Save the buckshot, turn up the band

Bob Allen at Ethics Daily looks at Jocelyn Andersen's new book, Woman Submit! Christians & Domestic Violence:

Andersen says one big reason that men who profess to be Christians beat their wives is the doctrine of wifely submission.

"I believe the way this doctrine is taught and interpreted within many evangelical churches can lead men to believe it is their God-given right to exert authority over their wives," she said in an e-mail interview. "This logically leads to problems with abuse when they attempt to assert this authority -- especially with men who deal with unresolved anger issues."

"In addition, the blame for the abuse is frequently shifted from the husband to the wife," Andersen said. "This happens when she is told that she could be provoking the violence or that if she reacts submissively to his abuse, his behavior might change."

As an example of this teaching, Andersen cites media mogul and spanking guru James Dobson:

In a 1984 broadcast of his radio program, she says, Dobson told his listening audience that he had seen situations where the wife wanted to be beaten up. His hypothesis was that the wife achieved a certain moral advantage from being hit. If she pushed her husband into blacking her eye, the world -- and God -- would view her as a martyr. This way, he said, she could give herself a moral exit from the marriage, because the Bible says marriage is forever.

So for the record, "spanking guru James Dobson" will now be referred to here as "wife-beating apologist James Dobson."

* * * * * * * * *

I don't understand this sign Mitt Romney is waving.

MOMA isn't in Chelsea, it's in Midtown, so ...

What? Oh.

I knew Romney supporters weren't the sharpest tools in the shed, but I didn't think anyone could spell "mama" wrong.

Seriously, though, Romney needs to be made to apologize for "polluting the water our children swim in" with despicable stuff like this.

* * * * * * * * *

Regret the Error catches the following, from Dateline NBC's Web site:

In an earlier version of a schedule posted July 12 on the Dateline NBC site, Eric McLean was incorrectly referred to as a "convicted murderer." Although Mr. McLean has admitted to shooting Sean Powell, he has not yet been tried, and has not yet formally entered a plea. His attorney, Bruce Poston, says Mr. McLean will eventually plead "not guilty" to the charge of second-degree murder.

This is a pretty major screw up, a violation of one of the Big Rules from Journalism 101: the press is not judge and jury. That's why newspapers and TV/radio news programs are riddled with all those "allegedlys" and "police says" and "suspect accused ofs" and why the word "slaying" (as opposed to the legal term "murder") gets used so often.

But look where this correction came from. It wasn't due to a Dateline report, but to an online plug for an upcoming show. Since it was just A) a refer, and B) online, it seems to have bypassed the copy editing process.

This is an example of what I wrote about here. News organizations have embraced new media platforms without adapting their editorial process to cover what they're publishing in these new platforms. One result of that is the embarrassing, but mostly harmless, rash of typos and grammar/spelling/style errors on otherwise respectable news sites. The news organizations have decided they'd rather live with that embarrassment than reverse the industrywide trend of eliminating copy editor positions. But the correction above shows that this lack of editorial process can also have more serious consequences: No editors checking for grammar/spelling/style errors also means there are no editors checking for factual errors or guarding against libel.

Eventually, these news organizations will develop an editorial process for their new platforms, and they'll hire the editors these new platforms require. That probably won't happen, though, until after a few high-profile, very expensive settlements of libel suits.

Also: (via Teresa): "When it comes to proofreading, the red penis your friend."

* * * * * * * * *

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council says, "if those who claim to speak for the poor really want to find 'common ground' with us, a good place to start might be with opposing state-sponsored gambling." Noting that state lotteries "are a regressive tax that hits the poor the hardest. Left and right should agree -- state lotteries are a bad bet for the poor."

He's right about that, and he's correct that this is one area where there's room for cooperation between people like him and people like me.

Perkins seems unaware that such cooperation has been going on for decades, which is odd since his sort-of boss, wife-beating apologist James Dobson, served on the National Gambling Impact Study Commission, which was signed into law by President Clinton.

