equal rights to being punched in the face
- Thread starter angrybellsprout
- Start date
- Status
Instead of relying on fringe groups with grudges to bear who want to think of themselves as victims of life, try some reliable sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/SP/Dom_violence.htm
http://www.spinneypress.com.au/228_book_desc.html
Want more?
Try the Victorian Department of Justice publication: Victorian Family Violence Database: Five Year Report (1999-2004), here:
http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/wps/w...ly+Violence+Database+-+Five+Year+Report+-+PDF
Domestic violence occurs across the world, in various cultures, and affects people across society, irrespective of economic status. In the United States, women are six times as likely as men to experience intimate partner violence. Percent of women surveyed (national surveys) who were ever physically assaulted by an intimate partner: Barbados (30%), Canada (29%), Egypt (34%), New Zealand (35%), Switzerland (21%), United States (22%). Some surveys in specific places report figures as high as 50-70% of women surveyed who were ever physically assaulted by an intimate partner.
...
In the United States, 20 percent of all violent crime experienced by women are cases of intimate partner violence, compared to 3 percent of violent crime experienced by men.
...
Very little is known about the actual number of men who are in a domestic relationship in which they are abused or treated violently by their female or male partners. Few incidents are reported to police, and data is limited. Richard J. Gelles contends that while "men's rights groups and some scholars" believe that "battered men are indeed a social problem worthy of attention" and that "there are as many male victims of violence as female", he states that such beliefs are "a significant distortion of well-grounded research data." Researchers Tjaden and Thoennes found that "men living with male intimate partners experience more intimate partner violence than do men who live with female intimate partners. Approximately 23 percent of the men who had lived with a man as a couple reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a male cohabitant, while 7.4 percent of the men who had married or lived with a woman as a couple reported such violence by a wife or female cohabitant."
...
In the United States, 20 percent of all violent crime experienced by women are cases of intimate partner violence, compared to 3 percent of violent crime experienced by men.
...
Very little is known about the actual number of men who are in a domestic relationship in which they are abused or treated violently by their female or male partners. Few incidents are reported to police, and data is limited. Richard J. Gelles contends that while "men's rights groups and some scholars" believe that "battered men are indeed a social problem worthy of attention" and that "there are as many male victims of violence as female", he states that such beliefs are "a significant distortion of well-grounded research data." Researchers Tjaden and Thoennes found that "men living with male intimate partners experience more intimate partner violence than do men who live with female intimate partners. Approximately 23 percent of the men who had lived with a man as a couple reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a male cohabitant, while 7.4 percent of the men who had married or lived with a woman as a couple reported such violence by a wife or female cohabitant."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence
What Do We Know About Domestic Violence?
As most incidences of domestic violence often go unreported, it is difficult to measure the true extent of the problem. According to a study conducted in 1998 by Carlos Carcach from the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC), Reporting Crime to the Police, most assaults against women where the victim knows the offender go unreported. The 2005 Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Personal Safety Survey, estimates that 36 per cent of women who experienced physical assault by a male perpetrator reported it to the police in 2005 compared to 19 per cent in 1996, and that 19 per cent of women who experienced sexual assault reported it to the police in 2005 compared to 15 per cent in 1996.
The best indicators available to date about the levels of violence against women in Australia are from the 1996 ABS publication Women's Safety Survey and the more recent ABS Personal Safety Survey 2005 that surveyed both men and women. The surveys asked women about their experiences of violence and found that:
There have also been studies of the relationship between domestic violence and homicides. In Homicide between Intimate Partners in Australia, 1998, Carach and James from the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) found that domestic violence plays a significant role in the lead up to lethal violence, accounting for 27 per cent of all homicides in Australia between 1989 and 1996. Another study by the AIC in 2002, Homicides Resulting from Domestic Altercations, found that the majority of female homicide victims were killed during domestic altercations. In a follow up AIC study, Family Homicide in Australia, Jenny Mouzos and Catherine Rushforth analysed the victim-offender relationships for almost 4500 homicides that occurred in Australia over a 13 year period from 1989 to 2002. The study found that:
As most incidences of domestic violence often go unreported, it is difficult to measure the true extent of the problem. According to a study conducted in 1998 by Carlos Carcach from the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC), Reporting Crime to the Police, most assaults against women where the victim knows the offender go unreported. The 2005 Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Personal Safety Survey, estimates that 36 per cent of women who experienced physical assault by a male perpetrator reported it to the police in 2005 compared to 19 per cent in 1996, and that 19 per cent of women who experienced sexual assault reported it to the police in 2005 compared to 15 per cent in 1996.
