She just may be a loon, and he is innocent.

But now there's video that his opponents will use in a way that would only work in States where small minds prevail.

but the saying who knows what really goes on behind closed doors applies here. What set her off I wonder? Good ole Florida again. (Apologies to the no doubt many good people who live there).

just maybe there was nothing in particular he did. There are plenty of folks out there with mental issues (anger issues and borderline personality disorder come to mind) that make them want to just WANT to blow up and will find an excuse to do so, over trivial things, or imaginary things. So yeah, what goes on behind closed doors ..

usual suspects here who have already declared Alan Grayson the guilty one in this.

it's getting kind of sad

Even though I suspect the problem is with the wife in this case^§, I am reserving judgement till more facts come out. People on both sides can get ape-shit insane during divorces and custody cases.




^§ Why would Alan Grayson seek a divorce while running for Congress? Kinda hard on the vote getting, I would think.

Coincidental timing wise?

But who knows.

from domestic battery charges just because he's a Democrat. Or should that apply to all men regardless of party?

But don't let facts get in the way...

Go forth and make your own narrative!

That the facts of this case are still under investigation somehow escape you?

Yes, I'm very familiar with the MRA false talking point that women commit as much domestic violence as men. That constitutes a fact is no plane of reality.

Is that the new game?

Just scream MRA MRA MRA! Please don't stick words in my posts..that only happens in Soviet Russia where posts post you!



"That constitutes a fact is no plane of reality."
I don't think that is a complete sentence

Who can forget Lorena bobbit

That is a fact.

In Grayson's case, he obviously has no trouble disclosing this incident to the media. He could go to the police as well. Of course a doctored tape showing a single shove looped on a repeat is not evidence in a court of law.

Its the same two seconds repeated multiple times. It doesn't begin to show the entire incident. That anyone thinks this proves anything is unreal.

I don't see how anyone who is serious about decreasing intimate partner violence can dismiss this video the way you are doing.

At best, their relationship is exemplary of the half of IPV in which the partners are reciprocally violent. At worst, it's an example of a unilaterally abusive wife making up shit to ruin her estranged husband.

None of this is surprising or atypical, including your efforts to circle the wagons around known and demonstrable abusers.

in order to clobber them. I know this for a fact. (I am a woman btw). Maybe that's her deal.

I personally wouldn't smack anybody and expect not to get it right back.

Last edited Thu Mar 6, 2014, 02:44 AM - Edit history (1)

Not what led to that moment or how she acquired the bruises she told police he gave her.

He has not filed charges with police. If you consider him guilty of abuse, you should call police and report the incident immediately. Use the doctored video as evidence.

The MRAsmas say that women are more abusive than men, and that's what counts. Hell with FBI stats. They commit the unconscionable error of considering women as human beings. Something really has to be done about that.

I knew you were going to link to that.

how they get these studies plucked entirely out of the context of the rest of the literature in the field. Brings to mind a favorite one from the 1980s claiming women who say no mean they really want to have sex. Must be some sort of website somewhere that cherry picks studies that help advance a certain agenda. hmmm.

It's usually just that study referenced, too, with no context to show that it isn't an outlier and it's actually what the science shows.

So long as people like you insist that we should believe you and not our lying eyes.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2663360/

We used to say that there are some people for whom the only thing that would convince them to vote for anyone other than Bush would be for him to eat a baby on live TV. As it turns out, there are some people who will continue to insist that the cycle of violence doesn't involve the women involved even after being proved wrong on live TV. They'll complain that it was bad form to videotape it.

Science? Who needs it. They'll just stick to their own facts thank you very much.

It's an anecdote which helps validate the study findings.

... and it's not just one study, it's multiple studies, this one just happens to be the biggest.

fits in the context of the rest of the literature in the field. Is it an outlier? Is it supported by similar studies? How has it been received in the field?

The below 2009 meta study answers your question directly. The ten studies relevant to your question listed in the italicized paragraph are all hyperlinks in the original. Italics mine.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2663360/

leading to hospitalizations and murder of intimate partners is so much higher by men than women? Or is that not relevant to you?

