The 16 Days Campaign.

CDfm

metrovelvet wrote: »

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

No dont be silly

T runner

belfastbelle wrote: »

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.

I'd agree 100% with this. In my opinion male violence towards women is in a seperate category completely and takes different forms (e.g including Female genital Mutation recently in the media as an asylum case).
Most of the people who understand it seems to agree they women should look after female groups and men should look after male groups. Seems logical and don't really see how it could have developed any other way. Same in most countries I guess.

Womens Aid seem to be running a very effective campaign and fair play to them. The image of the 1 in 5 bride was excellent and very stricking and a very suitable image to raise awareness. It certainly caught the medias attention which was one of the objects of the excercise. They cant be blamed for promoting their compaign to the best of their ability?

For people saying it can be done better, youll probably find with research that womensaid have done that already.

All of the good ideas suggested here I'm sure are being already done by womensaid.

There needs to be change in legislation for domestic violence possibly. e.g the guards being able to arrest suspects. (the onus is currently on the victim I believe). I think Womens aid are lobbying for this amongst other things.

To be honest in my experience of these forums a lot of people come out with opinions and ideas without proper research. This is particularly unfair on issues as important as violence against women and on organisations doing great work to combat it and support victims.

If people are worried about perceived unequal funding then surely their fingers should be pointed at ineffective male groups rather than the more effective but still underfunded female groups.

So if any of us males are going to attack female groups we should have our research done and our ideas honest. Otherwise we have to ask ourselves why we are attacking them?

T runner

belfastbelle wrote: »

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.

I'd agree 100% with this. In my opinion male violence towards women is in a seperate category completely and takes different forms (e.g including Female genital Mutation recently in the media as an asylum case).
Most of the people who understand it seems to agree they women should look after female groups and men should look after male groups. Seems logical and don't really see how it could have developed any other way. Same in most countries I guess.

Womens Aid seem to be running a very effective campaign and fair play to them. The image of the 1 in 5 bride was excellent and very stricking and a very suitable image to raise awareness. It certainly caught the medias attention which was one of the objects of the excercise. Surely they cant be blamed for promoting their compaign to the best of their ability?


People will find with research that all of the worthwhile ideas suggested here have/are probably being used by womensaid.

There needs to be change in legislation for domestic violence possibly. e.g the guards being able to arrest suspects. (the onus is currently on the victim I believe). I think Womens aid are lobbying for this amongst other things.

To be honest in my experience of these forums a lot of people come out with opinions and ideas without proper research. This is particularly unfair on issues as important as violence against women and on organisations doing great work to combat it and support victims.

If people are worried about perceived unequal funding then surely their fingers should be pointed at ineffective male groups rather than the more effective but still underfunded female groups.

So if any of us males are going to attack female groups we should have our research done and our ideas honest. Otherwise we have to ask ourselves why we are attacking them?

Dragan

T runner wrote: »

To be honest in my experience of these forums a lot of people come out with opinions and ideas without proper research. This is particularly unfair on issues as important as violence against women and on organisations doing great work to combat it and support victims.

*grins* I find that ironic given how much of a storm it caused when we questioned the reasearch behind the figures offered.

CDfm

Dragan wrote: »

*grins* I find that ironic given how much of a storm it caused when we questioned the reasearch behind the figures offered.

It didnt surprise me.

But when you look at it its todays feminists who support gender based approaches whose sons will be the next generation of male victims.

So when you look at the stats the guy being abused and not reporting it could be your brother or son.

I wonder how many women here know of or suspect any male victims of domestic violence..

metrovelvet

CDfm wrote: »

It didnt surprise me.

But when you look at it its todays feminists who support gender based approaches whose sons will be the next generation of male victims.

So when you look at the stats the guy being abused and not reporting it could be your brother or son.

I wonder how many women here know of or suspect any male victims of domestic violence..

Personally, I don't know any, unless you consider men who as boys got wollopping from their mothers, but then I also know girls who got whollopings from their fathers. {yeah... growing up we were all taught hitting is wrong...except when mommy and daddy do it right?] Or if you consider infanticide in post natal depression?

