Question:
No body better EVER call me a lady. Thats one of those things I will go bullistic over. polly wog
Since the beginning of time the generalization has been "he." For example: A person may say what he chooses." That he is not necessarily male. A woman may say what she chooses, too. I wasn’t there at the beginning of time, but I’ve seen this kind of generalization going back quite a ways. Spanish, I know, makes use of the generic male when discussing groups of people as "ellos" unless every person in the group is female, in which case it is "ellas". The language police, however, have attacked these kinds of uses as demeaning to women, so we now have firefighters and police officers and, somehow, women seem to be demeaned in different ways now. I think you questioning is a little out of line, but I believe I answered your question above. And, I’ll have you know that if speaking of a specific person in one of those positions, you would say chairman or chairwoman, but if you are using a generalization, you use chairman. Chairperson is not as accepted as you think. Besides, I don’t ever recall being told I couldn’t use "the generic male" in any situation. and the greatest of these is love
Response:
Abuser 1: Black male, 40’s, mom’s bf, nurse’s aide, divorced several times, "such a nice guy" Abuser 2: White male, 50’s, father, unemployed, divorced several times, "such an asshole" Abuser 3 (though I don’t speak of this): White male, 15 or so, student, "just a kid" Of course, those are when the abuse happened and are only the sexual abuse. The quotes at the end are what I most heard people say about them. You want to know what I take from just my abusers: They can be anyone, anywhere at any time. If you want to include all other abuses I suffered:
Last night (the last night of this set of training) one of the trainees was asking about whether we got a large number of people with certain mental disorders. I told her that we got people that were on meds, people that weren’t, people who should be on meds but aren’t, and people who probably shouldn’t be but are. I told her to go take a look at ten people on the street, and that’s who we get. But that’s been my experience, and people with different experience see things differently, and that’s what I’m trying to explore. Abuser 2: White male, 50’s, father, unemployed, divorced several times, "such an asshole" Abuser 4: White female, early 40’s, mother, out of work due to injury/student, divorced several times Abuser 5: White female, 50’s, foster mother, worked at some craft plant, divorced once that I know of
That is quite a spectrum for that many people. Take care, Blain — Do you need to control others? | Blain Nelson http://www.blainn.cc/abuse/ <- Is abuse part of your life?
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Well shoot, Bang! You said to. I thought I understaood what you were talking about Blain, but now I am not so sure. I know the feeling. I thought you were talking about stuff like what I seem to do & have to work hard on. I was abused by many males & have tended to not trust males. I have generalized the abuse to all males. I find when I see a father w/ a little girl, I find I don’t always trust "it". Usually I wonder if HE is abusing his child. I find it hard to trust that a man would not abuse his female child. I am this way about sexual abuse more so than emotional or other physical abuse. That’s one portion of what I was talking about — a portion of what hasn’t been addressed elsewhere in the thread, so thanks for bringing it here. I’m curious as to whether there are other commonalities between these men who have abused you, and whether the generalization has shown itself regarding those commonalities as well. Race, religion, location, anything? If so (or not), do you share any of these other commonalities? I work hard at not generalizing & at trusting men. There have been some very wonderful men in my life in adulthood who have helped me a great deal. I am a lot better than I use to be. Cool. I take it that that’s working better for you than the generalization has. But this is probably off the subject since I don’t know if this is what you were referring to. You’re dead on topic afaic. Further discussion along this line is very appreciated. polly wog Take care, Blain
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Well shoot, Bang! You said to. I thought I understaood what you were talking about Blain, but now I am not so sure. I know the feeling. I thought you were talking about stuff like what I seem to do & have to work hard on. I was abused by many males & have tended to not trust males. I have generalized the abuse to all males. I find when I see a father w/ a little girl, I find I don’t always trust "it". Usually I wonder if HE is abusing his child. I find it hard to trust that a man would not abuse his female child. I am this way about sexual abuse more so than emotional or other physical abuse. That’s one portion of what I was talking about — a portion of what hasn’t been addressed elsewhere in the thread, so thanks for bringing it here. I’m curious as to whether there are other commonalities between these men who have abused you, and whether the generalization has shown itself regarding those commonalities as well. Race, religion, location, anything? If so (or not), do you share any of these other commonalities? I work hard at not generalizing & at trusting men. There have been some very wonderful men in my life in adulthood who have helped me a great deal. I am a lot better than I use to be. Cool. I take it that that’s working better for you than the generalization has. But this is probably off the subject since I don’t know if this is what you were referring to. You’re dead on topic afaic. Further discussion along this line is very appreciated. polly wog Take care, Blain
– A caring post from lix bateman. Organization: chat rooms? ppl like james tolson log your words, lix bateman uses this info for her "fun." Newsgroups: alt.abuse.recovery spike says: If you have a problem with me, it could be this. Those who fail to learn from history are set to repeat it. Views of the past lis…..isn’t that what you told jean’s friend andre to do???? Something that you told greg similarily? Don’t you ever learn? Panther
spike…do us all a favor, why don’t you? Go in the bathroom, grab a bottle of whatever meds you stopped taking, take them all at once and swallow a couple of bottles of vodka afterward? Go spike, do it now.
Take care, Blain — Do you need to control others? | Blain Nelson http://www.blainn.cc/abuse/ <- Is abuse part of your life?
Response:
No body better EVER call me a lady. Thats one of those things I will go bullistic over.
