Bells
Staff member
See what I mean MH?
Sexual Discrimination and Violence: Changing women's attitudes
- Thread starter lepustimidus
- Start date
See what I mean MH?
Bells:
Can you honestly proclaim that a man who is being "abused" by his wife is not the most pathetic thing you can think of?
I would put forth the scandalous position that such men deserve to be abused. That sort of human garbage needs to be burnt.
I am litterally becoming physically ill imagining such a coward half-man that would allow his woman to abuse him with impunity and without retaliation of some sort.
Can you honestly proclaim that a man who is being "abused" by his wife is not the most pathetic thing you can think of?
I would put forth the scandalous position that such men deserve to be abused. That sort of human garbage needs to be burnt.
I am litterally becoming physically ill imagining such a coward half-man that would allow his woman to abuse him with impunity and without retaliation of some sort.
How do you propose a man handles abuse by his wife?
Hit back?
Take it in silence?
Leave?
They aren't the same, but they are analagous. You can adopt certain behaviours to reduce the likelihood of being raped, and you can adopt certain behaviours to reduce the likehood of suffering from abuse. Not picking arguments in a relationship or rising to the bait would be a good start.
Correct.
So why is it sexist to propose that woman can adopt certain behaviours to minimise the likelihood of being raped? Why is placing some of the 'burden' on her in that instance sexist, whereas placing the 'burden' on abuse victims not sexist?
I mean, I'm not even really placing the burden on women not to get raped. I simply suggesting that they take precautions. This has been labelled as 'sexist' and 'pro-rape' by people like Tiassa. Yet it's also been acknowledged that it is NOT sexist to place some of the burden on domestic abuse victims to end their abuse.
To put it really bluntly, why is it 'pro-rape' to suggest that woman take precautions to avoid rape, yet its not 'pro-abuse' to suggest that victims of domestic abuse take precautions/measures to avoid or prevent domestic abuse?
Bells
Staff member
Err where did I say that victims of domestic abuse have to be pro-active to reduce their chances of being abused? How does one do either exactly? How does a woman or a man take precautions to not be beaten by their spouse? What? Make sure dinner is ready on time? Don't make eye contact with said spouse? Don't dare question their judgment or question anything at all?
The only burden that exists for both rape and victim of domestic abuse is to report it. They all need to come forward to report their sexual and/or domestic abuse. That is their sole burden.
No. The woman who abuses the man is one of the most pathetic things I can think of. And those women deserve to be locked up.Prince_James said:
And you and your attitude, sir, are part of the problem that plagues society today.
A little bit of good faith ....
If you ever quit whining long enough to actually pay attention to the discussion, you might notice important statements like,
Curiously, you don't seem to have cared about this part of the post you responded to. However you came to the decision you did, it is hardly complimentary to your position that the complaint should be dependent on circumstances exactly opposite the record.
Your disingenuous sideshow certainly is a spectacle, Lepus. It is rather sad that you should exploit a serious issue for such petty zeal.
A little bit of good faith will work wonders, Lepus. Do you actually care about the issue you raised?
The original proposition was an inquiry about whether the burden should be on women to take "precautions" or men to change behavior. The precaution crowd never did reconcile this question. Some even openly refused to suggest any boundaries for what counted as "reasonable" or "prudent".
So far, the only so-called "precaution" on the table for abused men seems to be to report incidents of domestic violence. And if you pause to consider rationally the issues of sexual harassment and violence, there are none among victims' advocates who do not expressly promote the ideas that silence is dangerous, and these crimes should be reported.
Okay, at least as far as female victims are concerned. To the other, it is a challenge to take such declarations as Prince James' condemnation of male domestic violence victims seriously in any context other than a contribution to the problem.
Lepustimidus said:
If you ever quit whining long enough to actually pay attention to the discussion, you might notice important statements like,
And in this case the point is clear: One of the ways to make women face up to their perpetration of domestic violence is to report the incident and have them prosecuted. When those numbers go up, society will be forced to undertake a fairly broad reformulation of its domestic violence policies.
Likewise, one of the problems in addressing rape as a social phenomenon is that victims are often unwilling to report it. As I noted recently in citing a specific incident:
Likewise, one of the problems in addressing rape as a social phenomenon is that victims are often unwilling to report it. As I noted recently in citing a specific incident:
Then again, she should have called the police. The next woman he attacks might not get away.
Curiously, you don't seem to have cared about this part of the post you responded to. However you came to the decision you did, it is hardly complimentary to your position that the complaint should be dependent on circumstances exactly opposite the record.
Your disingenuous sideshow certainly is a spectacle, Lepus. It is rather sad that you should exploit a serious issue for such petty zeal.