OR the recent case of the 29 year old man shot by his eight year old son. I dont see men's groups jumping all over that one.

But I personally know several women who have been.

I think part of the problem in under reportage is other men to be frank, because to them it looks like you "can't handle your woman."

johnnyskeleton

metrovelvet wrote: »

^ That is so so screwed up. Is there any reasoning behind it?

I was wondering why you were asking about this in the other forum.

The reasoning is that it is unfair to kick someone out of their own home because they are alleged to have abused their partner. Also, barring/safety orders are granted on the civil standard but the offence of breaching a barring/safety order is criminal, so they should only be given out in limited circumstances.

In reality if an unmarried person is being abused domestically they can make a criminal complaint to the gardai who can prosecute it, ask the judge to make it a bail term that they move out of the home and keep away from the abused spouse, and if convicted they can have a long suspended portion of the custodial sentence with conditions similar to those of the bail terms, so it is not like the law is saying "if you're unmarried & don't live with your abusive partner, tough ****".

There have been proposals for barring order type orders for people who have been victims of crime as against the offender, and I would be in support of these. This would provide, in legislative form, what judges sometimes do on the ad hoc basis above.

T runner

Dragan wrote: »

*grins* I find that ironic given how much of a storm it caused when we questioned the reasearch behind the figures offered.

Were you privy to the methology of the research you questioned? (and therefore in a position to question it?)

From CDfm

But when you look at it its todays feminists who support gender based approaches whose sons will be the next generation of male victims.

What are you talking about? Sons of feminists who support gender base approaches will be the next generation of male victims? Are you for real?

From Dragan

The problem here is that no one can actually tell you WHY the abuse happens.

Womensaid would probably know better than most, or the male organisations in the case of violence to men.

And why are you advocating a "complete entity" solution if you have no idea of the WHY? If male violence is not the same thing as female violence (may not be, you dont know) then gender specific organisations are probably best.

The people who have an idea of the WHY seem to advocate gender based organisations. Is there something that you know that they (with all their years experience on the front line) dont?

To be honest I couldnt see a female victim of domestic violence seeking the help of a male. Could you?

Conversely, If I was a male who suffered violence Id want to talk to a male about it. Id feel that he would be in a position to understand better, and id be right I think.

You probably need to know the WHY before blessing this thread with your well researched solutions.
Heres a hint you missed from my last thread to help you.
Ask yourself WHY you are really attacking female groups in this thread.

CDfm

T runner wrote: »

What are you talking about? Sons of feminists who support gender base approaches will be the next generation of male victims? Are you for real

Its just something Metro posted on her son and the playground bullying.

These statistics and the questions asked are about real people - they are some womens sons and brothers and fathers. So women have a vested interest.

In 20 years time its Metros son we could be posting about - thats real and I hope it never happens.

BTW the 2 leading lights who have questioned the approach in Ireland and the UK are women - Mary Cleary of Amen and Erin Pizzey who founded Womens Aid.

T runner

CDfm wrote: »

These statistics and the questions asked are about real people - they are some womens sons and brothers and fathers. So women have a vested interest.

In 20 years time its Metros son we could be posting about - thats real and I hope it never happens.

Sorry but this is what you posted:
"todays feminists who support gender based approaches whose sons will be the next generation of male victims."

Not quite the same thing is it?


Yes they are real people. Thats the real issue isnt it. But all yourself and some others have being doing is attacking and picking holes in Womensaid and their campaign as the OPoster said. Not much sympathy from yourselves up until now to the real victims, either male or female.

I noticed on the original post that there was no mention of men whatsoever. Yet somehow we have taken offence and selfishly concluded that the stats were some sort of attack on our gender. Instead we should have taken the stats as what they are: evidence of a very serious problem. 147 women murdered in the last 12 years FFS!!!!!!! Of the solved cases half were by people under the same roof or in the same family I believe.
And whats the response from us men? They must be using that stat to attack us! Unbelievable. Ive never heard any womens groups attacking men or mens groups its always the other way around.
They are using it to raise awareness exactly as Id do in their situation with a stat like that.