I’ll keep that in mind. For the record, you were not the person I was referring to as a "young lady". polly wog
Take care, Blain — Do you need to control others? | Blain Nelson http://www.blainn.cc/abuse/ <- Is abuse part of your life?
Response:
piggy back.
Is this the little piggy that went "Wee! Wee! Wee!"? Oh, he went all the way home. Maybe it’s the little piggy that went to the market? Blain ,
Howdy. You posted a reply to me & I accidently erased it. Would you mind reposting it, if you still have it?
I will be reposting it in a few moments. polly wog
Take care, Blain — Do you need to control others? | Blain Nelson http://www.blainn.cc/abuse/ <- Is abuse part of your life?
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Out of line? What harm is my questioning causing? Personally, I’m apt to refer to the person as "chair" and skip the minefield. But, then, I’ve been told that, as a man, I have no right to use the term "young lady" because some women are offended by the term. Remember that every lady is a woman, but not every woman is a lady Oh, I’m clear on that one. But this was not simply a statement in thin air that I didn’t have the right to use the term. My usage and my refusal to agree to stop the usage, along with my giving answers to some questions which I guess were supposed to be rhetorical, and the big fight that followed all of this (that I mostly stayed out of) became grounds for my being kicked off a mail list. In English 101, we were taught not to use gender specific terminology when speaking of generic circumstances. Thus the growth in the use of "he or she". When were you told to use them? English 101, and, I believe, a class on public speaking. I mean, in what circumstances? All? When speaking of a situation where the gender was indeterminate, it was not acceptable to use "he" to refer to the third person singular, and that "he or she" was preferable. Well, here’s my answer to that: People speak for their audience in every day language, not to win a Nobel Prize. There is no such thing as "perfect English," and not one person possesses that skill. The way I talk to you through this post is far from perfect in the traditional sense. I believe it is very perfect for the situation and circumstance. I admit, I use the he or she in most cases. As a woman, I don’t particularly appreciate the "male generalization" but it’s there to keep things anonymous, I feel. (I’m one of those women). Your reasoning makes sense to me. I’m just telling you what’s being taught in colleges for the past 10 years at least.
Actually, I learned my reasoning in college. I’m also of the belief that most professors enjoy "teaching" only their opinions on things, but we’ll save that for another discussion There are a few, though, that do encourage students to make their own opinions. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If you want to know why there are more cases reported of men as abusers, consider this: Oh, I’m familiar with the reasons for differences in reporting. I’ve been having that conversation in asd-v also, and the tricky task of trying to put together resources for battered men. Female abusers are better at convincing their victims they are lucky this is happening to them (the older woman thing), and that is feels good. As a survivor, I also hang out in alt.abuse.offender.recovery to try to understand the reasoning behind the abuser. Many people there (mostly men, BTW) have told me this. They were survivors who repeated the cycle. Though some were abused by men themselves, those that were abused by women said the woman convinced them it was a good thing…something every boy wanted. When the members of that ng tell me what they did to female victims, they said they tried to convince them of the same, but as they look back, they know it didn’t work. These men were convinced they enjoyed the abuse and grew up believing it was OK to have relations with children. Perhaps that would be a better subject to address — breaking the cycle. I think it would do more for society than debating gender generalization survivors use. I’ve had those conversations as well. In this case, my interest in this generalization is more to understand the nature of how the situation is looked at that results in the generalization. I’m not attacking anybody for that use of generalization — I’m just trying to learn how other people process things. At least one person has indicated that this generalization hasn’t been a completely helpful thing in her life (did you catch that?), and that she struggles with it. That’s kinda a piece of what I think I’m looking for in this (and I’m not really sure what it is I’m trying to get at, which is why my questions have been rather vague).
Your asking if, because I was sexually abused by men, if I think most sexual abusers are men? Well, if that’s it, I say no. That would be like saying all blondes are dumb because I know a few bubble heads that are blonde; or that all black people are criminals, because I grew up in the inner city and saw many black commit crimes. As a teen, though, when the abuse happened are immediately after, I was very uncomfortable being alone with any man. I was an unruly kid (to be expected I guess) and literally shook with fear when I had to sit it the pricipal’s office while he talked about my behavior. Didn’t even want to be alone with my male doctor, that’s how scared I was. I never heard what he said, but agreed to everything just to get my hand on the doorknob to leave. That’s just the sexual abuse, though. Still, when I’m sitting alone with my supervisor at work, I have to sit a distance away (far enough that he can’t touch me). That’s funny, I didn’t realize I still did that until just now. So, I guess the answer is: subconciously, yes, I am biased. If my supervisor was a woman, I don’t know if it’d be different, but it’s a man and I realize I still keep a distance from men. In fact, my roommate is a man and I don’t think I’ve ever gotten closer than shaking his hand. When we sit and talk, it’s across the table or something like that. The only males I get close to are my boyfriend and my dog, if that makes any sense. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Take care, Blain — Do you need to control others? | Blain Nelson http://www.blainn.cc/abuse/ <- Is abuse part of your life?
Response:
snip< I’m curious as to whether there are other commonalities between these men who have abused you, and whether the generalization has shown itself regarding those commonalities as well. Race, religion, location, anything? If so (or not), do you share any of these other commonalities?
