law Section of the Florida Bar demanding that he veto it:  http://ht.ly/k2F6O

Support alimony reform and equal shared parenting

The lead letter below was published in The South Florida Sun-Sentinel on Thursday April 25, 2013 and is followed by the article to which it responded.

Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D.

Support alimony reform and equal shared parenting

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/letters/fl-online-letter2-20130425,0,6177745.story

April 25, 2013

Regarding the April 18 story “Alimony law in Florida changes drastically under new bill:”

Writing as a divorced, alimony-paying, retired university divorce researcher, I urge Gov. Rick Scott to sign the alimony reform legislation currently sitting on his desk. Science is on the side of Sen. Tom Lee, who added equal shared parenting to the original alimony-reform bill.

There are two broad sets of replicated and internally consistent research findings that support Sen. Lee.

First, the children of divorce want equal shared parenting or something very close to it. Most children of divorce love both of their parents and want both to be involved in their lives for the rest of their lives.

Second, the research literature also shows that the children of divorce who maintain a close and meaningful relationship with both of their parents post-divorce fare far better on virtually all developmental outcomes as compared to children reared on a two-weekends-a-month visitation schedule for dad. The latter essentially is single-mother parenting, which consistently yields the worst developmental outcomes of all family forms.

If you believe that family policy should be based on science — rather than income derived from endlessly useless litigation — I would urge you to ask Gov. Scott to sign the alimony reform legislation before him.

Gordon Finley, Florida International University, Miami

Copyright © 2013, South Florida Sun-Sentinel

Alimony law in Florida changes drastically under new bill

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/fl-alimony-changes-final-passage-20130418,0,4195489.story

TALLAHASSEE Florida lawmakers sent Gov. Rick Scott a bill Thursday that would drastically overhaul the state’s alimony laws, reforming payments that opponents say have been critical to ex-spouses — mostly women — who are trying to rebuild their lives after the breakup of their marriage.

SB 718, approved by lawmakers by an 85-31 vote, would end permanent alimony, cap alimony awards based on a person’s income and the length of the marriage and make it easier for an ex-spouse to terminate or lower alimony payments upon retirement. It also gives parents equal custody of any children in the marriage.

Proponents of the bill said they were trying to update divorce laws, which they said were written at a time when women were expected to stay home. They argued that the current law could bind divorced spouses financially for life, depending on a judge’s ruling, and there needed to be stricter guidelines for the court.

Rep. Ritch Workman, R-Melbourne, the bill sponsor said the measure was about “fairness.”

“Look, we all know divorce is terrible, but our laws by their nature shouldn’t make divorce worse,” he said.

The proposal has been pushed by a group called Florida Alimony Reform, who has brought groups of people to Tallahassee to testify about how the current system has wrecked their lives or their families’ lives.

Terry Yochum, of Deerfield Beach, has been writing senators urging them to pass the legislation.

Married for 23 years, he divorced in 2004. He said he pays permanent alimony, and more than one-third of his salary goes to alimony “until the day I die. And she has access to my Social Security as well. I’ve sacrificed a lot. And it’s hard for me to move on with my life.”

“There are a lot of people in similar situations I am,” he added. “It’s hard to move on in your life when you have that monkey on your back, and remarry.”

The bill defines short, medium and long-term marriages. It says there is a “presumption” that alimony would typically be awarded for unions longer than 21 years, but it would be capped at 38 percent of the paying spouse’s gross income.

For medium-length marriages, of 11 to 21 years, the cap would be 35 percent of income; for those of less than 10 years, the limit would be 25 percent. Unless a judge found a specific reason to award extra alimony, the duration of the alimony would be equal to no more than half of the years of marriage.

Though many lawmakers agreed those caps were reasonable, the bill has generated controversy because in some cases, it allows a man or woman to retroactively change the terms of their divorce.

Yochum even acknowledged that those provisions could be unfair to older women who worked while they put their husbands through college or graduate school and then were divorced.

“There are two sides to every story,” he said.

In Boca Raton, the legislation led Jan Nastasia to start First Wives First because ex-wives still suffer, she told the Sun-Sentinel in an email. Many give up careers — and good incomes — to raise children, she said. Nastasia herself said she was a stay-at-home mom until her divorce after 24 years of marriage.

She wrote in an op-ed for Florida Voices, an opinion news website, that a vocational expert during her divorce said because she had opted to stay home, she would likely be capable of earning only about $29,000 a year, which is what her alimony was based upon. Her ex has since stopped paying, she wrote, and she is struggling to pay for simple things like groceries.

“If alimony reform passes, then I can join the 1.1 million Floridians on food stamps,” she wrote. “I’ll be standing in line for my welfare check while my ex-husband is skiing in Lake Tahoe.”

Workman said that under the measure, “non-modifiable” agreements should not be touched. But in cases of marriages of less than 15 years, when alimony has been paid for longer than that, the bill allows the award to be reduced or negated.

Additionally, longer marriages that produced a settlement agreed to as a result of “fraud, duress, coercion or overreaching” by one of the parties can also be undone by a judge.

Workman said he wanted to give judges discretion in cases where there were special circumstances, such as a large number of children or children with disabilities. Or, a spouse may need alimony for a longer time because he or she suffers from mental illness, he said.