Lets say it again 147 women murdered in the last 12 years and what do we do?
Sit on our arses and accuse the women who are fighting to save these lives, of implying we are abusers. And blaming them for not looking after ALL types of domestic violence not just violence towards women and their children, and then concluding they are militant feminists. They are not the ones doing the attacking on this thread AFAICS.

If you take the implication from certain stats that womensaid are accusing men of something this points to your own insecurity and lack of judgement.
Nobody has said or implied all men are abusers anywhere.

As I have already implied in earlier posts, some of the insecurity shown by some males here may be in some ways resemble or be milder versions of the insecurity about manhood that leads some males to abuse their partners.

Not saying they are the same but some may need to look at the real reasons they are attacking female organisations (females?) on this thread.

BTW the 2 leading lights who have questioned the approach in Ireland and the UK are women - Mary Cleary of Amen and Erin Pizzey who founded Womens Aid.

And your point is?
Im sure a few men have questioned it also. Many more women and men who would be in the know would take the opposite view, I guess.

Dragan

metrovelvet wrote: »

I think part of the problem in under reportage is other men to be frank, because to them it looks like you "can't handle your woman."

LoL, this is the biggest part of the problem from the point of view of men coming forward to talk about abuse.

We have reason after reason as to why women won't come forward, all of them compassionate, the reasons offered up for men always play on the male stereotype of pride.

Right, i'm done in this thread. Enjoy.

CDfm

T runner wrote: »

Sorry but this is what you posted:
"todays feminists who support gender based approaches whose sons will be the next generation of male victims."


Lets say it again 147 women murdered in the last 12 years and what do we do?
Sit on our arses and accuse the women who are fighting to save these lives, of implying we are abusers. And blaming them for not looking after ALL types of domestic violence not just violence towards women and their children, and then concluding they are militant feminists. They are not the ones doing the attacking on this thread AFAICS.

T runner - no one is denying the curse of domestic violence and how horrifying it is.

Many posters are just saying its not a gender issue-its a criminal issue.

THat using false or disputed statistics makes the campaign look like a con job .

The problem of abuse is too serious for it to be made into one and it should be treated as a criminal issue for both genders.

Demonising men doesnt help with a campaign. Its like saying a woman invites a rape because of the clothes she wears. Totally wrong and this is what the genderising domestic violence does. Its like blaming the victim.

THe 16 days campaign is the equivalent of neanderthal thinking. Anything that makes it harder for an abuse victim to come forward must be wrong.

Before Catherine Nevin could we name any female husband killers in Ireland. What about the chip shop owner - shotgunned in his bed and no conviction.What did the mother of that man think when his killers walked free. If it was your son what would you think.

Jules

What do people not get about this forum. Yes we know domestic violence is not jsut a woman issue but this is a forum directly at women, for us to discuss this that have an effect on us, from our point of view. No one is saying its only men who abuse, cuz that would be just plain stupid. But of course it will be talked about from that point of view due to the above mention reason!

T runner

CDfm wrote: »

T runner - no one is denying the curse of domestic violence and how horrifying it is. Many posters are just saying its not a gender issue-its a criminal issue.

Listen this time. The reason why some men abuse their partners is because of a messed up sense of what it is to be a man. Some may view the woman as their property like the house, car etc and thus the woman has to do what they want. Its about controlling the woman. This may be partly due to the male dominated society he sees around him as hes developing. The perpetrator would not view other men as his property. Therefore the violence is towards the woman because she is a woman. I.e gender related. Female violence towards men would usually take the form of a woman who is generally violent or disturbed. It is not the specific form of gender related violence you see from a lot of male abusers towards women. It is a different type of violence. Some Violence towards women may be of this general type but the vast majority is of the gender related type hence the huge disparagy between female and male related cases.

Demonising men doesnt help with a campaign. Its like saying a woman invites a rape because of the clothes she wears. Totally wrong and this is what the genderising domestic violence does. Its like blaming the victim.

No body has demonised men: this is just your misconception.
Some men abuse but not all. Start looking at how you perceive things. Clean up your thinking.