Abuser 1: Black male, 40’s, mom’s bf, nurse’s aide, divorced several times, "such a nice guy" Abuser 2: White male, 50’s, father, unemployed, divorced several times, "such an asshole" Abuser 3 (though I don’t speak of this): White male, 15 or so, student, "just a kid" Of course, those are when the abuse happened and are only the sexual abuse. The quotes at the end are what I most heard people say about them. You want to know what I take from just my abusers: They can be anyone, anywhere at any time. If you want to include all other abuses I suffered: Abuser 2: White male, 50’s, father, unemployed, divorced several times, "such an asshole" Abuser 4: White female, early 40’s, mother, out of work due to injury/student, divorced several times Abuser 5: White female, 50’s, foster mother, worked at some craft plant, divorced once that I know of – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I work hard at not generalizing & at trusting men. There have been some very wonderful men in my life in adulthood who have helped me a great deal. I am a lot better than I use to be. Cool. I take it that that’s working better for you than the generalization has. But this is probably off the subject since I don’t know if this is what you were referring to. You’re dead on topic afaic. Further discussion along this line is very appreciated. polly wog Take care, Blain — Do you need to control others? | Blain Nelson http://www.blainn.cc/abuse/ <- Is abuse part of your life?
Response:
Out of line? What harm is my questioning causing? Personally, I’m apt to refer to the person as "chair" and skip the minefield. But, then, I’ve been told that, as a man, I have no right to use the term "young lady" because some women are offended by the term. Remember that every lady is a woman, but not every woman is a lady
Oh, I’m clear on that one. But this was not simply a statement in thin air that I didn’t have the right to use the term. My usage and my refusal to agree to stop the usage, along with my giving answers to some questions which I guess were supposed to be rhetorical, and the big fight that followed all of this (that I mostly stayed out of) became grounds for my being kicked off a mail list. In English 101, we were taught not to use gender specific terminology when speaking of generic circumstances. Thus the growth in the use of "he or she". When were you told to use them?
English 101, and, I believe, a class on public speaking. I mean, in what circumstances? All?
When speaking of a situation where the gender was indeterminate, it was not acceptable to use "he" to refer to the third person singular, and that "he or she" was preferable. Well, here’s my answer to that: People speak for their audience in every day language, not to win a Nobel Prize. There is no such thing as "perfect English," and not one person possesses that skill. The way I talk to you through this post is far from perfect in the traditional sense. I believe it is very perfect for the situation and circumstance. I admit, I use the he or she in most cases. As a woman, I don’t particularly appreciate the "male generalization" but it’s there to keep things anonymous, I feel. (I’m one of those women).
Your reasoning makes sense to me. I’m just telling you what’s being taught in colleges for the past 10 years at least. If you want to know why there are more cases reported of men as abusers, consider this:
Oh, I’m familiar with the reasons for differences in reporting. I’ve been having that conversation in asd-v also, and the tricky task of trying to put together resources for battered men. Female abusers are better at convincing their victims they are lucky this is happening to them (the older woman thing), and that is feels good. As a survivor, I also hang out in alt.abuse.offender.recovery to try to understand the reasoning behind the abuser. Many people there (mostly men, BTW) have told me this. They were survivors who repeated the cycle. Though some were abused by men themselves, those that were abused by women said the woman convinced them it was a good thing…something every boy wanted. When the members of that ng tell me what they did to female victims, they said they tried to convince them of the same, but as they look back, they know it didn’t work. These men were convinced they enjoyed the abuse and grew up believing it was OK to have relations with children. Perhaps that would be a better subject to address — breaking the cycle. I think it would do more for society than debating gender generalization survivors use.
I’ve had those conversations as well. In this case, my interest in this generalization is more to understand the nature of how the situation is looked at that results in the generalization. I’m not attacking anybody for that use of generalization — I’m just trying to learn how other people process things. At least one person has indicated that this generalization hasn’t been a completely helpful thing in her life (did you catch that?), and that she struggles with it. That’s kinda a piece of what I think I’m looking for in this (and I’m not really sure what it is I’m trying to get at, which is why my questions have been rather vague). Take care, Blain — Do you need to control others? | Blain Nelson http://www.blainn.cc/abuse/ <- Is abuse part of your life?
Response:
The subject’s come up on a.s.d-v of generalization regarding abusers, and I’m interested in exploring this a bit. It looks as though that’s not going to work in asd-v, so maybe it’ll work here. What I mean by generalization is going from "The people who abused me were each X" to "X abused me." In the asd-v discussion, X was "men", and certainly gender is a major area of focus in discussing domestic abuse. But I’m wondering if there are other X’s going on as well — if all of a persons abusers, for example were of the same race, would that work as a generalization in that person’s mind? I’ve known a white man who was raped in jail by a black man who had some generalized distrust and anger at blacks because of it. Might that work differently if the victim is the same race or gender as the abuser? I’m sort of stewing on this piece at the moment, because of the trainings I’m coming to the end of toward my certification to provide treatment to batterers. The latest batch has been volunteer training for a local agency that does victim advocacy, and virtually all of the people providing the training have used the term "he" generically to refer to abusers, and "she" to refer to their victims, and virtually all of them have felt the need to put a little disclaimer about how they understand that there are "some" men abused, and that "some" women can be abusive, but that the "vast majority" of cases are men abusing women (quoting stats of 95-99%). And all that protestation got me thinking about this generic male for the abuser thing. I mean, even if we assume that 99% of the abuse is done by males, does that make such generic use acceptable? Consider the time when more than 99% of judges, police officers, office holders, CEOs, doctors, lawyers, etc were male. Remember the time when we were told that we could no longer use the generic male in those situations? What is it about being abusive that has changed this dynamic? Just some thoughts on the matter. Take care, Blain — Do you need to control others? | Blain Nelson http://www.blainn.cc/abuse/ <- Is abuse part of your life?