Judges who make awards outside the guidelines established in Workman’s bill would have to state their reasons in writing.

“I said, ‘Here’s your guideline, but judge if you want to go past this, just write it down,’” Workman said.

Still, some lawmakers said the legislation could be viewed as anti-family and a deterrent to any woman who was thinking about staying home and giving up career security — and that it was especially unfair to women who made those choices decades ago.

“It’s unconstitutional and unbelievable that we would go back on a contract made between a husband and a wife when we know the culture back then said the woman should have stayed home and become a housemaker,” said state Rep. Kionne McGhee, D-Miami.

Gov. Scott has not weighed in on the bill yet, and members of the Florida Bar Family Law section are lobbying him to veto it. And some divorce lawyers are unclear whether the retroactivity provision would hold up constitutionally.

“It will be a entirely brave new world for us,” said Coral Springs divorce lawyer Mark Abzug. “The concept of permanent alimony is seemingly out the window. I think it will change the divorce rate; I think people would be more willing to get divorced.

“Men that have been hanging on might decide ‘OK, I know I have to pay alimony, but not for the rest of my life.’ They might decide to roll the dice.”

Donna Gehrke-White contributed to this report.

khaughney@tribune.com or 850-224-6214

 Alimony laws need major reform.

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Marc Angelucci, Esq., NCFM Vice President, marcangelucci@hotmail.com   626-319-3081

Or, Steven Svoboda, Esq., NCFM PR Director, arc@post.harvard.edu   925-395-2065

NATIONAL COALITION FOR MEN SUES SELECTIVE SERVICE FOR REQUIRING ONLY MEN TO REGISTER FOR THE DRAFT

Lawsuit Asserts Department of Defense’s Recent Repeal of Ban on Women in Combat Removes Lone Legal Obstacle for Requiring Women to Register for Draft

Los Angeles (4/4/13) – The National Coalition For Men (NCFM) is a non-profit educational organization that advocates for equal rights for men and women.

NCFM has filed a lawsuit that challenges the legality of requiring only males to register for the military draft.  The lawsuit was filed against the U.S. Selective Service System in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 4, 2013, Case Number 2:13-cv-02391-DSF-MAN .

The 1981 U.S. Supreme Court equal protection case of Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981) held that men and women were not similarly situated in the U.S. military because women were excluded from combat, therefore women did not have to register for the draft.  Dissenting Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote, “The Court today places its imprimatur on one of the most potent remaining public expressions of ‘ancient canards about the proper role of women’.”

In January, U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced that women will be allowed to enter all combat positions in all branches of the U.S. military, thereby removing the sole legal basis for requiring only males to register for the draft.

NCFM’s complaint alleges that because men and women are now similarly situated in the military, Selective Service’s requirement that only males must register for the draft violates the rights of both men and women to equal treatment under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and under United States Code, Title 28, Section 1983.

Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief, calling for the Selective Service to stop discriminating against men and women by requiring both men and women to register for the draft, or by requiring neither to register for the draft.

Men failing to register for the draft can be fined up to $250,000, sentenced to up to five years in prison, and denied eligibility for federal and state benefits including jobs, financial aid, citizenship, loans, and job training.  Only men now face these harsh penalties.

NCFM calls on the Obama Administration and Congress to end the institutional sex discrimination that requires only men to register for the draft.  The ancient canard is gone, because women are now eligible for combat roles in all branches of the U.S. military.  There is no longer any legal justification for continuing the unequal treatment of our draft age population based solely on their gender.  The Selective Service System should treat men and women equally, including imposing penalties against both men and women for failing to register.

PRWEB

 Read the complaint at :

http://ncfm.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/130405-NCFM-Selective-Service-lawsuit-complaint-3.pdf

4/9/2013: BING News,  “National Coalition For Men” And “Selective Service”

4/9/2013: Men’s Rights Blog, NCFM SUES SELECTIVE SERVICE FOR REQUIRING ONLY MEN TO REGISTER FOR THE DRAFT

4/9/2013: Yahoo Answers, Feminists: Do you believe that this is a step towards gender equality

4/9/2013: Yahoo News, National Coalition For Men Sues Selective Service for Requiring Only Men to Register for the Draft

4/5/2013: REDEDIT, MENSRIGHTS, NCFM sues selective service for requiring only men to register for the draft

4/5/2013: Metropolitan News Enterprise, Los Angeles, Group Sues Over Lack of Draft Registration for Women

4/5/2013: A Voice For Men, NCFM calls for equality in selective service

4/5/2013: REyeko MRA, NATIONAL COALITION FOR MEN SUES SELECTIVE SERVICE…

4/5/2013: EWCRLDWIRE, Gender Equality in Selective Service Called for by National Coalition For Men

4/5/1013: PRFree, Gender Equality in Selective Service Called for by National Coalition For Men

4/4/2013: The Counter Feminst, NCFM Sues the Selective Service Regarding the Male-Only Draft.

4/4/2013: MensENews, NATIONAL COALITION FOR MEN SUES SELECTIVE SERVICE REQUIRING ONLY MEN TO REGISTER FOR THE DRAFT

National Coalition For Men (NCFM), 932 C Street, Suite B, San Diego, CA 92101

Both men and  women should register for Selective Service.

