Bells, thanks for the support. I'm probably going to reply to your post about the Stolen Generation in a day or so. I still have to research the benefits Abbos get that whites don't.
I find it strange that James R doesn't think that domestic violence against men is a 'big deal'. It makes me wonder how much contact he has had with women.
James R:
I've posted scientific articles which state that surveys demonstrate physical abuse is perpetrated equally by both genders in domestic situations. You may be able to quote studies to the contrary.
In otherwords, we can't draw a clear conclusion from the data at the present point in time. The wikipedia article you posted stated that the jury is still out on the prevalence of domestic abuse against males and females. So why do you (and the Australian govt.) ASSUME that only domestic violence against women is a big deal? Why can't the campaign against domestic abuse encompass both males and females?
The problem here is that women are stereotyped as helpless victims in some aspects of life. In the past, this was often a handicap for women. They were barred from the more intensive jobs, weren't allowed to participate in contact sports, weren't allow to vote or hold political office. There were also benefits. Not having to fight in wars, the 'women and children' principle, less harsh sanctions in a court of law.
In fact, under the rule of Cromwell, women often could not be punished under English law, as they were believed to lack the ability to exercise self control. This meant that while men would get executed for protesting against the King's rule, the women could get away with it.
I'd still say it's not such a fantastic deal. I'd rather have independence than being coddled like a 4 year old.
Today, a lot of those handicaps have been removed. Women can vote, work in any job that they wish, play sports, yada yada. They have their independence. But they still retain some advantages from ye olde code of chivalry, and some are more than willing to exploit it to 'take revenge' against men (or 'smash the patriachy', as the real rabid feminists would call it), or simply because they are vindictive.
In custody issues, domestic abuse issues, alimony issues and sexual harassment issues, the system is inherently biased against men. The majority of prisoners are male, the majority of school dropouts are male, the majority of victims of violence are male. Assault and rape against males is either treated with indifference, or even laughter.
Men are often stereotyped to be poor fathers, unable to emotionally satisify their spouse, aggressive animals, or potential rapists just waiting to happen. Any man who dares complains about these injustices is often told to 'act like a real man, stop whining, and soak it up.' It's almost like the males of this generation (and many future generatons) have to pay for the sins of males in the past.
IMHO, the law, and society, should be gender blind. Except when an individual is choosing a partner, of course.
I find it strange that James R doesn't think that domestic violence against men is a 'big deal'. It makes me wonder how much contact he has had with women.
James R:
I've posted scientific articles which state that surveys demonstrate physical abuse is perpetrated equally by both genders in domestic situations. You may be able to quote studies to the contrary.
In otherwords, we can't draw a clear conclusion from the data at the present point in time. The wikipedia article you posted stated that the jury is still out on the prevalence of domestic abuse against males and females. So why do you (and the Australian govt.) ASSUME that only domestic violence against women is a big deal? Why can't the campaign against domestic abuse encompass both males and females?
The problem here is that women are stereotyped as helpless victims in some aspects of life. In the past, this was often a handicap for women. They were barred from the more intensive jobs, weren't allowed to participate in contact sports, weren't allow to vote or hold political office. There were also benefits. Not having to fight in wars, the 'women and children' principle, less harsh sanctions in a court of law.
In fact, under the rule of Cromwell, women often could not be punished under English law, as they were believed to lack the ability to exercise self control. This meant that while men would get executed for protesting against the King's rule, the women could get away with it.
I'd still say it's not such a fantastic deal. I'd rather have independence than being coddled like a 4 year old.
Today, a lot of those handicaps have been removed. Women can vote, work in any job that they wish, play sports, yada yada. They have their independence. But they still retain some advantages from ye olde code of chivalry, and some are more than willing to exploit it to 'take revenge' against men (or 'smash the patriachy', as the real rabid feminists would call it), or simply because they are vindictive.
In custody issues, domestic abuse issues, alimony issues and sexual harassment issues, the system is inherently biased against men. The majority of prisoners are male, the majority of school dropouts are male, the majority of victims of violence are male. Assault and rape against males is either treated with indifference, or even laughter.
Men are often stereotyped to be poor fathers, unable to emotionally satisify their spouse, aggressive animals, or potential rapists just waiting to happen. Any man who dares complains about these injustices is often told to 'act like a real man, stop whining, and soak it up.' It's almost like the males of this generation (and many future generatons) have to pay for the sins of males in the past.
IMHO, the law, and society, should be gender blind. Except when an individual is choosing a partner, of course.