Despite Dobson's involvement, that panel came up with several worthy recommendations, such as requiring "warnings regarding the dangers and risks of gambling, as well as the odds where feasible" to be "posted in prominent locations in all gambling facilities." And "that states with lotteries reduce their sales dependence on low-income neighborhoods and heavy players ... including limiting advertising and number of sales outlets in low-income areas."

The commission didn't include my personal hobby-horse recommendation: removing state lotteries' exemption from truth-in-advertising laws.

* * * * * * * * *

From Lawyers, Guns and Money, an acronym worth remembering: GWAPWRSVWPWCO9-11A

I would have gotten a lot more done this weekend if LM hadn't posted a link to this in comments.

Ryan Singel: "There's No Such Thing as the Homeland"

The increasing use of creepy phrases like "Homeland" is one more reason to link to this again: "Politics and the English Language." I recommend re-reading that 2-3 times a year as needed. These days, it's needed.

Comments

[Jeff]

If you do not support the GWAPWRSVWPWCO9-11A (including eavesdropping and torture), then you must support PWRSVWPWCO9-11A!

[Jeff]

BTW, doesn't tomorrow belong to me?

[PurpleGirl]

If Perkins opposes gambling so much and wants states not to support it, is he willing to talk about and advocate for state tax increases so that states can get the money they need to pay for their programs and operations. For the record, I am opposed to state supported gambling. I see the occasional lottery ticket I buy in NYS as a tax I pay to support education.

[aunursa]

Aren't state lotteries equivalent to a voluntary tax?

[aunursa]

Is domestic violence in Christian communities more prevalent than domestic violence in Muslim communities?

[cjmr's husband]

Aren't state lotteries equivalent to a voluntary tax?

Depends: how much brainwashing is required before something isn't voluntary?

I can't use the "education tax" excuse: in Maryland, the lottery pays for the baseball and football stadia.

I play the lottery when I feel a run of bad luck coming on. I'd rather lose a couple dollars on scratch-off tickets than (say) hit a deer.

[Bugmaster]

I play the lottery when I feel a run of bad luck coming on. I'd rather lose a couple dollars on scratch-off tickets than (say) hit a deer.

Wouldn't it make more sense to play the lottery when you feel a run of good luck coming on ? Would you rather avoid a deer, or win $5M ?

[PurpleGirl]

In New York State the lottery was sold as being "extra" money for education aid to localities. Over time the lottery has become the education budget line, i.e., it isn't extra money, it is what the state uses for its education grants to localities. The lottery is heavily sold to the public as a way to reach your dreams. Also when receipts are down, the lottery administrators have to come up with new ways to re-invigorate the games to raise the money they need to meet their obligations. Although I occasionally play it (as I said before) I do see it as a tax, but I'd much rather have more honesty and a direct relationship to my income as in a regular tax. The lottery means that people least able to really pay extra taxes are paying extra taxes, "voluntary" or not.

[Drak Pope]

Wouldn't it make more sense to play the lottery when you feel a run of good luck coming on ? Would you rather avoid a deer, or win $5M ?

Wouldn't it make even more sense to declare yourself Emperor of the World at that time, taking control over the entire planet in a flurry of extremely improbably Left Behind-ish circumstances?

[Doctor Science]

aunursa:

In the US, Christian domestic violence is much more of a problem, because we have so very many more Christians and so many are in positions of power (e.g. police, prosecutors, judges). I should also note that Mormons have at least as bad a track record for domestic and child abuse as conventional fundamentalist Christians do.

From the review, Andersen doesn't seem to talk about another possibility: that the misogyny of fundamentalism and the easy forgiveness of evangelism actively attract abusers.

[Jeff]

Sooooo, those who do play the lottery, do you buy more than one ticket? if so, WHY????? I've never understood the logic of an individual buying more than one ticket. For that matter, "lottery clubs" don't make a lot of sense.

Right?

[cjmr]

Wouldn't it make more sense to play the lottery when you feel a run of good luck coming on ?

When he's feeling a run of good luck coming, I'd rather he do something with it (like, I dunno, clean the gutters on the two story part of the house) than blow it on a scratch-off ticket.

