AFL Industry - Voice Against Gender-Based Violence

[Carn The Berries]

You ask this question, yet if someone answers yes I do know of several friends will you dismiss it?

I know a guy who was punched so hard in his face by his partner his glasses shattered and he ended up in hospital due to the glass in his eyes. He and his child were forced to sleep in his car for a few months to get away from the psycho.

Absolutely not! The point I was making is that you're far less likely to hear of that than the other way around.

That sounds absolutely horrific, and I hope he and his children were able to find refuge.

 

[Gone Critical]

I'm sorry, are you saying that male entitlement and privilege isn't a thing because of ONE example? Would you agree that men have the significant advantage of being highly unlikely to be killed by someone they know and trust??? Do women have the same advantage?

But thank you for proving my point.

I think you need to define "know and trust" a bit better.

For intimate partner yes the rate for women much higher. 2022-23 34 to 4.

If you add family, child, parent or sibling it becomes closer, 46 to 38 in that year

Add friends and it tilts to men just in 2022/3 47 to 46

Once acquantance/neighbour then 87 men to 53 women

Overall figure for homicide where the victim knew the offender in 2022-3 98 men , 54 women.

 

[HairyO]

If true, I wonder what it says about our society?

Certainly governments have done an enormous amount to raise the education standards for girls over the last few decades- but unfortunately the evidence shows that it has been at the expense of boys, not in addition to boys.

As for incomes, if you choose to leave the workforce for any reason then you are going to take a hit. I have a gay friend who has just had a baby being raised on his own. His income has taken a big hit because he chose to do this.

When women choose to leave the workforce to have kids it is their choice. They dont have to do it. They want to do it. Others shouldnt be made to suffer because of their choices (which is often what is talked about as the solution to keeping their pay at the same rate of people who havent chosen to leave the workforce and end up with far more experience, knowledge and education).

What would you do about female incomes dropping away in their 30s? And where would any funding come from?

 

[Carn The Berries]

I think you need to define "know and trust" a bit better.

For intimate partner yes the rate for women much higher. 2022-23 34 to 4.

If you add family, child, parent or sibling it becomes closer, 46 to 38 in that year

Add friends and it tilts to men just in 2022/3 47 to 46

Once acquantance/neighbour then 87 men to 53 women

Overall figure for homicide where the victim knew the offender in 2022-3 98 men , 54 women.

True, I was specifically referring to intimate partners and should have made that clear.

 

[Chief]

As for incomes, if you choose to leave the workforce for any reason then you are going to take a hit.

And yet the economy values a higher birth rate. Certain politics dislikes immigration. Even worse politics lays a conspiracy theory over immigration rates.

Meanwhile the economy penalises women who raise children. I am interested in what that says about our society. We value something, but penalise people who do it.

 

[Toump Ass]

Meanwhile the economy penalises women who raise children.

No.
It penalises everyone who take time off to raise children.

 

[HairyO]

And yet the economy values a higher birth rate. Certain politics dislikes immigration. Even worse politics lays a conspiracy theory over immigration rates.

Meanwhile the economy penalises women who raise children. I am interested in what that says about our society. We value something, but penalise people who do it.

At the moment immigration is 100% driving things. If we keep up our immigration rate then anyone choosing to have a kid will hurt the economy.

Also, anyone who raises children is penalised. As I said, I have a gay friend raising his child on his own and his income has taken a hit. There are also plenty of households where the men raise the kids - its certainly not the norm, but it happens a often.

Ive been the primary caregiver for my child since my separation. I know plenty of other men who do this too.

 

[Bostonian]

Absolutely not! The point I was making is that you're far less likely to hear of that than the other way around.

That sounds absolutely horrific, and I hope he and his children were able to find refuge.

Yes you are far less likely to hear it.

Men are less likely to report it.

Hopefully everyone feels they will be heard when reporting it so we as a society can really understand how wide spread it is.

 

[faible]

Yes you are far less likely to hear it.

Men are less likely to report it.

Hopefully everyone feels they will be heard when reporting it so we as a society can really understand how wide spread it is.

Being heard also entails not trivialising it. Watching Baby Reindeer was interesting as it really showed some of the way that DV (in this case stalking) isn't treated equally.

 

[Gone Critical]

Yes you are far less likely to hear it.

Men are less likely to report it.

Hopefully everyone feels they will be heard when reporting it so we as a society can really understand how wide spread it is.

I am sure its more common than people expect. I know I have gone through it. Difference is that in the main the man knows the woman cant hurt him badly if he defends himself. Thats a pretty big difference.

 

[Bostonian]

I am sure its more common than people expect. I know I have gone through it. Difference is that in the main the man knows the woman cant hurt him badly if he defends himself. Thats a pretty big difference.

One of my ex was Bi.

She got the living shit kicked out of her for months by her partner.

She found it hard to get help and became reluctant to report it in the end.

Took a broken nose and fractured eye socket for her to get taken seriously.

Women can hurt people badly too.

Interesting that the AFLW doesn't make much noise about same sex DV given its demographics. Yet it's a common thing.

 

[faible]

I am sure its more common than people expect. I know I have gone through it. Difference is that in the main the man knows the woman cant hurt him badly if he defends himself. Thats a pretty big difference.

Someone I knew through work was stabbed (to death) by his girlfriend, assuming you can't be hurt can be a fatal error. If a relationship is violent then GTFO would be my advice.

 

[Chief]

Yes you are far less likely to hear it.

Men are less likely to report it.

Hopefully everyone feels they will be heard when reporting it so we as a society can really understand how wide spread it is.

