Good on ya for owning that & correcting it.
Not to generalize, but I really think this is one of the most important behavioral and characterological differences between many (if not most) people on the right (and especially spokespeople, whether self-appointed, such as bloggers, or anointed, such as MSM pundits), and many (if not most) people on the left. People on the left -- you, kos, Glenn Greenwald, and atrios spring to mind as especially good about this -- tend to more readily admit error, and to fix errors quickly and fully when possible.
People on the right tend to W it up.

"I wish you'd have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it…I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with answer, but it hadn't yet….I don't want to sound like I have made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't — you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one." george w. bush, asked to name the biggest mistake he had made since 9/11, washington dc april 13 2004

Don't forget gay domestic abuse too. Male abuser and abused.

Physical abuse is easy identify and assign to the appropriate gender. And that gender is overwhelmingly male. For the obvious reasons; size, culture, income or educational inequality, etc. ("Real men don't. . .")

The reason(s) for the fat lip/black eye/dead body are what must be addressed. While he says "She stepped out of line," or "She needed to be tuned up," the driving force behind the act is far more difficult to uncover. Ask any social worker.

And that applies equally to the female in the relationship. I think passive/agressive is a more common abusive technique than the baseball bat applied to the sleeping spouse. Or, famously, the kitchen knife applied to the penis. . .

While I understand the reason for this post, hilzoy, I would like to point out that the issue is "abuse," and not the pronouns used to describe it. Yes, accuracy dictates some type of semantical convolutions, but I would hate to see the discussion sidetracked by pronouns -- or any other minutia for that matter.

If you're stumbling over the grammar of the point you want to articulate, particularly at great length, you need to do more fundamental re-thinking.

The problem is that there are a LOT of people saying "what what about the abused men" in exactly the same way that people say "but what about the white victims of racism". When I was trying to do education about domestic violence in an urban ER, this was the main excuse given for why such education was invalid (the excuse was given by male MDs).

PUH-leeze, enough with the false equivalence.

Folks who deny that there is a big problem with women abused by men, because there is also a relatively small problem of men abused by women, are NOT like people who object to affirmative action, or who argue that racism is racism, no matter which race is involved.

Fercryinoutloud, hilzoy, you're a PHILOSOPHER: you're professionally trained to make distinctions that matter.

I don't think anybody denies what the problem of domestic abuse is overwhelmingly women being abused by men, but to deny men are sometimes abused by the women in their lives is to ignore reality. Good for you Hilzoy. Now what are we going to do about it.

As a woman, I know several men trapped in loveless marriages who are abused by their wives. Yes, why they dont' leave amazes me, but the abuse is emotional and they apparently think they deserve this.

I would also like to add that the subject of mother's abusing their children never seems to get much attention. Narcissistic mothers really destroy their children's emotional growth and yet it is a condition that-- even if they were foerced to a therapist kicking and screaming-- is rarely diagnosed because narcissitic mothers FOOL THE THERAPISTS most of the time. They seem normal and pleasant in person as the abuse is saved for behind closed doors only, with the children.

So much more needs to be written about this. It is not rare.

Another point to be made here is that although women are far more likely to be the victims of abuse at the hands of male partners than vice-versa, whem women aggress against male partners the violence is FAR more likely to be lethal, precisely because of the "men are stronger" fact. Women who are violent towards male partners are much more likely to use a weapon. For example, the male patient I'm working with whose wife has repeatedly attacked him with a knife. Aside from the usual doubts and uncertainties about whether he should leave, he's also burdened with his own tendency to minimize the violence because after all, he's a MAN, so shouldn't he be able to handle a physical attack from a woman, for chrissakes?

When I was dating my wife (while she was getting a degree with a women's studies speciality) , we had a discussion about war. She said something alone the lines that war was bad, and the majority of the victims of war were women and children. I pointed out that in any war a significant number of people who die are men--even if they were in uniform. Those men did not want or deserve to die either. The death of women and children in war is bad, but to completely discount the death of all the men seemed a little strange and a significant blind spot--an understandable blind spot to be sure, but a blind spot non the less.

I think it is always a good policy to stop and think about the counter cases whenever one makes a statement about the "overwhelming majority of cases."

"Aggress" is not a verb. It's not even a word. Ick.

