>Yes, I think you just did [say all men were violent]- or at least it was
an exception to the rule.
well. ummm. nope. i have to disagree. did i mention my father? my other grandfather? my uncles? how 'bout my male cousins? [5] my brother? my brother-in-laws? my three stepsons? my sisters' myriad boyfriends? my other beaux? the fathers of my other childhood friends? the fathers of my other high school/college buds? all the other college buds who weren't beaten, molested, raped? my good male friends [5]? the 10 other neighbors in that neighborhood where so much sexual abuse occurred? the partners of the other women neighbors? etc. you get my drift. i'm sure the list of men in my life who don't do these things is quite a bit longer.
i find it quite interesting that you read what you read into my post. i name 20 men i either knew who did these things or women who knew men who'd done it to them and you think i'm indicting all the men in my life. you must think i don't get out much.
i think it was more acceptable to engage in abuse in previous generations, i think it was more tolerated. i don't think rates of family violence have changed all that much though.
> Did you really have three child
>abusing neighbours? What neighbourhood was that?
this is really kind of sad.....
i understand your incredulity and it may well be an aberration, but you asked who i knew who were violent and so i told you. again, i don't see men as inherently [born] violent. rather, i'd agree with gordon insofar as i'm a Freudian--people battle eros and thanatos all their lives, that's the human condition. what counts is how and if we manage those impulses. women are just as capable of violence, hence women beat their children at higher rates than men do.
kelley
“touch yourself and you will know that i exist.” ~luce irigaray