Domestic Violence and AFL

[domus]

Congratulations to those who turned a worthy thread into a gender-based pissing contest.

What a childish comment. I would suggest that it is a mature discussion about a very important issue. No-one has become abusive or personal. What is wrong with discussing men as victims? This is a typical response any time a man dares to raise the issue of male suffering.

 

[domus]

i too thought it was a particularly unfair campaign. should have just ignored it.

No. Why should we just ignore it? Until people speak out against this form of bigotry it will never change. You can see how many men are reacting on this thread simply because we raised the issue of men as victims. As I said-male apathy is the biggest hurdle to overcome in fighting the double standards.

 

[domus]

Double standards take time to right themselves, I wouldn't rail too hard against them, it's a fruitless exercise for one person to take on, particularly with your somewhat militant approach.

Double standards will never right themselves until people get angry about them! What do you believe will cause entrenched double standards to suddenly disappear?

 

[The Coup]

What a childish comment. I would suggest that it is a mature discussion about a very important issue. No-one has become abusive or personal. What is wrong with discussing men as victims? This is a typical response any time a man dares to raise the issue of male suffering.

Its only important to a very specific sub section of the community. Its importance is negligible as an issue compared to domestic violence.

 

[South of the Yarra]

We are content and proud of what we have done and what we are doing. People can question whatever they wish but we started a foundation inspired by personal reasons. We are doing all we can and incredibly have already had an impact. I guess most people questioning are not doing anything yourselves. I would never ask the prostate cancer groups why they don't focus on women's cancers or why breast cancer groups don't focus on males and females. What they are doing is incredible and they should be proud of their efforts.

 

[domus]

Its only important to a very specific sub section of the community. Its importance is negligible as an issue compared to domestic violence.

We are back on the merry go round. Men are victims of domestic violence-that is the issue.

 

[The Coup]

We are back on the merry go round. Men are victims of domestic violence-that is the issue.

Not to me it isn't.

I read your article, it was stupid. Completely ignores the concept of reasonable force in self defence. Operates under the false presumption that provocation is a solid defence for assault. I want that three minutes back.

 

[domus]

We are content and proud of what we have done and what we are doing. People can question whatever they wish but we started a foundation inspired by personal reasons. We are doing all we can and incredibly have already had an impact. I guess most people questioning are not doing anything yourselves. I would never ask the prostate cancer groups why they don't focus on women's cancers or why breast cancer groups don't focus on males and females. What they are doing is incredible and they should be proud of their efforts.

South of the Yarra-I don't doubt for one moment that you and your wife (partner) are doing a wonderful job and have helped many women. I am sure you are very good people with good hearts. I have never meant to derail your post or suggest what you are doing is not a good thing. I will however always ask the question-why are men excluded? I experienced bone cancer. What would your reaction be if I set up a foundation to specifically raise funds for men who suffer from bone cancer and explained I did so because I experienced it as a male so they are the people who I care about?

To raise breast cancer or prostate cancer is a furphy because clearly these are cancers specific to a particular gender and by their very nature they will focus upon the needs of that gender. When you choose to raise awareness or funds for a problem that affects all people but only give money and shelter to one of the genders or promote awareness for only one of the genders I think I am entitled to ask why.

 

[domus]

Not to me it isn't.

I read your article, it was stupid. Completely ignores the concept of reasonable force in self defence. Operates under the false presumption that provocation is a solid defence for assault. I want that three minutes back.

You need to sharpen up your reading and comprehension skills. I clearly wrote that Ray Rice's punch was an over the top, inappropriate response to his assault.Provocation is a defence for assault. Are you suggesting that the two policemen who shot dead the young Muslim two days ago should face murder charges. You are hilarious.

The focus of the article you claim to have read was the outrageous double standards on display in our media. So you think the fact that a man can be sacked from his tv show for suggesting women should not punch men was fair and that female tv hosts applauding and laughing about the vicious genital mutilation of a man and receiving no punishment is fair and reasonable?

Are you also suggesting that if any man you saw in those clips of vicious assaults from women had hit back that provocation would not have been their defence? It quite blows my mind to discover how some people think-scary stuff. At what point do you think I am entitled to defend myself if I am being assaulted by a woman?

 

[The Coup]

You need to sharpen up your reading skills. I clealry wrote that Ray Rice's punch was an over the top, inappropriate response to his assault.
provocation is a defence for assault. Are you suggesting that the two policemen who shot dead the young Muslim two days ago should face murder charges. You are hilarious.

Are you suggesting they shot him because of provocation, and not in self defence?

You do not understand how assault works, or how self defence works.

If someone is attacking you, you are within your rights to act with exactly enough force to not be in danger. Your article says the following:

Just as any man would know he shouldn’t walk up to a bigger, stronger man and assault him or get in his face and abuse him, so, too, a woman should never hit a man or get in his face and not expect some kind of response. Sounds fair to me.

Wrong, apparently.

Yes it is wrong Mark. It is wrong legally and morally. Nobody should be assaulted for getting in someone's face, or for words or for abuse - and its not a defence for assault.

