A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring. - Alexander Pope

An advertisement by the Family Violence Prevention Fund (FVPF) appeared in the June 15, 2003 issue of the New York Times. It claims in part, “We know the realities of violence against women and children . . .”. The FVPF want fathers to sit down with their sons and teach them that violence does not equal strength and to say “no more” to violence against females. This is a noble, yet incomplete goal.

The FVPF ignores the need of “Founding Mothers” who would sit down with their daughters because the FVPF believes women are angelic and men are demonic. This makes it improbable if not impossible for the FVPF to consider asking a mother or father sit down with a daughter and ask that they not “abuse” males.

The FVPF believes that mother or fathers need not sit down with their daughters because the FVPF is sure that domestic violence is directly related to the oppression of women, hence, any mention of females as anything other than victims must be excluded.

If the FVPF acknowledges that females commit “domestic violence acts” against males, their fundamental feminist premise, and many sources of their funding, goes down the drain. It is egregious that in keeping with their “gender specific oppression of women agenda” the FVPF believes it is acceptable to demonize our sons.

The New York Times add notes that each one of the members of the “leadership committee” of the Founding Fathers has committed $1,000.00 to support this FFPF effort to end violence. In reality the money is not to “end violence.” Their money will be spent by the FVPF to end the violence against women and children at the exclusion of men. Violence against men, as this effort clearly documents, is always considered by the FVPF as too inconsequential to matter.

If any of these “leadership committee” members would take the time to visit www.endabuse.org they would discover that is not the case. Not one thin dime, not a single penny of the “leadership council’s $1,000.00 will go towards ending adolescent female violence against adolescent males.

Ted Waitt, the CEO and founder of Gateway Computers was the Chair of the 2003 Founding Fathers “leadership committee.” The New York Times add contains the names of 350 men on the “leaderships committee.” How is it possible not one of these 350 men understand that common sense dictates they should be involved with passing the message of non-violence to BOTH our sons and daughters? Do all of these men really think that girls are not violent?

I can understand the agenda of the FVPF, because the “F” stands for “Fundamental Feminist” not “Family.” I understand quite well that the FVPF now believes that to protect our daughters it is perfectly acceptable for the FVPF to demonize our sons.

However, what is the excuse for the 350 members of the “leadership committee?” Why is there not one of the 350 men on the “leadership committee” who understands that girls can also be violent? Gentlemen, here are the facts:

Fact Sheet

The report, Gender and Contextual Factors in Adolescent Dating Violence, documents that many recent high school dating violence studies document that between 14.5% and 24.4% of female adolescents and 3.3 to 9.9% of male adolescents report they experienced some physical and/or sexual violence in their dating relationship.

The same report notes that approximately 38% of boys and 34.9% of girls reported overall violence. About 13% of boys and 22% of girls report they were the victims of severe physical violence. Between 1/4 and 1/3 of these violent incidents were initiated by the adolescent girls. The differential is even less when forced sexual activity is excluded.

Every survey ever completed anywhere by anyone in the United States documents that girls can be violent against boys. The 1999 Massachusetts Youth Risk Behavior Survey documents that 18 percent of females and 7 percent of males report they were hurt physically or sexually by a date or someone they were going out with. It notes that 16 percent of females and 6 percent of males report that someone had sexual contact with them against their will.

Another report documents what everyone except the FVPF acknowledges, girls can be violent, “Date Violence and Date Rape Among Adolescents: Associations With Disordered Eating Behaviors and Psychological Health." This survey reports that nearly 9 percent of girls and 6 percent of boys report some type of abusive date-related experience.

 The Gender and Contextual Factors in Adolescent Dating Violence survey documents that more boys (37%), than girls (36%), report they have experienced physical violence in a dating relationship. The most common reason adolescents, both male and females, give for hitting or being hit by a dating partner are real or perceived betrayal and jealousy. Many adolescents, both male and female, believe that physical or psychological abuse is justified if one feels betrayed.

Similar to adult domestic violence, more adolescent girls suffer injuries and sexual assaults than boys. However, this must be viewed with caution, as adolescent boys, similar to adult males, are significantly more likely to report little to no physical or psychological consequences. Some of these disparities are because of the obvious biological differences in physicality and the fact that boys are culturally trained to “grin and bear it.”

The FVPV “Founding Fathers” intervention seems oblivious to a report, Promoting Prevention, Targeting Teens that was prepared by Ann Rosewater specifically for the FVPF.

The author notes that, “The work to create a coherent field focused on preventing domestic violence must begin with recognizing the importance of working with adolescents and young adults of both genders…” Their own report notes that it should be BOTH GENDERS.”

     Perhaps the “leadership committee” is not aware that this report, complied at the request of the FVPF notes that, “An estimated 30 to 40 percent of male and 15 to 30 percent of female youth report having committed a serious violent offense at some point in their lives.”

How can the FVPF “Founding Fathers” intervention program think there is a need to sit down and talk boys and not girls about violence? How or why can the truth, girls can be violent, not be acknowledged by the “leadership committee.” Why half an effort?

The Founding Fathers “leadership committee” should be aware that FVPF report documents that one of the most promising approaches for reducing dating violence is the Safe Dates intervention program. The FVPF was informed about the Safe Dates program by Ann Rosewater.

The Safe Dates curriculum states quite clearly that, when working with adolescents, both girls and boys must be considered as potential perpetrators. Safe Dates reports that self-report studies document that girls and boys perpetrate approximately the same levels of nonsexual violence, even when controlling for self-defense and seriousness of the abuse. Note to the FVPF and “leadership committee;” Your own report documents it’s BOTH GENDERS.”

The FVPF excludes any notions of adolescent female offending. Does the FVPF think that the violence adolescent females commit against adolescent males is of little consequence or not severe enough to matter?  Does the FVPF read its own reports?

Conclusion

The New York Times add proclaims, “We call ourselves “Founding Fathers” because we intend for this crucial beginning to give way to a new kind of society – where decency and respect require no special day on the calendar, where boys are taught that violence does not equal strength and where men stand with courage, lead with conviction and speak with one voice to say, No more.” Why the exclusion of our daughters as offenders?

Are the FVPF and the “leadership committee” unwilling or unable to understand that our daughters need to hear the same nonviolence message as our sons? How can either think it is a noble effort to spend $350,000 for the safety of our daughters and not one thin dime, not a single puny penny for the safety our sons? 

While I do not doubt the efforts of the 350 members of “leadership committee” is well intentioned they clearly do not understand that the “Founding Fathers” effort is designed by the FVPF to manipulate data in a misguided and wrong headed attempt to prove that domestic violence is directly related to the oppression of women.

As we begin what the “leadership committee” claims is to be “a new kind of society” should we not expect equal opportunities for our daughters and our sons? Does not everyone, regardless of what percentage of victimization they represent, deserve access to services and funding? Does not everyone, regardless of age or gender deserve our sympathy and compassion?