Do you think discussing violence against women is a bad thing for the visibility of other forms of violence?

Do you think that excluding people who engage in it is a bad thing? To me it is a practical step, far more powerful than linking arms before a game.

 

[Chief]

Women can hurt people badly too.

And the example you are giving is a case of domestic violence against a woman. Which is the most common and the most damaging in terms of injuries and deaths.

 

[Bostonian]

Do you think discussing violence against women is a bad thing for the visibility of other forms of violence?

Do you think that excluding people who engage in it is a bad thing? To me it is a practical step, far more powerful than linking arms before a game.

There's huge amounts of discussing it.

It's everywhere. So that's a good thing.

The conversation however is censored to only reflect one version of it.

There's a lot of talk about breaking cycles but only one version of that cycle gets highlighted.

Time to put everyone under the same spotlight.

Let all statistics paint the picture of society. Not just cherry picked ones.

 

[Bostonian]

And the example you are giving is a case of domestic violence against a woman. Which is the most common and the most damaging in terms of injuries and deaths.

By a woman.

Same sex relationship.

 

[Gone Critical]

Someone I knew through work was stabbed (to death) by his girlfriend, assuming you can't be hurt can be a fatal error. If a relationship is violent then GTFO would be my advice.

As I said "in the main"

 

[Erakor]

You're genuinely comparing the threat of being sexually assaulted/harassed with being able to afford a night out on the town?

Let's just all sit with that for a minute....

Their question was comparing a homeless man v an economically privileged women.

The reference to a night out was to highlight that for some people, having people judge your outfit when out (which obviously is not ok) is not a problem, as the other needs like food and shelter are a more pressing concern.

It wasn’t comparing sexual violence v ‘being a bit broke until next paycheck so one can’t go get plastered this weekend’.

Whoever you are arguing with, take the best interpretation of their point and argue that. Do the opposite of a straw man.

 

[HairyO]

Do you think discussing violence against women is a bad thing for the visibility of other forms of violence?

Yes, because the discussion focusses on "male privilege" and diminishes / glosses over the impact on men who are victims.

 

[Chief]

Yes, because the discussion focusses on "male privilege"

I don't think the AFL stuff really did that.

And discussing "male privilege" is fine unless you have decided it doesn't exist.

and diminishes / glosses over the impact on men who are victims.

How does it diminish it? It pretty much excludes it rather than glossing over it.

Given the absolute majority of cases are against women, and the damage done is more severe against women, it seems like a good way to direct efforts with limited resources to get the most benefit.

We can acknowledge it does happen to men while at the same time directing resources where we will save the most lives.

Note that, for instance, legal aid goes to where it is needed most: keeping men out of prison.

 

[HairyO]

I don't think the AFL stuff really did that.

And discussing "male privilege" is fine unless you have decided it doesn't exist.



How does it diminish it? It pretty much excludes it rather than glossing over it.

Given the absolute majority of cases are against women, and the damage done is more severe against women, it seems like a good way to direct efforts with limited resources to get the most benefit.

We can acknowledge it does happen to men while at the same time directing resources where we will save the most lives.

Note that, for instance, legal aid goes to where it is needed most: keeping men out of prison.

Its not really that different to breast cancer vs prostate cancer. Far more focus goes to breast cancer (in fact more goes to breast cancer awareness, let alone the cancer itself) than goes to prostate cancer.

The world we live in seems to only be capable of handling one thing at a time. If there are multiple problems, the one picked gets all the focus and all the money.

The stats are around the 70/30 mark for victims (female/male). I wonder what % of resources go to the 70% and what % go to the 30%. My guess is overwhelmingly it goes to the 70%, which means the 30% are missing out.

Is this what we want from the focus?

For legal aid I suspect the better way to describe it would be that it overwhelmingly goes to poor people. But you could certainly argue that more poor people are male.

Would you be okay with a government policy on male poverty? Can you imagine any mainstream politician having the guts to stand up and back something like that? The howls of outrage would last until they were voted out of office.

 

[Chief]

The world we live in seems to only be capable of handling one thing at a time. If there are multiple problems, the one picked gets all the focus and all the money.

They just don't.

For instance:

Movember - Changing the face of men's health

Unite to take on mental health, suicide, prostate cancer and testicular cancer.

au.movember.com

Movember and the AFL team up to improve mental fitness

The venture is expected to reach 60,000 people in community AFL clubs.

au.movember.com

 

[HairyO]

They just don't.

For instance:

Movember - Changing the face of men's health

Unite to take on mental health, suicide, prostate cancer and testicular cancer.

au.movember.com

Movember and the AFL team up to improve mental fitness

The venture is expected to reach 60,000 people in community AFL clubs.

au.movember.com

And the amount of funding and focus on those programmes ?

Also, there is a reason why Movember started... want to guess?

 

[Chief]

And the amount of funding and focus on those programmes ?

I don't know. But it's not none as you said.

 

[Bombermania]

I'm sorry, are you saying that male entitlement and privilege isn't a thing because of ONE example? Would you agree that men have the significant advantage of being highly unlikely to be killed by someone they know and trust??? Do women have the same advantage?

But thank you for proving my point.

Male entitlement and privilege to be a wife beater and to kill women isn't a thing. The nature of domestic violence seems to vary depending on demographics and cultural norms. In some cultures, men enjoy certain privileges, but that isn't in the discussion, and if we were seeing women being murdered in Toorak or Point Piper, then you could be right about male privilege contributing. However, what appears to be happening is a worsening problem in working class, lower educated and socially disadvantaged communities, and that is the problem with you putting it down to men enjoying some kind of privilege.