The best indicators available to date about the levels of violence against women in Australia are from the 1996 ABS publication Women's Safety Survey and the more recent ABS Personal Safety Survey 2005 that surveyed both men and women. The surveys asked women about their experiences of violence and found that:
- 5.8 per cent of women had experienced violence in the 12 month period preceding the survey in 2005 compared with 7.1 per cent in 1996
- 4.7 per cent of these women had experienced physical violence (this includes physical assault and threat of physical assault) in 2005 compared with 5.9 per cent in 1996, and 1.6 per cent had experienced sexual violence (this includes sexual assault and threat of sexual assault) compared to 1.5 per cent in 1996
- Of the women who experienced sexual violence during the 12 months prior to the 2005 survey 21 per cent had experienced sexual assault by a previous partner in the most recent incident, and 39 per cent by a family member or friend
- The 2005 survey also showed that of those women who were physically assaulted in the 12 months prior to the survey, 38 per cent were physically assaulted by their male current or previous partner. Of the women who had experienced violence by a current partner, 10 per cent had a violence order issued against their current partner and of those women who had violence orders issued, 20 per cent reported that violence still occurred.
There have also been studies of the relationship between domestic violence and homicides. In Homicide between Intimate Partners in Australia, 1998, Carach and James from the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) found that domestic violence plays a significant role in the lead up to lethal violence, accounting for 27 per cent of all homicides in Australia between 1989 and 1996. Another study by the AIC in 2002, Homicides Resulting from Domestic Altercations, found that the majority of female homicide victims were killed during domestic altercations. In a follow up AIC study, Family Homicide in Australia, Jenny Mouzos and Catherine Rushforth analysed the victim-offender relationships for almost 4500 homicides that occurred in Australia over a 13 year period from 1989 to 2002. The study found that:
- on average there were 129 family homicides each year, 77 related to domestic disputes
- that killings between partners/spouses accounted for 60 per cent of all family homicides in Australia, with women accounting for 75 per cent of the victims, and men comprising the majority of the killers
- that a quarter of the intimate homicides occurred after the partners had separated or divorced.
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/SP/Dom_violence.htm
Domestic Violence
Volume 228, Issues in Society
A recent report prepared for the federal government provides some confronting statistics of a disturbing epidemic: each year 408,100 Australians are victims of domestic violence; 87% of sufferers are women; 263,000 children live with family violence; the cost to Australia’s economy is $8.1 billion a year.
Volume 228, Issues in Society
A recent report prepared for the federal government provides some confronting statistics of a disturbing epidemic: each year 408,100 Australians are victims of domestic violence; 87% of sufferers are women; 263,000 children live with family violence; the cost to Australia’s economy is $8.1 billion a year.
http://www.spinneypress.com.au/228_book_desc.html
Want more?
Try the Victorian Department of Justice publication: Victorian Family Violence Database: Five Year Report (1999-2004), here:
http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/wps/w...ly+Violence+Database+-+Five+Year+Report+-+PDF
Oh and just to refute your comment that feminists are just looking for equality
how would you have responded to a male canditate in an election stating "no matter what party you vote for men must only vote for men"??
Natasha stockdespoia, a women who i would have loved to have seen as PM untill she said this said that "women should only vote for women" when reminded that her on party was runing men and asked wether that ment women should vote for caditates other than the democrats in those seats she failed to respond
how would you have responded to a male canditate in an election stating "no matter what party you vote for men must only vote for men"??
Natasha stockdespoia, a women who i would have loved to have seen as PM untill she said this said that "women should only vote for women" when reminded that her on party was runing men and asked wether that ment women should vote for caditates other than the democrats in those seats she failed to respond
james i am all for campaines against domestic vilonce but i dissagree that services should ONLY be avilable if it is a female being abused. Yes females are more likly to NEED the services but why does that seem to equate to, "men in those situations are irralivent"? wether they are living with a male or female partner
Oh and for the record i have had bruises and bite marks left on me by my former partner, and no they wernt from rough sex. Why do you think she had the right to do that?
Oh and for the record i have had bruises and bite marks left on me by my former partner, and no they wernt from rough sex. Why do you think she had the right to do that?