Response:
x-no-archive: yes Hi Blain, I certainly know that women can and are abusers. However (and I’m not certain of the percentage) the vast majority of abusers are male and when the victim speaks about the abuser we generally refer to them as a he or she.
That’s an oft repeated fact that I don’t necessarily accept (that is, that the vast majority of abusers are male). When someone who was abused by a male, it would obviously make sense to refer to the abuser as "he". That’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about two things, I guess. One is the generic "he" being used to refer to abusers when it’s pretty much unacceptable to use the generic "he" anyplace where it might possibly refer to women as well. The other is the process of generalizing from "The people who abused me were men" to "Men abused me". In the overwhelming majority of cases it’s a male.
In the overwhelming majority of cases which are reported, it’s a male. That doesn’t necessarily translate to the majority of cases which happen. And the differential in reported cases is closing — it’s down from 95% to 85%, according to my feminist friend on asd-v, quoting Bureau of Justice Statistics more recent numbers. The purpose of the thread here is not to throw around statistics, particularly since I’ve been clear for along time that I don’t believe abuse statistics. The purpose was the exploration of the process of generalizing, particularly as it refers to abuse. This is a personal mental process, rather than a social or political process. I don’t think that anyone is so secluded and deluded that they believe that only males are abusers.
Don Pierce, former police chief for Bellingham, Washington, currently serving in a similar capacity in Idaho, has stated, and repeated on radio that "Abuse means men beating women" — the repeat came after I called in and challenged that statement and was supported by the women’s advocate who was also on the show. At last training Tuesday night, one of the trainers said (in partial jest) that the only reason she needed to give her little "men aren’t the only abusers" disclaimer was that there were two men in the room. Saab
Take care, Blain — Do you need to control others? | Blain Nelson http://www.blainn.cc/abuse/ <- Is abuse part of your life?
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The subject’s come up on a.s.d-v of generalization regarding abusers, and I’m interested in exploring this a bit. It looks as though that’s not going to work in asd-v, so maybe it’ll work here. What I mean by generalization is going from "The people who abused me were each X" to "X abused me." In the asd-v discussion, X was "men", and certainly gender is a major area of focus in discussing domestic abuse. But I’m wondering if there are other X’s going on as well — if all of a persons abusers, for example were of the same race, would that work as a generalization in that person’s mind? I’ve known a white man who was raped in jail by a black man who had some generalized distrust and anger at blacks because of it. Might that work differently if the victim is the same race or gender as the abuser? I’m sort of stewing on this piece at the moment, because of the trainings I’m coming to the end of toward my certification to provide treatment to batterers. The latest batch has been volunteer training for a local agency that does victim advocacy, and virtually all of the people providing the training have used the term "he" generically to refer to abusers, and "she" to refer to their victims, and virtually all of them have felt the need to put a little disclaimer about how they understand that there are "some" men abused, and that "some" women can be abusive, but that the "vast majority" of cases are men abusing women (quoting stats of 95-99%).
Since the beginning of time the generalization has been "he." For example: A person may say what he chooses." That he is not necessarily male. A woman may say what she chooses, too. And all that protestation got me thinking about this generic male for the abuser thing. I mean, even if we assume that 99% of the abuse is done by males, does that make such generic use acceptable? Consider the time when more than 99% of judges, police officers, office holders, CEOs, doctors, lawyers, etc were male. Remember the time when we were told that we could no longer use the generic male in those situations? What is it about being abusive that has changed this dynamic?
I think you questioning is a little out of line, but I believe I answered your question above. And, I’ll have you know that if speaking of a specific person in one of those positions, you would say chairman or chairwoman, but if you are using a generalization, you use chairman. Chairperson is not as accepted as you think. Besides, I don’t ever recall being told I couldn’t use "the generic male" in any situation. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Just some thoughts on the matter. Take care, Blain — Do you need to control others? | Blain Nelson http://www.blainn.cc/abuse/ <- Is abuse part of your life?
Response:
well, in such things as my thesis & in my business, I have to use ungender biased language. I guess w/ different jobs & different situations, different things are required. I have never been alowed to use gender biased language in any school I attended. No spokeswoman or man, but spokes person. Many people use they for he or she. It may not be accepted in the newspaper, but the people I know use it often in everyday life & many of my friends are very literate. Especially my homosexual friends use they. I believe it will become common usage & acceptable in most forums eventually. Things change. Just like the word aint. It is now acceptable. polly wog
Since the beginning of time the generalization has been "he." For example: A person may say what he chooses." That he is not necessarily male. A woman may say what she chooses, too. but some generations do make linguistic changes that stick, and in the decades since the sixties a person has not been able to say what he chooses. a person may say what she or he chooses, he or she chooses, s/he chooses, sie chooses, or (gratingly enough to those of us trained in the archaic grammar), a person may say what they choose. That’s actually the most grammatically incorrect thing you could say. How is "a person" going to be a "they"? They is plural. I think you questioning is a little out of line, but I believe I answered your question above. And, I’ll have you know that if speaking of a specific person in one of those positions, you would say chairman or chairwoman, but if you are using a generalization, you use chairman. Chairperson is not as accepted as you think. it’s totally accepted in the circles I move in. so is chair, as in "fred is the chair of that department, talk to him." saying chairman would cause an exertion of eyebrows. I am an editor of a daily newspaper, and that style says it is perfectly acceptable to use the generalized chairman or spokesman when neither a man or woman is specified. In fact, it is preferred over chairperson or spokesperson. Chair is also accepted (though I believe it sounds pretty funny). Using chairman has never raised eyebrows in my circle, which covers about 25,000 people. Besides, I don’t ever recall being told I couldn’t use "the generic male" in any situation. well, I sure recall it might depend on who uses it, no? That’s the wonderful thing about the English language…it lives, can grow and change and is different in all parts of the world However, I don’t think that when survivors want to be anonymous about their abusers it is wrong for them to generalize "he" to avoid revealing a gender. Often, I referred to my abusers as "its." Joanna cal — For more information about this posting service, contact: If you want an anonymous account, visit our sign-up page: http://asarian-host.org/emailform.html and the greatest of these is love
Response:
Since the beginning of time the generalization has been "he." For example: A person may say what he chooses." That he is not necessarily male. A woman may say what she chooses, too. but some generations do make linguistic changes that stick, and in the decades since the sixties a person has not been able to say what he chooses. a person may say what she or he chooses, he or she chooses, s/he chooses, sie chooses, or (gratingly enough to those of us trained in the archaic grammar), a person may say what they choose.