I once applied for a position with our state-wide network against domestic and sexual violence. In my application I noted that a potential area of service expansion would be community education about and services for abused men, whether their abusers were female or male.

I received my "don't call us, we'll call you (never)" letter by return mail.

With few exceptions (one of which is in Vermont), the shelter system is set up exclusively for women. I'm a long-time feminist, but the gender-essentialism of feminists in the battered women's movement has built walls around the problem, which is violence.

Both sides in domestic situations can be pretty nasty:

BOULDER — Police found an 8-month-old puppy — its feet, snout and tail bound in clear packing tape, a plastic bag and elastic hair ties — adhered to the side of a refrigerator in a Boulder home Tuesday morning, the apparent victim of a domestic dispute between its owner and his girlfriend.

Abby Toll, 20, was arrested on suspicion of felony animal cruelty after telling police she taped up the puppy, a shiba inu named Rex, and stuck him to the fridge because she was angry at her boyfriend for not getting rid of his pet after it had bitten her.

"There's a dog taped to the fridge," she told an officer who responded to a report of a domestic incidentin the 2900 block of East Aurora Avenue around 5 a.m.. "I know this looks bad. We were going to get rid of him anyway. We usually don't do this."

The dog, which police said in a report appeared to be in severe pain after being released from its "tomb of tape," was placed with the Boulder Valley Humane Society for safekeeping.

Toll faces felpny charges of animal cruelty and domestic assault, plus misdemeanor charges of criminal tampering and third-degree assault. She was being held Tuesday night at the Boulder County Jail in kieu of a $12,500 bond.

She allegedly slapped her boyfriend, 21-year-old Bryan Beck, in the face and threw numerous objects at him after taping the dog to the fridge.

Beck was arrested on suspicion of misdemeanor false imprisonment and obstructing the use of Toll's cell phone.

Read the rest of this story at DailyCamera.com.

ag·gress (ə gres′)

intransitive verb:
to start a quarrel or be the first to attack

Etymology:

Webster's New World College Dictionary Copyright © 2005 by Wiley Publishing, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio.

Who are you doing to believe, me -- or some damn New Agey dictionary?

Doc meant "attack". Why not use it? The difference between a right word, and a nearly right one, is the difference between a lightning bug -- and lightning.

The difference between "attack" and "aggress" is the difference between lightning... and lightening.

What's even worse is that the law will not take into consideration the question of a man being abused. According to a friend of mine whose job in law enforcement leads me to think they know what they are talking about, when the cops are called for a case of domestic abuse, they have to take the man in, not the woman. And a common threat made by an abusive woman is to tell the man she will call the cops and tell them she's the victim, as she will not be questioned.

As my friend pointed out, there's also the mindset of the cops, which would preclude most of them believing a man reporting abuse if he did so.

I remember reading somewhere a few years back that female abuse of men had been extrapolated as being involved in 30% of relationships that experience domestic violence. And when the woman knows that the system will believe her regardless, this can make the abuse worse psychologically.

I thought up a good analogy to explain codependent relationships from the female point of view.

Some people like pit bulls because they are mean, aggressive, strong, dominate other dogs, and scare people. They are totally uninterested in beagles and lap dogs. What does this say about pit bull owners? Namely, that they are jerks. Naturally some danger goes with owning a pit bull.

Some women like mean, aggressive, selfish, domineering, 'strong' men who walk over others. They are totally uninterested in nice guys. These men serve as a front and alter ego for their desires. What does this say about these women? Namely, that they are jerks. Naturally there is a danger of getting a whupping from time to time in order to hang on to such a prize.

The consternation and confusion is really quite amusing when some wimpy, nice guy with a Walter Mitty complex 'rescues' one of these 'abused' women, only to see her return to her jerky true love or a clone.

Americanist: would you please stop making the rest of us embarassed by the fact you qualify as a 'fello3w American."

But thanks ever so much for helping to prove how user-friendly computers are, that bipeds lacking frontal lobes and opposable thumbs can use them just like real humans.

You. Are. A. Moron.

I once lived upstairs from a lesbian couple so abusive that it once involved brandishing a firearm. There's no monopoly on physical abuse. And there is certainly no monopoly on psychological abuse.

"It's not a contest." Well said.

BTW Luther, I know lots of pit bulls (aka American Staffordshire Terriers) who are sweet, gentle (especially with kids), affectionate, and submissive. Fight canine stereotyping! :-)

TCinLA: "Must bust" laws save lives -- quityerbitchin.