The Selective Service System should be gender inclusive.

Gender and Racial/Ethnic Differences in Criminal Justice Decision Making in Intimate Partner Violence Cases

The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project

Manuscripts and Online Data Base

Overview of Findings by the Authors

Springer Publications

Introduction:

Over the years, research on partner abuse has become unnecessarily fragmented and politicized. The purpose of The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project (PASK) is to bring together in a rigorously evidence –based, transparent and methodical manner existing knowledge about partner abuse with reliable, up-to-date research that can easily be accessed both by researchers and the general public. In March, 2010, the Senior Editor of Partner Abuse1, recruited family violence scholars from the United States, Canada, and the U.K., to conduct an extensive and thorough review of the empirical literature, in 17 broad topic areas. Researchers were asked to conduct a formal search for published, peer-reviewed studies through standard, widely-used search programs, and the catalogue, and summarize all known research studies relevant to each major topic and its sub-topics. In the interest of thoroughness and transparency, the researchers agreed to summarize all quantitative studies published in peer-reviewed journals after 1990, as well as any major studies published prior to that time, and to clearly specify exclusion criteria. Included studies are organized in extended tables, each table containing summaries of studies relevant to its particular sub-topic.

In this unprecedented undertaking, a total of 42 scholars and 70 research assistants at 20 universities and research institutions spent two years or more researching their topics and writing the results. Approximately 12,000 studies were considered and more than 1,700 were summarized and organized into tables. The 17 manuscripts, which provide a review of findings on each of the topics, for a total of 2,657 pages, appear in 5 consecutive special issues of Partner Abuse published between April, 2012 and April, 2013.

All conclusions, including the extent to which the research evidence supports or undermines current theories, are based strictly on the data collected. In this article, key findings are summarized from each of the 17 topic areas. The reader, however, is encouraged to access the full manuscripts. To do so,please go to the Partner Abuse website, at www.springerpub.com and click on the “subscriptions” link.

Given the large volume of summarized studies, it was not possible for the published manuscripts to include tables containing the summarized studies. All of the tables,therefore, are available online. This online document is a unique contribution to domestic violence research, intervention and policy -providing the most comprehensive single data set on domestic violence available in one convenient location, free of charge to the public. To access it, you may go to the Partner Abuse website. On the home page, under “Online Resources,” click on “The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Free Online Data Base” John Hamel, LCSW conceived and supervised the project. The journal’s former Associate Editors, Jennifer Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Ph.D., and Denise Hines, Ph.D., provided editorial assistance.

Overview of Findings

#1 Prevalence of Physical Violence in Intimate Relationships:

Part 1. Rates of Male and Female Victimization,

Sarah L. Desmarais, Kim A. Reeves, Tonia L. Nicholls, Robin P. Telford, & Martin S. Fiebert 148 pages. Full manuscript available in Partner Abuse Vol. 3, Issue no. 2 (2012), pp.140-169

Studies were included in the current review if they met three broad inclusion criteria.

First, they needed to present empirical data regarding the prevalence of physical IPV from the perspective of the victim (see Part 2 for perpetration rates).

Second, the IPV must have occurred within the context of a heterosexual intimate relationship.

Third, articles were excluded if they reported the findings of studies in which participants were sampled from an identified population of IPV victims, such as women staying at a domestic violence shelter.

Literature searches undertaken in three databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science)  followed by screening of titles and abstracts, as well as elimination of replicates, led to retrieval of 750 articles published between 2000 and 2010 for further analysis. Data were extracted regarding  measurement timeframe and instrument, and sample details. Results then were summarized by  study and grouped according to sample type: population-based, community, university or college, middle or high school, clinical, and justice or legal samples. Unweighted prevalence estimates were calculated for female and male victimization overall and by sample type, country, measurement timeframe, and measurement approach, to the extent possible.

Our final sample included 249 articles that reported 543 rates of physical IPV victimization in our review: 158 articles reported 318 rates for women, six articles reported eight rates for men, and 85 articles reported 217 rates for both men and women.

There were 52 population-based studies, 36 studies of community samples, 26 studies of university or college samples, 38 studies of middle or high school students, three studies of high school and university students, 80 studies of clinical samples, and 14 studies of justice or legal samples. The majority of articles (85.5%, k= 213) reported findings of studies conducted in the U.S. Sample sizes ranged widely from N = 42 to N= 134,955, with a mean of 4,308.24 (SD

= 14,912.49), median of 791, and mode of 120 participants per study. Studies varied in their operational definition and measurement of IPV, though a majority (47.4%,k= 118) of studies reported prevalence rates measured using items or scales drawn from the Conflict Tactic Scale family of instruments. Overall, results indicated that physical IPV victimization is prominent among men and women in heterosexual relationships.

Across all studies included in this review, approximately one in four women (23.1%) and one in five men (19.3%) experienced physical violence in an intimate relationship, with an overall pooled prevalence estimate of 22.4%. (emphasis added)

However, for both men and women, prevalence rates ranged widely from 0% to 99%. Physical IPV victimization was reported by approximately one-third (33.6%) of individuals in their lifetime and one-fifth (19.2%) of individuals in the year prior to the study.

