Sexism you have personally experienced or have heard of? *READ POST 1*

PlaneSpeeking

ligerdub wrote: »

Actually......to be fair......that premise is basically a rip-off of "Very Bad Things", a rather excellent film which exactly matches that description, one I'd certainly recommend.

That's another aspect of these kind of things "Oceans 8", "Ghostbusters" remake, is that there has been a massive move towards all-female remakes, films made out of spite, rather than doing original premises and all that jazz.

I thank you! I Googled that - Christian Slater is in in, always been a fan of his, shame he's out of favour these days. Will check it out.

Sadly I doubt that would get the green light these days.

Friend of mine reckons the next big remake will be Titanic, with a female Captain who heroically steers past the iceberg. I wouldn't bet against it to be honest!

I thought we'd reached peak moron when there was criticism of a female centred film called I Feel Pretty (not seen that either!!) because the character wasn't "a woman of colour".

Is that the road we're heading down ? Can't we all just be people again ???

Wibbs

maybe

ligerdub wrote: »

That's another aspect of these kind of things "Oceans 8", "Ghostbusters" remake, is that there has been a massive move towards all-female remakes, films made out of spite, rather than doing original premises and all that jazz.

Less about spite, more about the greasy till. Hollywood always follows the money, or where it thinks the money is. The largest wealth transfer in US history has been from men to women over the last fifty years. That's a huge market and one that every industry tries to plug into. Hollywood is just going along with that. They figure simplistically that if more women have more money let's remake old stories and shoehorn women into them, Ker Ching! Or not as it turns out. People can spot this kinda thing and it puts them off. I will lay bets this Oceans episode will have the lowest returns by far of all of them.

They do remakes for the same reason, they're seen as a safe bet. Well if it sold well before, let's just dress it up for the latest audience. EG the first Star Wars made gazillions, so for the first of the Disney rejig just copy it wholesale, near scene for scene to press all the nostalgia buttons, give Luke Skywalker a sex change and make him a Disney princess superhero and off we go.

Franchises are another safe bet for them. Hence Oceans [insert number here], Marvel [every effin comic produced] and Disney sucking every drop of blood from the stone that was Star Wars. Cinema these days is mostly shite, TV is more where it's at for well thought out drama.

The J Stands for Jay

ligerdub wrote: »

Actually......to be fair......that premise is basically a rip-off of "Very Bad Things", a rather excellent film which exactly matches that description, one I'd certainly recommend.

That's another aspect of these kind of things "Oceans 8", "Ghostbusters" remake, is that there has been a massive move towards all-female remakes, films made out of spite, rather than doing original premises and all that jazz.

Seems to be a difference though

with all the male characters coming a cropper to some sort of karmic justice rather than 'bonding'.

ligerdub

Fair point. I hadn't thought of that, although to be honest I haven't seen Rough Night. I just figured that wouldn't be the ending.

py2006

Not sure if this should be in a sexism thread but certainly seems to be quite the double standard...

Brigitte's romance with schoolboy Macron (15) 'a vision of love'

Brigitte and Emmanuel Macron were a "vision of love", according to the French first lady's daughter, who has described how she watched her teacher-mother fall for her teenage pupil

PlaneSpeeking

py2006 wrote: »

Not sure if this should be in a sexism thread but certainly seems to be quite the double standard...

Brigitte's romance with schoolboy Macron (15) 'a vision of love'

Female older - love. Male older - https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/kildare-teacher-working-jailed-improper-12727978

citytillidie

Just read that RTÉ article on my of that is serious and how she dismisses John Snow for him not liking his sex appeal over shadowing his acting is a laugh

laoch na mona

No

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Female older - love. Male older - https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/kildare-teacher-working-jailed-improper-12727978

you see this with abuse cases as well, if its a teenage boy you see loads of people(mostly lads) calling the victim a lucky so and so

PlaneSpeeking

laoch na mona wrote: »

you see this with abuse cases as well, if its a teenage boy you see loads of people(mostly lads) calling the victim a lucky so and so

Can't really see DILF being used in the same salacious way as MILF is in American Pie can we ?

Wibbs

maybe

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Can't really see DILF being used in the same salacious way as MILF is in American Pie can we ?

Can depend on the culture too PS. EG in French cinema the older guy younger woman coming of age thing(and vice versa) is more in play. The French president's much older wife and the story behind it would jar less with French culture than American or British or Irish(as by osmosis we've tended to absorb both on sexual matters).

silverharp

https://www.google.pt/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/fashion-ceo-attacked-on-tube-condemns-male-passengers-who-walked-away-and-failed-to-defend-her-a3856306.html?amp



Maybe sexist maybe not but 2 men criticised for not coming to the aid of woman on underground. Obviously not a situation you overly debate before acting or not as in this case however it is complicated, good samaritans might end up injured or killed themselves , the police might just see a fight and go heavy on the innocent party, and people attacking criminals have gone to jail for injuring the criminal.
At the end of the day no one died and everyone made it home.

silverharp

silverharp wrote: »

https://www.google.pt/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/fashion-ceo-attacked-on-tube-condemns-male-passengers-who-walked-away-and-failed-to-defend-her-a3856306.html?amp



Maybe sexist maybe not but 2 men criticised for not coming to the aid of woman on underground. Obviously not a situation you overly debate before acting or not as in this case however it is complicated, good samaritans might end up injured or killed themselves , the police might just see a fight and go heavy on the innocent party, and people attacking criminals have gone to jail for injuring the criminal.
At the end of the day no one died and everyone made it home.

