The 16 Days Campaign.

tallaght01

metrovelvet wrote: »

This bickering about the stats is pushing out the possibility for a real discussion about what it is and what people can do about it.

That would be a very good point, except that a whole load of bullet point stats were used as the starting point for the discussion.

tallaght01

metrovelvet wrote: »

Em... do you not find this a bit ironic here given the context of the last couple of pages of this thread? [I do agree with you though, I don't think she should be banned.]

I have no idea where the irony lies, to be honest.

CDfm

tallaght01 wrote: »

I have no idea where the irony lies, to be honest.

Its 10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife

CDfm

metrovelvet wrote: »

Em... do you not find this a bit ironic here given the context of the last couple of pages of this thread? [I do agree with you though, I don't think she should be banned.]

I too cant see any irony in domestic violence issues.

I think many peoples concerns are that in some areas -despite the good work they do- some groups like Womens Aid are unethical in their handling of domestic violence issues. Its like we have got 99% of state funding so F@*# everyone else - thats very arrogant.

BTW - I agree Thaedydal should not be banned - she is very thoughful and her outburst is ok as it affected her.

metrovelvet

CDfm wrote: »

Its 10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife

That is bad luck, not irony. The irony was not in domestic violence issues. The irony was in excusing Thaed for using abusive language in a thread which evolved into a bitching session by some male posters, including you, about how women can be abusive to but get let off the hook for it.

g'em

Thaed asked to be banned. And ftr her post was reported for abuse so obviously some found it offensive.

Please don't argue Mod decisions in-thread, contact us privately or take it to the appropriate forum.

metrovelvet

CDfm wrote: »

I too cant see any irony in domestic violence issues.

I think many peoples concerns are that in some areas -despite the good work they do- some groups like Womens Aid are unethical in their handling of domestic violence issues. Its like we have got 99% of state funding so F@*# everyone else - thats very arrogant.

BTW - I agree Thaedydal should not be banned - she is very thoughful and her outburst is ok as it affected her.

Women's groups have been very organised and more on the ball, that is why they get the funding. Mens groups are about 30 years behind. But they are starting to get their acts together so give it time.

I would agree with you that ideology and funding are often interlinked and sometimes unjustly so. TBH I dont know enough about the methods that WA employes but do on principal agree that there should be different groups, ie child abuse, female abuse and male abuse as there are different dynamics and problems for each.

tallaght01

metrovelvet wrote: »

Women's groups have been very organised and more on the ball, that is why they get the funding. .

And therein, quite honestly, lies a huge part of the problem.

CDfm

metrovelvet wrote: »

That is bad luck, not irony. The irony was not in domestic violence issues. The irony was in excusing Thaed for using abusive language in a thread which evolved into a bitching session by some male posters, including you, about how women can be abusive to but get let off the hook for it.

No - its definately Ironic -watch the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8v9yUVgrmPY

In fact - Thaedydal is very sympathetic on lots of issues including any issues of abuse or partner issues irrespective of gender.I dont think you should use her 2 day ban to introduce any kind of aghenda.

All we are saying is that the gender based model of domestic violence is wrong and that you also have women perpetrators . In some way - you think its acceptable.

metrovelvet

CDfm wrote: »

No - its definately Ironic -watch the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8v9yUVgrmPY

No thanks.

CDfm wrote: »

In fact - Thaedydal is very sympathetic on lots of issues including any issues of abuse or partner issues irrespective of gender.I dont think you should use her 2 day ban to introduce any kind of aghenda.

Excuse me? WTF are you fantasizing about now?

JC 2K3

metrovelvet wrote: »

Also -people are leaaving out that domestic violence is not just about hitting but about a whole system and cycle of abuse. This bickering about the stats is pushing out the possibility for a real discussion about what it is and what people can do about it.

So why don't they inform people about the issues as opposed to putting out sensationalised, skewed statistics?

Even reading through the literature on the site, there's no well written, objective overview or explanation of the nature of domestic abuse against women, just a load of sensationalism. For example, why it is necessary to have numerous lists of all the ways that it is possible to abuse a woman is beyond me....

One statistic they listed stuck in my mind:

In all of the resolved cases [of domestic homicide against women], 99% of perpetrators were men

http://www.womensaid.ie/pages/what/campaigning/1608/dvfm.pdf

I'm not sure what the reason for including this stat is. Is it to convey the fact that lesbian partners are less likely to abuse? Or simply that lesbian partners who abuse are less likely to murder? Or maybe that they're better at covering it up? Or is it just a misandristic jibe?

