(Sorry for posting a subject heading with no text just now . . .) My chief objection to John's posts on the issue of domestic violence is that the majority of them seem to reflect a discursive level of violence that's aimed at inflaming -- rather than furthering -- an intelligent discussion of this topic. I'm sick of the flames on Screen-L, and I find these particular flames dangerous and distorted. I believe this is a "film and TV studies *discussion* list," if the list header is anything to go by. Like Donna, like Missy, nothing in my own experience or in my research of domestic abuse (both of which have been considerable) has led me to the conclusion that men suffer abuse at the hands of women more frequently than women do at the hands of men. That men *do* suffer in such ways is certainly true, and true, incidents of this sort *do* go largely go unreported. This is a problem. That it is as prevalent or as widespread a problem as domestic violence against women is, simply, untrue. To represent it otherwise is misleading, irresponsible, and, in the case of John's private and public posts, ugly. It's a mindset that's right on up there with the position that, because it is possible to document some claims of child sexual abuse or incest as false, the problem itself does not exist and the "victims" we really need to be focusing on are those who have been accused. Could we get back to the subject heading at hand -- the role that the media is playing in a purported case of domestic violence? Fair warning: Donna prefers to delete any messages she gets from John. A reasonable choice. I will forward to the list at large any similar personal posts I may receive from the same source, as part of the ongoing debate. Alison McKee Department of Film and Television UCLA [log in to unmask]