THe 16 days campaign is the equivalent of neanderthal thinking. Anything that makes it harder for an abuse victim to come forward must be wrong.

That doesnt make sense. The 16 Days campaign makes it easier for abuse victims od domestic violence towards women to come forward. If they did not raise awareness and lobby there would be less calls to (and funding for) their helpline not more.

Before Catherine Nevin could we name any female husband killers in Ireland. What about the chip shop owner - shotgunned in his bed and no conviction.What did the mother of that man think when his killers walked free. If it was your son what would you think.

What has this to do with the 16 days campaign?

If my hypothetical son was killed and the killer walked free I would be angry.
But I would direct my anger at the authorities if they didnt get a conviction they should have. I wouldnt go barking up the wrong tree and attack womens groups.

Bear in mind half of the 147 murders against women havent been solved.

Your best bet is to join a male group and do your lobbying to people who can actually give you backing.

Attacking female groups because of violence towards men looks to me like you are demonising women.

Well done to womensaid on their 16 days campaign.
Looks like the best one ever!
Jules, my apologies for over-posting on this thread.

metrovelvet

CDFM- You have yet to show how it demonises men.

If my son were assaulted or killed, there is a justice system in place that can address that. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesnt. If the perpetrator was a woman or a man, it could have a different effect on the judgement [far more men on death row for example than women.]If you want to talk about legal discrimination in prosecutions then that is a different issue and you can bring that up elsewhere, it is not related to women's aid. I don't know what your problem is here. There is Amen for the men. What, do you want them to join forces or something?

EamonnKeane

T runner wrote: »

147 women murdered in the last 12 years FFS!!!!!!! Of the solved cases half were by people under the same roof or in the same family I believe.

Then why not say "73 women murdered in domestic violence", rather than trying to make the figures look higher by including other killings. 6 a year is very low, probably lower than almost any other country. In the same time period there were probably 6-7 hundred men murdered, but they don't matter.

g'em

EamonnKeane wrote: »

6 a year is very low, probably lower than almost any other country. In the same time period there were probably 6-7 hundred men murdered, but they don't matter.

That's the kind of sh!te that totally derails these threads. This is about domestic abuse and domestic violence, not about comparing numbers with other crimes. One death is too many.

LolaLuv

I feel like everyone complaining about this is ridiculous. If someone is doing fundraising for cancer research, do you blast them for not raising money for heart disease, or even diseases in general? No, I doubt it. People choose causes to stand by. No one can advocate them all, there simply isn't time. If you don't like that a women's forum is discussing domestic abuse against women, go start a thread on domestic abuse against men. That would be great and it's your prerogative. But you don't blast someone for doing a good thing just because they aren't doing every good thing.

Mikel

T runner wrote: »

The reason why some men abuse their partners is because of a messed up sense of what it is to be a man. Some may view the woman as their property like the house, car etc and thus the woman has to do what they want. Its about controlling the woman. This may be partly due to the male dominated society he sees around him as hes developing. The perpetrator would not view other men as his property. Therefore the violence is towards the woman because she is a woman. I.e gender related. Female violence towards men would usually take the form of a woman who is generally violent or disturbed. It is not the specific form of gender related violence you see from a lot of male abusers towards women. It is a different type of violence. Some Violence towards women may be of this general type but the vast majority is of the gender related type hence the huge disparagy between female and male related cases.

And you know this how?

Clean up your thinking.

Er looking at your scattergun posts one could say the same to you.
There's a fair few straw man arguments and false assertions

PillyPen wrote:

I feel like everyone complaining about this is ridiculous. If someone is doing fundraising for cancer research, do you blast them for not raising money for heart disease, or even diseases in general? No, I doubt it. People choose causes to stand by.

To be fair one could argue that by directing it at women alone it enforces the narrative that it is a female only problem. It might seem petty to look at it that way and it may be sometimes, but then again some of the objections to including everyone seem, to doubt that it happens to men, or that it's a different kind of violence, or as Dragan said some kind of shortcoming in men themselves rather than the compassionate reasons put forward for women.