From reading the site, the impression I get of Women's Aid is that while they've done and are doing a hell of a lot of good work, they are slightly stuck in the past, sensationalist and extremist. Sadly, with relation to anything, it's extremist groups which tend to be the most organised and active.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Mikel

If you don't want an argument over statistics then don't base your point on a load of statistics.
This is a huge generalisation, but these threads seem to descend into the same thing because,well, they're started by women.

Then in general (but not exclusively, and I'm making an assumption here because i don't know who's male or female) the men show up and start picking the stats apart.

This is equated in the women's minds with demeaning or justifying or whatever and so they come out with statements like 'domestic violence is wrong' or 'rape is wrong'.

The men say they weren't saying otherwise and they too think it's wrong and don't like the implication that they think it's right.

The women then say it doesn't matter about the stats
The men then say 'Why did you base your argument on stats then?'

And then the original poster who has possibly been abused/beaten/raped shows up and freaks because the thread has been derailed.

Maybe I'm wrong but I can think of probably three threads on domestic violence and one on drink spiking that went this way.
Any maybe I'm off with my generalisations, but it just reminds me of so many arguments I've had with women over the years.

To be honest though, starting a thread with a barrage of statistics which can't be justified is asking for trouble. The thing is, it was probably a press release which means that when the story appears in the paper, in lot of peoples minds a similar thing will happen.

From what I read, groups like WA and the RCC are more focused on their big statistic and 'sending out a message' than on addressing their issue.
But it also seems like they won't be happy until they widen their definitions enough that the number is 100% of women.
(Bear in mind there are militant feminists who think that is the correct figure)

This approach leads to resistance, in my case like I said earlier, the thought occurs that you could easily have the finger pointed at you next.

Personally I think WA need to change their approach, and address the problem in such a way that they are more likely to make progress.
Maybe even get a man in charge, that's not baiting anyone I'm very serious.

They should address the issue in a more functional way, which I'm sure is difficult for something so emotive and something they may have experienced at first hand.

Apologies for all the generalisations

panda100

CDfm wrote: »

All we are saying is that the gender based model of domestic violence is wrong and that you also have women perpetrators

I dont think anyone on here ever refuted this point, but this is the ladies lounge and so of course we're going to look at it from a female slant. Though I dont think there is many female contributers to this thread anymore

tallaght01 wrote: »

I'm very passionate about getting to the root of domestic violence, as I've seen the horrific, and occasonally fatal, consequences. Children's and women's abuse tends to be interlinked.

Domestic violence is often stomach churning. But so is people trafficking, child prostitution, homelessness etc.

The one thing that all these things have in common is Money.

Domestic Violence mainly affects women from lower socio-economic backgrounds. Prostiution, trafficking, homelesness also all affect those who live in poverty.
We must see the pattern here and realise that we live in a wholly unequal society. A society where there is huge inequalities of wealth and power.

Until we get rid of this economic and political system that breeds Inequality,poverty and violence i.e Capitalism we will never eradicate society of these injustices which are all fundamently caused by money or lack of.

Perhaps Im wrong and more 'charity' handouts will somehow eradicate the world from domestic violence. For me, It deosnt matter how much funding these groups get, its not going to change the reality of the situation anyway. It will just mean more support for victims but no real answers. Poverty will still exist and so will all the inequalities that come with it.

panda100

Mikel wrote: »

But it also seems like they won't be happy until they widen their definitions enough that the number is 100% of women.
(Bear in mind there are militant feminists who think that is the correct figure)

Thats ridiculous. No actual Feminist thinks that 100% of women are beaten up by their partners. And putting the word 'militant' in front of the word feminist is just as stupid as calling us 'feminazis'.

If you know a feminist and she/he told you that all men beat their partners, then he/ she is not a feminist.

tallaght01

panda100 wrote: »

I dont think anyone on here ever refuted this point, but this is the ladies lounge and so of course we're going to look at it from a female slant. Though I dont think there is many female contributers to this thread anymore



The one thing that all these things have in common is Money.