A little bit of good faith will work wonders, Lepus. Do you actually care about the issue you raised?
The original proposition was an inquiry about whether the burden should be on women to take "precautions" or men to change behavior. The precaution crowd never did reconcile this question. Some even openly refused to suggest any boundaries for what counted as "reasonable" or "prudent".
So far, the only so-called "precaution" on the table for abused men seems to be to report incidents of domestic violence. And if you pause to consider rationally the issues of sexual harassment and violence, there are none among victims' advocates who do not expressly promote the ideas that silence is dangerous, and these crimes should be reported.
Okay, at least as far as female victims are concerned. To the other, it is a challenge to take such declarations as Prince James' condemnation of male domestic violence victims seriously in any context other than a contribution to the problem.
actually there is one other precaution for victoms of domestic abuse and that is to leave. Its hard but there ARE services avialable at least for women. Unfortuantly these services are one area that IS lacking for men. Most men who do leave end up on there parents doorsteps (well the lucky ones do) or couch surfing or on the streets. Unfortuantly there just isnt the crisis acomidation avialable for male victoms or there children (which is even more concerning)
as i said on the other thread there are some basic precautions that can reduce the risks of assult (of any kind) for people of both sex's in SOME SITUATIONS. These also can reduce the risk of car theft and car jacking. These are to park in a well lit area, try not to walk alone, if your in an area where security is avilable have them walk you to your car if late at night (my female boss actually told me to tell her when im leaving and she would drive me to my car late at night
) and the last one is to think about your route and avoid known trouble spots. These are no where near 100% effective but they can reduce your chances of assults in some situations
as i said on the other thread there are some basic precautions that can reduce the risks of assult (of any kind) for people of both sex's in SOME SITUATIONS. These also can reduce the risk of car theft and car jacking. These are to park in a well lit area, try not to walk alone, if your in an area where security is avilable have them walk you to your car if late at night (my female boss actually told me to tell her when im leaving and she would drive me to my car late at night
) and the last one is to think about your route and avoid known trouble spots. These are no where near 100% effective but they can reduce your chances of assults in some situationsIf I might throw some titbits into the domestic abuse mix...?
The very label 'domestic abuse' minimises the crime and its impact on the victims. Quite simply, whether such abuse is directed at women, men or as is often the case children; it needs to be acknowledged as assault.
If someone comes up to another person in a restaurant or bar and pushes; hits or knocks them down it is regarded as criminal assault/battery. Why would it be any different when the scene of the assault happens to be a home?
Another major factor again for both sexes is fear of the abusers catching up with them if they report the crime and/or leave. Time and time again we hear of people being murdered by exes and spurned 'lovers' having complained to the police on more than one occasion. These people are criminals and should be treated as such from the start. In the UK stalking has only just been recognised as a crime and conviction rates have not yet caught up with incidences reported. I don't know what the situation is elsewhere.
The gathering of evidence may be an issue. 'Domestic' abusers are very good at covering their tracks and keeping victims silent, by threatening any children, for instance, and out of the public eye. Such people are usually very manipulative, using fear to control.
I think I and others have said this before but such abusers and their victims may have been witnesses to or victims of abuse when they were growing up. Hence, the use of violence and psychological abuse is seen as the normal way to settle issues. This cannot really be emphasised enough. Violence has a habit of passing down through the generations. Sometimes only an intervention can break the cycle.
The role of alcohol should not be underestimated either. It precipitates miscommunication and fuels anger which can rapidly lead to violence.
Anyone ever witnessed a person with a grudge (real or imagined) who feels they are not being listened to? Anger can quickly spiral out of control.
Lastly I wouldn't underestimate the 'shame' factor. I believe this is one of the biggest obstacles to the reporting and eventual prosecution of such abuse. There is certainly a social stigma attached to the victims.
What we can all do, is to try to improve our powers of communication and attempt get to the root causes of societal and individual anger. We can encourage people to report abuse and offer support throughout the process of prosecution.
Talking about it can only be a good thing.
The very label 'domestic abuse' minimises the crime and its impact on the victims. Quite simply, whether such abuse is directed at women, men or as is often the case children; it needs to be acknowledged as assault.
If someone comes up to another person in a restaurant or bar and pushes; hits or knocks them down it is regarded as criminal assault/battery. Why would it be any different when the scene of the assault happens to be a home?
Another major factor again for both sexes is fear of the abusers catching up with them if they report the crime and/or leave. Time and time again we hear of people being murdered by exes and spurned 'lovers' having complained to the police on more than one occasion. These people are criminals and should be treated as such from the start. In the UK stalking has only just been recognised as a crime and conviction rates have not yet caught up with incidences reported. I don't know what the situation is elsewhere.