Whether prevalence estimates were higher for male or female physical IPV victimization fluctuated as a function of sample type, measurement timeframe, and study location. For  example, in large population studies, studies of community samples, university or college samples, and clinical samples, pooled prevalence was higher among women than men, but across  studies of middle or high school students and justice or legal samples, pooled prevalence was higher among men than women (though only one study examined male victimization in a justice  or legal sample). Lifetime rates generally were higher among women than men, whereas past year prevalence was slightly higher among men than women. We also found differences by country. For instance, in studies conducted in the U.S. and Canada, pooled prevalence was higher among women than men whereas in studies conducted in the U.K., New Zealand, and South Africa, pooled prevalence rates were higher among men than women.

Taken together, results add to a growing body of literature documenting symmetry in rates of IPV among men and women. This comprehensive review of the current state of the field demonstrates the diversity of victims who experience physical IPV and documents the need for gender-inclusive responsiveness to this wide -ranging public health problem. In particular, there are currently few services for male victims and the high rates of violence experienced by women and men suggests a need for treatment and intervention strategies for victims of both sexes. (emphasis added)

Additionally, the high rates of physical IPV victimization among middle or high school students (or other similar age youth), as well as among university and college students, highlights the need for school-based IPV prevention and intervention efforts. Instead of victim sex, the methodological differences across studies may be the most important sources of variability affecting estimates of prevalence. Though many studies used standardized assessment instruments, a considerable proportion used other, unvalidated approaches. Researchers also differed in whether sexual violence was included in their definition of IPV. Finally, many studies reported lifetime and past year prevalence rates, while others combined rates of current or past year victimization, or used different timeframes altogether. Thus, future research efforts need to be directed at standardizing the measurement of IPV so that data can be compared across studies, sample types and countries.

Prevalence of Physical Violence in Intimate Relationships:

Part 2. Rates of Male and Female Perpetration

Sarah L. Desmarais, Kim A. Reeves, Tonia L. Nicholls, Robin P. Telford, & Martin S. Fiebert

96 pages. Full manuscript available in Partner Abuse Vol. 3, Issue no. 2 (2012), pp. 170-198

Our final sample included 111 articles that reported 272 rates of physical IPV perpetration: 25 articles reported 34 rates for male perpetration, 14 articles reported 24 rates for female perpetration, and 72 articles reported 214 rates for both men and women. There were 19 population-based studies, 24 studies of smaller community samples, 17 studies of middle and high school students or adolescents, 30 studies of university and college students or young adults, and 21 studies of clinical samples. The majority of articles (85.6%,k= 95) reported findings of studies conducted in the United States. Sample sizes ranged widely from N = 53 to N = 89,601, with a mean of 2,340.91 (SD= 8,748.44), median of 670, and mode of 356 participants per study. Studies varied in their operational definition and measurement of IPV, though almost three-quarters of studies (73.0%, k= 81) reported prevalence rates measured using the CTS, CTS2, or items or scales drawn from the CTS instruments. Findings underscore the pervasiveness of physical violence in heterosexual relationships. Across all studies included in this review, approximately one-quarter of participants (25.3%) reported perpetrating physical IPV. Physical IPV perpetration was reported by approximately one in four individuals both in their lifetime (24.2%) and in the year prior to the study (25.6%). Approximately one in five (22.9%) reported perpetrating physical IPV in their current or most recent relationship.

Consistent with prior reviews, rates of physical IPV perpetrated by men and women generally were more similar than they were different, with slightly higher rates for women than for men (pooled prevalence for female perpetration = 28.3% and male perpetration = 21.6%). (emphasis added)

There also was considerable consistency in the rates of physical IPV perpetration across countries, ranging from a pooled estimate of 14.1% for studies conducted in Australia to 31.8% for studies conducted in New Zealand.

Rates of physical IPV perpetration ranged widely across studies for both men (1.0% to 61.6%) and women (2.4% to 68.9%). (emphasis added)

Much of the variation can be attributed to the highly diverse sampling methods and study procedures. For instance, studies differed in their operational definitions of physical IPV perpetration and in their reporting of minor and/or severe IPV. Studies also varied in their measurement time frames; some reported lifetime and/or past year prevalence rates, others reported rates for the current or most recent relationship, and still others used different reference periods altogether (e.g., past two months, past six months).

Taken together, results add to a growing body of literature documenting symmetry in rates of physical IPV perpetration by men and women. (emphasis added)

The present review represents a comprehensive summary of the current state of knowledge regarding physical IPV perpetration among heterosexual men and women in English-speaking, industrialized nations.