[cjmr]

Sooooo, those who do play the lottery, do you buy more than one ticket? if so, WHY????? I've never understood the logic of an individual buying more than one ticket.

If it's a drawing, you buy multiple tickets with different numbers on them to increase your odds. If it's scratch-off, every ticket has its own chance of winning.

[Bugmaster]

Actually, I'm with Drak Pope: forget the lottery, just take over the world, then all the money can be yours anyway.

@Jeff:
Mathematically speaking, buying more than one ticket does have an effect. It increases your chances of winning the lottery from 1/nearly_infinite to 2/nearly_infinite. In other words, if you buy two tickets, you have just doubled your chances of winning ! Wow ! And all for a low, low price of $however_much_lottery_tickets_cost ! What an amazing deal.

[Jeff]

If it's a drawing, you buy multiple tickets with different numbers on them to increase your odds.

That's a really bad idea.

Let's say that there are 1 million possibilities (I think most lotteries are actually higher, but this is easy math). If you buy one ticket, you have a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of winning (0.0001%). If you have 10 tickets, you have 10 in 1,000,000 chance of winning (0.001%). You've spent 10 times the amount for an insignificant improvement in your odds. It's always best to enter a lottery with fewer possible misses.

(Which is what Bug said, as well).

If you're going to play the lottery, pick one ticket. Anything else is a donation to the state.

[Bugmaster]

Well, I personally would go even further than Jeff, and advise you to spend your money on anything else other than lottery, because you'd probably get a better ROI. In other words, mathematically speaking, any money at all that you spend on lottery is a donation to the state.

Unless, of course, you have prophetic powers. Then it's a different story.

[cjmr]

Hey, I wasn't advocating buying lottery tickets. I'm fully aware of the near infinite improbability of actually winning the lottery.

[Angelika]

aunursa Is domestic violence in Christian communities more prevalent than domestic violence in Muslim communities?

In comparision to countries like Bangladesh or Egypt or Hindu India, Christian fundamentalists are on average rather respectful with their wives. However, there are Muslim societies known for their respectful treatment of women (e.g. Tuareg). The abuse seems to be correlated with the social status of women rather than with the actual religion. - However, religious creeds that view women as inferior to men can contribute to a establish/maintain a lower social status.

[Bugmaster]

I recall a conversation I had with my Mormon friend, that went something like this:

Mormon: Unlike all other religions, Mormonism is true.
Bugmaster: I don't think it's any more true than any other religion. They're all false.
Mormon: But Mormonism is special.
Bugmaster: How so ?
Mormon: We have a living prophet !
Bugmaster: Your guy can see the future ?
Mormon: Oh, yes.
Bugmaster: What does he say about the next winning lottery combination ?
Mormon: Er... that is... his powers are not to be used for material gain ! Yeah.
Bugmaster: He could donate it to charity.
Mormon: Ergh... it doesn't work like that !
Bugmaster: Uh-huh. I'll stick with my Reformed Chthuluism, thank you very much.

[JPL]

I don't know anything particularly about "Eve Syndrome", but the Old Testament always struck me as a broken home. YHWH was always beating Israel up whenever they so much as burnt the meatloaf, after all, and as soon as they came crawling back to him, he was nice... until they made him mad again, at which point, God, in his infinite omniloving wisdom, beat the crap out of them.

Perhaps I should start using this on the fundies: "Do you have a personal, abusive relationship with Jesus?"

[cjmr's husband]

Wouldn't it make more sense to play the lottery when you feel a run of good luck coming on?

I'm a pessimist, I don't believe in good luck.

Or, at least, I don't believe that I get to have good luck.

I buy lottery tickets in the hope that there is a finite supply of bad luck.

[Bugmaster]

I'm a pessimist, I don't believe in good luck. ... I buy lottery tickets in the hope that there is a finite supply of bad luck.

Then you're not pessimistic enough. A true pessimist would realize that there is, in fact, an infinite supply of bad luck. And it's all yours !