There are many serious reasons not to get involved in such things, especially in the UK. I wonder how she would have felt if the men had intervened and the matter escalated to one of the men getting stabbed?

And frankly, expecting men in their 50s to take on a nutjob younger man? Who by her own description was intimidating... seems unreasonable to me. Finally a woman came to sit by her. Were there other women nearby who didn't? And how long was finally?

Don't really see it as a gender issue except that she's making it one...

Calhoun

I don't really see it as a gender issue either, the days of the chivalrous male defending the honor of the damsel in distress are coming to an end.

I believe in some circles its toxic to even assume she would need protecting.

PlaneSpeeking

Calhoun wrote: »

I don't really see it as a gender issue either, the days of the chivalrous male defending the honor of the damsel in distress are coming to an end.

I believe in some circles its toxic to even assume she would need protecting.

A few months ago I was getting a train into Manchester Airport where the step from the train to platform is high. As I have mild mobility issues, I was limping and the train host getting on helped me down from the train, how nice.

I told this story and two women in my office said how sexist he was and perhaps he wasn't trained very well. Apparently it's now not the done thing to offer someone help!

laoch na mona

No

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/rape-conviction-quashed-over-ruling-on-asking-girl-15-about-taking-pill-1.3539045


I understand how careful prosecutors have to be in rape cases (see Tommy Robinson bull****) but this is taking the piss, the fact that victim was on the pill shouldn't have any relevance in a court case.

The Specialist

silverharp wrote: »

https://www.google.pt/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/fashion-ceo-attacked-on-tube-condemns-male-passengers-who-walked-away-and-failed-to-defend-her-a3856306.html?amp



Maybe sexist maybe not but 2 men criticised for not coming to the aid of woman on underground. Obviously not a situation you overly debate before acting or not as in this case however it is complicated, good samaritans might end up injured or killed themselves , the police might just see a fight and go heavy on the innocent party, and people attacking criminals have gone to jail for injuring the criminal.
At the end of the day no one died and everyone made it home.

You reap what you sow, chivalry is dead and feminism killed it. Personally, I have jumped in a few times over the years to help women in trouble after nights out (drunken boyfriends throwing slaps etc), but these days I don't think I could be bothered.

silverharp

The Specialist wrote: »

silverharp wrote: »

https://www.google.pt/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/fashion-ceo-attacked-on-tube-condemns-male-passengers-who-walked-away-and-failed-to-defend-her-a3856306.html?amp



Maybe sexist maybe not but 2 men criticised for not coming to the aid of woman on underground. Obviously not a situation you overly debate before acting or not as in this case however it is complicated, good samaritans might end up injured or killed themselves , the police might just see a fight and go heavy on the innocent party, and people attacking criminals have gone to jail for injuring the criminal.
At the end of the day no one died and everyone made it home.

You reap what you sow, chivalry is dead and feminism killed it. Personally, I have jumped in a few times over the years to help women in trouble after nights out (drunken boyfriends throwing slaps etc), but these days I don't think I could be bothered.

Generally that is good advice , introducing yourself into the situation will only escalate and a few slaps will turn into a glassing or stabbing even.

If these guys were somehow outer on social media I'd imagine it would split down the middle with half supporting and the other half calling their manhood into question

Ahh... but then, the legal landscape has changed so much in recent years too. While jumping in to help her, might cut them some slack in a court, it's just as likely to backfire. Civil claims for damages are on the rise and have been rising for over a decade now with pretty hefty sums being demanded. Being the aggressor is becoming more and more difficult to prove, and even when proven, the aggressor still has so many 'rights'.

Just as with The Specialist, in the past, I've intervened to help women in trouble or distress... and know what the Gardai say? Don't. Doing so simply increases the chances that the situation will escalate and also as a stranger, I have no idea of what's really going on.

I've a friend who saw a guy battering a woman outside the nightclub, jumped in to stop him, exchanged some violence, and when the Police arrived, the woman pressed charges against my friend for attacking her boyfriend. No other witnesses to the event, so her word carried the day, and my friend landed with a criminal record. Lovely.

The days of blindly jumping in to help women are diminishing. Not just because of feminism... although that's certainly part of it. I've seen women whose own behavior brought about the trouble, and nobody helped them because they went looking for it. Previously, that wouldn't have mattered much. The bigger change though is that the law and legal system have very little patience for the "knight in shining armor routine", or anyone who engages in violence. It's simply not worth the risk.