The gathering of evidence may be an issue. 'Domestic' abusers are very good at covering their tracks and keeping victims silent, by threatening any children, for instance, and out of the public eye. Such people are usually very manipulative, using fear to control.
I think I and others have said this before but such abusers and their victims may have been witnesses to or victims of abuse when they were growing up. Hence, the use of violence and psychological abuse is seen as the normal way to settle issues. This cannot really be emphasised enough. Violence has a habit of passing down through the generations. Sometimes only an intervention can break the cycle.
The role of alcohol should not be underestimated either. It precipitates miscommunication and fuels anger which can rapidly lead to violence.
Anyone ever witnessed a person with a grudge (real or imagined) who feels they are not being listened to? Anger can quickly spiral out of control.
Lastly I wouldn't underestimate the 'shame' factor. I believe this is one of the biggest obstacles to the reporting and eventual prosecution of such abuse. There is certainly a social stigma attached to the victims.
What we can all do, is to try to improve our powers of communication and attempt get to the root causes of societal and individual anger. We can encourage people to report abuse and offer support throughout the process of prosecution.
Talking about it can only be a good thing.
Bells:
Oh, I am certain I contribute to domestic abuse against men. In fact, I positively encourage it: These men are not men at all. They do not deserve to be treated as men if they permit it to happen. Only men who stand up for themselves deserve the respect that such demands.
Oh, I am certain I contribute to domestic abuse against men. In fact, I positively encourage it: These men are not men at all. They do not deserve to be treated as men if they permit it to happen. Only men who stand up for themselves deserve the respect that such demands.
How do you propose they stand up for themselves?
Lepustimidus:
Throw their women to the curb! A woman that does not treat you with respect is not one one ought to even be near. Make it certain that he will not be a door mat, an object of abuse, or otherwise subjected to the tyranny of her disrespect. If she hits him, grab her hand and escort her to the door.
Indeed, I'd count a woman beater, who is a scumbag, as higher up on the moral worth scale than a man who lets his woman abuse him. It is a shame which one cannot simply live down. It is profound and everlasting and betrays the deepest self-hatred and self-disrespect imaginable.
Throw their women to the curb! A woman that does not treat you with respect is not one one ought to even be near. Make it certain that he will not be a door mat, an object of abuse, or otherwise subjected to the tyranny of her disrespect. If she hits him, grab her hand and escort her to the door.
Indeed, I'd count a woman beater, who is a scumbag, as higher up on the moral worth scale than a man who lets his woman abuse him. It is a shame which one cannot simply live down. It is profound and everlasting and betrays the deepest self-hatred and self-disrespect imaginable.
"Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is either a fool or a coward. Whoever cannot take care of himself without police protection is both. It is as cowardly to betray an offender to justice, even though his offences be against yourself, as it is not to avenge an injury by violence. It is dastardly and contemptible in a wounded man to betray the name of his assailant, because if he recovers, he must naturally expect to take vengeance himself."
The police ought to not be called.
The police ought to not be called.
Bells
Staff member
But if the victim is a woman, it's understandable?
The reason most men do not leave is because they may have children with their abusive spouse. And the law being what it is, can see him losing his children to his abusive partner. So these men are in a catch 22. They are too ashamed and embarrassed to go to the police because of attitudes such as that you have displayed in this thread (ie. what kind of a man lets someone abuse him?).
Those men, who you deem to be weak and 'not men at all' usually stay and put up with it because they fear for their children's safety and wellbeing. So as far as I am concerned, those men are braver than those who are "real men" who either beat the living shit out of their abusive spouse or simply leave the spouse without getting the police involved, abandoning their children to an abusive mother.
Tell me PJ, what would you do if a woman was abusing you and you had children with said abusive spouse? Would you call the police and have her forcibly removed? Beat her back or simply leave the house, leaving your children in her care?
I'll give you a hint to the correct answer. You should call the police, report the abuse and then have her removed from the property, take out a protection order against her in the meantime and then file for sole custody of the children. Sadly, most men do not take that option because they fear society will view them as being weak and not 'real men' because they somehow allowed themselves to be abused.
I'll tell you one thing, a man who stays, knowing he's going to be abused, simply because he cares for his children is a bigger man than one who refers to him as being less of a man because he has been abused.
bells i would also suggest that its because of a perception of how the courts will treat them as well (rightly or wrongly). That the courts wont belive them and will just give sole custody to the mother or joint custody.
