SAFE ESSAYS
 

Review of Linda Mill’s Insult to Injury – Dr. Jack Turteltaub reviews Linda Mill’s book. 



Well-known domestic violence victims – A list of prominent cases of abused men (straight), and abused same-sex victims. 



Review of Thomas James’ Domestic Violence: The 12 Things You Aren’t Supposed to Know – Dr. Jack Turteltaub reviews Thomas James’ book 



An Unbiased Domestic Violence Awareness Month – Richard L. Davis on the legal aspects of domestic violence 



Myths, Factoids, and Facts about Domestic Violence – lists commonly abused factoids and the truth about each one.



Are you being stalked? – Kim S. describes how to know if you’re being stalked, and what to do if you are. 



Recommendations for Re-Authorization of the Violence Against Women Act 2005 



Becoming Part of The Solution – an essay by SAFE speaker Richard L. Davis. 



Domestic Violence in Massachusetts – an essay by SAFE speaker Richard L. Davis 



At The End of the Rainbow – A study by Mark Lehman on domestic violence for gay men. 



Review of Violent Partners by Linda Mills 

(c) 2001 Bill Kuhl 

Domestic violence against men is the subject of my graduate thesis.  From my research, I have come to realize that, despite the increased media attention it has received lately, people still know very little about this form of abuse – especially two of its most common components.

   The first is that men, as a group, endure about as much violence to their possessions as they do to their bodies.  My research has uncovered scores of anecdotes from men who have experienced, what I call, “domestic vandalism.”  Typically, their stories are punctuated with moments where the abuser, “bashed out the windows of my cherry red Camaro” or “cut up my varsity letter from high school.”  In spite of all the anecdotal information, I have yet to come across any published material specifically on domestic vandalism.  Nor have I ever heard of anyone calculating a total cost of men’s destroyed possessions.  Whatever the monetary cost is, the emotional cost is likely to be higher; it is not at all uncommon for abusers to purposely choose a keepsake as the object to be bashed in or cut up.

   The other component of domestic violence against men that few people seem to be aware of is the method with which women usually gain the upper hand in violent encounters.  As much of the research points out, women are often able to neutralize men’s greater strength, or at times even dominate them, by using a weapon.  But after digesting the accounts of numerous male victims, I have concluded that it is not physical weapons that give women the upper hand.  What puts women in a position to cause serious injury is the weapon that all good generals throughout history have known to be the most effective – the element of surprise.  In countless cases where men were seriously injured, the abuser used surprise as her chief weapon.  One such victim appeared on an Oprah Winfrey telecast devoted to domestic violence against men.  He reported that, in one instance, he was not aware his wife was behind him as he started down the stairs of their home.  She gave him a good shove causing him to tumble down the steps; he ended up with a concussion.

    The resultant problem for male victims is that, like everybody, they have to eat, sleep, shower and just take it easy.  Living with a spouse whose number one weapon is surprise, male victims are likely to be constantly on guard  –  a frame of mind that could produce a psychological toll as well.  With this in mind, the need for shelters for male victims becomes even more imperative.  Yet, such shelters are practically nonexistent.  Some cities offer very short term services such as two or three free nights at a hotel, while others offer space at only the most inaccessible shelters.  Among the 20 or more women’s shelters in Los Angeles, the only one that also accepts men is about 70 miles from downtown L.A.

    Why no services for men?  Because no funding exists.  According to the Bangor Daily News, “the Violence Against Women Act allocates $3.3 billion to help abused women but contains no money to help male victims.”  Legislators allot no money for men even though a mammoth body of scientific research dating back to the 1970’s shows women to be as frequently violent in relationships as men.  (For a list of 122 such scholarly articles see: http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm) Plus, researchers agree that many domestic assaults against men are probably not being reported because of the humiliation the victims would suffer.

    Perhaps more shameful than society’s lack of funding for male victims is the greater problem from which this slight seems to stem  –  our compulsion to use partisanship rather than principles as a basis for public policy, a stance that has only produced divisiveness.  It is high time men and women started working together to stop abuse ….. no matter the gender doling it out.

Fundamentals of Research Writing
ENG 377 – Linfield College
Professor Donna Reid

August 16, 2001

by Nancy Wolf

What is the face of domestic violence? In the past, my answer would have fallen within a range that I suspect most of us see – a range that includes women’s faces, battered and bloodied; women’s bodies, bruised and battle-scarred; women’s psyches, shattered and broken; women’s souls, lost and without hope.

This is indeed a face of domestic violence – an awful fact of life for many thousands of women, a shameful act by many thousands of men. Everywhere in the popular press and media we are repeatedly told – with no reference to the original sources – the appalling statistics: domestic violence occurring every 14 seconds (Murphy-Milano, 1996), six million women victimized by their male partners each year (Berry, 2000), women are 95% of all domestic violence victims (“Rogue of the Week,” 2001), one out of two wives abused (Marecek, 1999).

But are these statistics accurate? Do they tell the whole story? Is woman-as-victim the only face of domestic violence?

I started asking myself that question when the comedic actor Phil Hartman was murdered in May 1998 by his wife of 11 years, Brynn Hartman, who then committed suicide (moviething.com). In each news item that I recall, his death was described simply as a homicide.

