"Man Up" campaign by SafeIreland

K-9

T runner wrote: »

Very difficult to get enough proof for these.

They aren't very difficult, but obviously evidence is required. Just under half, that isn't very difficult.

http://www.thejournal.ie/change-in-law-sees-almost-13000-applications-for-safety-and-protection-orders-983489-Jul2013/

You believe that someone defending themselves against a violent attack constitutes mutual violence constitutes domestic abuse?

No.

A man defending himself or a woman defending herself all are treated equally. They are popped into the mutual violence category.

Because they suffered domestic violence. Knowing if a couple is in mutually abusive relationship is also important.

That is not a measure of domestic violence: defending from a violent attack is NOT domestic violence. It is a deliberate doctoring of statistics. The fact that ye lads are trying to stand over it just demonstrates that your views are prejudice bases rather than evidence based and right not to be taken seriously.

I'm not holding it up as fact, you seem very eager to totally dismiss it though.

ancapailldorcha

T runner wrote: »

Are male victims of domestic violence so traumatised that there aren't enough even to warrant the opening of 1 refuge? Clearly they are not. And the amounts of homicides and serious injury to males shows that those who stay are not in serious physical danger.

Well, considering that there's only one refuge I wouldn't blame them for thinking that they had nowhere to turn to. They feel as if they won't be taken seriously. It's barely even mentioned in the media barring a few arcs in soaps so there's almost no awareness of the laughable lack of facilities available. I only became aware of the Mankind and Amen charities through this forum. If it weren't for Boards.ie and I was the victim of domestic abuse then I'd have no idea what to do.

jackofalltrades

T runner wrote: »

I have shown you that men who carry out Patriarcal abuse have their roots in a patriarchal upbringing. Do you understand this?

I don't think you actually read my post. Come back to me when you can prove that modern western societies are are in anyway patriarchal.

No hole in my theory. EVERY researcher into domestic violence acknowledges that a patriarcal outlook rooted a patriarcal upbringing is a motive for male domestic violence against women.

Prove it.

T runner

SaturnV wrote: »

Okay, but do you believe racist violence and the violence between a man and his partner are that easily compared? For example, in most attacks attributed to racist motivations, is there a close, intimate relationship between the attacker and the victim? What about most cases where men are violent towards women? Do you think they are equivalent, therefore, in terms of understanding the motivations?

Because the methods of achieving the objectives and the objectives, ..... are repeated and have a patriarchal outcome in common then the motive is clearly patriarchal.
Different relationships, different people, but common threats, methods and patriarchal outcomes. If the man uses violence, intimidation to control the woman and to obtain consistant patriarchal ends, then the motivation is clearly patriarchal. That is what he says, that is what he does, and that is what he makes her do.

If what you are saying is correct, wouldn't we expect to see the same men going out and targeting women, purely because they are women?

But they are not HIS women. In his outlook his wife is his property. Her role as wife is subordinate to his role as husband. He uses violence and threats to control her, and to make sure she fulfills this role.

He does not believe he owns every woman, but he certainly believes his woman should act like how he has been conditioned to believe a wife acts.

He may exhibit other mysoginist behavior, make or laugh at sexist jokes with other men, make comments to women, be passive aggressive with them etc....or he may disguise that until he is free to rule over his own kingdom at home with the iron fist.

An important part of these guys conditioning outside their home happens in the company of other men...in male culture. That's why I don't tolerate any sexist or mysoginist comments in my company. I'm not going to stay silent and accept a culture that verifies these guys world views...makes them feel that all men think like they do.

Yes. Why not? What's a better way? It might not be pleasant, or easy, and there would be a lot of confounders, but that's the thing about getting to the truth of the matter.

The better way is for the victim to recount what threats were made, what he said, and what the repeated patterns and outcomes were.

At best the attacker will blame her for the violence which will be in character but wont define his motivation as a recounting of threats, intimidation, demands and outcomes will. If the demands of the attacker and outcomes are repeatedly mysoginist then they are his motives.

