et tu will? I've posted the damn checklist. Maybe it was in response to Gruss, but it's out there. I posted a couple of journal articles as well to show where the profile was coming from. The're chock full of numbers and references to studies showing where the numbers are coming from. There are more out there but a lot of the journals dealing specifically with this area require a subscription, for example:
http://jiv.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/18/7/798 But here's a couple of academic studies dealing with the issue from a couple of other points of view and further refining the picture: In dysfunctional families, the husband sees himself as the absolute individual power within the family system. He strongly believes that his position as the only breadwinner of the family grants him the right to exercise control of all aspects of the family life and over all individuals living in the same household. Forte, Franks, Forte, and Rigsby (1996) believe that there is a significant difference in "role- taking" between the oppressive batterer and the victimized partner (p. 60). In a violent relationship, "role taking is asymmetrical" (p. 60), which means that the dominant partner is unable to put himself or herself in the shoes of "weaker" partner. The battered victim on the other hand always tries to please her partner by putting her or himself in the role of the perpetrator (p. 60), which easily can lead to self-blame and acceptance of the perpetrator's inappropriate behavior. http://www.pop.upenn.edu/programs/ggd/colloquium/pollakpaper.pdf http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/familyviolence/familyviolence.html In the face of all this to be told that there is no profile of an abusive male is simply hallucinatory. Help me out here Sam, did the posts I am am talking about make the list? Cause it doesn't seem like these two saw them. Dana On 4/14/05, William Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Can't you accept the fact that if charges are made there's a > > possibility he's guilty? > > Can't you accept the fact that our legal system is supposed to be > based on the presumption of INNOCENCE? I mean I know it's tough, what > with trial by media and all, but that is supposed to be the basis of > our legal system, no? > > > Even if it's a small possibility, it's still > > there. > > Even if the "small possibility" is there, we must presume INNOCENCE > until the preponderance of evidence PROVES guilt. > > > Like Dana says, it's very hard to tell who's an abuser but if > > someone has charges against him or her, let's have a look. Still > > innocent until proven guilty, but you seem to be saying there's no way > > he could be an abuser. > > And what you _seem_ to be saying is if he hadn't done anything wrong > there wouldn't be a charge. The flaw in that thinking is that it > presumes that only those who are guilty are ever charged with a crime, > and that just isn't the case. > > By all means, please investigate. Get to the bottom of it. But presume > innocence during. After all if he is guilty, there'll be plenty of > time for self congratulation, right. > > Gruss hasn't said there's "no way [Schiavo] could be an abuser." He's > saying that there isn't (unfortunately) an empirical checklist we can > go by, if-this-then-this. We have a metric pant-load of > "if-this-maybe-this-but-then-again-maybe-not." But nothing more... > > -- > will > > "If my life weren't funny, it would just be true; > and that would just be unacceptable." > - Carrie Fisher > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:154141 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