That’s actually the most grammatically incorrect thing you could say. How is "a person" going to be a "they"? They is plural. I think you questioning is a little out of line, but I believe I answered your question above. And, I’ll have you know that if speaking of a specific person in one of those positions, you would say chairman or chairwoman, but if you are using a generalization, you use chairman. Chairperson is not as accepted as you think. it’s totally accepted in the circles I move in. so is chair, as in "fred is the chair of that department, talk to him." saying chairman would cause an exertion of eyebrows.
I am an editor of a daily newspaper, and that style says it is perfectly acceptable to use the generalized chairman or spokesman when neither a man or woman is specified. In fact, it is preferred over chairperson or spokesperson. Chair is also accepted (though I believe it sounds pretty funny). Using chairman has never raised eyebrows in my circle, which covers about 25,000 people. Besides, I don’t ever recall being told I couldn’t use "the generic male" in any situation. well, I sure recall it might depend on who uses it, no?
That’s the wonderful thing about the English language…it lives, can grow and change and is different in all parts of the world However, I don’t think that when survivors want to be anonymous about their abusers it is wrong for them to generalize "he" to avoid revealing a gender. Often, I referred to my abusers as "its." Joanna – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – cal — For more information about this posting service, contact: If you want an anonymous account, visit our sign-up page: http://asarian-host.org/emailform.html
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Since the beginning of time the generalization has been "he." For example: A person may say what he chooses." That he is not necessarily male. A woman may say what she chooses, too. I wasn’t there at the beginning of time, but I’ve seen this kind of generalization going back quite a ways. Spanish, I know, makes use of the generic male when discussing groups of people as "ellos" unless every person in the group is female, in which case it is "ellas". The language police, however, have attacked these kinds of uses as demeaning to women, so we now have firefighters and police officers and, somehow, women seem to be demeaned in different ways now. I think you questioning is a little out of line, but I believe I answered your question above. And, I’ll have you know that if speaking of a specific person in one of those positions, you would say chairman or chairwoman, but if you are using a generalization, you use chairman. Chairperson is not as accepted as you think. Besides, I don’t ever recall being told I couldn’t use "the generic male" in any situation. Out of line? What harm is my questioning causing? Personally, I’m apt to refer to the person as "chair" and skip the minefield. But, then, I’ve been told that, as a man, I have no right to use the term "young lady" because some women are offended by the term.
Remember that every lady is a woman, but not every woman is a lady In English 101, we were taught not to use gender specific terminology when speaking of generic circumstances. Thus the growth in the use of "he or she".
When were you told to use them? I mean, in what circumstances? All? Well, here’s my answer to that: People speak for their audience in every day language, not to win a Nobel Prize. There is no such thing as "perfect English," and not one person possesses that skill. The way I talk to you through this post is far from perfect in the traditional sense. I believe it is very perfect for the situation and circumstance. I admit, I use the he or she in most cases. As a woman, I don’t particularly appreciate the "male generalization" but it’s there to keep things anonymous, I feel. (I’m one of those women). If you want to know why there are more cases reported of men as abusers, consider this: Female abusers are better at convincing their victims they are lucky this is happening to them (the older woman thing), and that is feels good. As a survivor, I also hang out in alt.abuse.offender.recovery to try to understand the reasoning behind the abuser. Many people there (mostly men, BTW) have told me this. They were survivors who repeated the cycle. Though some were abused by men themselves, those that were abused by women said the woman convinced them it was a good thing…something every boy wanted. When the members of that ng tell me what they did to female victims, they said they tried to convince them of the same, but as they look back, they know it didn’t work. These men were convinced they enjoyed the abuse and grew up believing it was OK to have relations with children. Perhaps that would be a better subject to address — breaking the cycle. I think it would do more for society than debating gender generalization survivors use. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Take care, Blain — Do you need to control others? | Blain Nelson http://www.blainn.cc/abuse/ <- Is abuse part of your life?
