Bill Glasheen wrote:
(Dana and Shana quotes)
I was good. I let these two posts go for a while. Had some sleep. Pumped some iron. Kicked some booty in the dojo.
Translation from my perspective? Sorry, Charlie, but your life experiences aren't valid. Now... run along!
I reject that.
Moral of the story... don't minimize anyone's abuse. It knows no single gender, race, religious belief, socioeconomic status, or sexual orientation. Abuse is abuse - period.
We clearly have an emotional topic where communication is not being clearly conveyed or received.
First, it was NEVER my intent to invalidate your experiences or state that male abuse wasn’t important. If you re-read my posts (I know…quite lengthy, sorry), I think I stated quite clearly that abuse happens to all, and it is never acceptable.
For right or wrong, I read your post as a general example of someone being set up as a fall guy more than your personal experience as a victim of abuse. I took the posts as an argument often presented that male abusers are just misunderstood and misrepresented, which I thought odd from you, but..again, we are talking about experience colouring perception as well as presentation.
It was not clear to me that you were sharing a very personal experience of abuse, but you have since cleared this up in subsequent posts. My bad for not catching that important detail, and possibly your bad for not being as clear in your original comments.
I, for one, truly do appreciate your bringing your experiences to the table, as I have very little experience with male abuse. The one experience I have is a friend, who was abused mentally and physically by his wife, but he is not what you’d call a dominant male, and his experience is much different from yours.
My point was MEANT to state that we are speaking about how to deal with abuse, and not gender differences. The websites I noted have very clear links on signs of male and female abuse, and there are very few differences. As you yourself stated, you hit several of those points on the list…as did I and Mary.
I will now readily admit that gender differences in some cases can be important. As you stated a dominant male will usually be the first suspect in a domestic abuse situation where LEOs are called to action. It’s not fair or right. It simply is what it is.
It also goes back to that public perception that I mentioned. That poor, ignorant woman should not be the face of domestic abuse. It’s not accurate for most women, I would suspect, and it doesn’t reflect the male abused population either. So it really does no one a good turn, and only increases the likelihood of misperception and shame.
I would submit that you were not being shoved from the discussion table, but that we didn’t understand each other’s full viewpoints...based on that “how to identify with the experience” conundrum. We were asking how your comment was relevant, as it appeared to be a diversion of the discussion, but it clearly was not.
Abuse is abuse, and everyone should be heard.
I could not have put it better Chernon. Bill, now that **I** understand where you are going, let me say welcome to the table and thanks for the viewpoint. My apologies for any part I played in the misunderstanding. I hope you now realize it was never my intent to do otherwise, but I DO appreciate you clearing up the confusion.
Bill Glasheen wrote:
If you're with a good, loving, and secure person, that trust won't be violated. If you're with a person OF EITHER GENDER who has turmoil within, then that can manifest itself in abuse to those around him/her[…]It's really quite easy to get into an abusive relationship. The more loving and trusting we are - both very wonderful qualities - the more vulnerable we are to unsavory types.
And that is the gist of my final comments as well. A truly loving relationship involves trust and partnership and the ability to relax…it should not involve a red alert 24/7…but as you noted, unsavory types do
target well, don’t they?