This made me think about the coverage of the murder of O. J. Simpson’s ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman in June 1994 (law.umkc.edu). In each news story that I recall, the term “victim of domestic violence” was prominent. Phil Hartman was no less a victim of domestic violence than Nicole Simpson had been, yet I never heard the term used in connection with his death. I wondered if the words “domestic violence” are the exclusive property of one class of victim – women – and if so, why? And I wondered how many men are victims of domestic violence.

What I have found is summed up by David Crary (2001) of the Associated Press: “That [battered] men exist in America, suffering one-sided physical abuse from their female partners, is widely accepted. Almost every other aspect of the topic – including the numbers of abused men and the gravity of their plight – is heatedly disputed” (p. 1).

The number of research-documented male victims of domestic violence is much higher than indicated by the popular press and generally acknowledged in the public consciousness. An Irish study of 530 heterosexual couples seeking marriage counseling (McKeown, 2001) found that 48% of those couples experience violence in their relationship, in which 33% are mutually combative, male-perpetrated violence occurs in 26%, and in 41% of the couples the woman initiates the violence, “?leading us to conclude that women are more likely than men to be the perpetrators of domestic violence” (p. 1). The researchers “cite research from the US, Britain, Canada and New Zealand which, they say, shows that the ‘prevalence of domestic violence among men and women, both as victims and as perpetrators, is broadly similar for all types of violence, both psychological and physical, minor and severe. In addition, both men and women are about equally likely to initiate domestic violence and seem to give broadly similar reasons for doing so'” (p. 1).

John Fekete (1994) refers to dozens of surveys conducted over a 30-year period in Canada and the United States that “show that women in relationships with men commit comparatively as many or more acts of physical violence as men do, at every level of severity” (p. 9). Martin Fiebert (1997) cites “85 scholarly investigations, 70 empirical studies, and 15 reviews and/or analyses which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 58,000” (p. 1). Coramae Mann (1996) cites a 1983 Chicago homicide study that showed “?black males are twice as likely to be killed by their female intimates than to kill them” (p. 83). Armin Brott (1994) analyzed the National [U.S.] Family Violence Survey and states that “among couples reporting violence, the man struck the first blow in 27 percent of the cases [and] the woman in 24 percent [of the cases]” (pp. 53-54).

Why are these findings so shocking? Why is it so hard to believe that in domestic violence cases men are victims – and women are perpetrators – at nearly equal rates? While the answers are complex and many-faceted, two aspects that my research kept turning up are social stereotypes and personal embarrassment.

In our culture men are expected to be independent and stoic. From Gary Cooper to John Wayne to Clint Eastwood, the strong, silent type is the American idol and ideal. Conversely, women are seen as nurturers, the domestic glue that binds the strong man to the home fires that she keeps burning. While we may acknowledge the occasional, isolated instance of a woman physically hurting a man, in general this is seen as a comical event. Who hasn’t seen the “amusing” caricature of the scowling woman with the frying pan, standing with arms crossed and foot tapping, ready to wallop the miscreant man; we can only guess his transgression – out late with the boys? less than appreciative of the home-cooked meal? spending part of his paycheck instead of bringing it all home to “the little woman”? Sitcoms and commercials abound with examples, presented as comedy, of women hitting, threatening or belittling men; after all, as Cathy Young (1999) points out, “comedians are in the business of exaggerating [social] stereotypes for effect” (p. 29). If the genders were reversed, and the image of a man hitting, threatening or belittling a woman was presented to sell products or entertain viewers, the public outcry would be audible.

An attack on a man by a woman is a humiliating, isolating event. Eric Schmidt (Fox TV) reported about the “wimp factor,” noting that “most men would rather not admit they’ve been beaten up by a woman.” He interviewed Jade Rubick, who spoke of being hit, scratched and bitten by his now-former wife during their two-year marriage. “It’s embarrassing,” he said, “and you’re considered a wimp if your partner is abusing you in a relationship.” Mr. Rubick went on to found Stop Abuse for Everyone (S.A.F.E.), a nonprofit organization aimed at increasing public awareness about all victims of domestic violence. Certainly no one would call a professional football player like running back Fred Lane (Indianapolis Colts) a wimp, but when he was killed by his wife last year relatively little news coverage was given to the domestic violence aspect of his death. An opportunity to educate the public about male victims – particularly to invalidate the “wimp factor” – was lost.

Another stereotype is woman-as-victim. If a woman attacks a man, it must be self-defense, even if that man is asleep, intoxicated, or otherwise incapacitated. In 1993, Lorena Bobbitt (courttv.com) cut off her husband’s penis as he slept; defense attorneys argued that because she was a victim of domestic violence, she was not responsible for her actions. She was found not guilty by reason of insanity and sentenced to 45 days of observation. Her action is held up as understandable, even justifiable – even heroic – by some self-declared feminists (Miller, 1995). An increasing number of women, however, are refusing the victim label in order to reclaim their dignity and regain their sense of personal power. Kate Fillion (1996) was asked by one such woman to “please don’t call me a victim?I know I was a victim, but that’s not all I am or ever will be?I can’t change the fact that it happened, but I have suffered enough for it, and I refuse to give that [expletive deleted] the power to define my entire identity” (p.252).