Asguard:
You probably rammed your arm into her mouth in an effort to gag her, you violent male abuser!
You probably rammed your arm into her mouth in an effort to gag her, you violent male abuser!
James R:
Wow, did you just post from Wikipedia, and selectively quote? From the same link:
Wow, did you just post from Wikipedia, and selectively quote? From the same link:
James R:
How did they determine the above? Via a survey, or police reports?
1. Again, we have the issue of under-reporting. Given the anti-male attitude of society regarding domestic abuse, and just the plain embarassment of getting dominated by a woman, I would bet my bottom dollar that males are less likely to report spousal abuse than females.
2. The figures you cited don't necessarily mean that males in the United States don't suffer as much domestic abuse as females. All it means is that domestic abuse violence constitutes a smaller proportion of the overall violence against males than it does against females.
Again, all this means is that when women are killed, it is more likely to be in a domestic setting. This does NOT mean that males do not suffer from the same amount of domestic violence as women. What it does mean that it makes up a smaller proportion of the overall violence that they suffer.
Again, we have the problem of under-reporting on the behalf of the male. When anonymous survey's are done, it's often found that females are just as likely to abuse their spouse as males, so something doesn't quite gel here.
How did they determine the above? Via a survey, or police reports?
1. Again, we have the issue of under-reporting. Given the anti-male attitude of society regarding domestic abuse, and just the plain embarassment of getting dominated by a woman, I would bet my bottom dollar that males are less likely to report spousal abuse than females.
2. The figures you cited don't necessarily mean that males in the United States don't suffer as much domestic abuse as females. All it means is that domestic abuse violence constitutes a smaller proportion of the overall violence against males than it does against females.
Again, all this means is that when women are killed, it is more likely to be in a domestic setting. This does NOT mean that males do not suffer from the same amount of domestic violence as women. What it does mean that it makes up a smaller proportion of the overall violence that they suffer.
Again, we have the problem of under-reporting on the behalf of the male. When anonymous survey's are done, it's often found that females are just as likely to abuse their spouse as males, so something doesn't quite gel here.
James R:
How did they determine the above? Via a survey, or police reports?
1. Again, we have the issue of under-reporting. Given the anti-male attitude of society regarding domestic abuse, and just the plain embarassment of getting dominated by a woman, I would bet my bottom dollar that males are less likely to report spousal abuse than females.
2. The figures you cited don't necessarily mean that males in the United States don't suffer as much domestic abuse as females. All it means is that domestic abuse violence constitutes a smaller proportion of the overall violence against males than it does against females.
Again, all this means is that when women are killed, it is more likely to be in a domestic setting. This does NOT mean that males do not suffer from the same amount of domestic violence as women. What it does mean that it makes up a smaller proportion of the overall violence that they suffer.
Again, we have the problem of under-reporting on the behalf of the male. When anonymous survey's are done, it's often found that females are just as likely to abuse their spouse as males, so something doesn't quite gel here.
How did they determine the above? Via a survey, or police reports?
1. Again, we have the issue of under-reporting. Given the anti-male attitude of society regarding domestic abuse, and just the plain embarassment of getting dominated by a woman, I would bet my bottom dollar that males are less likely to report spousal abuse than females.
2. The figures you cited don't necessarily mean that males in the United States don't suffer as much domestic abuse as females. All it means is that domestic abuse violence constitutes a smaller proportion of the overall violence against males than it does against females.
Again, all this means is that when women are killed, it is more likely to be in a domestic setting. This does NOT mean that males do not suffer from the same amount of domestic violence as women. What it does mean that it makes up a smaller proportion of the overall violence that they suffer.
Again, we have the problem of under-reporting on the behalf of the male. When anonymous survey's are done, it's often found that females are just as likely to abuse their spouse as males, so something doesn't quite gel here.
Let's just get straight what is being advocated here.
angrybellsprout and mountainhare both apparently think it is just fine to hit women - in ABS's case, in the face, in mountainhare's case, in the chest and then stomping on her.
Apparently, both think that men are the real victims of domestic violence. Women probably deserve everything they get.
For my part, I do not say that men never suffer physical attacks from women, or domestic violence. But I do not downplay or disregard the significance of domestic violence against women in an attempt to claim victim status for men.
Asguard appears to think that male dominance of politics is how things ought to be, presumably because things have always been that way. How dare a woman urge voters to vote for a woman? Never mind that women only got to vote at all last century. What's the problem - is the potential of having a female President, for example, really so frightening? Besides, any woman candidate who says women should vote for her only because she is a woman risks alienating many voters - and not just men. Politically, it is a stupid thing to do.