I suppose it depends on what you're inclined to listen out for.
You may not be inclined to see it that way but to be fair I can see why some people do. After all there's limited funding for these things.

There are legitimate arguments to be made about funding and media coverage of these kinds of issues. You might not want to read these arguments on a 'womens' thread and fair enough, but they're still valid.

An example of what I mean is those tragedies which have happened over the last few years where a parent kills their child and then usually themselves.
When the mother does it in general the media coverage is compassionate and understanding, the mother was disturbed or depressed.
When the father does it you get headlines about 'Killer Dads'

I don't mention this to drag up that issue and derail things completely, just to make the point that you can't expect one single campaign on one single issue to be treated in isolation, or at least it's unrealistic.

Likewise domestic violence is suffered by women alone, and if you find a man who has the problem, well that's different, that's to do with 'masculinity'.

If you are attuned to these things you begin to notice the disparity in how they are treated.
Maybe some people have become over sensitive to it,but I can understand why.

If you want to discuss a women's issue on a women's forum then go ahead, but if you base the discussion on blatantly false statistics then don't be surprised if people do pick holes in your argument.
I think you should welcome that, because any objections you meet here you can be sure you'll meet them in the 'real world'

LolaLuv

I wish someone would just close this thread. It's gotten so far out of hand and so ridiculous that it isn't doing any good.

Mikel

PillyPen wrote: »

I wish someone would just close this thread. It's gotten so far out of hand and so ridiculous that it isn't doing any good.

Serious question... How would you like to see a like to see a thread like this progressing, in an ideal world?

LolaLuv

Mikel wrote: »

Serious question... How would you like to see a like to see a thread like this progressing, in an ideal world?

Ideally, I'd like to see it go something like a guy saying "Wow, that's great that you're bringing awareness to this Thaedydal. Maybe we can also highlight the fact that men are also victims of abusive relationships?" "Sure, let's do that" (either start another thread or a tangential line in this thread). No talk of statistics (stats are always bullshit, pointing that out is silly), no blaming feminists for all of the worlds problems and saying their sons will be victimized, no divisive conversation about who's really the bigger victim (a victim's a victim, man or woman, why should we try to one-up each other?), no taking attention away from the real issue at hand. I think some of the points raised in this thread, especially about media bias and such, are great, but it's blatantly offensive to act like it's the fault of the women in this thread that this bias exists. It's accusatory, it's divisive, and, in my opinion, it's just plain mean. No one here is saying men don't have a rough go of it as well. And if you want to talk about feminism, most feminists worth their salt will acknowledge that a gender bias is JUST as harmful to men as to women.

Honestly, some of the things written in this thread have just been terrible. I was in an abusive relationship and I am a feminist. If someone came to me and said they were trying to raise awareness for male victims of domestic abuse, I would think that's wonderful. I would not, as some posters have suggested, go all insane and try to make myself the bigger victim. Again, a victim is a victim. I think pain is something we can all relate to. Why do we have to categorize it?

Nevyn

PillyPen wrote: »

I wish someone would just close this thread. It's gotten so far out of hand and so ridiculous that it isn't doing any good.

Sickening isn't it.

People would rather blame storm then look at the hard and horrible fact that
they are not perfect and the may be in the horrible situation under so much duress that they may lash out. Heavens forbid we could acknowledge that and talk about it and use peer messages to try make sure it's less likely to happen.

But we get instead the stats are shíte and me and my mates would never.

LolaLuv

Thaedydal wrote: »

Sickening isn't it.

People would rather blame storm then look at the hard and horrible fact that
they are not perfect and the may be in the horrible situation under so much duress that they may lash out. Heavens forbid we could acknowledge that and talk about it and use peer messages to try make sure it's less likely to happen.

But we get instead the stats are shíte and me and my mates would never.

I feel like it's gone beyond sickening to disturbing and hurtful. I mean, this is something that surely no one would advocate. Domestic violence is wrong, period, I'm sure we could all agree on that. But the way some of these people are talking, it's like they don't think women should get help unless men also have the same amount of help. I agree men should have resources, but I wouldn't say campaigns for women should be put on hold until men's resources have caught up, which is what some of these men seem to be suggesting. I don't think it should be necessary to run down one cause to raise another. Raise them both, you know?