Finally, because “men are very reluctant to consider themselves to be victims” (George, 1993, p. 192), male victims themselves sometimes don’t recognize domestic violence even when, so to speak, it hits them in the head. I recently asked a friend if he had ever been the victim of domestic violence; he answered, “No, of course not.” I then asked him if he had ever been hit by a woman he was intimate with; he told me about a night his live-in girlfriend got angry because he was drinking. She came up behind him, hit him in the head, and knocked him unconscious. He woke up about 20 minutes later and she told him that he had made her so mad she had no choice but to do what she did; they remained together several more months.

We’ve examined some of the reasons the general public has difficulty believing the documented research showing the prevalence of domestic violence against heterosexual men, but what of the experts? There’s no lack of bona fide as well as self-appointed experts in the field of domestic violence, yet many (and based upon my research, I daresay most) of them dispute the validity of this well-documented research. Many refer repeatedly to the undocumented, vaguely documented or improperly analyzed statistics cited in the second paragraph of this paper. Even patently false urban myths are repeated as fact, such as that more women are beaten on Super Bowl Sunday (Updike, 1999) and that the expression “rule of thumb” comes from English canon law that a man could beat his wife with a branch no larger around than his thumb (“Ten Myths,” 2001).

There’s no controlling urban myths, of course, and the world is full of innocent distortions. In a recent documentary about the Cedar Point Amusement Park (Discovery Channel) a man standing next to the general manager stated that he rides the roller coaster several times a day; the general manager immediately stated that “50 million people have ridden our roller coaster.” Obviously, “50 million people” have not ridden it, because many people have ridden it more than once.

Misstatements about carnival rides are one thing; sloppy reporting of distorted statistics about violence and reporting urban myths as facts are quite another. A journalist must know – or find out – that when it is said that “the American Medical Association reports that?at least one out of five women [treated in the emergency room] has been injured by a current or former husband or boyfriend” (Berry, 2000, p. 8) the study being cited was published in 1984 based on results of a self-administered patient questionnaire given to a small sample of patients in one Detroit hospital, the question about domestic abuse was about any historical abuse and not just this particular visit, and the researchers “did not find a statistically significant difference between the number of male and female domestic violence victims” (Cook, 1997, p. 4). These facts certainly cast a different light on this commonly accepted emergency room statistic, but they don’t make for nearly as compelling a sound bite for the media. Obviously, it is incumbent upon the astute reader to critically examine any undocumented statistics and unfounded generalizations.

Yet beyond sloppy reporting and sIanting of data to favor a particular world view, I continually found examples of denial, even hostility, while researching this topic. Self-declared feminists such as Kate Orman (2001) find the Internet a useful tool to set up personal websites to proclaim that “anti-feminists” are behind the “claims” that women are as likely to be perpetrators of domestic violence as men are. Gottman and Jacobson (1998), each a Ph.D. college professor and marital therapist, state unequivocally that “it is hard to find women who are even capable [their emphasis] of battering their husbands” (p. 35). Jones and Schechter (1992) appear to absolve women of all personal responsibility when they state that when domestic abuse occurs, women are the only victims despite the fact that “they may even throw the first punch” (p. 312).

Why do so many people who are active in the domestic violence field find the statistics that show the prevalence of domestic violence against men threatening? Phil Cook, whose book Abused Men: The Hidden Side of Domestic Violence (1997) may well be the first to focus on this issue in a comprehensive way, cited four reasons when I interviewed him on July 25, 2001: “First, fear that funds for women might be taken away or diffused by adding a new class of victim. Second, it makes the job of providing services and counseling more difficult because it makes it more complex. Domestic violence isn’t simple [but] a simple paradigm is easier to deal with than a complex one. Third, politics and power. Being the exclusive victim class makes women more powerful in terms of getting funds, attention and clout. A dilution of that exclusive victim class is threatening to that political power. Fourth, gender-feminist theory, which is not a theory of equality but a theory of female powerlessness in the domestic household while at the same time promulgating a theory of power or potential power in other realms. There is no place for male victims in this theory.”

With these formidable political, social and personal obstacles, Mr. Cook expects it will take at least another 10 to 15 years for the general public to understand and accept the extent of the problem of domestic violence against men. He noted that one of the first comprehensive books about female victims of domestic violence was published in 1974, and that the extent of the problem was not generally acknowledged by the public until about 1985 (11 years later). He expects that a general acceptance of male victims will take a bit longer.

Mr. Cook not only writes and lectures extensively to bring this problem to increased public awareness, he also spends considerable time volunteering with the nonprofit organization Stop Abuse for Everyone (S.A.F.E.) mentioned earlier in this paper. He has appeared on local and national talk shows and news broadcasts, and is one of the nation’s foremost experts on the subject of male victims of domestic violence. I asked him what he thinks of in moments of discouragement; what keeps him going in the face of so many obstacles? “The small steps forward,” he told me. “Each and every step is an important one.”