Bigger and stronger does not mean = authorised to use force against people physically weaker.

And you're a teacher?

 

[The Coup]

Oh, you're also a terrible writer who massively overuses emotive language and bad metaphors.

 

[domus]

Are you suggesting they shot him because of provocation, and not in self defence?

You do not understand how assault works, or how self defence works.

If someone is attacking you, you are within your rights to act with exactly enough force to not be in danger. Your article says the following:



Yes it is wrong Mark. It is wrong legally and morally. Nobody should be assaulted for getting in someone's face, or for words or for abuse - and its not a defence for assault.

Bigger and stronger does not mean = authorised to use force against people physically weaker.

And you're a teacher?

Oh dear - you are making the assumptions. I said "and not expect some kind of response." Where did I say if a person gets in another person's face they should expect to be physically beaten?

I might add that if a man/woman placed their nose two centimetres from yours and screamed abuse -such behaviour would demand a response -and I have no doubt you would not calmly accept it. You would in all likelihood place your hands on the person's chest or shoulders and ask them to back off. You would also probably scream back. These are responses.

 

[Chameleon75]

No. Why should we just ignore it? Until people speak out against this form of bigotry it will never change. You can see how many men are reacting on this thread simply because we raised the issue of men as victims. As I said-male apathy is the biggest hurdle to overcome in fighting the double standards.

yet you ignore that the majority of dv where men are the victims is attributed to other men (according to abs data 73.7%).

 

[domus]

Oh, you're also a terrible writer who massively overuses emotive language and bad metaphors.

Oh- and I think you are silly and mean!

 

[The Coup]

Oh dear - you are making the assumptions. I said "and not expect some kind of response." Where did I say if a person gets in another person's face they should expect to be physically beaten?

I might add that if a man/woman placed their nose two centimetres from yours and screamed abuse -such behaviour would demand a response -and I have no doubt you would not calmly accept it. You would in all likelihood place your hands on the person's chest or shoulders and ask them to back off. You would also probably scream back. These are responses.

Its an article about domestic violence. If you're going to depart so drastically from the topic in the article, you need to clarify what this "response" is you're referring to. Because the natural inclination of the reader, in an article about domestic violence, is to assume you are referring to domestic violence.

It is quite clear you are defending men as both victims and perpetrators of domestic violence, and their right to 'react' to women physically. If you are not doing this, if your writing is so bad that even you could not understand the opening statement and conclusion, then what are you defending men from exactly?

This is another reason why you are a bad writer. But I imagine you are simply trying to weasel out of your authorship of an article endorsing violence. You are a true MRA.

 

[domus]

yet you ignore that the majority of dv where men are the victims is attributed to other men (according to abs data 73.7%).

Men as perpetrators of domestic violence is in our media every day. Of course men assault other men. I am focusing on women because they are entirely absent from the picture when they should not be.

 

[domus]

Its an article about domestic violence. If you're going to depart so drastically from the topic in the article, you need to clarify what this "response" is you're referring to. Because the natural inclination of the reader, in an article about domestic violence, is to assume you are referring to domestic violence.

This is another reason why you are a bad writer. But I imagine you are simply trying to weasel out of your authorship of an article endorsing violence. You are a true MRA.

Hilarious- because you have terrible comprehension skills you made an assumption that was never there! And now it's my fault! How embarrassing smarty pants!

By the way-verbal and emotional abuse is a form of domestic violence. The White Ribbon people are very specific on this point. Did you think DV had to be physical? Oops.

So you think any suggestion that a man should be able to slap a woman or hit a woman if she assaults him is wrong and that a woman should be able to physically assault a man with impunity? Well?
Oh and do you consider Whoopi Goldberg to be a vicious, violence endorsing MRA? Well?

 

[The Coup]

Hilarious- becuase you have terrible comprehension skills you made an assumption that was never there! And now it's my fault! How embarrassing smarty pants!

You're very excited. I ask again: If your article is not defending men as both aggressors and victims of DV, then what is the purpose of that example?

You are saying men have a right to react. What relationship do these reactions have to DV?

You mentioned perfectly legal reactions in this thread (but not in your article), but nobody says men can't scream back at a woman. That's a completely made up argument (one I don't think you were arguing, I am certain you are arguing its ok for men to beat women due to their larger size - but more importantly that its womens FAULT for causing a "reaction" from a man in the first place).

 

[The Coup]

If you are the calibre of thinker and author the MRA movement can offer up (its truly amazing you have no actual respected scholars backing your cult, oh wait that's completely rational) it's safe to say society is in good shape.

 

[I am Jack]

Is it any wonder the feminists keep telling us the dv problem is escalating and an"epidemic" with the ridiculous approach they have taken these past 40 years.