Finally, let's deal with Asguard's straw man. I have never argued that services relating to victim support for domestic violence should only be available for women. And, as I understand it, they are not anyway. I have never said domestic violence against men is "irrelevant".
And, for the record, I do not think any women has a "right" to attack her male partner - just as I do not think any man has a right to attack his female partner. There are laws against battery. Domestic violence involving battery ought to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
angrybellsprout and mountainhare both apparently think it is just fine to hit women - in ABS's case, in the face, in mountainhare's case, in the chest and then stomping on her.
Apparently, both think that men are the real victims of domestic violence. Women probably deserve everything they get.
For my part, I do not say that men never suffer physical attacks from women, or domestic violence. But I do not downplay or disregard the significance of domestic violence against women in an attempt to claim victim status for men.
Asguard appears to think that male dominance of politics is how things ought to be, presumably because things have always been that way. How dare a woman urge voters to vote for a woman? Never mind that women only got to vote at all last century. What's the problem - is the potential of having a female President, for example, really so frightening? Besides, any woman candidate who says women should vote for her only because she is a woman risks alienating many voters - and not just men. Politically, it is a stupid thing to do.
Finally, let's deal with Asguard's straw man. I have never argued that services relating to victim support for domestic violence should only be available for women. And, as I understand it, they are not anyway. I have never said domestic violence against men is "irrelevant".
And, for the record, I do not think any women has a "right" to attack her male partner - just as I do not think any man has a right to attack his female partner. There are laws against battery. Domestic violence involving battery ought to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
firstly
A) battery is actually a civil offence, not a criminal one
B) The services ARE there specifically for women, The domestic abuse hotline that was established was SPECIFICALLY for "vilonance against women" not domestic and sexual abuse.
C) i do not care WHAT gender someone is, i will vote for the best policy. I am happy julia gillard is assistant PM, think she would make a bloody good PM and as i said i wanted Natasa as PM and actually voted for HER every single election. BUT i highly object to being told we should be voting based on sexual lines and more than i would vote on racial lines
Oh and back to the domestic vilonce. Do you have any idea what peoples reactions are when a guy is physically or emotionally abused by his partner? not empathy thats for sure
A) battery is actually a civil offence, not a criminal one
B) The services ARE there specifically for women, The domestic abuse hotline that was established was SPECIFICALLY for "vilonance against women" not domestic and sexual abuse.
C) i do not care WHAT gender someone is, i will vote for the best policy. I am happy julia gillard is assistant PM, think she would make a bloody good PM and as i said i wanted Natasa as PM and actually voted for HER every single election. BUT i highly object to being told we should be voting based on sexual lines and more than i would vote on racial lines
Oh and back to the domestic vilonce. Do you have any idea what peoples reactions are when a guy is physically or emotionally abused by his partner? not empathy thats for sure
Asguard:
There are equivalents in the criminal law. Going around hitting people is a crime as well as a civil offence, obviously.
So, we can conclude that, for whatever reason, the Australian government thinks that domestic violence is a bigger issue for women than for men. I imagine they would be basing that on something.
You wouldn't be the only one who thinks that. I would not be swung by a man telling me to vote for him just because he is a man, and I know plenty of women who would not be so silly as to vote for a woman just because she is a woman.
That depends on the person, doesn't it?
I know that people with no understanding of psychological, emotional and physical abuse, like mountainhare and angrybellsprout, would probably think any man who suffers abuse from a female partner must be a "girly man" or a "wuss". Such people can't see past the old gender stereotypes.
There are equivalents in the criminal law. Going around hitting people is a crime as well as a civil offence, obviously.
So, we can conclude that, for whatever reason, the Australian government thinks that domestic violence is a bigger issue for women than for men. I imagine they would be basing that on something.
You wouldn't be the only one who thinks that. I would not be swung by a man telling me to vote for him just because he is a man, and I know plenty of women who would not be so silly as to vote for a woman just because she is a woman.
That depends on the person, doesn't it?
I know that people with no understanding of psychological, emotional and physical abuse, like mountainhare and angrybellsprout, would probably think any man who suffers abuse from a female partner must be a "girly man" or a "wuss". Such people can't see past the old gender stereotypes.