I posed this same question to Jade Rubick, founder of S.A.F.E. and another tireless worker against domestic violence, when I interviewed him on August 7, 2001. “When I get discouraged, I think of a man who wrote to me and said that he had been feeling terribly alone and suicidal in his abusive relationship. He felt I had saved his life. He had left his abusive relationship and was giving back to the community by helping others who had been in similar situations. Letters like that make it all worth it, because sometimes you don’t see how your efforts are making a difference.”

There are encouraging signs of progress. Mr. Rubick was contacted last month by Heather Rutman, Hearst Entertainment, to assist on a story about female perpetrators on Lifetime Television. Ms. Rutman had worked with the producers of the recent CBS movie “Unforgivable,” the true story of an abused man who sought and received help and started a support group for other abused men. Abigail Van Buren and Ann Landers (2001) write very popular advice columns and have repeatedly used those columns to educate the general public that men, too, are victims of domestic violence. Magazine articles about domestic violence are beginning to mention men as victims, even if just in a sidebar (Osmundson, 2001). Eyler and Cohen (1999) were careful to keep their medical journal article gender-neutral, acknowledging that male as well as female patients are often hesitant to speak out about abuse they are suffering, and specifically brought attention to the fact that “unless specifically mentioned, the remarks in this article are true for situations in which men and women are the abusers” (p. 2569).

Acknowledging the extent to which men suffer from domestic abuse does not in any way negate or diminish the fact that women suffer from domestic abuse. Violence hurts people, individual beings, not genders or ideological groups. People need to be educated about this topic in order to overcome society’s collective denial about the topic of male victims and female perpetrators so that both groups can receive the support and services they need. As David Thomas (1993) points out, “neither sex has the monopoly on virtue or vice?Men do not wear the black hats, nor women the white. We are all of us fallible souls decked out in shades of gray” (p. 251).

References

Berry, D.B. (2000). The domestic violence sourcebook. Lincolnwood, IL: Lowell

House.

Brott, A. (1994, August 8-14). The facts take a battering. The Washington Post

National Weekly Edition. Reprinted in Violence against women, ed. James

Torr, Greenhaven Press: San Diego. 1999.

Cook, P. (1997). Abused men: The hidden side of domestic violence. Westport,

CT: Praeger Publishers.

courttv.com. Retrieved July 28, 2001, from the Court TV website library on the

World Wide Web: http://www.courttv.com/casefiles/verdicts/bobbitt.html

Crary, D. (2001, June 16). In the gender wars, another flashpoint: battered men.

The Seattle Times. Nation and World Section, p. 1.

Discovery Channel. (2001, July 21). The world’s largest amusement park.

Eyler, A.E. & Cohen, M. (1999, December). American Family Physician, 60,

2569-76.

Fekete, J. (1994) Moral panic: Biopolitics rising. Quebec: Robert Davies

Publishing.

Fiebert, M. (1997, May 24) References examining assaults by women on their

spouses/partners: An annotated bibliography. Paper presented to the

American Psychological Society Convention, Washington, D.C.

Fillion, K. (1996). Lip service: The truth about women’s darker side in love, sex,

and friendship. Toronto: HarperCollins.

Fox Television News. (2001, May 9). Battered men.

George, M. (1993). In Thomas, D., Not guilty: The case in defense of men. New

York: William Morrow and Company.

Gottman, J.M., & Jacobson, N.S. (1998). When men batter women. New York:

Simon & Schuster.

Indianapolis Colts web page, retrieved July 29, 2001, from the World Wide Web:

http://www.charlotte.com/panthers/00/docs/0421lanechrono.htm

Jones, A., & Schechter, S. (1992). When love goes wrong. New York:

HarperCollins.

Landers, A. (2001, June 19). Advice column. Washington Post. p. C12.

law.umkc.edu, biography of Orenthal J. Simpson, retrieved July 28, 2001, from

the World Wide Web: http://www.law.umkc.edu.

Mann, C.R. (1996). When women kill. Albany, NY: State University of New York

Press.

Marecek, M. (1999). Breaking free from partner abuse. Buena Park, CA: Morning

Glory Press.

McKeown, K. (2001, June 13). Marriage and relationship counselling (sic)

services study (Dublin, Ireland). Quoted in The Irish Times (2001, June

14). p. 1.

Miller, M.S. (1995). No visible wounds: Identifying nonphysical abuse of women

by their men. Chicago: Contemporary Books.

moviething.com, biography of Phil Hartman, retrieved July 28, 2001 from the

World Wide Web: http://www.moviething.com.

Murphy-Milano, S. (1996). Defending our lives: Getting away from domestic

violence & staying safe. New York: Anchor Books/Doubleday.

Orman, K. (2001). The battered husband controversy. Retrieved June 17, 2001,

from the World Wide Web: http://www.zip.com.au/~korman/dv/controversy.

Osmundson, L. (2001, July 9). For abused women: It’s not hopeless. Christian

Science Sentinel. p. 11.

Rogue of the week. (2001, July 11). Willamette Week. p. 9.

Ten myths. (2001, April 18). Daily Bruin UCLA Student Newspaper. Ad placed by

the Independent Women’s Forum. (page unknown).