Domestic Violence mainly affects women from lower socio-economic backgrounds. Prostiution, trafficking, homelesness also all affect those who live in poverty.
We must see the pattern here and realise that we live in a wholly unequal society. A society where there is huge inequalities of wealth and power.

Until we get rid of this economic and political system that breeds Inequality,poverty and violence i.e Capitalism we will never eradicate society of these injustices which are all fundamently caused by money or lack of.

Perhaps Im wrong and more 'charity' handouts will somehow eradicate the world from domestic violence. For me, It deosnt matter how much funding these groups get, its not going to change the reality of the situation anyway. It will just mean more support for victims but no real answers. Poverty will still exist and so will all the inequalities that come with it.

I absoloutely agree that socio-economic issues are the cause of many of the world's problems. I bang on about this ALL the time.

BUT, blaming capitalism isn't really realistic because:

a) There is no evidence that capitalism is linked with domestic violance

b) Many countries that have never embraced free market economics, or have ambraced it in a tokenistic way, have shocking records with regard to womens rights/domestic violence.

c) Whilst being inadequate, the biggest capitalist nations are probably the best at dealing with domestic violence, aswell as collecting data on domestinc violence.

JC 2K3

panda100 wrote: »

Until we get rid of this economic and political system that breeds Inequality,poverty and violence i.e Capitalism we will never eradicate society of these injustices which are all fundamently caused by money or lack of.

I don't see how domestic violence or gender inequality have anything to do with capitalism... I would link it much more to social conditioning and social structures, which aren't intrinsically linked to capitalism.

metrovelvet

Money is not the problem. The people who raise their hands to another, or a gun, or a knife, or poison, or pots and pans, or whatever, are the problem, as is the justice system.

cuckoo

Mikel wrote: »

Apologies for all the generalisations

Mikel, 'it's easier to beg forgiveness...etc'.

Can we try and swing this discussion around a bit? There's been some good points made, and i now understand where some posters are coming from in questioning stats.

So, what more could be done in Irish society to stop domestic violence (of all types)?

Are there any education programs in schools? Relationship education? Does the civics course for junior cert cover anything about it?

I think that there's something about Irish people in that we have a tendency to want our business to be kept private, there's no Jerry Springer type show on the telly here because we'd be mortified to think that the neighbours knew the intimate details of our lives. Radio phone in shows are about as far as we'll go in sharing with the nation - because radio gives a sense of privacy, we aren't showing our faces.

This places a burden on teachers, guards, doctors, nurses - the people who have to be alert to the signs of abuse as the rest of us are unwilling to pay attention, for fear that we'd be 'intruding'.

I'm wondering this because years ago my mother was taking a few of us to the GP for sore throats. A few days previously she had walked into a door (no, really, i'm being serious, my parents' marriage had its ups and downs but no domestic abuse) and had a massive black eye. She had been out and about in the community, and nobody had said a word to her about it. Not one. The doctor took one look at her, sent us out with lollipops to the waiting room and (very sensitively my mother told me years later) asked her about the black eye, how things were at home, etc.

Should we try and move towards a society where we're more questioning about what's going on in the relationships of people we know?

We've managed to change our attitudes to drink driving dramatically in a generation - what do we need to do so we stop thinking of domestic violence as a private problem within a relationship/marriage?

metrovelvet

^ There's a huge resistence for anyone to step into family matters for a start.

Secondly, the emergency services need improving. About 10 years ago, I was in an apartment in DUblin and it was late one Friday night. I would say about 11pm. I heard the woman upstairs getting a beating and her screaming. I phoned 999. It rang out. I phoned again. It rang out. I phoned and after a few rings someone picked up. I told them what I was hearing. Two guards showed up at 4:30 am.

Lockstep

I think Panda has got a point.

Capitalism is about far more then just free market economics. It's essentially about profit.

Russia currently has a terrible problem with domestic abuses and so forth since the fall of communism. Seeing as there is far more of a money culture combined with a sense of powerlessness due to the economic conditions, many men insist on their wives giving up work leaving them totally dependant and the economic conditions brought about by capitalism mean many couples are forced to cohabit and have nowhere else to turn.
[source: More than 12,000 women are killed each year in Russia as a result of domestic violence, Jessice Williams, Icon Books, 2005)

I'm not saying that capitalism is some evil boogeyman that causes all kinds of problems wherever it goes but I do think the underlying power and hierarchy it imposes doesn';t really help out in domestic abuse cases.

metrovelvet

I find that kind of Marxist drivel reductive and not all that helpful. I found this more cultural/psychological reading of it on a mens website. Now before you all jump down my throat about not talking about violent women, I am trying to keep with the spirit of this thread which was about violence against women. [This site also has a lot of interesting information about men suffering from domestic abuse also].