James R:
I used that (IMAGINARY) scenario to point out hypocrisy. Apparently some individuals such as Orleander think that kicking a man in the groin, or having your girlfriend hold him while you beat the shit out of him, is an appropriate response to verbal abuse. I wanted to probe for such individuals' reactions when I cited a similar scenario, except where the gender's were exchanged, and the word 'faggot' was used instead of 'cunt'.
After all, us guys know how demeaning it is to be called a 'faggot'. Sadly, nobody took the bait. Except you, the big mouthed dopefish.
The fact that you can't appreciate or even understand good (and apt) satire just shows what a disservice the Australian education system does to its kids. You can't think outside the square, and you can't even respect an opinion which isn't mainstream.
No, that's completely false. I think that the real victims of domestic violence are the victims, gender irrelevant. It's completely sickening to see a man or women getting beat up on, on TV or in real life. It's sad to see them walking on eggshells around a partner who might explode at any second.
My major gripe is how society paints the man as the eternal aggressor, and the woman as the innocent victim. This is misleading, sexist, and harmful to men in abusive relationships. To concentrate on assisting female victims, while giving the cold shoulder to male victims, is reverse sexism.
Personally, I think that both men and women are equally as likely to perpetuate spousal abuse. The problem is that the system is inherently biased against men. Males are painted as aggressive, women as defenseless, and if we do dare acknowledge that a particular male suffered abuse at the hands of a woman, it's assumed that he 'Brought it on himself.'
If a man has suffered abuse and takes it up with the courts, all a female needs to say is that she was defending herself against a thuggish boyfriend/husband.
In absence of evidence in a 'he said she said' scenario, who are the courts more likely to believe perpetrated the violence? Who are the people more likely to believe? Especially given the 'Violence against Women: Australia says NO!' campaign reinforcing the stereotype of the poor beaten woman by the big bad unrepentant and ever rationalising man.
I have know of a good friend with abusive relationship where the woman was a perpetrator. She was almost a head shorter, 20 kilos lighter, and often soft spoken. When he used to look at porn or refuse to have sex, she would respond with kicking, biting, hitting, etc., along with emotional and verbal abuse.
He wouldn't hit back because he tried to rationalise her abuse (he was a Buddhist, go figure). But just imagine if he had snapped and hit back. How would the courts, and the media, view a man striking a woman who was significantly shorter and thinner than him? Would they view it in context, as an abused individual who'd finally snapped after constant physical, verbal and emotional abuse? Or would they label him as an overbearing male aggressor, despite the fact that he refused to kill ants when they invaded his food supplies?
Ummm, no? Dude, do you know the meaning of SATIRE?
I used that (IMAGINARY) scenario to point out hypocrisy. Apparently some individuals such as Orleander think that kicking a man in the groin, or having your girlfriend hold him while you beat the shit out of him, is an appropriate response to verbal abuse. I wanted to probe for such individuals' reactions when I cited a similar scenario, except where the gender's were exchanged, and the word 'faggot' was used instead of 'cunt'.
After all, us guys know how demeaning it is to be called a 'faggot'. Sadly, nobody took the bait. Except you, the big mouthed dopefish.
The fact that you can't appreciate or even understand good (and apt) satire just shows what a disservice the Australian education system does to its kids. You can't think outside the square, and you can't even respect an opinion which isn't mainstream.
No, that's completely false. I think that the real victims of domestic violence are the victims, gender irrelevant. It's completely sickening to see a man or women getting beat up on, on TV or in real life. It's sad to see them walking on eggshells around a partner who might explode at any second.
My major gripe is how society paints the man as the eternal aggressor, and the woman as the innocent victim. This is misleading, sexist, and harmful to men in abusive relationships. To concentrate on assisting female victims, while giving the cold shoulder to male victims, is reverse sexism.
Personally, I think that both men and women are equally as likely to perpetuate spousal abuse. The problem is that the system is inherently biased against men. Males are painted as aggressive, women as defenseless, and if we do dare acknowledge that a particular male suffered abuse at the hands of a woman, it's assumed that he 'Brought it on himself.'
If a man has suffered abuse and takes it up with the courts, all a female needs to say is that she was defending herself against a thuggish boyfriend/husband.
In absence of evidence in a 'he said she said' scenario, who are the courts more likely to believe perpetrated the violence? Who are the people more likely to believe? Especially given the 'Violence against Women: Australia says NO!' campaign reinforcing the stereotype of the poor beaten woman by the big bad unrepentant and ever rationalising man.