Response:
LOL..I think this was *very* appropriate. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – An English teacher was explaining to his students the concept of gender association in the English language. He stated how hurricanes at one time were given feminine names and how ships and planes were usually referred to as "she". A student with raised hand asked: "What gender is a computer?" The teacher wasn’t certain which it was, so he divided the class into two groups, males in one, females in the other, and asked them to decide if a computer should be masculine or feminine. Both groups were asked to give four reasons for their recommendation. The group of girls concluded that computers should be referred to in the masculine gender because: 1. In order to get their attention, you have to turn them on. 2. They have a lot of data but are still clueless. 3. They are supposed to help you solve your problems, but half the time they ARE the problem. 4. As soon as you commit to one, you realize that, if; you had waited a little longer, you could have had a better model. The boys, on the other hand, decided that computers should definitely be referred to in the feminine gender because: 1. No one but their creator understands their internal logic. 2. The native language they use to communicate with other computers is incomprehensible to everyone else. 3. Even your smallest mistakes are stored in long-term memory for later retrieval. 4. As soon as you make a commitment to one, you find yourself spending half your paycheck on accessories for it. Slap me up the side of the head if you must, but I though it was somewhat apropos and a bit of humor certainly doesn’t hurt either. :o)
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – x-no-archive: yes Hi Blain, <snip In the overwhelming majority of cases it’s a male. In the overwhelming majority of cases which are reported, it’s a male. That doesn’t necessarily translate to the majority of cases which happen. And the differential in reported cases is closing — it’s down from 95% to 85%, according to my feminist friend on asd-v, quoting Bureau of Justice Statistics more recent numbers. The purpose of the thread here is not to throw around statistics, particularly since I’ve been clear for along time that I don’t believe abuse statistics. <snip
That is wise on your part. I don’t think that anyone is so secluded and deluded that they believe that only males are abusers. Don Pierce, former police chief for Bellingham, Washington, currently serving in a similar capacity in Idaho, has stated, and repeated on radio that "Abuse means men beating women" — the repeat came after I called in and challenged that statement and was supported by the women’s advocate who was also on the show.
That shows one person’s ignorance of the matter. At last training Tuesday night, one of the trainers said (in partial jest) that the only reason she needed to give her little "men aren’t the only abusers" disclaimer was that there were two men in the room.
That was unethical on her part, I think. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Saab Take care, Blain — Do you need to control others? | Blain Nelson http://www.blainn.cc/abuse/ <- Is abuse part of your life?
Response:
piggy back. Blain , You posted a reply to me & I accidently erased it. Would you mind reposting it, if you still have it? polly wog
How about rationalized justification for the negation of any rights typically afforded any person? The officials you refer to are held in high regard, while this most certainly isn’t the case for abusers. Certainly not as abusers, although individuals who are abusers have been held in high regard — Mike Tyson, OJ Simpson, Tommy Lee, James Brown, Ryan O’Neil, etc. Assigning someone to a group also makes it much easier to justify that which would not be acceptable or appropriate for an individual. In my class on logic, that was referred to as a fallacy of reverse construction — attributing a characteristic of a whole to a part. There is also the unfortunate situation where people just will *not* believe that a woman could abuse a man, even when confronted with evidence and testimony of such, it is simply denied, discounted as a "one off" occurrence, or even if it’s accepted to be the case, it’s minimized or negated in deference to the "larger" truth that only men abuse. This is a portion of what’s bugging me. I also believe a great deal of this is because the majority of people are simply mentally slovenly, especially when dealing with something, someone, or some group of people who don’t "merit" the same degree or depth of thought typically given others. By and large, people don’t want to explore this issue to any degree, so stopping to think through the meaning of their positions isn’t likely to happen. Even when some people allude to the actual situation, it is more to pay homage to political correctness than any attempt to state the truth accurately and fairly, hence the appearance of jest with the speaker you refer to. It floors me when talking about men being abused is deemed "politically correct." On what planet would that be — on this planet, it’s not at all politically correct to talk about abused men. Same here, whatever they might be worth. Thanks. Take care, Blain – Do you need to control others? | Blain Nelson http://www.blainn.cc/abuse/ <- Is abuse part of your life? and the greatest of these is love
Response:
Well shoot,
Bang! You said to. I thought I understaood what you were talking about Blain, but now I am not so sure.
I know the feeling. I thought you were talking about stuff like what I seem to do & have to work hard on. I was abused by many males & have tended to not trust males. I have generalized the abuse to all males. I find when I see a father w/ a little girl, I find I don’t always trust "it". Usually I wonder if HE is abusing his child. I find it hard to trust that a man would not abuse his female child. I am this way about sexual abuse more so than emotional or other physical abuse.
That’s one portion of what I was talking about — a portion of what hasn’t been addressed elsewhere in the thread, so thanks for bringing it here. I’m curious as to whether there are other commonalities between these men who have abused you, and whether the generalization has shown itself regarding those commonalities as well. Race, religion, location, anything? If so (or not), do you share any of these other commonalities? I work hard at not generalizing & at trusting men. There have been some very wonderful men in my life in adulthood who have helped me a great deal. I am a lot better than I use to be.
Cool. I take it that that’s working better for you than the generalization has. But this is probably off the subject since I don’t know if this is what you were referring to.
You’re dead on topic afaic. Further discussion along this line is very appreciated. polly wog
Take care, Blain — Do you need to control others? | Blain Nelson http://www.blainn.cc/abuse/ <- Is abuse part of your life?
Response:
How about rationalized justification for the negation of any rights typically afforded any person? The officials you refer to are held in high regard, while this most certainly isn’t the case for abusers.
Certainly not as abusers, although individuals who are abusers have been held in high regard — Mike Tyson, OJ Simpson, Tommy Lee, James Brown, Ryan O’Neil, etc. Assigning someone to a group also makes it much easier to justify that which would not be acceptable or appropriate for an individual.