Thomas, D. (1993). Not guilty: The case in defense of men. New York: William

Morrow and Company.

Updike, N. (1999, May/June). Hitting the wall. Mother Jones Magazine.

Reprinted in Family violence. (2001). ed. J.D. Loyd. San Diego:

Greenhaven Press.

Young, C. (1999). Ceasefire! Why women and men must join forces to achieve

true equality. New York: The Free Press.

by David L. Fontes, Psy.D., CEAP
9728 Kent St., Suite C
Elk Grove, CA 95624

(916) 685-5258, ext. 8
E-mail: maledv@citlink.net

September 23, 1999

What domestic violence presenters don’t tell you.

• How many know that the same research which is used to say that a woman is severely assaulted by her husband/boyfriend every 15 second in this country, also indicated that a man is severely assaulted by his wife/girlfriend every 14.6 seconds.

(Straus, M. A., 1977)

• How many know that although most Archival research (data which comes from police arrest reports, hospital records, judicial reports, and domestic violence shelters usually set up to help female victims) indicates only a small percentage of male victims of domestic violence, that the vast majority of scientific Survey research continues to indicate that husbands and wives are assaulting each other at nearly the same rate, a range from 35 to 50 percent male victims.

(Straus, M. A., 1977; Steinmetz, 1978; Brutz & Ingoldby 1981; Makepeace 1981; Makepeace 1983; Elliot, D. S. et al., 1985; Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R., 1986; Meredith et al. 1986; Szinovacz, 1987; Barling et al., 1987; Mason & Blankenship, 1987; O’Leary & Arias, 1988; Malcolm, G., 1994; Dunn, K., 1994; Coochey, J., 1995; Carrado et al., 1996)

• How many know that when Feminist groups and domestic violence workers are exposed to these facts they will immediately minimize the importance of these studies by raising the argument that even if women do assault their partner it is usually for reason of self-defense, yet they produce no scientific research to support this claim other than some case studies or anecdotal information. Although limited, scientific research data suggests that only 10-20% of women assault their male partners for reasons of self-defense. Domestic violence shelters are likely to see these women and are less likely to see the 80-90% of women who assault their husbands/boyfriends for reasons other than self-defense. Interestingly, about 30% of the men said they assaulted their partner in self-defense.

(Carrado, et al., 1996; Sommer, 1992)

• How many know that survey research suggest that women who are assaulted are 9 times more likely to report to police and 5 times more likely to tell a friend/relative than men who are assaulted by their wives. (Stets, J. & Straus, M. A., 1990) In general only about 8-10% of women who are assaulted and 1-2% of men who are assaulted report the assault to an agency/authority. (Fontes, 1998) This is likely why archival data indicates more female victims.

• How many know that most assaults between partners are mutual 48.6%, men only 25.5%, and women only 25.9%. Or that women are more likely to stick the first blow against their intimate partner, as reported by women themselves. (Straus, 1997) One study showed that 83% of the couples studies engaged in “bi-directional or mutual physical aggression.” (Jennifer Langhinrich-Rohling et al., 1996).

• How many know that 60% of women who are arrested for domestic violence against their husbands have previous criminal records.

(Jurik, N. C., 1989; Jurik, N. C., & Gregware, P., 1989)

• How many know that although women are seven times more likely to report they needed to see a doctor as a result of being assaulted by their husband (Gelles, 1996), one does not know if they are seven times more likely to actually be injured by their husbands than husbands are by their wives. Only 3% of the women reported they needed to see a doctor and only 0.4% of the men reported they need to see a doctor as a result of being assaulted. (Straus, M. A., 1997) Women are nearly twice as like to use an object when she assaults a male partner which can equalize the level of injury he receives. (Straus & Gelles, 1986)

 
To learn more about male victims of domestic violence the following literature is suggested:

• Abused men: The hidden side of domestic violence by Philip Cook, publisher: Praeger, 1997. ISBN: 0-275-95862-0

• When she was bad: Violent women and the myth of innocence by Patricia Pearson, publisher: Viking, 1997. ISBN: 0-670-85925-7

• Ceasefire: Why women and men must join forces to achieve true equality by Cathy Young, publisher: Free Press, 1999. ISBN: o-684-83442-1

• Who stole feminism: How women have betrayed women by Christina Hoff Sommers, publisher: Simon and Schuster, 1996. ISBN: 0-684-80156-6

• The myth of male power by Warren Farrell, publisher: New York: Berkley, 1993. ISBN: 0-425-15523-4

• Violent Touch: Breaking Through the Stereotype.

(45 page paper) by David L. Fontes, Psy.D., 1998.

$12.50 per copy includes shipping and handling.

• Battered by their wives. ABC 20/20 video, September 19, 1997, $29.95, call

1-800-913-3434

© Kim S., Professional Speaker, 2004
http://www.kimsawareness.com/

Most everyone has experienced a painful break-up at one point in their lives, so it is easy to sympathize with someone else who is having difficulty letting go – who continues phoning, or sending flowers, letters, and gifts to an estranged partner in an attempt to reconcile with him/her. Many of us have also had romantic crushes on another person, so we can relate to the kinds of tactics people sometimes use to get the attention of their objects of affection.