Again, you're just demonstrating a priori assumptions - the man will blame the woman, the woman will understand completely the motivations of the man, but you haven't shown why you think this, other than the belief that it must be true. I was very seriously assaulted at random one night several years ago. I have no idea why it happened. Only the attacker actually has that knowledge.

In that case yes. And you may never get that knowledge because he might choose to lie.

Now, if you were female and married to your attacker and he repeated told you what he wanted you to do and used different methods including violence to achieve it, then a picture gets built. All the things you are supposed to do put you in the position of the patriarchal wife's role.
The attacker already imparts his motivation when he threatens his wife, tells her what he wants her to do and tells her why he wants her to do it.
"youre my wife, you're supposed to have my dinner ready for me when I get home". When episodes like these are repeated many, many times, over months and years it is clear. He has a view of her role as his wife and he uses controlling methods that can include violence to force her into that role.



If it talks like a duck, walks like a duck, and acts like a duck, its a duck. The duck's input wont be necessary for the identification regardless of whether he lies and claims to be a swan or admits to being a duck.

I have read the article properly, and I am have a few decades of experience in reading and carrying out research, and I can tell you categorically that that article does not support the points you are trying to make.

That's just your opinion again. If you disagree with the referenced statement in the article that all the researchers of the two strains agree that patriarchal outlooks are a motive for male domestic violence against women then you should be able to easily back it up.

constance tench

T runner wrote: »

That's not a link to an accord study. Please provide one.

Those figures are bogus. A woman defending herself from violent attack does not constitute abuse on her part no matter what Accord maintains.

Strange that there are thousands of shelters for women. But the only one opened for men shut down. Nobody needed it......

I notice your not dismissing the other studies...

This chapter reported on the prevalence of domestic violence as revealed in thirteen major studies.These studies were selected because they meet the two key criteria necessary for yielding reliable information on the prevalence of domestic violence:

(1) the studies include both
men and women and their experiences of domestic violence, either as victims, perpetrators or both; and
(2) the studies are based on representative samples of the population and adhere to random sampling procedures.

Prevalence rates are typically measured with reference to relationships in both the last year and over a life-time. The results of the studies show that, over the last year, women are either more likely than men to inflict physical violence (as shown by 8 out of 12 studies) or equally likely (as
shown by 3 of the 12 studies); only one study showed a different pattern to this.

http://health.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/mdv2.pdf

See tables: Chapter 3.

[ED]

Both men and women cite
frustration as their main reason for being violent, although men (64%)
are more likely than women (53%) to give this as a reason. Controlling their partner is also an
important reason for domestic violence, with men (36%) somewhat more likely than women(30%) to give this as a reason.

Similar proportions of men (34%) and women (30%) also give
retaliation as a reason for domestic violence. These reasons are not mutually exclusive and it is
possible that specific acts of violence may be prompted by all three reasons.

Finally, men are much more likely than women (35% compared to 13%) to cite the “influence of alcohol” as a reason for being violent. This pattern of findings shows that men and women engage in violence for broadly similar reasons–frustration, control and retaliation-with men more likely than
women to cite all of these reasons. Men’s violence, according to these findings, seems to be no
more “instrumental” than women’s just as women’s is no more “expressive” than men’s.

T runner

jackofalltrades wrote: »

I don't think you actually read my post. Come back to me when you can prove that modern western societies are are in anyway patriarchal.

Who's in power, who holds the wealth, who owns the land, who captains industry, who has most political representation, Is sexism prevalent in male culture, Are women objectified in male culture, what is the prevalence of rape/domestic violence/child abuse in a culture, who controls the media, what proportion of females are primary carers, what are child care facilities like...etc, etc, etc.

All these are symptoms of a patriarchal society. Many of the Irish patrircal laws were changed by Europeans (not by Irishmen). But the society is till patriarchal. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, acts like a duck....its a duck. Even if it calls itself a swan.