PlaneSpeeking

Deleted User wrote: »

Ahh... but then, the legal landscape has changed so much in recent years too. While jumping in to help her, might cut them some slack in a court, it's just as likely to backfire. Civil claims for damages are on the rise and have been rising for over a decade now with pretty hefty sums being demanded. Being the aggressor is becoming more and more difficult to prove, and even when proven, the aggressor still has so many 'rights'.

Just as with The Specialist, in the past, I've intervened to help women in trouble or distress... and know what the Gardai say? Don't. Doing so simply increases the chances that the situation will escalate and also as a stranger, I have no idea of what's really going on.

I've a friend who saw a guy battering a woman outside the nightclub, jumped in to stop him, exchanged some violence, and when the Police arrived, the woman pressed charges against my friend for attacking her boyfriend. No other witnesses to the event, so her word carried the day, and my friend landed with a criminal record. Lovely.

The days of blindly jumping in to help women are diminishing. Not just because of feminism... although that's certainly part of it. I've seen women whose own behavior brought about the trouble, and nobody helped them because they went looking for it. Previously, that wouldn't have mattered much. The bigger change though is that the law and legal system have very little patience for the "knight in shining armor routine", or anyone who engages in violence. It's simply not worth the risk.

I'm seeing more of women being bold enough to start a fight purely because they know a backlash is in the offing for any man to raise a hand to a woman.

I got into a row during the 2002 World Cup (I was Team Roy!!) and it ended up being shoving match and then laddo tried to slap me, and I punched him. He got so much grief but in my view unwarranted - it was a fight!

Victimising anyone weaker than yourself is not on, EVER. But not every woman is a weak victim and not every man is a bully.

To your point Klaz - I think we've all seen women start a ruckus with each other and then get "their men" to finish it off. A friend of mine saw someone stabbed once via an incident that started with two ladies arguing over whose turn in was to do Single Ladies on the karaoke. Madness.

Calhoun

The scary part of that is that there are men out there who just don't give a crap about sex, race or creed. If you start something they will most definitely finish it.

Calhoun

Calhoun wrote: »

The scary part of that is that there are men out there who just don't give a crap about sex, race or creed. If you start something they will most definitely finish it.

There always were. I know men in my hometown who really don't care about gender, age, background, whatever... if you cross them, they will beat the crap out of you, or you'll simply disappear. We do live on an Island, after all. (even if they didn't want to use the rather good bog land nearby that is under govt protection and can't be harvested).

Women tend to be high profile events when they disappear. Men, not so much.

laoch na mona

No

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

But not every woman is a weak victim and not every man is a bully.

.

sounds like your a feminist

but yeah jumping in really depends on the situation (its usually a bad idea but if someone is clearly 100% a victim doing nothing is bad form) recently I say a couple arguing (both drunk) the man was being aggressive and the woman slapped the man, he caught her hand, she slapped him again.

Now I saw that it was even enough with both drunk and being tits but if you only saw him being aggressive then it would have looked way more one sided

PlaneSpeeking

laoch na mona wrote: »

sounds like your a feminist

but yeah jumping in really depends on the situation (its usually a bad idea but if someone is clearly 100% a victim doing nothing is bad form) recently I say a couple arguing (both drunk) the man was being aggressive and the woman slapped the man, he caught her hand, she slapped him again.

Now I saw that it was even enough with both drunk and being tits but if you only saw him being aggressive then it would have looked way more one sided

Sad thing is there are people who would paint him as the bad guy no matter what.

I know a social worker who has said that it's a standard Garda method to remove the man from the home - even when he is the victim. That is horrendous.

PlaneSpeeking

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Sad thing is there are people who would paint him as the bad guy no matter what.

I know a social worker who has said that it's a standard Garda method to remove the man from the home - even when he is the victim. That is horrendous.

It's standard police procedure worldwide. The male is the "natural" aggressor even when there's witnesses, on hand, who say otherwise. Even in cases where the female has no damage done to her, and the guys face is all ripped up, the male will still be taken, and the female left behind to come in later.

I often wonder about the feminist take on all this. If gender is a social construct, how do they ignore this "natural" aggressor rubbish, and suggest that females are more "naturally" sensitive, <insert positive quality>, etc... levels of convenient hypocrisy never really brought under the microscope.

razorblunt

silverharp wrote: »

https://www.google.pt/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/fashion-ceo-attacked-on-tube-condemns-male-passengers-who-walked-away-and-failed-to-defend-her-a3856306.html?amp



Maybe sexist maybe not but 2 men criticised for not coming to the aid of woman on underground. Obviously not a situation you overly debate before acting or not as in this case however it is complicated, good samaritans might end up injured or killed themselves , the police might just see a fight and go heavy on the innocent party, and people attacking criminals have gone to jail for injuring the criminal.
At the end of the day no one died and everyone made it home.

There's a very weird quote in that article

he was a very big guy and I'm only a size 8

Could she not be 6'3 herself and a size 8?

What if they lads in their 50s had health conditions or were only a size medium.


I certainly wouldn't hold it against anyone not getting involved, I'd jump in for sure.

PlaneSpeeking

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Sad thing is there are people who would paint him as the bad guy no matter what.