With similar rates of physical IPV perpetrated by men and women, gendered explanations of IPV do not adequately account for our findings. (emphasis added)

Of note, however, results of the current review pertain only to the presence or absence, and not the severity or context, of perpetration. Thus, rather than perpetuating the debate regarding the comparability of physical IPV perpetrated by men and women,

findings should be used to support the development and implementation of interventions that acknowledge the use of violence by women in intimate relationships (emphasis added)

but also recognize how participants’ treatment needs may differ. Intervention strategies that are both gender-inclusive and gender-sensitive may have the greatest potential for reducing IPV. Though most studies included in our review employed a measurement approach based on the CTS, researchers varied considerably in their sampling and study procedures, their operation definitions of IPV, and in their reporting of results by severity (e.g., minor vs. severe IPV) or consequences (e.g., any physical IPV vs. IPV that resulted in injury). Future research synthesis efforts should include systematic coding and analysis across these variables. Moreover, we compared perpetration rates across rather than within studies; thus, future research should examine the degree to which there are similarities or differences in victimization and perpetration rates across and within samples. Finally, most studies were conducted in the United States, limiting cross-national comparisons; thus, future research efforts should focus on building evidence regarding the prevalence of physical IPV perpetrated by men and women in other English speaking, industrialized countries.

Excellent resource regarding intimate partner violence

Positive Family Traditions, TNT and NCFM adopts a highway

by: Christopher J Thompson

I have been a member of the Bozeman Beautification Advisory Board for nearly a decade, helping plan the annual Bozeman Clean Up Day; unfortunately these meetings recently overlapped with my weekly “visitation” with my son and, rather than lose the little time I have with him, was forced to resign. Fortunately I noticed a sign that helped guide the way for an exciting contribution to my community, this one allowing me to bond with my five-year-old son TNT in the process.

The Montana Department of Transportation’s “Adopt A Highway” program allows entities such as businesses, community groups, and families to adopt a two-mile stretch of highway, removing debris from their section of road in exchange for having their name posted on either side of their adopted highway. I arranged for the National Coalition For Men-Montana State to adopt two-miles outside of Big Sky, Montana and the following day we donned our state supplied fluorescent smocks and garbage bags to remove the litter from our highway.

Excitedly sliding his hands in his new work gloves, TNT joined me enduring a typical Montana spring day of intermittent sunshine and snow while having a blast with this atypical treasure hunt, acquiring a truckload of refuse in the process. We took our findings back to the Clean Up Day event where we “traded” them for raffle tickets and a free lunch. Famished, we devoured our Island Noodles beside the river while listening to Jawbone Railroad perform in the adjacent park…then came the raffle drawings.

TNT marched to the front of the crowd three times to accept our winnings, beaming with accomplishment each time. Spending the day attempting to get passing trucks and trains to honk while finding buried treasure, ending the day accepting prizes before a jubilant crowd, needless to say TNT was saddened to learn I had not arranged to clean up the following day as well! Lucky for him there will undoubtedly be more opportunities, and with Fathers Day just around the corner, please consider starting a family tradition set to take pride in your community while strengthening your family bonds.

Positive Family Traditions, TNT and NCFM adopts a highway…

How about joining NCFM and doing something similar, something constructive, something to help us help others make the world a better place for all of us.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BETRAYED

By Jamie Cox, M.Ed.

The accusation that blows the whistle on domestic violence is a life changer.  When valid, it can restore and rebuild a life.  When it’s a lie, it will rape and ravage.  Jails for the criminals and jails for the accused. While false accusations may not escalate to orange jumpsuits and prison bars, it ALWAYS devastates.  The loss of credibility, family, friends and career is a life changer.

When you hear about domestic violence what comes to mind is physical brutality.  What’s lost in translation is the violence of the lie.  Sticks and stones break bones and words that lie break everything else.

The number of men who have been ravaged by false accusations are too many to count and there doesn’t seem to be any end in sight.  Sure, there are laws on the books to prosecute those liars, but that’s too little, too late.  Let’s prevent the initial crime.  Rather than relying on our behemoth judicial process, let’s reveal the real instigator of false domestic accusations.  Truth-skirting lawyers, legal loopholes and that abyss of paperwork won’t uncover the guilty and responsible party – communication.

When talk in the home is all about arguments or reduced to the mundane and perfunctory, trouble is brewing.  Communication at home should be about honestly enjoying and sustaining the relationship.  Living the “Fight Club” or “The Art of War” OR just going through the motions to keep peace is NOT communication.   A loving home communicates within an open and honest environment to ensure stability, support and a long and happy life together.

The high divorce rate is an obvious indication that communication is not going well in our homes.  When talking evolves into adversarial sides, true communication is silenced.  Power struggles, gamesmanship and fighting to be heard is NOT how to relate to someone we care for.  When anger and fear has replaced feelings of love and trust, honest communication isn’t happening.

When living together is a constant struggle of absent communication, battle lines are drawn and it’s a fight to win or lose.  Illusions become the reality.  Keeping up appearances is vital because the relationship was suppose to last forever.  Both now live a lie.  Whatever talking truths they had in the beginning are muzzled.  They tell lies to themselves and everyone else.

Tensions of anger and fear rage and murmur when their voices speak.  Possible outcomes can be predicted with domestic violence being one of the worse ones.  When this happens in a home where power struggles reign, honesty isn’t spoken and win/lose conflicts dominate.  The stage is set for the false accusation.

With relationships deteriorating into fights, an easy weapon to access is the lie.  The false accusation is not just wielded in the heat of the moment or in the aftermath of retaliation or revenge.   Bandages will help heal physical wounds, but sustaining the false accusation prevents any healing.  The violence continues lie after lie.  Remember, sticks and stones break bones and words that lie break everything else.