Prove it.

I've referenced it at least 5 times now. Prove it? whos the judge.... you? all I have to do here is make my argument stronger than yours.....I think I'm winning hands down there in fairness.

ancapailldorcha

T runner wrote: »

An important part of these guys conditioning outside their home happens in the company of other men...in male culture. That's why I don't tolerate any sexist or mysoginist comments in my company. I'm not going to stay silent and accept a culture that verifies these guys world views...makes them feel that all men think like they do.

But spouting misandrist nonsense is grand, yeah?

T runner wrote: »

I've referenced it at least 5 times now. Prove it? whos the judge.... you? all I have to do here is make my argument stronger than yours.....I think I'm winning hands down there in fairness.

You've referenced nothing but twaddle which proves nothing.

T runner

constance tench wrote: »

I notice your not dismissing the other studies...



http://health.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/mdv2.pdf

See tables: Chapter 3.

[ED]

Yes interesting. A woman defending herself physically is given the same weight in physical violence as a man hammering her 100 times a year. And the author has cherry picked 13 reports that "suit" this agenda.

Link to a report that displays actual domestic violence without counting victims who defend themselves even once from attack as abusers themselves.

How can your position be taken seriously?



ancapailldorcha

T runner wrote: »

Yes interesting. A woman defending herself physically is given the same weight in physical violence as a man hammering her 100 times a year. And the author has cherry picked 13 reports that "suit" this agenda.

Link to a report that displays actual domestic violence without counting victims who defend themselves even once from attack as abusers themselves.

How can your position be taken seriously?



Well, there's evidence and government figures for a start compared to the nonsense we've been getting from you for the last few pages of this thread.

constance tench

T runner wrote: »

Yes interesting. A woman defending herself physically is given the same weight in physical violence as a man hammering her 100 times a year. And the author has cherry picked 13 reports that "suit" this agenda.

Link to a report that displays actual domestic violence without counting victims who defend themselves even once from attack as abusers themselves.

How can your position be taken seriously?



...you haven't read the report (for The Department of Health and Children)

constance tench

T runner wrote: »

Yes interesting. A woman defending herself physically is given the same weight in physical violence as a man hammering her 100 times a year. And the author has cherry picked 13 reports that "suit" this agenda.

Link to a report that displays actual domestic violence without counting victims who defend themselves even once from attack as abusers themselves.

How can your position be taken seriously?



I just have...!

See tables Chapter 3

T runner

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

But spouting misandrist nonsense is grand, yeah?

If you are accusing me of misandry you had better back it up or withdraw it.

You've referenced nothing but twaddle which proves nothing.

Well said! Why is it again you and your arguments lack credibility?

Wibbs

T runner wrote: »

Strange that there are thousands of shelters for women. But the only one opened for men shut down. Nobody needed it......

Oh my...

T runner wrote: »

There is no argument among any credible researcher that patriarchal upbringings are not a motive for Mmale domestic violence against women. none.

In highly patriarchal countries (orthodox Isalm nations for example) its not difficult to imagine the man abusing or being violent towards a woman to exert control or when she steps out of line.

A large amount of Irish males were brought up when Ireland had a very Catholic patriarchal family structure and a very patriarcal society. Do you disagree?

You dont drop your ingrained upbringing because the EU forces Ireland to be less nasty to its female population and Ireland ticks a box. If a modern woman doesn't fulfill the roles that he expects of them some guys will believe they are justified in forcing her to do so. Its easily identifyable: what language, threats does he use, and what objectives does this achieve. If the objective is to put her into a patriarchal erole in the household then that is patriarcally motivated abuse.

To say that this doesn't exist in Ireland or anywhere in the western word is plainly ridiculous.

Ah yes the good oul "patriarchy, patriarchy, patriarchy!!!"(AKA it's always men's fault and women are always victims) explanation, sorry sacred cow of feminist thinking. Up there with the paygap and rape culture/one in four and unequal health spending* and just as easily debated, if not dismissed entirely as an influence to the degree some feminists believe and promote. Though I have found no amount of evidence will convince such otherwise.