I know a social worker who has said that it's a standard Garda method to remove the man from the home - even when he is the victim. That is horrendous.

On a side note, I was out in a cafe a few years ago in the UK, got into an argument with a female sitting nearby (who had been drinking wine, somehow managed to spill it over my laptop), who when she failed to make her point, proceeded to hit me twice in the face, while spitting at me. I stopped her by catching her hands, asked her politely to stop, as did the waiters, and when I released her hands, she continued to hit me. Not slaps, but using her nails for my skin/eyes. So I hit with an open slap. Not a full slap but half of my arm.

The Cops came, I was taken into custody, regardless of the witnesses, grilled for a number of hours, held in the holding cell over night... even though we had access to the security tapes which showed her starting the assault (even the conversation was included which I found interesting), and my one slap versus her 9. My face was torn up, she had a red mark that disappeared 15 minutes after the fact.

The police tried to charge me with assault, with the female pressing charges. Luckily, the vast majority of customers, the staff, and the security tapes showed that I'd simply protected myself. I was "advised" by both the police and the court officials not to charge the woman with assault. I also spent another 6 months forcing them not to give me a record for assault regardless of the failure of the police/courts to prove it.

There is a serious inequality in perception regarding female behavior especially when it comes to physical violence. TBH I really do think more men need to defend themselves physically against female violence, and go on record to show just how often it happens. Otherwise, this retarded notion of women being innocent harmless flowers is going to continue with men being "naturally" blamed.

Padraig Mor

Deleted User wrote: »

On a side note, I was out in a cafe a few years ago in the UK, got into an argument with a female sitting nearby (who had been drinking wine, somehow managed to spill it over my laptop), who when she failed to make her point, proceeded to hit me twice in the face, while spitting at me. I stopped her by catching her hands, asked her politely to stop, as did the waiters, and when I released her hands, she continued to hit me. Not slaps, but using her nails for my skin/eyes. So I hit with an open slap. Not a full slap but half of my arm.

The Cops came, I was taken into custody, regardless of the witnesses, grilled for a number of hours, held in the holding cell over night... even though we had access to the security tapes which showed her starting the assault (even the conversation was included which I found interesting), and my one slap versus her 9. My face was torn up, she had a red mark that disappeared 15 minutes after the fact.

The police tried to charge me with assault, with the female pressing charges. Luckily, the vast majority of customers, the staff, and the security tapes showed that I'd simply protected myself. I was "advised" by both the police and the court officials not to charge the woman with assault. I also spent another 6 months forcing them not to give me a record for assault regardless of the failure of the police/courts to prove it.

There is a serious inequality in perception regarding female behavior especially when it comes to physical violence. TBH I really do think more men need to defend themselves physically against female violence, and go on record to show just how often it happens. Otherwise, this retarded notion of women being innocent harmless flowers is going to continue with men being "naturally" blamed.

Many years ago a woman at work punched me on the arm - can't remember why, think I made a joke or something. Now, this wasn't some little petal, but a strapping woman, and a full force punch - it bloody hurt, and left a large bruise. Of course everyone (male and female) in the room at the time thought this was hilarious - and this was an operating theatre! Yip, even the 'educated' surgeons found it funny (the puncher was a senior nurse BTW).

py2006

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Many years ago a woman at work punched me on the arm - can't remember why, think I made a joke or something. Now, this wasn't some little petal, but a strapping woman, and a full force punch - it bloody hurt, and left a large bruise. Of course everyone (male and female) in the room at the time thought this was hilarious - and this was an operating theatre! Yip, even the 'educated' surgeons found it funny (the puncher was a senior nurse BTW).

That happened to me too. Sitting in staff canteen, can't remember the conversation but a female colleague always punched me in the arm. She thought it hilarious. One day she did give me a ferocious punch in the arm that really hurt and made me move considerable off my chair. Of course it was seen as hilarious and I had to pretend it didn't hurt and laugh along. Although in fairness the woman opposite me was a bit shocked by it initially.

laoch na mona

No

Deleted User wrote: »

I often wonder about the feminist take on all this. If gender is a social construct, how do they ignore this "natural" aggressor rubbish, and suggest that females are more "naturally" sensitive, <insert positive quality>, etc... levels of convenient hypocrisy never really brought under the microscope.

I've never seen a feminist defend it, if anything giving their opposition to the suggestion that women are naturally 'weak' they would oppose it

Pawwed Rig

laoch na mona wrote: »

I've never seen a feminist defend it, if anything giving their opposition to the suggestion that women are naturally 'weak' they would oppose it

While pushing the women as victims narrative at every available opportunity

laoch na mona

No

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

While pushing the women as victims narrative at every available opportunity

I haven't seen that, the statistical reality is that sadly women are more likely to be victims. I wouldn't hold it against groups that work on domestic violence ect that they follow the statistics

laoch na mona

laoch na mona wrote: »

I haven't seen that, the statistical reality is that sadly women are more likely to be victims. I wouldn't hold it against groups that work on domestic violence ect that they follow the statistics

Statistics that are inherently flawed due to the bias in the police and courts system. Police officers already have stated that they would pick up males in cases of domestic abuse and charge them irrespective of the actual claims or witnesses on the scene. Then, on top of that, the vast majority of research on this area was completely focused on women as victims and ignored claims of women as aggressors simply because that wasn't what they were funded to do. Recent research has emerged that the belief in women not being violent aggressors in both reciprocal violent relationships and non-reciprocal is seriously flawed.