MOVVE™ is a communication practice that needs no weapons to speak.  It sets the stage for honest discourse and growth with a solid foundation of emotional intelligence.  Feelings fuel behaviors so MOVVE provides a language that talks emotions without distortions, betrayals or lies.

Imagine relationships that can deal with stress, disagreements and all the challenges of life.  Good communication connects and strengthens us so we are able to deal with failures, frustrations and fear.  All those feelings that can rip away at relationships transition into emotions that express with positive and productive behaviors.  When we have emotionally intelligent communication skills, we can pursue solutions with support.  We don’t change love and happy ever after into combat zones.

False accusations are a communication crime we can prevent.  Is it a huge undertaking?  You bet, so let’s get on the MOVVE!™  Let’s do away with those adversarial relationships and make domestic violence as rare as the dodo bird.   Impossible?  Communication creates change.  Let’s MOVVE™ it!

James Cox is the author of “Communicate To Motivate: Ignite Attitudes, Actions & Achievements,” which introduces the MOVVE™ Communication Practice.  The book can be downloaded at https://payhip.com/b/sy8e  James can be reached at themovve@charter.net or at http://themovve.com

Jamie Cox M.Ed.

Staff Development Consultant

Keynote Speaker - Productivity Coach

509 392-9061

themovve@charter.net

http://themovve.com

https://payhip.com/b/sy8e

http://www.movverblog.com

http://www.facebook.com/TheMOVVE

The same old failed solutions don’t work. You gotta MOVVE to resolve domestic violence situations.

Domestic violence cannot be minimized by ideology, supposition, and “because I think it is and that’s that” way of thinking, which is nuts. Solutions have to be based on replicable scientific evidence.

NCFM NOTE: Mr. Davis is a leading domestic violence researcher, author, retired police officer, and college instructor. This article is well worth the read if you are interested in evidence-based practices for the Domestic Violence Industry.

If the introduction below interests you the complete paper is online at http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981868751

Evidence-Based Practices

By Richard Davis

Evidence-based practices are designed to introduce or maintain objectivity in our decision making processes (Macionis, 2011). Far too many domestic violence/aggression interventions, policies and programs that are presented to the criminal justice system are biased by ideological subjectivity rather than empirical objectivity (Dasgupta, 2003; Kruttschnitt, McLaughlin & Petrie, 2004; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000).

Too many 21st century public policy makers and domestic violence/aggression interveners remain focused on 20^th century hypotheses and theories rather than 21^st century evidence-based data (Black, et al., 2011; Fagan, 1996; Kruttschnitt, McLaughlin & Petrie, 2004; Maline, 2013; Walters, Chen & Breiding, 2013).

The phenomenon that is domestic violence/aggression has become an enigma because it continues to be primarily or solely presented as a women rights quandary rather than a human rights dilemma. Once understood without bias, it can be both. In this 21st century the majority of our public policy makers and domestic violence interveners seem to be pitting the rights of one group of victims against another (Wallace & Roberson, 2011).

What is equally troubling is that too many social scientists do not agree on a definition for domestic violence/aggression. Many research and present it as intimate partner violence while others research and present it as family violence. Once understood without bias, it can be both. Domestic violence/aggression does not mean the same thing to too many researchers, public policy makers, practitioners and interveners and hence to most people in general (Wallace & Roberson, 2011).

Domestic violence/aggression is also viewed, understood and defined differently by federal agencies and individual state statute law. Hence it is often perceived as two different phenomenon (www.womenslaw.org, 2013).

How does one accurately study or research a phenomenon if a definition cannot be agreed on because the definition of any act both sets limits and focuses research within certain boundaries? The lack of agreement in defining family [domestic] violence has led to confusion and disarray in attempts to determine factors that cause or contribute to family [domestic] violence. (Wallace & Roberson, 2011, p. 4)ha

Domestic violence programs must be evidence based.

Evidence based domestic violence programs work because they are based on reality rather than questionable politically correct posturing.

So, why is it that we spend millions of dollars every year on domestic violence programs that fail miserably?

NCFM NOTE: And herein lies the problem, mothers who not only failed to protect their sons, but self-serving ideologically driven mothers who worked overtime to put them at risk…

Judith Grossman: A Mother, a Feminist, Aghast

Unsubstantiated accusations against my son by a former girlfriend landed him before a nightmarish college tribunal.

By JUDITH E. GROSSMAN

I am a feminist. I have marched at the barricades, subscribed to Ms. magazine, and knocked on many a door in support of progressive candidates committed to women’s rights. Until a month ago, I would have expressed unqualified support for Title IX and for the Violence Against Women Act.

But that was before my son, a senior at a small liberal-arts college in New England, was charged—by an ex-girlfriend—with alleged acts of “nonconsensual sex” that supposedly occurred during the course of their relationship a few years earlier.

What followed was a nightmare—a fall through Alice’s looking-glass into a world that I could not possibly have believed existed, least of all behind the ivy-covered walls thought to protect an ostensible dedication to enlightenment and intellectual betterment.

It began with a text of desperation. “CALL ME. URGENT. NOW.”