It's just sad that we had an opportunity to raise awareness and have a genuine discussion and people became so angry and embittered that they had to shoot everything to shit. It scares me that there are people in the world that angry at women.

LolaLuv

I'd like to add that I think the men who have reacted angrily towards this aren't angry at the women in this thread, but at the gender bias that makes it difficult for society to acknowledge men as victims. Again, this is why real feminists acknowledge that a gender bias is just as harmful to men as to women. However, men should react against the bias itself, not against women who are trying to help other women.

Mikel

I don't disagree with anything you say there at all, but imo it's unlikely to go that way the way the thread was started.
That's not to have a go at the OP, just when it's about x% of this and y% of that it's always likely to go off an a tangent.

I've also noticed how quick people are to accuse others of things that are not the case, just because they don't say what you'd like (I don't mean you you, I mean people in general)
You're always going to get **** stirring, and after all this is the internet.

It always baffles me too how people see what they want to see

Put we get instead the stats are shíte and me and my mates would never.

Tbh that's what I mean, nobody said me and my mates would never etc etc... and to be fair the stats are rubbish. Doesn't mean it's not serious but they are.

It's just my 2c and what do I know but in a while someone will start a new thread and it will all go the same way.

tallaght01

The stats ARE shote. And that's a very very important issue.

But the real issues surrounded domestic violence are, to my mind:

Poverty. ith in terms of it being an independent risk factor, and in terms of dependence on a partner.

Mental illness. Those who suffer mental illness, are more likely to be abusers and to be abused. The mentally ill are probably the most neglected group of people in our health service.

Education. This links in with self worth and self esteem. It also increases chances of poverty.

Social isolation is another problem, both in terms of susceptibility to violence, and in terms of being able to deal with it appropriately.

Access to healthcare/support services tends to be closely linked with the above.

I'm a guy, and with respect to the side argument that keeps rearing it's head, I can see both sides.

Womens groups tend to (whether intentionally or not) give out an anti-men aura. This makes men defensive, and they accuse these groups of being nazis. This further isolates these groups and their supporters, and probably maes them a little bit more anti-male.

'Tis a vicious cycle :P

LolaLuv

Mikel wrote: »

I don't disagree with anything you say there at all, but imo it's unlikely to go that way the way the thread was started.
That's not to have a go at the OP, just when it's about x% of this and y% of that it's always likely to go off an a tangent.

I've also noticed how quick people are to accuse others of things that are not the case, just because they don't say what you'd like (I don't mean you you, I mean people in general)
You're always going to get **** stirring, and after all this is the internet.

It always baffles me too how people see what they want to see

I understand stats are a huge target of criticism, but that's such a minor part of the issue at hand. And you're right that it is the internet. I realize I'm an idealist, but never in my wildest dreams would I have guessed that a thread about domestic violence would garner so much criticism.

Anyway, you've been decent throughout this discussion, thank you for that.

tallaght01 wrote: »

The stats ARE shote. And that's a very very important issue.

But the real issues surrounded domestic violence are, to my mind:

Poverty. ith in terms of it being an independent risk factor, and in terms of dependence on a partner.

Mental illness. Those who suffer mental illness, are more likely to be abusers and to be abused. The mentally ill are probably the most neglected group of people in our health service.

Education. This links in with self worth and self esteem. It also increases chances of poverty.

Social isolation is another problem, both in terms of susceptibility to violence, and in terms of being able to deal with it appropriately.

Access to healthcare/support services tends to be closely linked with the above.

I'm a guy, and with respect to the side argument that keeps rearing it's head, I can see both sides.

Womens groups tend to (whether intentionally or not) give out an anti-men aura. This makes men defensive, and they accuse these groups of being nazis. This further isolates these groups and their supporters, and probably maes them a little bit more anti-male.

'Tis a vicious cycle :P

I don't see why stats being crap is such an important issue. They are ALWAYS crap. Can't everyone just acknowledge that and move along? Why get caught up in that when there's a much more important topic at hand?