The incidence of significant injury is correlated to the presence of reciprocal violence in the home.

if you stopped accusing me of not caring about violence against men. There is no basis to make that offensive insult, when I have in fact posted on gun violence with some frequency, much to the consternation of the pro-2A advocates on this site.

Set aside the issue of violence against men for the moment.

Pretending that unilateral violence of men against women is the only kind of violence worthy of intervention (the Duluth model) is profoundly harmful, because it ignores the reciprocally violent relationships (more than 3 times as common) in which women actually are getting maimed and killed.

DV agencies contribute to this problem. No one is removed from the home, or provided shelter until violence escalates to the point that the woman is injured. If the cycle of violence could be interrupted prior to this point, it'd be better for all concerned.

It has proven impossible to make the case for DV services for men based on appealing to concerns about their wellbeing, perhaps it's possible to make that case by appealing to concerns about the wellbeing of the violent woman.

And you made a very good case.

However, you began this exchange with a condemnation of me. I would appreciate it if you would stop doing so. Are you now repeating that charge above or speaking of the courts?

Why is the fact that the video is edited to show only a brief window relevant? What "context" do you imagine might exist that justifies what you see on video?

If not an explanation of why her violence was justified, then what would you hope to see on a longer video?

Or whether he struck and beat her, leaving the bruises she reported to police, on another occasion. That is not to say that pushing her husband is justified, but it doesn't tell the whole story. We do know that she filed a report with the police and an investigation is in progress. We know that he did not file a report with the police. That, at this point, is all we know.

Now, as a general matter, I have to wonder if you are insisting the partner who is first struck has no right to defend him or herself? My view would be this: If the partner first struck is bigger and stronger than the second--which is usually but not always a woman--then the other partner should avoid retaliating unless necessary. In general, neither should strike back unless necessary to defend themselves. If, however, a person is being beaten severely, they have ever right to self defense, regardless of the size of the attacker. I don't see why an intimate relationship nullifies that right. While the best approach for anyone under attack is to try to extricate his or herself from the situation, that is not always possible.

In my own experience (personal and from others with whom I have been in therapy groups) is that the battered spouse does everything she can think of to try to avoid conflict. Battery is not a simple push. It is a pattern of behavior that creates a constant climate of fear in which the battered woman (or man) does everything she can to placate her partner and try to keep him from losing it. That means keeping quiet, not doing tiny things that set him off. It also means a painful awareness of the patterns of tension and a sense that he is becoming increasingly angry and close to the point at which he will explode. This pattern is something you feel. You can feel the anger increasing inside of him as he becomes increasingly silent, withdrawn, yet seething with anger that is on the verge of explosion. You know it because you have lived through it so many times before. These patterns are also well established in literature on the subject. And indeed some women have been known to find that tension so unbearable that they do something to set their partner off, perhaps hitting him, to break the tension and move on to the next stage, which is remorse. So if she triggered him by an act of violence rather than doing something like leaving her make up on the counter, criticizing him, or going out with friends, you would consider her ever bit as guilty as him, even though she is the one who lives in a constant state of fear and has been beaten and terrorized throughout their relationship. I do not. I consider her a battered woman who is dysfunctionally adapting to severe trauma. One point is generally a given: psychologically healthy people with clear sense of boundaries to not get themselves into and stay in abusive relationships. To expect the battered partner to be a paragon of restraint is not in keeping with the reality of these kinds of situations. The fact that these relationships involve so much more than a single act of aggression is why courts have considered battered partner defenses.

So you see, having been through much of this myself, a shove like that wouldn't have registered on my radar as an assault. If my husband ever shoved me like that, I have no memory of it. I do remember his destroying the house in fits of anger and threating to kill me by bashing my head in with a lamp. Since I got out of the marriage before I was ever to the point of being hospitalized, I never reported any incident to the police. As a result of my experiences, I may well have a higher tolerance for violence than others, but it's hard for me to look at that push as an act of battery, principally I would not consider it battery if it were done to me, whether by an intimate partner or anyone else. That doesn't mean it wouldn't piss me off (now so more than when I was married). but I think it highly unlikely I would report it to police. That doesn't mean I don't think someone else doesn't have a right to file a report if they see such an incident differently.