[cjmr]

A true pessimist would realize that there is, in fact, an infinite supply of bad luck. And it's all yours !

It certainly felt that I had it all last week, when I was mopping the kitchen floor for the third time in two days due to a major spill (this one also involving broken glass). Apparently the third time was the charm, though--no one's spilled anything since.

[Drak Pope]

If you really had an infinite supply of bad luck then you wouldn't be alive right now.

Or, you would be, but you would spend every waking moment in hideous agony with no friends or family near and no way of every dying or being cured.

[Bugmaster]

Not necessarily. The hideousness of your life depends not only on the total amount of bad luck you have, but also on the flux of the bad luck (i.e., amount of bad luck that you receive per second).

[Drak Pope]

Not necessarily. The hideousness of your life depends not only on the total amount of bad luck you have, but also on the flux of the bad luck (i.e., amount of bad luck that you receive per second).

If you really were that unlucky, fate would make sure that the amount of bad luck that you experienced everyday was exactly twice the amount you need to make you completely miserable.

[Erick Oppeen]

Re. "wife-beating": I've always wanted to know why me hitting her is horrible, wrong, reprehensible, and More Evol Even Than The Left Behind Writers' Prose Style---while her hitting me is, for all intents and purposes, not treated nearly so seriously---even when she did real damage. Of course, in my experience, feminists want equality with men only insofar as that refers to the good parts---when it comes down to taking equal responsibility for doing bad things, they rush back to the old ways at a speed that makes light look crippled and slow.

For what it's worth, I've never hit a woman, but if shanghaiing was still practiced, I know quite a few who'd have found themselves involuntary crewhands on a windjammer. "Ahhhrr, welcome aboard the Sea Witch! I'm yer captain, 'Bully' Waterman, the toughest sea-dog on the seven seas! We'll be arrivin' in our port of call in oh, six months---evil spirits and monsters permitting."

[McJulie]

Of course, in my experience, feminists want equality with men only insofar as that refers to the good parts---when it comes down to taking equal responsibility for doing bad things, they rush back to the old ways at a speed that makes light look crippled and slow.

Hmm, I'll light this straw man -- er, straw woman -- on fire before Jesurgislac gets here.

Yes, there is a certain sub-culture of feminists that tend to think the way you describe. My feminist friends and I usually make fun of them.

There are very good, practical reasons that men abusing women gets more press -- off the top of my head I can think of --

1. Men are usually physically stronger than women by a generous margin.

2. The "rightness" of men abusing women is a shockingly ubiquitous cultural norm.

3. In societies where abuse of women is tolerated, women are often economically dependent on the abusive relationship -- it's bruise or starve.

But, as you have pointed out, sometimes the abuse goes the other direction.

So I'm going to ask, have you ever actually been physically or psychologically abused by a woman? Or do you personally know a man who has? Did you or he actually fail to find sympathy from the feminists you know?

If so, I'm sorry, but -- you know, you didn't ask me, and I'll thank you not to assume that I think women are something other than human beings capable of evil just because I'm a feminist.

[McJulie]

PS:
For example, I'm pretty sure Ann Coulter beats up her paramours. Although maybe they want it that way.

[Cat]

I have never ever liked "Politics and the English Language". You don't protect people's freedom of speech by prohibiting certain means of expressing ourselves. Yes, we all benefit from having certain words, phrases, and sentence constructions unpacked from time to time, but the unpacking itself is a valuable intellectual exercise; not using those constructions short-circuits the process. And if you can read and understand "Politics and the English Language", then you've probably got enough smartitude to appreciate a critical dissection of discursive weaselling, rather than just being told to keep your mitts off. In short, I find Orwell's prescriptions for clear language not unstupid.

[mcc]

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council says, "if those who claim to speak for the poor really want to find 'common ground' with us, a good place to start might be with opposing state-sponsored gambling."

...wait... what? Who's he talking to exactly here? Out of everywhere I've ever lived, the most well-publicized, intricately-organized and popular state lottery has been in Texas.