The statistical reality is indeed that women are more likely to be on the receiving end of violence, but often, that they have initiated the violence themselves, or encouraged the male to do violence in other ways. The simple fact is that when it came to domestic abuse research and rights groups they sought black/white scenarios.. and didn't want to complicate the issue with women who weren't completely innocent of any responsibility.

This is more of the same victim mentality. A victim can't be held responsible for how she became a victim... convenient, isn't it?

laoch na mona

No

Deleted User wrote: »

Statistics that are inherently flawed due to the bias in the police and courts system. Police officers already have stated that they would pick up males in cases of domestic abuse and charge them irrespective of the actual claims or witnesses on the scene. Then, on top of that, the vast majority of research on this area was completely focused on women as victims and ignored claims of women as aggressors simply because that wasn't what they were funded to do. Recent research has emerged that the belief in women not being violent aggressors in both reciprocal violent relationships and non-reciprocal is seriously flawed.

The statistical reality is indeed that women are more likely to be on the receiving end of violence, but often, that they have initiated the violence themselves, or encouraged the male to do violence in other ways. The simple fact is that when it came to domestic abuse research and rights groups they sought black/white scenarios.. and didn't want to complicate the issue with women who weren't completely innocent of any responsibility.

This is more of the same victim mentality. A victim can't be held responsible for how she became a victim... convenient, isn't it?

I was in full agreement until that, aside from self defence or to protect someone else there's no justify hitting your partner or anyone else

On the second bit of course a victim isn't responsibly for making themselves a victim, the criminal is responsible for their own actions (mitigating factors will always be heard in court) people may take risks that put themselves in danger but that doesn't mean they are to blame

laoch na mona

laoch na mona wrote: »

I was in full agreement until that, aside from self defence or to protect someone else there's no justify hitting your partner or anyone else

I don't see anything in my post seeking to justify violence apart from what you yourself set aside.

On the second bit of course a victim isn't responsibly for making themselves a victim, the criminal is responsible for their own actions (mitigating factors will always be heard in court) people may take risks that put themselves in danger but that doesn't mean they are to blame

Whereas I think you're arguing semantics. They take the risks (so the danger is known) placing themselves in that danger, but they're not responsible...

Both the victim and the aggressor are responsible for what happened. The responsibility is not equal though. We should always assume a degree of personal responsibility for circumstances we have control over. If I insult someone, I'm taking the risk that they will hit me. That's a reasonably well known risk of acting like that. I'm responsible for my own behavior, although I will be a victim to their violence...

Feminists want to remove all responsibility for the victim. As long as the victim is female, of course. When the victim is male, there are mitigating circumstances...

I'll give a direct example. A friend of mine in the UK is married and has a young child around 7 years old. His wife is a borderline alcoholic and had bouts of depression that emerged during/after her pregnancy. One night, because her husband had hidden the alcohol in the house, she picked up her child and threatened to throw the kid out the window... second story window, unless the spirits were produced. Her husband caved in to the pressure, and gave her the alcohol. When the child was safe, he asked some neighbors to take of the child, came back into the house and slapped her across the face telling her never to do that to their child again. She called the cops. He was charged with domestic abuse, and the circumstances involved didn't matter in the slightest. Witnesses were brought forward to attest to her behavior, and neighbors actually saw her 'pretending' to throw the child out the window. The wife was the 'victim'. No responsibility taken for what happened, and the child is now stuck with the mother... who is still an alcoholic, depressed and alone. Now, what would have happened had she slapped him for doing the same thing?

An extreme example, but a real example nonetheless. This is the problem with the feminist angle to give all women innocence from responsibility... and complete victim-hood status.

Pawwed Rig

laoch na mona wrote: »

I haven't seen that, the statistical reality is that sadly women are more likely to be victims. I wouldn't hold it against groups that work on domestic violence ect that they follow the statistics

Have you read this thread? Followed the hundreds of links attached?

It is a bit disingenuous to come in at post 8,200 and claim 'I haven't seen that'.

Your 'statistical reality' (as you are aware) is also hogwash. Men are much more likely to be victims of murder for example, also violence such as assaults. If you even have a passing interest in this thread you would find hundreds of examples where men are victims.

PucaMama

Deleted User wrote: »

laoch na mona wrote: »

I was in full agreement until that, aside from self defence or to protect someone else there's no justify hitting your partner or anyone else

I don't see anything in my post seeking to justify violence apart from what you yourself set aside.