I have know of a good friend with abusive relationship where the woman was a perpetrator. She was almost a head shorter, 20 kilos lighter, and often soft spoken. When he used to look at porn or refuse to have sex, she would respond with kicking, biting, hitting, etc., along with emotional and verbal abuse.
He wouldn't hit back because he tried to rationalise her abuse (he was a Buddhist, go figure). But just imagine if he had snapped and hit back. How would the courts, and the media, view a man striking a woman who was significantly shorter and thinner than him? Would they view it in context, as an abused individual who'd finally snapped after constant physical, verbal and emotional abuse? Or would they label him as an overbearing male aggressor, despite the fact that he refused to kill ants when they invaded his food supplies?
James R:
You're the one who can't see past the 'old gender stereotypes', along with a significant proportion of Australian society and the politically correct Australian Government.
You're the one who can't see past the 'old gender stereotypes', along with a significant proportion of Australian society and the politically correct Australian Government.
James maybe i am not putting this properly or maybe i am being tared with the same brush as those 2. My problem with the whole thing is twofold
One that men cant access the same services if they need them but more importantly is the message it sends. The wording of the whole thing was VERY specific "vilonce against WOMEN", One word changed and i wouldnt even be debating this "domestic vilonce, australia says no". What the message does is it says to men, who are already so unlikly to report domestic vilonce OR sexual assult that there arnt ANY statistics on it that, "your unimportant".
I have been in this situation. I suffered low self estem, depression ect. I was hit and bitten but the emotional abuse was worse than the physical by any strech of the imagination. You tell me what you would be feeling if you saw those ads? Even my current partner jokes about it "vilonce against women....., To vilonce against men, australia says, OK"
One that men cant access the same services if they need them but more importantly is the message it sends. The wording of the whole thing was VERY specific "vilonce against WOMEN", One word changed and i wouldnt even be debating this "domestic vilonce, australia says no". What the message does is it says to men, who are already so unlikly to report domestic vilonce OR sexual assult that there arnt ANY statistics on it that, "your unimportant".
I have been in this situation. I suffered low self estem, depression ect. I was hit and bitten but the emotional abuse was worse than the physical by any strech of the imagination. You tell me what you would be feeling if you saw those ads? Even my current partner jokes about it "vilonce against women....., To vilonce against men, australia says, OK"
mountainhare:
Excuse me for assuming you wouldn't simply tell LIES. I'll be careful not to make that mistake again.
Besides, you went on to express further approval of such conduct in later posts, so backtracking now makes you look less than honest.
Why do you find that demeaning? Do you think being homosexual makes somebody less of a man?
If this is your real view, then we agree with each other.
As far as I can tell, the jury is out on that. There's just not enough reliable information to be able to tell.
Men tend to be more physically violent than women - that much is obvious. And women tend to have less physical strength than men - that too is obvious. So, in a fight between an average man and an average woman, the man is more likely to be aggressive and the woman unlikely to be able to physically defend herself.
False. She must provide evidence to establish her story. Making unsupported accusations does not hold up in a court of law.
In a criminal prosecution, proof must be "beyond reasonable doubt". In a civil matter, proof is on a balance of probabilities, and such a balance will depend on the individual circumstances in each case.
Is this more satire, or truth now? How can we tell?
Excuse me for assuming you wouldn't simply tell LIES. I'll be careful not to make that mistake again.
Besides, you went on to express further approval of such conduct in later posts, so backtracking now makes you look less than honest.
Why do you find that demeaning? Do you think being homosexual makes somebody less of a man?
If this is your real view, then we agree with each other.
As far as I can tell, the jury is out on that. There's just not enough reliable information to be able to tell.
Men tend to be more physically violent than women - that much is obvious. And women tend to have less physical strength than men - that too is obvious. So, in a fight between an average man and an average woman, the man is more likely to be aggressive and the woman unlikely to be able to physically defend herself.
False. She must provide evidence to establish her story. Making unsupported accusations does not hold up in a court of law.
In a criminal prosecution, proof must be "beyond reasonable doubt". In a civil matter, proof is on a balance of probabilities, and such a balance will depend on the individual circumstances in each case.
Is this more satire, or truth now? How can we tell?
Asguard:
Yep.
I think some of the abused should be male actors saying something along the lines of:
"She pushes me, it's only shoving and stuff, and I'm a big boy. I can take it." With the caption responding "You shouldn't have to!"