When you are on the receiving end of these types of pursuit, it can be very flattering; but, when it crosses an invisible line, and makes you feel increasingly uneasy, then that is your instinct telling you something very important – that you are being stalked, and you might very well be in danger.

Trust Your Instincts:

Listen to your gut feeling. If you are a target of unwanted pursuit, and the situation makes you feel afraid, then you probably have good reason to be afraid. If you can relate to any of the below emotional signs in yourself, read on to learn more about the law, potential health consequences for victims of stalking, the types of stalking behaviors, and what you can do to protect yourself from potentially becoming another statistic:

Do you feel …

• resentment toward your pursuer or others who enable his/her behavior?
• fear of what your pursuer might do?
• vulnerable, unsafe, and not sure of whom you can trust?
• confused by your pursuer’s intentions and uncertain about how you should be feeling?
• frustrated and isolated because those around you can’t understand why you might be feeling afraid?
• hopeless and powerless to make your pursuer leave you alone?
• that your personal safety at work/home has diminished?
• that you’ve lost control of your life due to the constant pursuit?
• powerless to change the situation?
• overly anxious, nervous, and impatient?
• depressed, overwhelmed, and easily brought to tears?

Stalking Is Illegal:

Subsection 264 of the Criminal Code states:

(1) No person shall, without lawful authority, and knowing that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in the conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.

(2) The conduct mentioned in subsection (1) consists of (a) repeatedly following from place to place the other person or anyone known to them; (b) repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them; (c) besetting or watching the dwelling-house, or place where the other person, or anyone known to them resides, works, carries on business, or happens to be; or (d) engaging in threatening conduct directed at the other person or any member of their family.

In plain English, below are some examples that better describe the Stalking/Criminal Harassment behaviors referred to in subsection 264 of the Criminal Code:

• repeated, unwanted contact by telephone calls/hang-ups, letters, cards, faxes
• repeated, unwanted contact over the Internet in chat rooms, newsgroups, or through email (also known as “cyber stalking”)
• sending unwanted gifts of any kind (pleasant gifts such as flowers, candy, toys, books, jewelry, pictures, et cetera; or, strange gifts such as bullet casings, lockets of hair, bloody clothing, et cetera)
• showing up uninvited wherever you happen to be
• stealing/opening your personal mail to find out more about you
• ordering/canceling goods or services on your behalf
• following you, watching you, maintaining surveillance on you
• threatening to harm you, your family, friends or pets
• harassing your family, friends, colleagues, or your employer
• convincing his/her friends to spy on you, or harass you (sometimes referred to as “stalking by proxy”)
• filing multiple frivolous court claims against you in order to harass or simply keep in touch with you
• vandalizing your property
• breaking into your home/office
• kidnapping you, holding you hostage
• assaulting you

If convicted of this offense, men/women can face up to five years in prison. However, in order for their conduct to be considered Stalking/Criminal Harassment in a court of law, it must first meet the following five key elements:

• The offender engaged in the conduct described in subsection 264(2):

One overtly threatening attack can justify a charge of Criminal Harassment, such as verbally or physically threatening another person’s physical safety or life. However, statistics have shown that stalking behavior need not be overtly threatening in order to be potentially dangerous later on; therefore, repeated contact that poses an implicit threat to the victim is also grounds for a charge by police. When using the word “repeated,” this means that the offender carried out any of the above-mentioned behaviors more than once or twice.

• The offender did not have lawful authority to engage in the prohibited conduct:

Sorry – but you can’t charge creditors with stalking, even if you fear their repeated phone calls! Unfortunately, they have lawful authority to collect on any debt if your payments are in arrears.

On a more serious note: unlike the creditor, a past union or marriage between the offender and his/her victim does not constitute lawful authority. This means that an estranged husband/wife, boyfriend/girlfriend, brother/sister, et cetera, does not have the right to continually contact you if you have asked to be left alone. Everyone has the right to end a consensual relationship if and when they choose to end it; so, if your ex won’t leave you alone and this frightens you, you have the right to protection under this law.

• The offender knew that the victim was harassed, or was reckless/willfully blind as to whether the victim was harassed:

A lack of intent to harass or cause fear is not a defense. The issue is the effect the stalking had on the victim.

When prosecuting Stalking/Criminal Harassment cases, the Crown does not have to prove that the offender knew the victim feared for his/her safety, or that the offender was warned the behavior in question was a criminal offense. The victim does not even have to be forceful in rebuffing the defendant’s attention. In other words, it is expected that the offender should have known that repeatedly bothering his/her victim would, reasonably, have the affect of making him/her feel harassed.

To be safe, victims of stalking should contact the police early on, file a formal complaint with them, and request that an officer contact the offender with a warning. If this does not put a stop to the offender’s behavior altogether, it will at least tell the stalker that his/her victim has a protective barrier in place, and it will also help the Crown Prosecutor’s case in convicting the offender later on.

• The conduct causes the victim to fear for his/her safety or the safety of someone known to them:

Fear for safety is not restricted to a victim’s fear for his/her life or physical safety. If a victim fears for his/her mental, psychological, and/or emotional safety, this is enough to warrant a charge of Stalking/Criminal Harassment.