And any mention of the real epidemic in Australia - Male Suicide - is shouted down, how dare Males raise such as issue.
Over 2000 males die a year of suicide, in comparison 250-300 women die of DV.
Where is the outrage about male suicide and more importantly - why are males committing suicide at such a high rate?
IMO these issues are related, as a lot of men already commit suicide due to family related problems, kids etc.
Tightening DV is a band aid solution and will only push kids further away from their fathers and give Mothers even more power in the courts.
I will 100% NOT result in less deaths in Mothers and Children, it will result in more - because there will be more anger.
IMO the core of the problem is not domestic violence, it is an unfair court system and a lack of recognition of Male suicide and depression.
A lot of DV will be resolved if more attention is paid to the health, well being and education of Males.

 

[Chameleon75]

Men as perpetrators of domestic violence is in our media every day. Of course men assault other men. I am focusing on women because they are entirely absent from the picture when they should not be.

so you attack the op because they ignored male victims of domestic violence, yet your not focusing on victims rather selecting one particular type of perpetrator (4.9%, abs again).

Ultimately your problem is with women and not dv against men otherwise you'd be campaigning against men as well given they commit the bulk of the dv against other men.

 

[I am Jack]

The reason for this response is because the only domestic violence we ever hear about always has women as the victims and men as the perpetrators. Every day-be it on the tv or in the newspapers there are endless articles telling men they are responsible for the behaviour of a tiny minority. We have White Ribbon Campaigns, billboards, posters, feminists coming out to schools to point the finger at men and young males and treating them as if they are a problem to be fixed, a disease in need of a cure.Why should individuals have to set up programs or safe houses for men when the government funds all of the shelters/counsellours and programs for women? Why do we have an office for the status of women but no equivalent office for men? The majority of our homeless are men, 75% of suicides are committed by males, the vast majority of workplace death and injury happens to men and our boys are failing in our education system. Yet no-one thinks an office for the status of men is necessary. Why?

Men are entirely absent as victims and this is a disgrace.

Men suicide at nearly four times the rate of women. Would you not object if the government funded endless campaigns which never once referred to females who commit suicide? Imagine this campaign had slogans on billboards saying "Australia says no to the scourge of male suicide!" or " Show our men we care-don't let them turn to suicide." How long do you think a campaign like that would last before there were cries of-what about the women who commit suicide? How do you think the mothers/fathers and loved ones of female victims would feel about such a campaign? Would that not be a legitimate question? Or would you consider that a negative derailment of an important campaign?

If there were two campaigns running simultaneously focusing on men and women there would be no problem-but there never have been. Men's suffering is simply not regarded as being as worthy of our concern in comparison to female suffering of any kind and never has been. How do you explain the fact that women's health gets four times the funding of men's health yet men die years earlier?

I find the argument that more women are victims as a justification for the total absence of men as victims in any campaign a rather outrageous argument. Every year before our ANZAC clash the ex servicemen reads a tribute thanking our brave men and women for their sacrifice in our times of war. Perhaps 80 000 young men have died on the battle field for their country and many more have been mutilated or mentally damaged by their experiences. A literal handful of women have died(not on the battlefield) but in accidents during their service as nurses etc. Yet women are given equal recognition as victims. The ratio of male to female victims is infinitely more balanced yet men are invisible. Can you explain this?

Well said, I only just seen you'd wrote that.
I posted something similar.

 

[domus]

You're very excited. I ask again: If your article is not defending men as both aggressors and victims of DV, then what is the purpose of that example?

You are saying men have a right to react. What relationship do these reactions have to DV?

You mentioned perfectly legal reactions in this thread (but not in your article), but nobody says men can't scream back at a woman. That's a completely made up argument (one I don't think you were arguing, I am certain you are arguing its ok for men to beat women due to their larger size - but more importantly that its womens FAULT for causing a "reaction" from a man in the first place).

I'm am seriously concerned for you. If you can demonstrate to me exactly what I wrote which would lead you to that conclusion I would be eternally grateful. You told me you read my article. I hope you watched the attached clips. One more time now-are you suggesting that if a woman punches a man in the face that she should not expect any physical response from the man? If so, at what point of a physical beating from a woman is a man able to respond physically?

By the way-if any of the women in those clips did get punched in return it would be their fault for causing that reaction-just as if one man walked up and assaulted another man and copped a punch in return.Are you suggesting women should always be the victim regardless of the circumstances of a fight?

It's quite ironic that whenever a woman assaults a man the first question asked is "What did he do to provoke her? We saw a perfect example of this when Beyonce's sister assaulted her brother in law. He didn't touch her and she flung punches at his face yet she was the victim. All caught on film. Such hypocrisy.

 

[domus]

so you attack the op because they ignored male victims of domestic violence, yet your not focusing on victims rather selecting one particular type of perpetrator (4.9%, abs again).

Ultimately your problem is with women and not dv against men otherwise you'd be campaigning against men as well given they commit the bulk of the dv against other men.

That figure you provided is absolute rubbish.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12153

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9743

 

[Chameleon75]

That figure you provided is absolute rubbish.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12153

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9743

Its the official abs data for the last 12mths, you can dispute it if you wish, wasn't the point of the post which you ignored. Why don't you address the hypocrisy I pointed out.