Or: "It's only slapping and pinching, and I probably bring it on myself by not attending to her emotional needs." With the caption going "Being a supposed jerk doesn't give her the right to hit you. She should just pack her bags and leave the relationship if she's not happy."
Although the second caption might be a bit too long. Hmmm.
Yep.
I think some of the abused should be male actors saying something along the lines of:
"She pushes me, it's only shoving and stuff, and I'm a big boy. I can take it." With the caption responding "You shouldn't have to!"
Or: "It's only slapping and pinching, and I probably bring it on myself by not attending to her emotional needs." With the caption going "Being a supposed jerk doesn't give her the right to hit you. She should just pack her bags and leave the relationship if she's not happy."
Although the second caption might be a bit too long. Hmmm.
James, I suggest you do some reading on the difference between "ideological and militant feminism" (which is actually counter-productive), and "egalitarian feminism", which I support.
I'm glad somebody has already posted that in fact, men are equally likely to be victims of domestic violence as women.
One study found that admission rates to emergency wards where the injury(s) was due to "domestic violence" were equal for men and women.
Another study found that men are even less likely than women to report domestic violence to police than women, and that many complaints of domestic violence by women towards men were not taken seriously by police.
as mountainhare said, keep trying to push that false myth if you are willing to be dishonest (that's an excellent link by the way).
What asguard said about women's health issues receiving more attention and funding than men's is also true. (asguard your http://epublications.bond.edu.au/con...e/viewcontent/ link is incomplete)
Just because FGM is surgically/physically traumatic than male circumcision and leads to higher rates of complications, doesn't mean its excusable that male circumcision is still legal, not deemed an act of criminal violence, or the double standard.
Oh here's a thought - when they brought in the draft for the Vietnam war, did anyone give any consideration that it was many males who didn't want to go fighting, killing, or dying? And if they were caught avoiding the draft they were imprisoned?
Or are all males just senseless violent killing machines?
I'm glad somebody has already posted that in fact, men are equally likely to be victims of domestic violence as women.
One study found that admission rates to emergency wards where the injury(s) was due to "domestic violence" were equal for men and women.
Another study found that men are even less likely than women to report domestic violence to police than women, and that many complaints of domestic violence by women towards men were not taken seriously by police.
as mountainhare said, keep trying to push that false myth if you are willing to be dishonest (that's an excellent link by the way).
What asguard said about women's health issues receiving more attention and funding than men's is also true. (asguard your http://epublications.bond.edu.au/con...e/viewcontent/ link is incomplete)
Just because FGM is surgically/physically traumatic than male circumcision and leads to higher rates of complications, doesn't mean its excusable that male circumcision is still legal, not deemed an act of criminal violence, or the double standard.
Oh here's a thought - when they brought in the draft for the Vietnam war, did anyone give any consideration that it was many males who didn't want to go fighting, killing, or dying? And if they were caught avoiding the draft they were imprisoned?
Or are all males just senseless violent killing machines?
Well what about children then?
Come on James, seriously, are you willing to trust the Howard government on this one? Did you trust them over the invasion of Iraq and willingness to stay?
What about their mail pamphlet campaign on the dangers of illegal drug use, despite 95% of substance related deaths being caused by either tobacco or alcohol - which the government makes a shit load of revenue from?
Sure, "ice" (meth-amphetamine) leads to a lot of mental health problems, addiction, violence, and other crimes. But what about compared to alcohol?
What did YOU think about his refusal to say "sorry" to the aborigines/indigenous Australians? What did they base that on? Did you think it was racism?
So why pick one side OVER THE OTHER on this particular issue, violence? Could this be bias? Will we be hearing your opinions on how some migrant groups to western countries have higher rates of domestic violence, due to cultural differences? Or is that too politically sensitive?
(On another side issue: )
I'm starting to believe that political correctness is just another way of denying anyone's right to discuss issues that aren't in line with the current swing of "the pendulum". Its only going to swing back the other way when people wake up and figure out they've been deceived.
What an effective weapon "PC" has proven to be - shut any one up on any issue you don't want people talking about/to hear about/to discuss, by telling them they are being "offensive".
Last edited:
If a guy grabs my butt, can I turn around and slap him? If a guy calls me a foul name, can I slap him?
I've only ever hit one man. He knew why he got hit and he took it.
- Status