As for Grayson, if he considers that push by his wife an assault, then by all means he should report it the police. Thus far, he seems more concerned about its usefulness for PR purposes.

I could've shown you the bite marks and bruises the Ex left on me, but I'm sure you'd dismiss them

And some of us have actually been hit and bit, as it were, along the way.

Yet nobody ever quite believes us.

Do you?

And yes, I know the stats. And yes, I realize it is mostly men perpetrating violence (including horrific flip-outs when relationships end).

But that doesn't mean in every situation that contravenes these situations, the men are -- as I was saying - lying about it.

I'm guess I'm wondering if you think they are?

Just as I have no reason to disbelieve Grayson's wife. That video certainly proves nothing. It's the same loop over and over again, clearly edited for effect.

to make out women to be helpless, weak and pathetic. I find it extremely insulting. Please don't include me in your rubbishy idea of women.

BTW; not only is there video evidence. There also are statements from witness's, including their 18 year old child.

That you think allowing a police investigation to proceed is making women weak and helpless tells me we don't occupy the same universe. Asserting equal rights is not helplessness; it is agency. That you responded to my post in response to a man speaking of his abuse to claim that my decision not to disbelieve either him or Grayson's wife is somehow making women "helpless" is bizarre, to say the least. I could speculate as to what kind of twisted logic leads to that kind of statement, but it's not worth the energy. Ultimately, it is your problem.

What I do not do is assume a woman is a liar simply for being female and a man superior simply for being male. You can safely assume that nothing I say has anything whatsoever to do with you. Consider that a lasting response to anything you have to say. I've seen enough of what you post to know that we do not nor will ever share anything in common.

I don't put up with shit. I don't go on line and complain. I get shit done. Most women do.

In your world women are nothing but victims of men. In your world women allow men to insult them on the streets and at work. In your world, women walk around completely butt hurt all day long....and are too helpless individually to do anything about it. In my world, I am equal if not better than any man.

Where the fucking hell do I say there shouldn't be police investigation into an allegation? Stop pulling shit out of your arse.

The only thing we have in common is we both have vagina's.

You think by condemning feminism and other women it keeps you safe. It doesn't.
Yes, I support the Civil Rights law of 1964. That makes me a victim. I support EEOC law. That makes me a victim. I support prosecution of domestic violence and rape. That makes me a victim. If I weren't a victim, I would know my place was to keep my mouth shut, insist women who had the nerve to report assaults were just playing victim.

That you got yourself in a fit of poutrage over my contention that charges should be investigated and I saw no reason to disbelieve the complainant or the previous poster would imply you had issues with what I actually said. Perhaps you didn't. Perhaps your poutrage came entirely out of your imagination. Regardless, it doesn't interest me even minimally.

His wife not so much so...

Is that what you call a statement that all such charges should be taken seriously?

Links.

Before asking already answered questions.

If they have in fact declared him guilty, you should be able to provide links. Otherwise, you are again talking crap about feminists for no reason other than animus.

And I said to read the rest of the thread for proof. No links needed.

And define "feminist" for the rest of us. I am sure the actual definition of "feminist" is far different than what you think it is.

I will state again, for your benefit, that I am for Equal Right for all, regardless of sex, gender, orientation, race, and/or anything else used to divide us. That makes me a Feminist also.
You cannot tear down one group to build up another group and call that equality. Everyone loses then.
We all need to work together to build consensuses on what to do to fix the wrongs in our society. How are you going about that?
What I see from you is antagonism toward those that do not agree with you. And you do not seem to be all that inclusive in who you think should have what Rights either. So who is the real Feminist here?

Very well said.

While I fully understand the passion exhibited on the subject of women's equality on this board, that passion often becomes shrill in the effort to make their point. I like you am for... "Equal Right for all, regardless of sex, gender, orientation, race, and/or anything else used to divide us. That makes me a Feminist also."

And I agree that working together is our only solution. The screaming matches that erupt on this board are doing nothing to improve the situation.

Thank you once more for your thoughtful post.

Those of us that get it, need to stand up to those that do not.

I keep posting pretty much the same Equal Rights for all, but that part keep getting ignored by those that need to understand what I am trying to say, but purposely side-step the for "all part".

Thank you
RC