From:http://www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/domesticviolence.html#chances

Men as Batterers or Insecure Men Using Violence to Maintain Power
Here's one look at how many men "learned violence." We all learned that "Boys don't hit girls - ever!" And, as children, boys who hit girls are ridiculed by other boys. However, boys grow up in a society dominated by men. Men control the heights of politics, economics, trade unions and religions. They define mainstream ideology. Masculinity is tied to having power, power to control emotions, power to control others, power to control the world.

But when a boy reaches puberty, he experiences the realities of being a young human being. He has feelings and impulses he's learned are inconsistent with "manhood." Girls often hit, slap or punch them. And, self doubt starts. He worries he's not tough enough or muscular enough. He suppresses emotions and behavior that his peers might think are weak And he is terrified of that insecurity, of not making the masculine grade.

Therein lies a lethal combination. Power, feeling entitled to that power and insecurity. And for some men, degradation and violence are used to maintain that sense of power. The guy who's had a bad day at work may hit his wife at home to prove he is in control of his world. Masculinity restored. For now. The big challenge of prevention strategies is how to break those fears and behavior which are both an assertion of power and expression of insecurity.

Piste

cuckoo wrote: »

Are there any education programs in schools? Relationship education? Does the civics course for junior cert cover anything about it?

No not at all. There's some talk about bullying in 1st and 2nd year but that's about the height of it.

cuckoo wrote: »

I'm wondering this because years ago my mother was taking a few of us to the GP for sore throats. A few days previously she had walked into a door (no, really, i'm being serious, my parents' marriage had its ups and downs but no domestic abuse) and had a massive black eye. She had been out and about in the community, and nobody had said a word to her about it. Not one. The doctor took one look at her, sent us out with lollipops to the waiting room and (very sensitively my mother told me years later) asked her about the black eye, how things were at home, etc.

Yeah I was (am...) a very clumsy child so often had accidents which involved trips to A&E, my mum ells me she got very suspicious looks from nurses when I told them the really farfetched stories of how I got hurt (which were all trues).

The Sweeper

metrovelvet wrote: »

From:http://www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/domesticviolence.html#chances

...Girls often hit, slap or punch them.

...sorry, what? In this thread where people are complaining about inaccuracy, where the hell does this come from?

Are they talking playground tussells, or teenaged girls trying to re-enact the drama of day time TV shows by smacking their boyfriends?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

metrovelvet

Minesajackdaniels wrote: »

...sorry, what? In this thread where people are complaining about inaccuracy, where the hell does this come from?

Are they talking playground tussells, or teenaged girls trying to re-enact the drama of day time TV shows by smacking their boyfriends?

Im guessing both as well as sisters.

CDfm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

i reckon we are meant to.

Read the report

Boys - rats snails and puppy dogs tails
Girls -sugar and spice and all things nice

Fairly conclusive I would say.

CDfm

cuckoo wrote: »

I'm wondering this because years ago my mother was taking a few of us to the GP for sore throats. A few days previously she had walked into a door (no, really, i'm being serious, my parents' marriage had its ups and downs but no domestic abuse) and had a massive black eye. She had been out and about in the community, and nobody had said a word to her about it. Not one. The doctor took one look at her, sent us out with lollipops to the waiting room and (very sensitively my mother told me years later) asked her about the black eye, how things were at home, etc.

We've managed to change our attitudes to drink driving dramatically in a generation - what do we need to do so we stop thinking of domestic violence as a private problem within a relationship/marriage?

I just wonder if anyone else thinks this.

But if the roles were reversed would the GP have asked your Dad if everything was alright at home. Probably not.

To Tallaght01 - have you ever asked male patients in whatever capacity had they suffered abuse from a female partner?

CDfm

Minesajackdaniels wrote: »

Are they talking playground tussells, or teenaged girls trying to re-enact the drama of day time TV shows by smacking their boyfriends?

