The assumption of most people is that being hit by someone in a way that causes no physical harm is worse then any other unpleasant factor in a relationship.

In this case, the only reason that it didn't cause physical harm is because the guy is much bigger than her and he was able to restrain her to keep her from hitting him further. There seems to be little doubt that she acted out of anger and attempted to harm him. Also, I'm not sure I'm buying the sort of moral equivalency argument of "which is worst". Yes, different people have different deal breakers but c'mon now.

"Asking a victim to understand how his behavior plays into his own victimization is empowering the victim, not absolving the abuser of responsibility. I can not figure out why nobody understands this point."

I think most people understand this and have stated as such. The problem is you have to be careful not to down the blaming the victim road. It's very easy to go from looking at yourself to "if you didn't do this then she wouldn't have done that" routine.

The problem is that you seem to be putting more of the emphasis on the victim rather than the abuser. Sure he should take a look at his actions so he won't find himself in the same situation again but that in no way mitigates her actions. What is this business about knowingly anatgonizing an abuser? So, if he knows walking away and sulking bothers her, he shouldn't do it because it sets her off and she might beat him again? He should "rise above it" by allowing her physical violence to shape his behavior? That sounds more like giving in than rising above it.

Of course human interactions are complicated and everybody brings something to the table, but, while it's not a black and white issue all the time, you have to draw some lines or what's the point?

I didn't say the focus shouldn't be on the LW victim. It just that your earlier letters seem to "share the blame" so to speak. I do agree with you about the whole victimology thing. Our society does seem to be heading down the road of turning every unpleasant social interaction into an instant diagnosis of mental illness and victim/abuser paradigm. But, in this case, it appears to be a much clearer situation.

"So there is an argument of the advantage of less successful men: family is more important to them."

That's not an argument per se. It's a very bad generalization. Also, just because your more successful boyfriends didn't have time for you doesn't mean that family wasn't important to them. To use the current phrase, mabye they just weren't that into you?

About Tierney, this is just more of the scare tactics aimed at women. Just a different version of the "after whatever age, a woman is more likely to die in a terrorist attack or get stuck by lightning or something than get married!!!" OMG!!! Women better hurry up and marry up, down, sideways before they wind up bitter old spinsters surrounded by cats and candles!!!

You would think that women would recognize that tactic by now and realize that the proper response to Tierney is mild bemusement or an indifferent chuckle.

The scare tactic I refer to is that if women don't get married they will wind up bitter old spinsters etc, etc, as if getting married, in and of itself, guarantees happiness. Sure, there's nothing wrong with wanting to get married, and I suspect that the pickins aren't as slim as you imagine, but the notion that if you don't get married you're doomed to a unhappy and lonely life is absurd.

LOL! I can do without the cats too. I guess as a guy I don't see the pickins as slim but that's probably just my bias. If I see any good extras pickins around, I'll be sure to send them your way!

"So accomplished women don't want to marry non-accomplished men. Why is this a bad thing only for the women in the equation and not for the men? Because the men will go elsewhere and settle for less than their intellectual equals? Does that mean we're missing out on something?"

Leslie noted what you're on about in the above and she correctly points out the hypocrisy of the situation.

Fine analysis. Just one quibble, if I recall correctly Tierney also said men are more willing to "marry down" than woman. That doesn't change your overall points though.

Modern comic books have been the most underrated art/literature of the pop era. The best of the bunch can easily stand up to anything else in the period. It's a shame they have to call them "graphic novels" so the snobs would give them some respect.

"Feminists really do turn into conservatives when it comes to men. If we were talking about race you would not say, "hey, blacks, get you[r] act together and pull yourself up, dammit. Get some ambition, you['re] just too lazy." You would analyze why sociologically as a race they have not been represented fairly on campus. But when it comes to men, all sympathy goes out the window."

As has been stated before, the point is that such "findings" described by Tierney et al. are invariably presented as problems primarily for and with women and, overall, as some sort of threat to society. Exactly what kind of "sympathy" are women supposed to have simply because there are currently more women than men going to and graduating from college? Your analogy is bad because unlike blacks there was/is no structural "sociological force" keeping men in general from getting an education.