Now i havent had any experiance with the family court to say if this is what actually happens or not but i DO know that is the widly held perception
Now i havent had any experiance with the family court to say if this is what actually happens or not but i DO know that is the widly held perception
Bells:
It is far less shameful for a woman to be beaten by a man, than for a man to be beaten by a woman. Of course, I expect her not to tolerate being abused, either. But I do not encourage women beating, I discourage it.
Then stand up to her without forcing her out. Or present evidence that she is a cruel and unfit mother.
Throw her out of the house without the children and contact a lawyer.
I would stand up for myself and tell her to keep her cotton picking hands off me and show me the proper respect. If she refused, I'd throw her out of the house and contact my lawyer post-haste.
LOL. Calling the police for a woman beating me up? Excuse me, but I have dignity. I'd expect the police officer to rightfully tell me to go fuck myself for wasting his time.
A man who permits his woman to get away with murder deserves the consequences. I'd act before such would happen. No woman of mine has ever flagrantly treated me with disrespect. I am not so in love, or so subserviant, as to permit a woman to trample over my pride and respect. Even if she had a pair of knockers that make Dolly Parton's look like crap in comparison.
Even children are not worth living without respect for one's self. Why does one deserve the love and admiration of one's child? I would consider it abusive, especially to a son, to see his father be a whipping boy.
In fact, it is telling that Freud hated his father for not retaliating against a man who mocked him and threw his hat into the mud for being a Jew.
It is far less shameful for a woman to be beaten by a man, than for a man to be beaten by a woman. Of course, I expect her not to tolerate being abused, either. But I do not encourage women beating, I discourage it.
Then stand up to her without forcing her out. Or present evidence that she is a cruel and unfit mother.
Throw her out of the house without the children and contact a lawyer.
I would stand up for myself and tell her to keep her cotton picking hands off me and show me the proper respect. If she refused, I'd throw her out of the house and contact my lawyer post-haste.
LOL. Calling the police for a woman beating me up? Excuse me, but I have dignity. I'd expect the police officer to rightfully tell me to go fuck myself for wasting his time.
A man who permits his woman to get away with murder deserves the consequences. I'd act before such would happen. No woman of mine has ever flagrantly treated me with disrespect. I am not so in love, or so subserviant, as to permit a woman to trample over my pride and respect. Even if she had a pair of knockers that make Dolly Parton's look like crap in comparison.
Even children are not worth living without respect for one's self. Why does one deserve the love and admiration of one's child? I would consider it abusive, especially to a son, to see his father be a whipping boy.
In fact, it is telling that Freud hated his father for not retaliating against a man who mocked him and threw his hat into the mud for being a Jew.
On the Omertà
Your appeal to the legendary Omertà at once prescribes a counterevolutionary solution that would return humanity to a violent condition in which brute force, dependent on emotional responses, supersede rational considerations while simultaneously condemning your own outlook:
In other words, you would turn to the authority of law.
This conflict aside, though, your appeal suggests a vital question: At what point in history should humanity have abandoned the cooperative endeavor? To use the gun as an example, we must accept that humanity should have progressed far enough to identify and utilize gunpowder, a technological achievement that came about because of knowledge gained because of the comparative luxuries provided by the cooperative endeavor.
That we might debate these subjects at all in their current context is an outcome of human cooperation—e.g., civilized society. There was far less to afford "justice" when we were simply running from and throwing sticks and stones at beasts of prey.
In the end, the point at which we suspend human cooperation in favor of brute force and fear seems much less arbitrary than merely convenient according to one's perspective. This hardly testifies in favor of the omertic appeal.
And left at that, it is about as relevant as pointing out that Karl Marx's father was known to toast the King of Prussia "in the fullness of his omnipotence".
Prince James said:
Your appeal to the legendary Omertà at once prescribes a counterevolutionary solution that would return humanity to a violent condition in which brute force, dependent on emotional responses, supersede rational considerations while simultaneously condemning your own outlook:
In other words, you would turn to the authority of law.
This conflict aside, though, your appeal suggests a vital question: At what point in history should humanity have abandoned the cooperative endeavor? To use the gun as an example, we must accept that humanity should have progressed far enough to identify and utilize gunpowder, a technological achievement that came about because of knowledge gained because of the comparative luxuries provided by the cooperative endeavor.
That we might debate these subjects at all in their current context is an outcome of human cooperation—e.g., civilized society. There was far less to afford "justice" when we were simply running from and throwing sticks and stones at beasts of prey.
In the end, the point at which we suspend human cooperation in favor of brute force and fear seems much less arbitrary than merely convenient according to one's perspective. This hardly testifies in favor of the omertic appeal.