If I am reading this correctly people who grow up in abusive environments will go on to abuse -both male and female. Its a cycle of behaviour bthat repeats thru generations-irrespective of gender. This may be way the Uk Crime statistics are fairly even -so it is a social thing.

Also that girls who are prone to be violent as children and concider it normal can become violent partners as adults- with a similar situation with boys who witness violence msay be prone to violence in relationships as adults.

metrovelvet

CDfm wrote: »

If I am reading this correctly people who grow up in abusive environments will go on to abuse -both male and female. Its a cycle of behaviour bthat repeats thru generations-irrespective of gender. This may be way the Uk Crime statistics are fairly even -so it is a social thing.

Also that girls who are prone to be violent as children and concider it normal can become violent partners as adults- with a similar situation with boys who witness violence msay be prone to violence in relationships as adults.

I read it differently. I read it that boys get accustomed to accepting various slaps and thumps from girls while also being told it is not acceptable to hit girls.

The Sweeper

My point is I'm not sure who these harridan bitch-children are who thump, punch and slap their male counterparts, but I wasn't one of them and neither were any of my childhood friends - we were all taught that hitting isn't nice, no matter who you hit.

What playground are the bunch referred to in that piece growing up in?

metrovelvet

Minesajackdaniels wrote: »

My point is I'm not sure who these harridan bitch-children are who thump, punch and slap their male counterparts, but I wasn't one of them and neither were any of my childhood friends - we were all taught that hitting isn't nice, no matter who you hit.

What playground are the bunch referred to in that piece growing up in?

I don't know Minesajack, but I see it all the time in the playground I go to with my toddler from the boys and the girls. And I have seen it in all sorts of other playgrounds that I go to, but not regularly.

I posted on a parenting website about the thumps and pushes my 16 month old was got from a 21 month old boy. Most people said ignore him and pull the child away from him, dont give any attention negative or positive as that rewards him. However, I also got advice to tell my son to hit this 21 month old back, [in practise an impossible thing to do] and I sincerelly doubt that same advice would have been given if the 21 month old was a girl.

Yeah, we are all taught that hitting isnt nice no matter who you hit, but we are also given mixed messages when it comes to retaliation, imo.

CDfm

metrovelvet wrote: »

I posted on a parenting website about the thumps and pushes my 16 month old was got from a 21 month old boy.... and I sincerelly doubt that same advice would have been given if the 21 month old was a girl.

metro - the 21 month old doesnt go there by himself. Have you spoken to the childs parent or supervisor(probably his mother) to supervise their charge as they are the ones doing the teaching

Like it or not if mothers are normally the main carers they bear some responsibility for the socialisation of their children- ever think that the main carers bear some responsibility.

Lockstep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Did USSR RUssia have a terrible problem with domestic abuse?

DUnno about the USSR as a whole, the study was referring to the Russian part of it.

The study was referring to the increase in Russian domestic abuse following the break up of the USSR, made worse by the economic conditions brought on by emerging capitalism in RUssia.

cuckoo

Minesajackdaniels wrote: »

- we were all taught that hitting isn't nice, no matter who you hit.

metrovelvet wrote: »

I posted on a parenting website about the thumps and pushes my 16 month old was got from a 21 month old boy. Most people said ignore him and pull the child away from him, dont give any attention negative or positive as that rewards him. However, I also got advice to tell my son to hit this 21 month old back, [in practise an impossible thing to do] and I sincerelly doubt that same advice would have been given if the 21 month old was a girl.

Yeah, we are all taught that hitting isnt nice no matter who you hit, but we are also given mixed messages when it comes to retaliation, imo.

CDfm wrote: »

metro - the 21 month old doesnt go there by himself. Have you spoken to the childs parent or supervisor(probably his mother) to supervise their charge as they are the ones doing the teaching

Like it or not if mothers are normally the main carers they bear some responsibility for the socialisation of their children- ever think that the main carers bear some responsibility.

Food for thought in the above posts - are people who hit their partners comfortable with violence and are used to using it from a young age? Or, are they people who snap under pressure (the effects of evil capitalism, perceived lack of respect, etc)?

If it's because of how they're raised, it doesn't excuse violence, but gives an explanation and a starting point - we have to reassess all of our attitudes to violence. There's lots of posts on boards advocating people telling their children to fight back to bullies. There's also lots of posts in threads on domestic violence where it is suggested that the woman gets her brothers around to beat up her partner - I haven't seen any threads about men expereiencing violence within relationships but would guess that were violence advocated it would be a rehash of 'fight back to the bully'.

