The recent posting by Lynnell Mickelsen
(Message: 15, Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002
15:06:07 -0500, To: [EMAIL PROTECTED],
From: Lynnell Mickelsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Subject: [Mpls] Wife-beating, Strib
endorsements, lion fighting, U.S. army)
in Mpls digest, Vol 1 #1008 contains an
unfortunate sexist slur. The term "wife-beating"
is the apparent outcropping of a perverted
chauvinistic concept of one or more feminist
organizations.
I feel that resolving the problems of domestic
abuse in Minneapolis is contingent on having
a realistic understanding as to what is involved
and that the use of expressions that promote
misunderstanding is counterproductive.
As I have stated in a previous posting:
"Males are not the only gender that commits
domestic violence (both physical and emotional).
Indeed, I believe that women inflict more
physical domestic violence than men, although
women are more likely to become seriously
injured."
Focusing on and purveying distorted information
to the public by organizations is a disservice in
that it obscures a significant basis for a problem.
Resolution of a problem requires a realistic
approach that is impossible without a clear
understanding.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics, in the last
update available on the Internet (1998), does not
really provide statistical support for the inference
of "wife beating". The figures, 876,340 instances
of intimate violence against women and 160,000
instances of intimate violence against men, are
not based directly on reports, but are only
estimates and are not definitive as to which
gender committed the violence. Wouldn't
intimate violence exist among same-gender
partners?
That 160,000 figure is too generalized to be
above suspicion and perhaps a "0" had been
left out -- perhaps the real estimate should
have been 876,340 instances of intimate
violence against women and 1,600,000
instances of intimate violence against men.
Please see:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=battered+men&btnG=Google+Search
One often observes sexist references with
unsupported inferences including cases in
which exclusive gender language is involved.
The various news media are certainly no
exception.
The Health Partners annual health assessment
form, "The Adult Health Risk Assessment
Questionnaire" is an example of the distortion
of domestic abuse reality. This assessment,
which is currently given to the patient to fill out
during the routine annual examination is, for the
most part, a valuable procedure. However, part
of it is counterproductive in that it promotes
erroneous notions as to gender accountability
for domestic abuse. Along with various at risk
inquiries such as drinking, smoking, etc., are
the questions:
"19. In the past year, have you been physically
abused by your husband/partner? (hit, kicked,
punched, slapped)"
"20. In the past year have you been emotionally
abused by your husband/partner? (insults,
threats, being controlled)"
I have tried to influence Health Partners to
change the language from husband/partner to
spouse/partner for several years through a
lead physician and through Member Services.
The wording has still not been changed and so
it must be assumed that this information is still
affecting individuals in a distortive manner and
is still becoming "a confidential part" of patients'
medical records.
Now, I hope that this post does not create the
impression with some readers that I am against
the rights of women. The opposite is actually
the truth. I regard females as my absolute
equals -- not a subordinate group that should
be humored.
Neal E. Simons
Prospect Park