In my class on logic, that was referred to as a fallacy of reverse construction — attributing a characteristic of a whole to a part. There is also the unfortunate situation where people just will *not* believe that a woman could abuse a man, even when confronted with evidence and testimony of such, it is simply denied, discounted as a "one off" occurrence, or even if it’s accepted to be the case, it’s minimized or negated in deference to the "larger" truth that only men abuse.
This is a portion of what’s bugging me. I also believe a great deal of this is because the majority of people are simply mentally slovenly, especially when dealing with something, someone, or some group of people who don’t "merit" the same degree or depth of thought typically given others.
By and large, people don’t want to explore this issue to any degree, so stopping to think through the meaning of their positions isn’t likely to happen. Even when some people allude to the actual situation, it is more to pay homage to political correctness than any attempt to state the truth accurately and fairly, hence the appearance of jest with the speaker you refer to.
It floors me when talking about men being abused is deemed "politically correct." On what planet would that be — on this planet, it’s not at all politically correct to talk about abused men. Same here, whatever they might be worth.
Thanks. Take care, Blain — Do you need to control others? | Blain Nelson http://www.blainn.cc/abuse/ <- Is abuse part of your life?
Response:
Since the beginning of time the generalization has been "he." For example: A person may say what he chooses." That he is not necessarily male. A woman may say what she chooses, too.
I wasn’t there at the beginning of time, but I’ve seen this kind of generalization going back quite a ways. Spanish, I know, makes use of the generic male when discussing groups of people as "ellos" unless every person in the group is female, in which case it is "ellas". The language police, however, have attacked these kinds of uses as demeaning to women, so we now have firefighters and police officers and, somehow, women seem to be demeaned in different ways now. I think you questioning is a little out of line, but I believe I answered your question above. And, I’ll have you know that if speaking of a specific person in one of those positions, you would say chairman or chairwoman, but if you are using a generalization, you use chairman. Chairperson is not as accepted as you think. Besides, I don’t ever recall being told I couldn’t use "the generic male" in any situation.
Out of line? What harm is my questioning causing? Personally, I’m apt to refer to the person as "chair" and skip the minefield. But, then, I’ve been told that, as a man, I have no right to use the term "young lady" because some women are offended by the term. In English 101, we were taught not to use gender specific terminology when speaking of generic circumstances. Thus the growth in the use of "he or she". Take care, Blain — Do you need to control others? | Blain Nelson http://www.blainn.cc/abuse/ <- Is abuse part of your life?
Response:
Well shoot, I thought I understaood what you were talking about Blain, but now I am not so sure. I thought you were talking about stuff like what I seem to do & have to work hard on. I was abused by many males & have tended to not trust males. I have generalized the abuse to all males. I find when I see a father w/ a little girl, I find I don’t always trust "it". Usually I wonder if HE is abusing his child. I find it hard to trust that a man would not abuse his female child. I am this way about sexual abuse more so than emotional or other physical abuse. I work hard at not generalizing & at trusting men. There have been some very wonderful men in my life in adulthood who have helped me a great deal. I am a lot better than I use to be. But this is probably off the subject since I don’t know if this is what you were referring to. polly wog
The subject’s come up on a.s.d-v of generalization regarding abusers, and I’m interested in exploring this a bit. It looks as though that’s not going to work in asd-v, so maybe it’ll work here. What I mean by generalization is going from "The people who abused me were each X" to "X abused me." In the asd-v discussion, X was "men", and certainly gender is a major area of focus in discussing domestic abuse. But I’m wondering if there are other X’s going on as well — if all of a persons abusers, for example were of the same race, would that work as a generalization in that person’s mind? I’ve known a white man who was raped in jail by a black man who had some generalized distrust and anger at blacks because of it. Might that work differently if the victim is the same race or gender as the abuser? I’m sort of stewing on this piece at the moment, because of the trainings I’m coming to the end of toward my certification to provide treatment to batterers. The latest batch has been volunteer training for a local agency that does victim advocacy, and virtually all of the people providing the training have used the term "he" generically to refer to abusers, and "she" to refer to their victims, and virtually all of them have felt the need to put a little disclaimer about how they understand that there are "some" men abused, and that "some" women can be abusive, but that the "vast majority" of cases are men abusing women (quoting stats of 95-99%). Since the beginning of time the generalization has been "he." For example: A person may say what he chooses." That he is not necessarily male. A woman may say what she chooses, too. And all that protestation got me thinking about this generic male for the abuser thing. I mean, even if we assume that 99% of the abuse is done by males, does that make such generic use acceptable? Consider the time when more than 99% of judges, police officers, office holders, CEOs, doctors, lawyers, etc were male. Remember the time when we were told that we could no longer use the generic male in those situations? What is it about being abusive that has changed this dynamic? I think you questioning is a little out of line, but I believe I answered your question above. And, I’ll have you know that if speaking of a specific person in one of those positions, you would say chairman or chairwoman, but if you are using a generalization, you use chairman. Chairperson is not as accepted as you think. Besides, I don’t ever recall being told I couldn’t use "the generic male" in any situation. Just some thoughts on the matter. Take care, Blain — Do you need to control others? | Blain Nelson http://www.blainn.cc/abuse/ <- Is abuse part of your life? and the greatest of these is love
Response:
An English teacher was explaining to his students the concept of gender association in the English language. He stated how hurricanes at one time were given feminine names and how ships and planes were usually referred to as "she". A student with raised hand asked: "What gender is a computer?" The teacher wasn’t certain which it was, so he divided the class into two groups, males in one, females in the other, and asked them to decide if a computer should be masculine or feminine. Both groups were asked to give four reasons for their recommendation. The group of girls concluded that computers should be referred to in the masculine gender because: 1. In order to get their attention, you have to turn them on. 2. They have a lot of data but are still clueless. 3. They are supposed to help you solve your problems, but half the time they ARE the problem. 4. As soon as you commit to one, you realize that, if; you had waited a little longer, you could have had a better model. The boys, on the other hand, decided that computers should definitely be referred to in the feminine gender because: 1. No one but their creator understands their internal logic. 2. The native language they use to communicate with other computers is incomprehensible to everyone else. 3. Even your smallest mistakes are stored in long-term memory for later retrieval. 4. As soon as you make a commitment to one, you find yourself spending half your paycheck on accessories for it. Slap me up the side of the head if you must, but I though it was somewhat apropos and a bit of humor certainly doesn’t hurt either. :o)
Response:
I wouldn’t be a good one to talk about this cause I have to fight generalizing like you are talking about. but it will be interesting to read what others have to say polly wog
The subject’s come up on a.s.d-v of generalization regarding abusers, and I’m interested in exploring this a bit. It looks as though that’s not going to work in asd-v, so maybe it’ll work here. What I mean by generalization is going from "The people who abused me were each X" to "X abused me." In the asd-v discussion, X was "men", and certainly gender is a major area of focus in discussing domestic abuse. But I’m wondering if there are other X’s going on as well — if all of a persons abusers, for example were of the same race, would that work as a generalization in that person’s mind? I’ve known a white man who was raped in jail by a black man who had some generalized distrust and anger at blacks because of it. Might that work differently if the victim is the same race or gender as the abuser? I’m sort of stewing on this piece at the moment, because of the trainings I’m coming to the end of toward my certification to provide treatment to batterers. The latest batch has been volunteer training for a local agency that does victim advocacy, and virtually all of the people providing the training have used the term "he" generically to refer to abusers, and "she" to refer to their victims, and virtually all of them have felt the need to put a little disclaimer about how they understand that there are "some" men abused, and that "some" women can be abusive, but that the "vast majority" of cases are men abusing women (quoting stats of 95-99%). And all that protestation got me thinking about this generic male for the abuser thing. I mean, even if we assume that 99% of the abuse is done by males, does that make such generic use acceptable? Consider the time when more than 99% of judges, police officers, office holders, CEOs, doctors, lawyers, etc were male. Remember the time when we were told that we could no longer use the generic male in those situations? What is it about being abusive that has changed this dynamic? Just some thoughts on the matter. Take care, Blain – Do you need to control others? | Blain Nelson http://www.blainn.cc/abuse/ <- Is abuse part of your life? and the greatest of these is love
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The subject’s come up on a.s.d-v of generalization regarding abusers, and I’m interested in exploring this a bit. It looks as though that’s not going to work in asd-v, so maybe it’ll work here. What I mean by generalization is going from "The people who abused me were each X" to "X abused me." In the asd-v discussion, X was "men", and certainly gender is a major area of focus in discussing domestic abuse. But I’m wondering if there are other X’s going on as well — if all of a persons abusers, for example were of the same race, would that work as a generalization in that person’s mind? I’ve known a white man who was raped in jail by a black man who had some generalized distrust and anger at blacks because of it. Might that work differently if the victim is the same race or gender as the abuser? I’m sort of stewing on this piece at the moment, because of the trainings I’m coming to the end of toward my certification to provide treatment to batterers. The latest batch has been volunteer training for a local agency that does victim advocacy, and virtually all of the people providing the training have used the term "he" generically to refer to abusers, and "she" to refer to their victims, and virtually all of them have felt the need to put a little disclaimer about how they understand that there are "some" men abused, and that "some" women can be abusive, but that the "vast majority" of cases are men abusing women (quoting stats of 95-99%). And all that protestation got me thinking about this generic male for the abuser thing. I mean, even if we assume that 99% of the abuse is done by males, does that make such generic use acceptable? Consider the time when more than 99% of judges, police officers, office holders, CEOs, doctors, lawyers, etc were male. Remember the time when we were told that we could no longer use the generic male in those situations? What is it about being abusive that has changed this dynamic?
How about rationalized justification for the negation of any rights typically afforded any person? The officials you refer to are held in high regard, while this most certainly isn’t the case for abusers. Assigning someone to a group also makes it much easier to justify that which would not be acceptable or appropriate for an individual. There is also the unfortunate situation where people just will *not* believe that a woman could abuse a man, even when confronted with evidence and testimony of such, it is simply denied, discounted as a "one off" occurrence, or even if it’s accepted to be the case, it’s minimized or negated in deference to the "larger" truth that only men abuse. I also believe a great deal of this is because the majority of people are simply mentally slovenly, especially when dealing with something, someone, or some group of people who don’t "merit" the same degree or depth of thought typically given others. Even when some people allude to the actual situation, it is more to pay homage to political correctness than any attempt to state the truth accurately and fairly, hence the appearance of jest with the speaker you refer to. Just some thoughts on the matter.
Same here, whatever they might be worth. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Take care, Blain
Response:
Categories: Drug Abuse Statistics | 
No Comments »
— Allow me to interpret this interesting silence. Jane Austen, "Emma"