But......is there something deeper there, a confusion about what it means to be male? There was a post a page back which linked anger (and fear) over lack of respect with voilence carried out by men in relationships.

Is there the same confusion for the women who carry out violence in relationships - are they rejected the idea of nurture and acting out anger in a most unfemale way, a massive 'f off' to the idea of being ladylike? I don't think so - i think it's more that they're violent, angry people. And, in realising that i think that i now have an understanding of how men might feel reading this thread - do they view men who abuse as just being violent, angry people, and nothing to do with their gender?

So, if i think that women commiting violence are violent, angry people, should i assume the same for men?

Is there a difference between the genders?

Lots of going nowhere questions i konw in this post - this thread is provoking a lot of thought for me, that i'm still processing.

Anyone (tallaght01?) with experience of dealing with people who abuse their partners/children have any thoughts on if there are different triggers and reasons for men and women?

CDfm

cuckoo wrote: »

Food for thought in the above posts - are people who hit their partners comfortable with violence and are used to using it from a young age?

Is there the same confusion for the women who carry out violence in relationships - are they rejected the idea of nurture and acting out anger in a most unfemale way, a massive 'f off' to the idea of being ladylike? I don't think so - i think it's more that they're violent, angry people. And, in realising that i think that i now have an understanding of how men might feel reading this thread - do they view men who abuse as just being violent, angry people, and nothing to do with their gender?

i think you are over analysising

maybe its learned and maybe its not but people who abuse do it because they can.

women abuse in equal numbers to men probably because they are bad people-thats not so hard to believe is it. put your theory books in the bin.

robtri

All I will say on this subject is, violence is wrong, wither be it done by a female or a male...IT IS WRONG!!!! end off.
and any group supporting people caught up in this issue, should be applauded and given our support, not us sitting here trying to pick holes cause they only deal wiht men or women or kids.... They are trying to help some of these people with limited resources, so if the 16 day campagin is only supporting women, I say fair play to these people for helping......

metrovelvet

CDfm wrote: »

metro - the 21 month old doesnt go there by himself. Have you spoken to the childs parent or supervisor(probably his mother) to supervise their charge as they are the ones doing the teaching

Like it or not if mothers are normally the main carers they bear some responsibility for the socialisation of their children- ever think that the main carers bear some responsibility.

No. I only meet him and his nanny in the playground. I dont think the nanny is comfortable with discipline nor does the nanny speak very good English. Of course the main carers bear the responsibility but when they wont do anything then you have to just take care to protect your own child.

CDfm

robtri wrote: »

All I will say on this subject is, violence is wrong, wither be it done by a female or a male...IT IS WRONG!!!! end off.
and any group supporting people caught up in this issue, should be applauded and given our support, not us sitting here trying to pick holes cause they only deal wiht men or women or kids.... They are trying to help some of these people with limited resources, so if the 16 day campagin is only supporting women, I say fair play to these people for helping......

In 2006 - according to the ESRI 32,000,000 was spent on female victims of domestic violence with only 100,000 on male victims.

By perpetuating the myth that only men are perpetrators means any funding for male victims becomes a political football and has flown in the face of government policy.

IT would be easier all alround if gender based groups stopped creating an enviromment that creates this inequality.

metrovelvet

^ I think more funding should go to preventative measures, in teaching people from a young age and beyond how to express their anger in healthy productive ways, to use their physical strength and other powers with responsibility and respect.

CDfm

metrovelvet wrote: »

^ I think more funding should go to preventative measures, in teaching people from a young age and beyond how to express their anger in healthy productive ways, to use their physical strength and other powers with responsibility and respect.

Metro- the issue exists it should be addressed legally with appropraite courts and sentencing and punishments for both genders -women included. Its time that all this backroom in camera stuff and secrecy was abandoned. It serves nobody at all. CD

metrovelvet

CDfm wrote: »

Metro- the issue exists it should be addressed legally with appropraite courts and sentencing and punishments for both genders -women included. Its time that all this backroom in camera stuff and secrecy was abandoned. It serves nobody at all. CD

Maybe it would be a good idea for you to start a thread in Humanties,since this is the ladies lounge, and it is a thread about Women's Aid.