And left at that, it is about as relevant as pointing out that Karl Marx's father was known to toast the King of Prussia "in the fullness of his omnipotence".
Tiassa:
I'm a romantic. I believe first and foremost in my own will to solve my issues. As such, I am against police and legal intervention.
I was given a scenario where my abusive wife would be turning to the authorities to attempt to wrestle the children into her abusive care. As such, my hand would be forced.
To give an example keeping with Omerta: Al Capone hired a lawyer when he was charged with tax evasion.
I have never suggested that cooperation is wrong. In fact, there is nothing whatsoever wrong about individuals rationally aiding and assisting one another to meet common goals in which both are mutual benefactors of the fruits.
Civilized society has indeed given us many benefits. I have not denied this.
Omerta (here used to refer to any system analogous to such) can and does exist within civilization. The code duello, the culture of revenge amongst the samurai, the formation of posses in the Old West, et cetera, all represent how civilization can and does work side by side with personal revenge. In fact, we find that people are very careful to avoid transgressions in a society where revenge is common. Considering justice is itself merely state revenge, for those who have not the heart or the self-respect to do it themselves, one can see why it would work fine to allow the heroically-hearted to right their own wrongs.
It was in relation to the child abuse of not being a man. Considering how greatly Freud resented his father, it could be seen as supremely abusive that his father was a meek neebish.
I'm a romantic. I believe first and foremost in my own will to solve my issues. As such, I am against police and legal intervention.
I was given a scenario where my abusive wife would be turning to the authorities to attempt to wrestle the children into her abusive care. As such, my hand would be forced.
To give an example keeping with Omerta: Al Capone hired a lawyer when he was charged with tax evasion.
I have never suggested that cooperation is wrong. In fact, there is nothing whatsoever wrong about individuals rationally aiding and assisting one another to meet common goals in which both are mutual benefactors of the fruits.
Civilized society has indeed given us many benefits. I have not denied this.
Omerta (here used to refer to any system analogous to such) can and does exist within civilization. The code duello, the culture of revenge amongst the samurai, the formation of posses in the Old West, et cetera, all represent how civilization can and does work side by side with personal revenge. In fact, we find that people are very careful to avoid transgressions in a society where revenge is common. Considering justice is itself merely state revenge, for those who have not the heart or the self-respect to do it themselves, one can see why it would work fine to allow the heroically-hearted to right their own wrongs.
It was in relation to the child abuse of not being a man. Considering how greatly Freud resented his father, it could be seen as supremely abusive that his father was a meek neebish.
Bells
Staff member
And yet you encourage the abuse of the male by his spouse or partner. The inherent sexism in your outlook is disheartening, but not uncommon.
Present evidence to who exactly? Your lawyers? The court? Both of whom will ask this question:
"Why did you fail to contact the police at any time?"
And your answer would be? "Because I am a real man"?
Refer to above.
Again, refer to above. As a lawyer, I can assure you, that would be my first question. "Did you call the police?".. "Did you have the abuse documented with police reports, photos of your injuries, keep a diary or mark down when she abused you, seek medical attention for any of your injuries, contact the police at any time or even now?"..
Did you know, that in times not far gone, the police would react in the same way if a woman was being abused and called them for help? Domestic issues were meant to be resolved between the parties only. Thankfully, we have moved past that stage and realised that some people need and deserve help and the law is on their side.
If you had dignity, you would report her to the police, contact your lawyers and start child custody proceedings immediately. Have her removed and barred from the house and from having access to the children. To do all of that, you'll need to have contacted the police and frankly, the courts would find it strange that not once did you bother to seek police intervention during the periods of abuse. Attitudes such as "because I'm a real man and not weak" won't wash.
Again, it is attitudes such as yours that make the issue of male victims of domestic violence a persistent issue. It goes largely unrecognised because men are too afraid to come forward. But hey, 'you da man'! And yes, that was sarcasm.
It is obvious you don't have children. I can assure you, as a parent, if someone ever threatened my children and the only way to save them was for me to eat shit, I'd be asking them for a fork before digging in. One does not "deserve" the love and admiration of one's child. One has to earn it and then work to keep it. I'd die for my children without even having to think about it first. Do you know why? Because their heath, wellbeing and happiness takes precedence over everything else in my life. And if by some chance my husband ever threatened me or beat me and my children. I'd have his backside in a jail cell before he could even recite is name and date of birth.
A son would have more respect for his father if he saw his father standing up for himself and his family by contacting the police and having his abusive mother removed from their home than seeing his father beat the living hell out of his mother. Which do you think would set a better example to a young boy?
Freud also posited the Oedipus complex theory. Enough said really.