[Erick Oppeen]

"Equal responsibility for doing bad things"---one of my Pet Peeves is the way that the "justice" system in this country shows greater mercy to women than it would to men who committed equivalent crimes. Case in point: Betty Broderick in San Diego. If it had been the other way around---if "Billy Broderick" had killed his high-flying ex-wife and her new boy-toy husband after getting into a house that had been locked against him, by shooting them when they were helpless in their bed, his chances of staying off Death Row would be about as good as the chances of Left Behind getting the Pulitzer Prize for Literature. And that's just one of the better-known cases. (yes, she was convicted, after the first jury couldn't agree on whether to convict her or not. They literally had to have two trials for her.)

As for me: physical abuse from women, these days, no. Psychological abuse, OTOH---that's another story, one I would prefer not to go into in too much detail here. Most of the women who know about this stuff sympathize with me. However, they are not hardcore feminists.

At seventh and last, it's all about equality---remember equality? If I got the snot kicked out of me after repeatedly goading someone who was several times stronger than I am, even after receiving repeated verbal warnings to desist, nobody'd feel sorry for me for an instant. The consensus would be "Well, you damned fool, what did you expect?" If I were female, though, I'd be automatically a Pore Victim, even if I'd initiated the conflict, or taken the first (several or so) swings.

[Rebecca Borgstrom]

Mr. Oppeen,

I don't think you need to turn to feminism to find people unsympathetic to victims of violence; we swim in a sea of scorn for those who've been hurt.

The far reaches of feminism, judging by the web, dream of a society where people are entirely free of social constraints deriving from their sex---a society where it has ceased to matter in the valuation of a human being which sex they are, and where the underlying diseases of power-hunger and self-righteous bigotry have become aberrant, ridiculous, unproductive, and shameful.

In such a dream, of course, nobody would ask or care---when someone suffers domestic violence---which sex they are, and which sex their abuser is.

I think that it's an illusion to imagine that the old ways released women from responsibility; rather, the "old ways" coopted certain behaviors typical of resistance and redescribed them as flirtation or domesticity. I think that the passage of time and the eventual implementation of social equality will eliminate the residual damage to our culture's mores.

I think it's awful that someone has betrayed your trust and hurt you.

Rebecca

[Rebecca Borgstrom]

(For clarity, I began typing my reply before Mr. Oppeen's second comment.)

[Jeff]

Re newspapers and their online counterparts (especially as regards editors), please see this.

Erick: If I got the snot kicked out of me after repeatedly goading someone who was several times stronger than I am, even after receiving repeated verbal warnings to desist, nobody'd feel sorry for me for an instant.

I know you only from your posts here, and, well, psychological abuse is OFTEN (not always, but often) in the mind of the beholder. As to the quoted text, what constitutes "goading"? Abused women tell of how their abuser thought the women were "goading" them, when they were just trying to clarify so they wouldn't be beaten.

Your post indicates you know little about patterns of abuse. If you yourself have been abused, I'm sorry, but if you presented this snotty attitude, it's no wonder "feminists" have rejected you.

[Turcano]

Re newspapers and their online counterparts (especially as regards editors), please see this.

Ugh. What's wrong with "cognitive dissonance?"

[Jesurgislac]

Most support systems and charities focussed on domestic violence focus on men who beat up women with whom they are involved: this is known to be the most common and usually most serious form of domestic violence, not least because of the social approval of men hitting women (it's not so long since a man hitting his wife or girlfriend was, in the UK, simply not committing a crime) and the likelihood that the man is hitting someone who is financially dependent on him. The last is the crucial bit: support systems are needed to help a woman leave a man on whom she is financially dependent who is abusing her.

That doesn't mean that domestic violence doesn't occur in same sex relationships, or that it never occurs the other way around, a woman beating up a man she's involved with. But realistically, a man is less likely to be financially dependent on the woman who is hitting him and less likely to be killed or permanently injured by her, than a woman in the same position. The emotional support a man who is being beaten by his wife needs is likely to be different from the kind of support a woman being beaten by her husband needs: it's a different emotional position. Men who feel concerned that abused husbands are not receiving support, are at liberty to do what women did twenty and thirty years ago: begin setting up, for themselves and each other, the kind of support networks that are needed.