T runner

CDfm wrote: »

i think you are over analysising

maybe its learned and maybe its not but people who abuse do it because they can.

women abuse in equal numbers to men probably because they are bad people-thats not so hard to believe is it. put your theory books in the bin.

I think the numbers in Ireland are more like 90% male violence towards women, 10% female violence to male.

This means gender is a strong factor.

CDfm

T runner wrote: »

I think the numbers in Ireland are more like 90% male violence towards women, 10% female violence to male.

This means gender is a strong factor.

In the UK it is equal the stats quoted in an earlier post indicate its 4.2 % of men and women abuse their partners. It is likely that the figures in Ireland are roughly the same.

The Amen site quotes figures indicating a 60/40 split female/male victims so its a long way away from the 90/10 ration you suggest. Even the funding of victim support groups does not suggest this.

Put this against the fact that 99% of the funding is targeted towards female victims and it would suggest that the fund of money available to support victims should be split more evenly.

I myself think that gender based models have caused this inequality and as long as abuse is funded or serviced in this way you will have inequality.

The resourses are there its just that they are not available to men.

belfastbelle

The vast majority of the victims of domestic violence are women and children, and women are also considerably more likely to experience repeated and severe forms of violence and sexual abuse.

30 years of data and research have confirmed that men are generally the perpetrators of domestic violence and that women are generally the victims. Irish and worldwide research - as well as data from hospitals and police stations all over the world - reveal a consistent pattern of violence in intimate relationships where men are the perpetrators 90 per cent of the time.

The 2005 National Crime Council and ESRI research into the domestic abuse of women and men in Ireland found that 1 in 7 women in Ireland compared to 1 in 17 men experience severedomestic violence. Women are over twice as likely as men to have experienced severe physical abuse, seven times more likely to have experienced sexual abuse, and are more likely to experience serious injuries than men.

According to the research, women are twice as likely to be injured as a result of domestic abuse; more likely to experience serious injuries; more likely to require medical attention as a result of abuse; and the impact of the abuse in terms of fear, distress and health impacts is more significant for women than men.

CDfm

belfastbelle wrote: »

The 2005 National Crime Council and ESRI research into the domestic abuse of women and men in Ireland found that 1 in 7 women in Ireland compared to 1 in 17 men experience severedomestic violence.

According to the research, women are twice as likely to be injured as a result of domestic abuse; more likely to experience serious injuries; more likely to require medical attention as a result of abuse; and the impact of the abuse in terms of fear, distress and health impacts is more significant for women than men.

So this puts the ratio at 5/2 Women/male victims - but thats not reflected in the funding levels.

I cant see how abuse can be more traumatic for a woman then a man?

All I am saying is by basing victim facilties on gender yo are restricting access to local support.

Dragan

belfastbelle wrote: »

The vast majority of the victims of domestic violence are women and children, and women are also considerably more likely to experience repeated and severe forms of violence and sexual abuse.

30 years of data and research have confirmed that men are generally the perpetrators of domestic violence and that women are generally the victims. Irish and worldwide research - as well as data from hospitals and police stations all over the world - reveal a consistent pattern of violence in intimate relationships where men are the perpetrators 90 per cent of the time.

The 2005 National Crime Council and ESRI research into the domestic abuse of women and men in Ireland found that 1 in 7 women in Ireland compared to 1 in 17 men experience severedomestic violence. Women are over twice as likely as men to have experienced severe physical abuse, seven times more likely to have experienced sexual abuse, and are more likely to experience serious injuries than men.

According to the research, women are twice as likely to be injured as a result of domestic abuse; more likely to experience serious injuries; more likely to require medical attention as a result of abuse; and the impact of the abuse in terms of fear, distress and health impacts is more significant for women than men.

It's not. It's really truly not.

Look, when it comes to domestic abuse you have two options, much the same as you do with any other issue.

1) A complete top line attack on the issue, non targeted campaigns that tell us that violence of any sort is wrong, should be dealt with, should not be tolerated and needs to be reported.

2) A closely targeted campaing ( much like this one ) that looks at a specific area that needs help and goes after it. The problem here is that no one can actually tell you WHY the abuse happens.

Sure, we can all throw out of theories that it's upbring, home life, drink or drug dependancy, trouble in the bedroom, capatilism etc etc but the reasons as to why a person might hit there partner are completely and totally individual and unique to that person. We could run studies asking victims why they were hit and they could still be way off bat. The might think it was because there husband was drunk and it was really because their husband thought she was cheating etc etc etc.