Part of what's missing in this conversation is a recognition that in cases of female-to-male abuse, often the male is not fighting back. People think it's ridiculous that a woman can beat up a man in a fight, but for men acculturated to consider hitting women unthinkable, the woman can hit the man and face no physical response. Not to mention, the police would arrest him and not her.

Domestic abuse is in no way limited to spousal abuse. Elderly people and children are equally victimized. Thought I'd point that out.

Thank you Hilzoy.

I really do appreciate it.

"Not to mention, the police would arrest him and not her..."

Be careful what you bitch about, folks.

Must-bust laws originated because cops hated being forced into making decisions about whether or not to arrest anybody after a domestic disturbance call. In MANY cases, a spouse would insist that there wasn't a problem, it was all a mistake, dropped something in the kitchen, no big deal -- and without the victim saying "I want an arrest", cops would often walk away.

And get called back for a dead body case.

Must bust laws are SUPPOSED to take discretion away from the cops.

So in a typical domestic disturbance call, there are only three options: arrest the man, but not the woman, arrest 'em both, or arrest the woman, but not the man.

You're complaining that the cops generally arrest the man, but not the woman: AS IF that doesn't solve the immediate problem (an escalating violent situation), no matter which one gets arrested, and precipitates the kinds of interventions that are necessary, no matter which spouse is abusive.

Demanding that cops have more discretion, which is what it means when you say they should arrest the woman (but not the man) more often, aims right back at cops taking the couple's word that "there's nothing going on here, officer"...

... and that 'tude kills WOMEN.

Clem,

I'll tell you why I didn't act when I was being emotionally abused by my wife during my second, thankfully short but very mistaken, marriage. I simply did not recognize that was what was happening. I had no words to apply to the situation and no one to discuss it with. The subjects involved simply are not things that I would discuss with anyone. As a working male attempting to accomplish various tasks in the working world, had no skills or knowledgeable friends that I dared share the subject of my discomfort with my new marriage with. God forbid that my mother would ever have learned of it. She, Perfectionist that she was, would have listed the various things I did wrong to cause the problems. That's what she did when my kid was diagnosed as ADD in the early 70's. Something else I came to understand as a direct result of that miserable marriage.

That was 1990. I realized that what was happening to me was emotional abuse about ten minutes ago when I read this article and these messages.

What I did was - shortly after the wedding - realize a level of unnamed discomfort in the situation and arranged for a job in the next state. I promised to come home on weekends, but found myself happier in a small apartment in a dinky town in Oklahoma rather than going "home." So I arranged my affairs so that I could not make it home for most weekends either.

Gee. When we were divorced two years later, she blamed me. I wonder why? But I had been her fourth husband, and she divorced me to marry an MD immigrant from India.

Just as a side note, she was an extremely bright woman and obtained her Masters in Social Work a few months after our wedding. She also introduced me to the DSM 3R (at that time) which I found fascinating. After the divorce I was leafing through the DSM trying to figure out what had happened to us, when I discovered the section describing Narcissistic Personality Disorder. The DSM says that someone meeting five of the nine criteria can be described as having NPD. So I listed events in our marriage that applied to each of the criteria, and she easily met eight of the nine criteria. Grandiosity, need for unbounded admiration, total lack of empathy, preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success while expecting everyone else to recognize her most minor accomplishments as world-shaking achievements, and so on. The document was four pages, single spaced, and typed manually, clearly demonstrating that specific events demonstrated she met the criteria.

So I copied it and sent a copy to her and another to her therapist. To my delight, I have never heard from her again. I guess I haven't offered her adequate admiration.

One last thing. I learned so much about myself out of the situation that - looking back - I'm glad that it happened. Sort of like all the advantages of Army Basic Training. A very educational experience which no one in their right mind would choose if they had a choice. No doubt there are easier ways to learn the same kinds of things, but that was what happened to me and the alternatives did not.

This is a group therapy session, isn't it?

No! Wait! This is a political blog! Anyway, I hope this is in some way useful to understanding similar situations of spousal abuse of men. I didn't understand what was happen, nor did I have the language, repertoire of skills or social network that would have allowed me to avoid the problem or deal with it better. If men discussed such things, they would be a lot more rare than they are.