That was how my son informed me that not only had charges been brought against him but that he was ordered to appear to answer these allegations in a matter of days. There was no preliminary inquiry on the part of anyone at the school into these accusations about behavior alleged to have taken place a few years earlier, no consideration of the possibility that jealousy or revenge might be motivating a spurned young ex-lover to lash out. Worst of all, my son would not be afforded a presumption of innocence.

In fact, Title IX, that so-called guarantor of equality between the sexes on college campuses, and as applied by a recent directive from the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, has obliterated the presumption of innocence that is so foundational to our traditions of justice. On today’s college campuses, neither “beyond a reasonable doubt,” nor even the lesser “by clear and convincing evidence” standard of proof is required to establish guilt of sexual misconduct.

These safeguards of due process have, by order of the federal government, been replaced by what is known as “a preponderance of the evidence.” What this means, in plain English, is that all my son’s accuser needed to establish before a campus tribunal is that the allegations were “more likely than not” to have occurred by a margin of proof that can be as slim as 50.1% to 49.9%.

How does this campus tribunal proceed to evaluate the accusations? Upon what evidence is it able to make a judgment?

The frightening answer is that like the proverbial 800-pound gorilla, the tribunal does pretty much whatever it wants, showing scant regard for fundamental fairness, due process of law, and the well-established rules and procedures that have evolved under the Constitution for citizens’ protection. Who knew that American college students are required to surrender the Bill of Rights at the campus gates?

My son was given written notice of the charges against him, in the form of a letter from the campus Title IX officer. But instead of affording him the right to be fully informed, the separately listed allegations were a barrage of vague statements, rendering any defense virtually impossible. The letter lacked even the most basic information about the acts alleged to have happened years before. Nor were the allegations supported by any evidence other than the word of the ex-girlfriend.

The hearing itself was a two-hour ordeal of unabated grilling by the school’s committee, during which, my son later reported, he was expressly denied his request to be represented by counsel or even to have an attorney outside the door of the room. The questioning, he said, ran far afield even from the vaguely stated allegations contained in the so-called notice. Questions from the distant past, even about unrelated matters, were flung at him with no opportunity for him to give thoughtful answers.

The many pages of written documentation that my son had put together—which were directly on point about his relationship with his accuser during the time period of his alleged wrongful conduct—were dismissed as somehow not relevant. What was relevant, however, according to the committee, was the unsworn testimony of “witnesses” deemed to have observable knowledge about the long-ago relationship between my son and his accuser.

That the recollections of these young people (made under intense peer pressure and with none of the safeguards consistent with fundamental fairness) were relevant—while records of the accuser’s email and social media postings were not—made a mockery of the very term. While my son was instructed by the committee not to “discuss this matter” with any potential witnesses, these witnesses against him were not identified to him, nor was he allowed to confront or question either them or his accuser.

Thankfully, I happen to be an attorney and had the resources to provide the necessary professional assistance to my son. The charges against him were ultimately dismissed but not before he and our family had to suffer through this ordeal. I am of course relieved and most grateful for this outcome. Yet I am also keenly aware not only of how easily this all could have gone the other way—with life-altering consequences—but how all too often it does.

Across the country and with increasing frequency, innocent victims of impossible-to-substantiate charges are afforded scant rights to fundamental fairness and find themselves entrapped in a widening web of this latest surge in political correctness. Few have a lawyer for a mother, and many may not know about the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which assisted me in my research.

There are very real and horrifying instances of sexual misconduct and abuse on college campuses and elsewhere. That these offenses should be investigated and prosecuted where appropriate is not open to question. What does remain a question is how we can make the process fair for everyone.

I fear that in the current climate the goal of “women’s rights,” with the compliance of politically motivated government policy and the tacit complicity of college administrators, runs the risk of grounding our most cherished institutions in a veritable snake pit of injustice—not unlike the very injustices the movement itself has for so long sought to correct. Unbridled feminist orthodoxy is no more the answer than are attitudes and policies that victimize the victim.

Ms. Grossman, an attorney and mother, lives in New York City.

A version of this article appeared April 17, 2013, on page A15 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: A Mother, a Feminist, Aghast.  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324600704578405280211043510.html

Thank you Judith Grossman!

Thank you Judith Grossman for standing up for your son!

http://www.avoiceformen.com/georgetown-university-and-men/georgetown-university-in-a-cover-up/

Gender discrimination and hate speech is apparently what we are teaching in our schools.

Gender discrimination against men anyway. Horrific.

Letter: Columnist’s conclusion on alimony bill wrong

The letter below was published in Florida Today on Wednesday, 4/17/13 and is followed by the column to which it responded.

Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D.

Letter: Columnist’s conclusion on alimony bill wrong

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20130417/OPINION/130416004/Letter-Columnist-s-conclusion-alimony-bill-wrong

While I applaud columnist Paul Flemming for a sound review of the issues in Saturday’s “Alimony bill will be great — for lawyers,” his bottom-line conclusion is dead wrong.

The proposed state alimony reform bill will reduce litigation, not increase litigation. A bit of history. For years, the divorce vultures (a.k.a., the Family Law Section of the Florida Bar) have conned the Florida Legislature into writing divorce legislation that maximizes litigation and thus maximizes their income. In part, they have accomplished this by maximizing judicial discretion, which in practice means endless conflict and, of course, endless paid litigation.