As such, in my honest opinion, the best way to attack Domestic Abuse is a complete entity. Targeting means you are excluding SOMEONE from your message and giving another group of people reason to feel attacked, just like in this thread.

If you send out a message that Domestic Violence comes in all shapes and sizes, from all possible sources and any ( remember, there are cases where kids attack parents ) victim has a comfortable place to come forward and at the very least talk about what is affecting them and possibly even get more help.

I don't care if a person is a child, an adult, a man or a woman, if someone turned to me and said "I have been attacked" that person would receive nothing but all the comfort and assistance i was able to provide for them.

I imagine that most people are the same. Why do we run these things and treat these issues in a way that we would never actually act as human beings?

It would also work from the point of view of getting the message across to people who may have a violent nature that what happened to them was wrong and what they are doing now is wrong.

If you want someone to stop doing something, you need to understand that telling them the reason they are doing something , even if it as simple as "you are a man", which is roughly what message like this campaign do, will not help one iota.

belfastbelle

From what I can tell, Women's services grew organically over the last 30 years in response to the need to women experiencing abuse in the home - your support services, your refuges and helplines. All organised by women for women with very little resources. And organised for women because women represent the majority of the victims. At some stage the Govt started to fund these services (but not fully as underfunding is a big issue) because they recognise that they are much needed.

CDfm you seem to imply that women get all the funding at the expense of male victims - a veritable cash bonaza. However, I believe that the funding is split according to need. If male victim groups need more resources and more outlets they need to lobby for them just as the groups that came before them have done and continue to do.

I tend to switch off as the argument generally tends to immediately turn into an attack on women's groups rather than presenting their case.

Male victims exist and should be supported - there is no doubt.

I have been reading the posts as well attached the focus of the 16 days campaign - that it solely foccuses on violence against women. However, if you did a bit of research you would find that that IS the purpose of this particular campaign. That it is an awareness raising campaign on the issue of violence against women.

Women's Aid and other groups have every right to use the campaign to raise awareness of the issue they focus on. There is no conspiracy, there is no hidden agenda - Women's Aid is a service for women and they will focus on that naturally. It is not fair to attack them because they don't represent male victims. But how can they do that when they don't deal with male victims. It is kinda similar to lambasting Battersy Dogs Home for not helping mice. (not the best analogy I admit but you see my point).

Also, if you are interested in raising awareness of male victims of domestic violence you could start a campaign or join in with the Speak Out Domestic Violence against Men Awareness week in October.

CDfm

belfastbelle wrote: »

CDfm you seem to imply that women get all the funding at the expense of male victims - a veritable cash bonaza. However, I believe that the funding is split according to need. If male victim groups need more resources and more outlets they need to lobby for them just as the groups that came before them have done and continue to do.

I tend to switch off as the argument generally tends to immediately turn into an attack on women's groups rather than presenting their case.

Male victims exist and should be supported - there is no doubt.

Women's Aid and other groups have every right to use the campaign to raise awareness of the issue they focus on.

Thats not the case I have every sympathy with female victims of domestic violence. I also have sympathy with male victims.

I just disagree with you that the gender based model -such as that - used by Womens Aid is correct.

They have almost 100% of the limited funding available for Victims of Domestic Violence and with all the state cutbacks its unlikely that this pot will increase in the near future.Its quite likely that their needs to be a fairer split of the funds between support organisations for victims.

After all its not money for them - its money for Victims we are speaking of.

On the campaign - the message it portrays is that men are the sole perpetrators and women and children the victims. However -the budget for Domestic Violence Victims is allocated in its entirety to Women to the exclusion of men and child victims.

Lets use different analogy to Battersea Dogs Home.

JUst say you took the MMR vaccine and said due to cutbacks from now on we will only vaccinate girls and not boys. That would be wrong.Thats the logic you advocate.



Is it fair for them to use questionable data to promote their organisation. I think not. A non gender based system is needed.

metrovelvet

CDfm wrote: »

JUst say you took the MMR vaccine and said due to cutbacks from now on we will only vaccinate girls and not boys. That would be wrong.Thats the logic you advocate.
.

I guess youd say that too about the vaccine for cervical cancer too.