• The victim’s fear must be reasonable in all the circumstances:

Determining reasonableness of fear requires that a subjective test be done to learn the effects the offender’s harassment had on the victim: What is the entire history between the victim and the accused? What was the sequence of events that led up to the victim’s present state of distress? Has the victim provided physical evidence and/or a detailed log of these events? Does the victim appear to be a credible witness who is telling the truth, or someone who is lying to police in order to avenge the accused?

In cases where there is one or more overtly threatening assault on the victim, reasonableness of fear can be more easily determined; however, history tells us that escalation of any of the above behavioral patterns is cause for concern. The very fact that the accused engaged in the repeated, unwanted pursuit of his/her victim is a strong indicator that something is very wrong. Another sign is the victim’s current state of health in comparison to where they started.

The Health Effects of Stalking on Victims:

In the beginning of this article, we discussed some of the universal emotions victims of stalking report feeling. The sad truth is that the potential health consequences don’t stop there – not by a long shot. Not only can this type of harassment affect an individual’s mental and emotional wellbeing, but many also experience serious physiological reactions as indicated below:

• Potential Effects of Stalking on a Victim’s Mental and Emotional Health:

Denial and self-doubt Self-blame
Insecurity Shame and embarrassment
Frustration Low self-esteem
Self-consciousness Shock and confusion
Irritability Anxiety
Fear Guilt
Anger Depression
Emotional numbness Isolation/disconnection from other people
Being easily startled A loss of interest in once enjoyable activities
Feeling suicidal A loss of trust in others and in one’s own perception

• Potential Effects of Stalking on a Victim’s Physiological Health:

Sleep disturbances Nightmares/flashbacks
Problems with intimacy/sex Low concentration levels
Lethargy Phobias and panic attacks
Digestive problems Fluctuations in weight
Dermatological breakouts Headaches
Dizziness Shortness of breath
Self-medication with alcohol/drugs Heart palpitations and sweating

After suffering from prolonged stalking, or one severe/threatening incident of Criminal Harassment, a victim’s symptoms may even be triggered by other people, objects, or situations that remind them – either consciously or unconsciously – of the trauma they experienced. This is a sign that they may be suffering from Acute/Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and that they require immediate medical care through psychotherapy, medications, or a combination of the two.

As we are about to learn, when discussing the typologies of stalkers, another real “health concern” for victims of stalking is the possibility of sexual/physical assault or murder. This threat is very real. It should never be taken lightly and escalates the importance of reporting any stalking incidents to police right away.

Typologies of Stalkers:

There are three main types of stalkers: Erotomaniacs, Love Obsessional Stalkers, and Simple Obsessional Stalkers (also known as Ex Intimate Partner Stalkers). What they have in common is an unhealthy fixation on their targeted victims. What separates them is their motivation in pursuing those victims.

Some commonalities to watch for in stalkers are as follows:

• They often abuse alcohol and/or drugs
• They generally have a low self-esteem coupled with an obsessive personality
• They have had few personal relationships
• They have a desire for power and control over their victims
• They will most likely deny that they have a problem, or that they are doing anything wrong, and will try to minimize the reactions their victims have to their behavior
• They will rationalize their behavior by blaming their victims, or anyone else who tries to intervene
• They will often reject arguments by their victims, or others, to cease their stalking behaviors and seek psychological help from a medical professional

 

The differences between the three main stalking typologies are as follows:

Erotomania Stalking

Erotomaniacs are the most well known type of stalkers, as their targets are generally public figures or celebrities, and, consequently, the media often profiles their cases. In actuality, this type of stalker is the least common of the three typologies and, historically, the least dangerous.

Erotomaniacs are delusional, most of them suffering from some sort of mental disorder such as schizophrenia. They stalk because they believe they have a relationship with their target, even if they’ve never personally met him/her.

A prime example of this type of stalker is Margaret R. Ray – the woman who pursued the popular late night talk show host, David Letterman, with the belief that she was his wife, and their love was mutual.

Love Obsessional Stalking

Love Obsessional stalkers are similar to Erotomaniacs in that their victims can be complete strangers to them; however, these stalkers sometimes also target casual aquaintances such as coworkers or neighbors.

Unlike the Erotomaniac, they do not have the delusion that a relationship already exists, and most suffer from a personality disorder rather than a mental illness. They are motivated to stalk in an attempt to establish a more personal relationship with their object of affection. They may go so far as to invent detailed fantasies of the relationship they want with that victim (such as, creating scrapbooks filled with pictures of themselves and the victim); and, if they cannot have a positive relationship with their target, they will often settle for a negative relationship instead.

One of the most notorious Love Obsessional stalkers is Mark David Chapman – the man who claimed to be John Lennon’s biggest fan, but then shot him to death outside his home. Chapman was so desperate to have any kind of relationship/association with Lennon that when his affection was not reciprocated, he settled for violence instead. In a very tragic sense, he got his wish: he will forever be associated with Lennon.