On the second bit of course a victim isn't responsibly for making themselves a victim, the criminal is responsible for their own actions (mitigating factors will always be heard in court) people may take risks that put themselves in danger but that doesn't mean they are to blame

Whereas I think you're arguing semantics. They take the risks (so the danger is known) placing themselves in that danger, but they're not responsible...

Both the victim and the aggressor are responsible for what happened. The responsibility is not equal though. We should always assume a degree of personal responsibility for circumstances we have control over. If I insult someone, I'm taking the risk that they will hit me. That's a reasonably well known risk of acting like that. I'm responsible for my own behavior, although I will be a victim to their violence...

Feminists want to remove all responsibility for the victim. As long as the victim is female, of course. When the victim is male, there are mitigating circumstances...

I'll give a direct example. A friend of mine in the UK is married and has a young child around 7 years old. His wife is a borderline alcoholic and had bouts of depression that emerged during/after her pregnancy. One night, because her husband had hidden the alcohol in the house, she picked up her child and threatened to throw the kid out the window... second story window, unless the spirits were produced. Her husband caved in to the pressure, and gave her the alcohol. When the child was safe, he asked some neighbors to take of the child, came back into the house and slapped her across the face telling her never to do that to their child again. She called the cops. He was charged with domestic abuse, and the circumstances involved didn't matter in the slightest. Witnesses were brought forward to attest to her behavior, and neighbors actually saw her 'pretending' to throw the child out the window. The wife was the 'victim'. No responsibility taken for what happened, and the child is now stuck with the mother... who is still an alcoholic, depressed and alone. Now, what would have happened had she slapped him for doing the same thing?

An extreme example, but a real example nonetheless. This is the problem with the feminist angle to give all women innocence from responsibility... and complete victim-hood status.

Premeditated violence on an individual who is already a victim of addiction. The child was already removed from the danger. He would have been better served to involve mental health services.

Wibbs

maybe

laoch na mona wrote: »

I haven't seen that, the statistical reality is that sadly women are more likely to be victims.

Nope. Except for sexual violence men are far more likely to be victims of violence across the board. In physical domestic abuse women are more likely to be victims, but the difference is not so great as you seem to believe. In certain kinds of domestic abuse(emotional, non reciprocal) more men are victims. The relationships most at risk of domestic abuse? Lesbian couples.

When the first domestic abuse shelters were set up they took in both men and women. The founder of the shelters saw the need for help for both on the ground. Radical feminists of the 70's couldn't let that slide and before long men were removed, the feminist narrative of "women are always victims and men are always to blame" was in full force and the same founder received death threats and to this day can't visit the shelters she helped found.

But let's say you're right. Let pick a figure out of the air(may as well join in) and say 2/3rds of domestic abuse victims are women. OK. What happens to the 1/3rd? What avenues do they have? What shelters can they go to? As I noted earlier in quite a few countries there are shelters for the pets of victims of domestic abuse. Men's shelters? Well yeah... Men's "shelters" tend to be friend's couches, the park bench, the bottle or prison.

If god forbid a woman reading this was a victim of this crime she would be more believed, she would have somewhere to turn to, she would have people to talk with, she would have avenues to explore and if she had children it's pretty much a guarantee she'd not lose them. If the men reading this were...

The bias is staggering and what's worse is that society is blind to it. And getting blinder. Society protects people in this order, kids, women and coming way behind, men.

I've never seen a feminist defend it, if anything giving their opposition to the suggestion that women are naturally 'weak' they would oppose it

As PR noted you wouldn't think so based on even the most cursory glance at modern "feminist" philosophy. Women are portrayed as delicate, with little agency and always the victims in need of protection. It's one reason why I can't abide "feminists", though would reserve my most disgust for "male feminists". I don't mean the average person that labels themselves as such thinking it means equality. I was that soldier. I mean those who have fully swallowed and promote the bullshit that politic has become.

Wibbs

maybe

PucaMama wrote: »

Premeditated violence on an individual who is already a victim of addiction.

"Victim" Jesus. Woman threatens kids life, he reacts to the threat to his kids life - wrongly, if understandably. If nothing else he should have known and men should always take this on board he will be judged far more harshly than her - and she's still a victim? It never ends. Everyone seems to be a victim, though some get to claim it more than others.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

"Victim" Jesus. Woman threatens kids life, he reacts to the threat to his kids life - wrongly, if understandably. If nothing else he should have known and men should always take this on board he will be judged far more harshly than her - and she's still a victim? It never ends. Everyone seems to be a victim, though some get to claim it more than others.

This isn't purely a gender thing. Retaliation and reaction is nowadays treated as worse than an initial offence. You'll hear it with "Why didn't he just restrain him" and the like. Or arseholes saying that the parents of the baby getting slapped by the priest in that video wouldn't be within their rights to lamp him.

If someone is goading and goading and the other person reacts then they're in the wrong for using "physical violence" first. Even when a situation is created purely through the bad acts of one person everyone else in the situation is apparently expected to react completely dispassionately and to a much higher standard than the dickhead and will be judged harshly if they don't.

PucaMama

Wibbs wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

Premeditated violence on an individual who is already a victim of addiction.