Imo, the greatest issue surrounding domestic violence is getting the victims to safety. The things you mentioned are incredibly important, but they're all secondary to that.

I know womens groups do that. I'm not sure why. I do know that last year when I was living with a bunch of men, as soon as they found out I was a feminist they became incredibly defensive and made a huge issue out of it. I think it's just that feminists and women's groups are subjected to terrible man-hating stereotypes, which generally just aren't true. That's very sad, but it can be countered.

tallaght01

PillyPen wrote: »

I don't see why stats being crap is such an important issue. They are ALWAYS crap. .

I posted about this before on this thread. When you're arguments are based on stats to a large degree, and you want to be taken seriously, then your stats better be accurate. The are not ALWAYS crap. Lots of us need a good solid evidence base for our funding.

PillyPen wrote: »

Imo, the greatest issue surrounding domestic violence is getting the victims to safety. The things you mentioned are incredibly important, but they're all secondary to that..

I would siagree with this. I think prevention od domestic violence in a huge issue. I think there needs to be a 2-pronged attack, whereby a preventative strategy is run side by side with a good acute support service that's not just staffed by volunteers.

PillyPen wrote: »

I know womens groups do that. I'm not sure why. I do know that last year when I was living with a bunch of men, as soon as they found out I was a feminist they became incredibly defensive and made a huge issue out of it. I think it's just that feminists and women's groups are subjected to terrible man-hating stereotypes, which generally just aren't true. That's very sad, but it can be countered.

One of my best mates just got married to a girl who lectures in feminism.feminist literature. She's great and I love her. But there's always that mental element to her. Like when they are getting hitched, the hotel mistakenly assumed they would have the same surname (she kept her surname). So when the room was booked as "Mr+Mrs Smith". I was in their gaff when she rang them and went flipper. She looked suprised when I turned to her fiance and said "Dude, I'm embarressed FOR you". She does lots of stuff like this, and so do her feminist mates. I dunno what point I'm making here, though, but there you have it :P

LolaLuv

tallaght01 wrote: »

I posted about this before on this thread. When you're arguments are based on stats to a large degree, and you want to be taken seriously, then your stats better be accurate. The are not ALWAYS crap. Lots of us need a good solid evidence base for our funding.

I would think domestic violence occurring at all would be of more interest than how much it occurs, but I'm willing to admit that perhaps that's overly idealist of me and that there are people who rely on facts.

I would siagree with this. I think prevention od domestic violence in a huge issue. I think there needs to be a 2-pronged attack, whereby a preventative strategy is run side by side with a good acute support service that's not just staffed by volunteers.

I agree there should be a 2-pronged attack, but getting women out of a potentially life-threatening position ought to be number 1. Bear in mind that I'm approaching this with an American perspective, where it's almost common to hear about a woman being killed or nearly killed by significant other(I'm not leaving men out here, it just isn't common to hear about it where I come from). Maybe the abuse isn't as bad in Ireland, I haven't been here long enough to compare.

One of my best mates just got married to a girl who lectures in feminism.feminist literature. She's great and I love her. But there's always that mental element to her. Like when they are getting hitched, the hotel mistakenly assumed they would have the same surname (she kept her surname). So when the room was booked as "Mr+Mrs Smith". I was in their gaff when she rang them and went flipper. She looked suprised when I turned to her fiance and said "Dude, I'm embarressed FOR you". She does lots of stuff like this, and so do her feminist mates. I dunno what point I'm making here, though, but there you have it :P

I don't know what point you're trying to make, either, but I do think it's sad that she's that militant. I don't think flipping out about it is necessary, especially when one considers the fact that one's maiden name is derived from a woman's father, so there's no escaping the supposed patriarchy whether you keep your name or not. Why get worked up over it? At any rate, not all feminists are like that. I can honestly say there's no mental element to my feminism, just a firm belief that men and women are capable of the same things and that the gender bias which currently exists is detrimental to everyone. I think feminists like me are more common than the really militant ones, and if that's the only kind you've met then I think that's a shame.