Another case of Love Obsessional Stalking that actually precipitated the creation of anti-stalking legislation in 1993 was the Laura Black case. Laura Black was an average, everyday person being romantically pursued by one of her male coworkers. When she did not reciprocate his advances, and he subsequently lost his job due to his repeated harassment of her, he responded by returning to the workplace in a murderous rage. This resulted in Laura’s death, and the death of several of her coworkers, before he finally turned the gun on himself and committed suicide.

(a reader wrote and said:
LAURA IS NOT DEAD. HER STALKER IS NOT DEAD. HE IS ON DEATH ROW.)

Simple Obsessional (sometimes referred to as Ex-Intimate Partner) Stalking

Police regard Simple Obsessional stalkers as the most common and potentially dangerous of all the typologies. They account for more than 60% of all reported stalking cases, and arise from the end of a consensual relationship between a husband/wife, boyfriend/girlfriend, or other domestic partner.

These stalkers are highly disturbed due to the loss of their partner, and pursue that person in an attempt to continue controlling him/her after the relationship has ended. In many of these cases, there was a history of domestic abuse – emotional, verbal, and/or physical abuse – in the relationship, making the potential for violence even greater. The “If I can’t have you, then no one can!” attitude is a common – and dangerous – trait in this type of stalker. What might have begun as an attempt to reconcile with his/her estranged partner can ultimately result in a murder/suicide.

What To Do If You Are Being Stalked:

Say no ONCE then do not have any further personal contact with the person pursuing you. Do not reply to any future phone calls, not even to tell him/her, “Leave me alone!” If you do, chances are the only thing that person will understand is that it takes “x” number of phone calls to get you to answer, and he/she will continue pursuit in full force with the hopes you will respond again.

The reality is that, in most cases, a victim of stalking will not be able to correct the situation on his/her own. Very few stalkers desist from pursuing their targets until after law enforcement officials have intervened. Therefore, below is a list of precautions you can take to better your chances of getting the help you need:

• Do everything you can to avoid all contact with your stalker
• Inform those close to you (family, friends, coworkers) about what is going on
• Obtain a restraining order or peace bond
• Make sure you have quick access to critical telephone numbers and transportation
• Arrange a safe alternative place to go if needed
• Keep your doors locked at all times (house and vehicle)
• Park your vehicle in well-lit areas, and do not go out to the parking lot alone
• Change your routine (such as traveling a different route to work each day) in order to avoid any activities that may be predictable to your stalker
• Report all incidents of stalking to your local police
• As the police require evidence in order to charge an offender with stalking, be diligent in keeping all physical evidence you have received (such as letters, gifts, voice mails, and emails), and keep a written log of the intangibles (such as dates, times, and locations where you saw your stalker following or watching you, and the names/numbers of other witnesses)

  The most important thing you can do to help yourself, or your loved ones, in stalking situations is to be informed, and make sure that those around you are also informed. You do not have control over a stalker’s behaviour, and it is nearly impossible to predict who may become a target of stalking. But if you know the symptoms to watch for, and are aware of the law, then your chances of resolving the issue early on will be that much greater.

  * * *

  Kim S. is a published author, award-winning speaker, and creator/presenter of The Awareness Series speaking series. Her mission is to deal head-on with stigmatized social issues such as workplace harassment, domestic abuse, depression, and single parenting. Each of these presentations is a must-see, delivered from the most alluring viewpoint there is: that of the survivor.

By Daily Pakistan Global 11/01/2015

“…Indecent or sexual assault on others, men or women, now carries a minimum sentence of five years in prison. In the former law, the clause “others” meant only “women”. The amendment was passed by the top legislature in August, Xinhua news agency reported. …”

Read the entire article: http://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/viral/male-rape-now-a-crime-in-china/

By Mail Tribune 08/31/2015

“… Shawna Marie Nerby, 25, of Lower Lake, Calif., was sentenced to five years’ probation after pleading guilty to attempted first-degree sodomy, attempted first-degree rape and attempted second-degree rape. She is a former resident of the trailer park. …”

Read the entire article: http://www.mailtribune.com/article/20150831/NEWS/150839937

By New York Post 10/04/2015

“… In “The Clintons’ War On Women” (Skyhorse), out Oct. 13, political strategist Roger Stone details Hillary’s abusive behavior — dating back to the Clintons’ days in Arkansas, where Bill served as governor. …”

Read the entire article: http://nypost.com/2015/10/04/hillary-has-long-history-of-beating-up-bill-behind-closed-doors-book/

By Theblaze.com 10/07/2015

“… Yiannapoulos told TheBlaze in an interview Wednesday afternoon that “the irony of it speaks for itself” as  their banishment from the event was “telling” of modern feminists who don’t just want to censor people that disagree with them — they want to censor everyone. …”

Read the entire article: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/10/07/university-bars-two-reporters-one-a-conservative-the-other-a-lesbian-feminist-activist-from-a-debate-on-feminism-and-censorship/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Firewire+Morning+Edition+Recurring+v2+2015-10-08&utm_term=Firewire_Morning_Test

By Goodmenproject.com 10/07/2015

“… It’s October, and that means it’s Domestic Violence Awareness Month. The month that is set aside to raise awareness of the long term effects of emotional, psychological, and physical abuse on individuals. …”

Read entire article: http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/what-about-the-men-fiff/