"Victim" Jesus. Woman threatens kids life, he reacts to the threat to his kids life - wrongly, if understandably. If nothing else he should have known and men should always take this on board he will be judged far more harshly than her - and she's still a victim? It never ends. Everyone seems to be a victim, though some get to claim it more than others.

She is a victim of addiction. Fact.

silverharp

PucaMama wrote: »

She is a victim of addiction. Fact.

what is the implication of what you meant by it? that she should be "judged" in a less harsh manner?

PucaMama

silverharp wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

She is a victim of addiction. Fact.

what is the implication of what you meant by it? that she should be "judged" in a less harsh manner?

Logic says if you take the substance an addict is addicted to and hide it then things aren’t going to end well.

Wibbs

maybe

PucaMama wrote: »

She is a victim of addiction. Fact.

I was addicted to nicotine for donkeys. It has likely set in motion something that will put me in a pine box in the end. Was I a "victim"? No, I was a bloody idiot. Every ciggie I put in my mouth, I sparked up my lighter, I inhaled. Were there factors that led me to smoking? Sure; advertising, genetics, social, and I know this personal responsibility thing sets a load of people off and the same people look to labels and somebody or something else to blame, but in the end there is no one to blame but myself and the only victimhood involved is that I was a "victim" to my own stupidity.

Now you can mike drop the word "Fact" into it all you like, but nobody is forcing someone to take that drink, light that fag, stick that needle into their veins. Maybe if we got rid of this passive victimhood as lame excuse shite and instead concentrated on someone's ability to make better life choices we'd be better off a society.

You seem to have no issue with him taking responsibility for slapping her for endangering their kid, why isn't he a "victim" of her? The same "logic" should apply.

PucaMama wrote: »

Logic says if you take the substance an addict is addicted to and hide it then things aren’t going to end well.

So that's in some way his fault too?

citytillidie

England and Wales to trial holiday camps for woman instead of sending them to prison

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44622498

The Specialist

PucaMama wrote: »

Logic says if you take the substance an addict is addicted to and hide it then things aren’t going to end well.

So what's your take then on a wife hiding her husbands drink, and so he batters the **** out of her? Is he just a poor little "victim" too?

No wait, in feminist logic he's an abusive asshole who launched an indefensible attack on his wife cos she hid his drink.

The double standards are sickening.

laoch na mona

No

Deleted User wrote: »

I'll give a direct example. A friend of mine in the UK is married and has a young child around 7 years old. His wife is a borderline alcoholic and had bouts of depression that emerged during/after her pregnancy. One night, because her husband had hidden the alcohol in the house, she picked up her child and threatened to throw the kid out the window... second story window, unless the spirits were produced. Her husband caved in to the pressure, and gave her the alcohol. When the child was safe, he asked some neighbors to take of the child, came back into the house and slapped her across the face telling her never to do that to their child again. She called the cops. He was charged with domestic abuse, and the circumstances involved didn't matter in the slightest. Witnesses were brought forward to attest to her behavior, and neighbors actually saw her 'pretending' to throw the child out the window. The wife was the 'victim'. No responsibility taken for what happened, and the child is now stuck with the mother... who is still an alcoholic, depressed and alone. Now, what would have happened had she slapped him for doing the same thing?

An extreme example, but a real example nonetheless. This is the problem with the feminist angle to give all women innocence from responsibility... and complete victim-hood status.

Ok putting my legal hat on here, there was no immediate threat, he had successfully removed himself and the child from danger but proceeded to go back and assault his partner.

That's how the police, courts will look at it, now morally she may have deserved a slap but the law isn't know for being based on morality. I n any situation if you return to restart an altercation you became the aggressor, I'll give a common enough example

fight in a pub, the victim/person who comes off worse leaves, comes back later and starts the conflict again, they are now the aggressor

As for the people addressing my comment on statistics, obviously their are examples of male victims and not enough is done in a lot of cases but blaming feminists for this makes no sense, highlighting how women have been oppressed doesn't take anything from men, in fact feminists are some of the only people to speak out against the damage masculine gender roles do to men

And still the fact is women experience more violent abuse

ligerdub

PucaMama wrote: »

She is a victim of addiction. Fact.

Your choice of words is quite telling. Victim gives the implication that there are purely external forces at play, an unavoidable scenario for that person. It's a deliberately political use of words.

You could have instead chosen the word "sufferer" for example, which gives a more neutral tone, and would find a lot less challenge.

Most of all though it's a more optimistic one, and not an unrealistic one either. I mean, the feminist angle of choosing to make everyone* the victim is not just cynical and stupid, it's also extremely negative and devoid of hope.

*we know not everyone

Pawwed Rig

laoch na mona wrote: »

And still the fact is women experience more violent abuse

That is not a fact though is it. Men are far and away more likely to be assaulted than women. I can think of a dozen times in my life that I was struck by someone (all different people) and I was by no means in a violent situation*. I would say I am lower than average actually as I wasn't one for getting stroppy on nights out.



Can the average woman say the same?