Most men who complain that domestic violence against men is not taken seriously are, as Erick appears to be, complaining that it's "not fair" without actually being willing to put in the kind of money and effort that they would need to to make the support happen.

[Jesurgislac]

I dunno, Erick. It seems to me that if Betty had expected her husband to work hard, live frugally, and look after both their children, supporting her while she qualified as a doctor and as a lawyer, and live quietly at home while Betty spent most of her time in either the office or "making contacts" by drinking with her colleagues, and had then dumped her husband and her children in a rented house, selling their marital home against his will, there would have been sympathy from a jury for him. But then, how many men do set their own careers aside and labor so that their wives can have fulfilling and lucrative careers, unencumbered by any household/family work? I can't offhand think of any similar case where the genders were reversed - plenty where men kill woman and new husband, but none where the man had been used and dumped exactly as Dan used and dumped Betty.

What Dan did to Betty - make use of her labor for years, and then, having got what he needed from her, dump her for a younger and more attractive woman, while ignoring all symptoms of her mental breakdown and refusing to accept that she was due a half-share of everything he'd been able to earn because she supported him - is an excellent example of how inhuman the patriarchal mindset is: regarding women as lesser creatures, slaves who can be disposed of when no longer required. It plainly never occurred to Dan Broderick that Betty's work for him was labor for which she deserved repayment. Not every woman so misused suffers the same mental breakdown as Betty: not every woman who suffers the same mental breakdown as Betty then lashes out in violence. (Most, in fact, turn their violence on themselves.) But when treating human beings as property to be used, because humans are not inaminate, there will always be the risk of backlash. People are not things. When people are treated as things, the results are sometimes absolutely effin' horrible.

I'd really like to see the exact Dobson quote about some women wanting to be beat up. Its just so inflammatory, that I'd like to see the real quote for verification.

That being said, there was a point when I was younger when I sort enjoyed bad things happening to me because of the sympathy I would get...thankfully I grew out of it. BUT, I wouldn't go around extrapolating this on national radio to women who are abused by their husbands.

[Steve]

Oops...the comment at 7:43 was me.

[A Texan in Bavaria]

Wonder if the signmaker is related to the wit who produced the seminal classic, "Get A BRAIN! MORANS"

[Geds]

aunursa:

I'm sure you'll think this is a stupid question, but hey, why not?

Why, exactly, is it that we should ignore violence against women in the U.S. and the Western world just because it's "worse" in Muslim countries?

Stop, for a moment and realize that women are raped, beaten and killed by men on a regular basis in non-Muslim nations. The fact that it's generally less acceptable and usually against the law doesn't change the fact that it happens, it simply changes the methods and, sometimes, the end results. Still, a woman who is raped and killed by a Muslim is just as dead as a woman who is raped and killed by a Christian.

And if that Muslim in Strawmanistan gets away with it while the Christian in America gets a lethal injection, the woman still got raped and she's still dead. Her parents are still crying, her children still don't have a mommy, whatever, she's still dead.

The fact of the matter is, assuming that treatment of women in Muslim nations is still, as an aggregate, worse than the treatment of women in non-Muslim nations (which, given the state of Sharia law, it probably is, but that doesn't change the fact that individual abuse is probably the same everywhere), that doesn't negate our responsibility to make changes where we can with the hopes that those places we cannot reach will eventually be improved.

When Abraham Lincoln got the Emancipation Proclamation signed in to law it had exactly zero immediate effect, as the slaves it freed were still under the power of the forces of the Confederate States of America, which were doing an effective job of keeping the Union out in 1862. No slaves were freed that day, but by the end of the war they all were, because the freedom of the Emancipation Proclamation followed the Union Army wherever it went, from Texas to Alabama to Georgia.

It didn't matter to Lincoln that there were no slaves to free in Wisconsin. It mattered that the Union Army would march underneath the principles of the declaration would carry it with them. It was an issue of hope.