No matter what they may say, the divorce vultures are interested only in one thing — maximizing their income.

I can irrefutably demonstrate this point with Flemming’s own words: “Thomas Duggar, an attorney in Tallahassee and a member of the Florida Bar’s Family Law Section, said last week at a Tallahassee Bar Association meeting that the section has a $100,000 war chest to sway public opinion against the legislation.”

Do your readers honestly believe they are spending all this money so they will lose income? The divorce vultures get the message in terms of what alimony reform will cost them — and save the children, fathers and mothers of divorce. I regret Mr. Flemming did not do the same.

Full Disclosure: I am an alimony-paying divorced father of two young adult daughters and retired university divorce researcher with multiple research and scholarly publications on this topic.

Paul Flemming: Alimony bill will be great – for lawyers

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20130413/COLUMNISTS0205/304130004/Paul-Flemming-Alimony-bill-will-great-lawyers

The Florida Legislature is certain to pass a bill to end the permanent award of alimony.
The Senate passed its version April 4. A House version is teed up for a floor vote. The two bills don’t match now, but there’s no doubt they will in all important aspects.
A battle has already been joined, but it’s now heating up with competing websites, dueling petitions and the volume cranked up in the public arena. Thomas Duggar, an attorney in Tallahassee and a member of the Florida Bar’s Family Law Section, said last week at a Tallahassee Bar Association meeting that the section has a $100,000 war chest to sway public opinion against the legislation.
In this case, it’s aimed at a “public” of one, Gov. Rick Scott. Seeing the writing on the legislative wall, opponents are now focused on a gubernatorial veto as the last hope to stop the proposal.
Rep. Ritch Workman, a Melbourne Republican, is the House sponsor. He’s divorced (though soon to be married again; he proposed earlier this month at the conclusion of a Finance & Tax Committee meeting he chairs), but Workman is quick to point out he doesn’t pay alimony and is on amicable terms with his ex-wife.
Instead, Workman said a poker buddy filled him in on the inequities of Florida’s alimony system.
“Florida is a no-fault divorce state, but we are an at-fault alimony state,” Workman said. “Alimony was used for decades to punish the spouse the judge felt was wrong in the marriage, the divorce.”
Workman cites anecdotes in support of his bill — a doctor friend who pays 89 percent of his income to his ex-wife, and, for good measure, a woman who, after a short marriage, is required to hand over 60 percent of her salary to her ex-spouse. The bill prohibits alimony orders that leave the alimony payee with less income than the recipient.
For years, Florida Alimony Reform — a group that goes to great pains to emphasize that women, too, are subject to unjust alimony awards, but only succeeds in highlighting that it’s mostly disgruntled ex-husbands — has pushed for changes. This is its year.
The proposals raise the burdens of proof in alimony cases and shift them to the alimony-receiving spouse, create a presumption against any alimony in marriages of 11 or fewer years, cap the amounts of alimony based on the length of marriage and force durational alimony at half the length of the marriage.
Opponents say the changes threaten to leave wronged and long-supportive spouses destitute, fail to allow judges the discretion to find justice in individual cases and are based on arguments that are exaggerated or wrong.
“After my divorce, I pursued an education and job opportunities, but had to start from scratch,” according to “Judy” on the Family Law Section’s website. “Today, my ex-husband earns over three times what I do, has had a 40-year head start on saving for retirement and receives double the Social Security that I do.”
The debate is awash in horror stories on both sides.
“Leave equitable distribution as the sole consequence of divorce and maybe we’ll find wives being a bit more financially responsible hereafter, too, instead of running the debt (and their attorneys fees they expect their husband will have to pay) up and then counting on alimony ever after so they can continue to sit on their butts and financially punish their ex-husband for life!” according to a petition comment left on Family Law Reforms website and attributed to Tampa attorney James Kramer.
Ah, there’s the rub.
I’m not convinced one way or the other by the combatants on this issue.
I am absolutely convinced of only one thing. This legislation is an employment and enrichment bill for attorneys.
Proponents argue against “permanent” alimony, but such a thing doesn’t really exist unless both parties specifically agree to it in their divorce settlement. Alimony is subject to modification in Florida.
The new caps connected to length of marriage that are included in the legislation mean, if the bill is signed into law, that all alimony cases can be reviewed under the new standards. The march to the courthouse will be immediate.
Let’s not clog Florida’s overburdened courts. Let’s not line the pockets of attorneys. Let’s not give a bunch of divorced folks who couldn’t manage to be friendly enough with each other to dissolve their marriages in a just and equitable way the satisfaction of a Legislature-sanctioned do-over.
“The Truth About Florida Alimony” (opponents’ website) is that “To Promote Respect, Independence and Equity for the Parties to Divorce” (proponents’ web motto), the best thing we can do is not pass another law but encourage all our divorcing friends to act in kindness and fairness.
Flemming is the policy and politics editor for the Tallahassee Democrat and floridacapitalnews.com. Contact him at pflemming@tallahassee.com, 850-671-6550 or follow him on Twitter at @PaulFlemming.

Alimony should be sensible.

Alimony should be fair and help all involved.