* although my school was a bit of a kip

Wibbs

maybe

laoch na mona wrote: »

Ok putting my legal hat on here, there was no immediate threat, he had successfully removed himself and the child from danger but proceeded to go back and assault his partner.

True and I agree. Dumb move on his part.

in fact feminists are some of the only people to speak out against the damage masculine gender roles do to men

In essence still blaming men/the patriarchy for not being enough like Women™. And as I pointed out it was feminists who lobbied to remove abused men from domestic violence shelters and they succeeded. The woman who founded the first domestic abuse shelter Erin Pizzey a good example.

Pizzey has been the subject of death threats and boycotts because of her research into the claim that most domestic violence is reciprocal, and that women are equally capable of violence as men. Pizzey has said that the threats were from militant feminists.[4][5][6] She has also said that she is banned from the refuge she started.[7][8

And still the fact is women experience more violent abuse

And men suffer more from emotional and non reciprocal violent abuse. My point remains men have near zero avenues for help. Here's an Irish piece on the matter. From the article:

Society make excuses for women been aggressive, and condones their behaviour saying it is as a result of hormonal imbalances, depression or personality disorders. In light of this they are not usually expected to take responsibility for their actions. However, men are not excused for their aggressive behaviour, and are expected to take full responsibility for their actions. Also if a man is violent towards a woman in a relationship they are viewed as an unfit parent and the woman receives sole custody of the children. But if a woman is abusive towards her husband people tend to think he has done something to provoke this and she isn’t likely to be viewed as an unfit mother. Men often have no choice but to stay in an abusive relationship because they don’t want to lose access to their children.

“Domestic violence against men in Ireland is common, and the economic downturn has made it worse,” says Dr Michael O’Shea, a psychotherapist who has counselled male victims of domestic violence for several years. “Some of the stories I’ve heard are horrific. You get different levels of abuse: emotional, mental and physical abuse is very common. As a therapist and as a man, I’ve been shocked by the level of trauma which men can incur in relationships.”

“There is not one bed for men suffering from domestic violence,” said Niamh Farrell of AMEN, the only domestic violence resource in Ireland for men. “You can encourage them to look for help but in terms of housing, we can’t do anything to help them with that because there is no refuge.”

Note, no refuges, not a single bed. Can you with a straight face tell me this is even close to equitable or fair? Can you with straight face continue to hold to the notion that "feminists" show any concern about men(unlike many still buying the BS I don't expect them to), save for continuing to blame them/toxic masculinity/the patriarchy as part of their well worn catechism?

not enough is done in a lot of cases

Almost nothing is done in the vast majority of cases. If anything even if the man is seen as a "victim" he's still the one that loses out. I've seen this for myself with three men I know/knew. All Good Middle Class Suburban Men™. Abusive partners, including physical abuse and one who was negligent towards her kids. In each case the man was told to leave the home. In each case the kids stayed with the mother. In the case of the negligent mother it took years of court appearances for the guy to get joint custody. Interestingly it was a woman judge that called her on her lies and actions.

laoch na mona

laoch na mona wrote: »

Ok putting my legal hat on here, there was no immediate threat, he had successfully removed himself and the child from danger but proceeded to go back and assault his partner.

Oh, I agree. He shouldn't have slapped her, although there being no immediate threat was not true. She was still unstable, and had no remorse for what she had done to the child... He still had to collect his child from the neighbors, return to the house, and live there with his wife.

That's how the police, courts will look at it, now morally she may have deserved a slap but the law isn't know for being based on morality. I n any situation if you return to restart an altercation you became the aggressor, I'll give a common enough example

No need. I've seen this happen with assault among males.

As for the people addressing my comment on statistics, obviously their are examples of male victims and not enough is done in a lot of cases but blaming feminists for this makes no sense, highlighting how women have been oppressed doesn't take anything from men, in fact feminists are some of the only people to speak out against the damage masculine gender roles do to men

Except that it does. Feminists aren't campaigning equally here. They're not seeking to remove or reduce abuse across the board. Their only concern is to protect women. And based on the last three decades of campaigning, they have elevated the male gender to being the aggressor. It doesn't suit their mandate to suggest that males can be victims, so there are always mitigating circumstances when the male is the target. [even with my example, posters seem to be subconsciously trying to find excuses for her behavior... I called her a borderline Alcoholic, and posters took that to mean she was an addict. Hence making an excuse for her behavior]

And honestly, I have less blame for feminists than I do for state funded organisations. Feminists are true to their mandate. To promote women's agendas... but government agencies are supposed to seek equality, but don't. Previous government have set up agencies whose sole purpose is to enhance womens rights and protect women... but not men.

So, no, Feminists aren't the automatic target for blame here from me. Oh sure, they have a lot to answer for, but I would really seek to assign responsibility to government/political organisations.

And still the fact is women experience more violent abuse

Prove it. This thread is full of arguments on this kind of statement with research or statistics to say otherwise. Oh, sure.... you will make the above vague statement... and then prove a few instances where women experience more than men.. and then go back to assuming your vague statement is justified. It's not. It's using a blanket statement to gloss over the details.