That's how freedom is achieved, not by saying, "Well, we're slightly better than these other people, so I guess we're good..."

[aunursa]

Geds,

I'm sorry, I fail to see where in my post I suggested that we should violence against women in the U.S. and the Western world. (BTW, an increasing number of domestic violence incidents committed by Muslims are done in the Western world, so your categories overlap.)

I just find it interesting that a post on religious-inspired domestic violence ignores a religion whose female members are seemingly in far greater danger than Christian women.

[Geds]

Um, because it's originally in response to a book about abuse of women at the hands of Christian men?

[Jesurgislac]

Sounds like we need another meeting of the ARA!

[Geds]

Yeah. It's weekly meeting time. I'm so very weak, especially on work days when there's nothing else to do.

Can we do chips and queso this time, maybe with some cervezas? Or just hold the chips and queso, whatever works.

[Angelika]

aunursa I just find it interesting that a post on religious-inspired domestic violence ignores a religion whose female members are seemingly in far greater danger than Christian women.

This is quite a problem in Europe, or at least it is in Germany: The authorities try to respect the culture of the Muslim immigrants and thereby tend to turn a blind eye on domestic abuse. German Muslim women complain very bitterly about this. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12812607/ (For some reason I didn't get the link to work.)

The benefit most Western Christian womenhave, even most fundamentalist Christians, is that the acceptance for domestic violence in the surrounding secular (or liberal Christian) culture is much lower. Thus, there is a social acceptance for a Christian woman to leave her disfunctional marriage. In fact, Muslim women in the West benefit from the general disacceptance of domestic violence, too. At least, there are support systems they can use to escape.

We have come a long way since mideval times. Nevertheless, there is still much to be done. And Christian speakers advocating female subordination (and the resulting domestic violence) are not helping. To some degree they are worse than those of other cultures: In the West we have already achieved a lot, and while it is obvious to mainstream Western culture that domestic violence is wrong, these fundamentalist speakers are still trying to turn back the clock. - Speakers of other cultures I still can give some benefit of doubt for not knowing the alternatives. Though I'd like them to change their behavior too, and quickly!

[Tonio]

"I'd really like to see the exact Dobson quote about some women wanting to be beat up. Its just so inflammatory, that I'd like to see the real quote for verification."

I would like to see the real quote as well. Dobson has said that God intended men to be in charge of families. In any religion, such a belief implies that domestic violence against women is acceptable, or can very easily be interpreted that way. But that implication is not sufficient evidence to call Dobson a wife-beating apologist.

Geds and Aunursa, I think everyone agrees that domestic violence is unacceptable no matter where it happens. The difference is that Islamic doctrine openly endorses it as God's will. The question is this - does fundamentalist Christian doctrine have that same explicit endorsement, and leaders such as Dobson won't directly acknowledge this in public? Or does the doctrine's claim of familial patriarchy imply such an endorsement?

[Jesurgislac]

Angelika: The authorities try to respect the culture of the Muslim immigrants and thereby tend to turn a blind eye on domestic abuse. German Muslim women complain very bitterly about this.

Yeah, it's kind of weird how it always works out that "respect the culture of the immigrants" means "Respect what the men say about how they're entitled to treat women: ignore what the women say about how they want to be treated."

Geds: Can we do chips and queso this time, maybe with some cervezas? Or just hold the chips and queso, whatever works.

I'll bring the Corsendonk Pater Noster!

[Angelika]

Tonio The question is this - does fundamentalist Christian doctrine have that same explicit endorsement, and leaders such as Dobson won't directly acknowledge this in public?

Being a Chrisitan, I have many Christian friendes, some of them fundamentalist. Yet, even those who advocate female submission do not consider wife-beating part of Christian doctrine. In fact, all of them seem to agree, that leaving an abusive husband is the right thing to do. (However, I know people who are all to willing to pretend that charges of rape and abused are maliceously made up by the wives to put blame on their virtuous partners. (Not my friends))

There are Bible-verses that recommend child-beating, but I never read anything condoning wife-beating. (There might be verses eluding me, though.)