Even when such a thing is suggested on the back of actual studies it can be quietly "vanished". EG in 2007 no less an institution than Harvard Medical School published the results of a study involving 11,000 men and women by the American Journal of public health which showed that in 70% of cases of non reciprocal partner abuse women were the perpetrator. In the cases of reciprocal partner abuse where both were involved both genders agreed it was the woman most likely to throw the first blow.

Ok then it got interesting. Even with the caveats attached by Harvard the article was quietly pulled from their website. Here's a backup of it. Why does this not surprise me. US college gets the jitters over article that doesn't back up the "it's always men's fault and women are always victims" mantra.

Let's try breaking down this "patriarchy" stuff for a moment.

Who's in power,

An elite. Mostly men, but there are women among their numbers. This power elite are a vanishingly tiny percentage of men and always have been. The vast majority of men throughout history were outside this loop. Indeed the average man was a bullet stopper and serf for most of human history and more disposable with it. "Women and children first". People forget that when women got the vote it wasn't so long after the point where the average man got the vote.

who holds the wealth,

As far as spending power goes, women. Estimates show that women will control two-thirds of the consumer wealth in the U.S over the next decade and [will] be the beneficiaries of the largest transference of wealth in US history. In the developed world women's income is rising, growing at 8.1% by comparison to 5.8% for men. That will rise further as many more women graduate third level than men(in Canada there are twice as many women graduates). Hell you only have to switch on the telly or open a magazine to see that the vast majority of advertising is aimed at women. Advertising is following the money.

who owns the land, who captains industry

Again you're discussing elites, not your average man or woman for that matter. In any event there are enough women CEO's coming along.

who has most political representation,

Who votes more, men or women? I'll give you a hint, it ain't men. So women are voting for their own political representation.

Is sexism prevalent in male culture, Are women objectified in male culture,

Yep, but just as often by women themselves. Who buys celeb magazines? Who buys fashion magazines? Who drives the fashion for photoshopping and stick thin models? Men? Nope.

what is the prevalence of rape/domestic violence/child abuse in a culture,

Well we are currently in the midst of some of that. However let's look at our own history of Magdalene laundries and orphanages and the like. Who ran them on a daily basis? Who were the footsoldiers?

who controls the media,

The media industry has one of the higher female percentages of any industry. The aforementioned magazines aimed at women with pics of celebs and cellulite are almost entirely run by women.

what proportion of females are primary carers, what are child care facilities like...etc, etc, etc.

Both are concerns for men and women. Given that men are extremely unlikely to ever get custody in a divorce, it's hardly surprising more women are primary carers and child care facilities affect both, unless you're being patriarchal in your own way.

All these are symptoms of a patriarchal society. Many of the Irish patrircal laws were changed by Europeans (not by Irishmen). But the society is till patriarchal. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, acts like a duck....its a duck. Even if it calls itself a swan.

I could go on about how if anything Ireland and the Irish are and have been a deeply matriarchal society with a thin veneer of patriarchy(that's a lot thinner today), but I fear it would be a waste of time as your worldview appears to written in stone hewn by the hammer and chisel of third wave feminist thinking.




*they used to add unequal educational access too, but that has become so obviously women biased at third level that it had to be dropped. I can see the health one going the same way.

stateofflux

At the End of the day this whole campaign imo sets a dangerous precedent of painting every male as a potential abuser. Implying that the potential desire to abuse is there and is being controlled by willpower. That is fundamentally wrong and sexist. The fact that this is being fuelled by many ignorant Feminist articles by supposedly non biased journalists in the Times and the indo is quite worrying.

T runner

Ok "lads".

Ill leave you with this. If 4 in 10 females commit domestic violence. How can it be that men are too traumatised to go to a refuge....and those who remain are not traumitised enough to warrant a visit to the hospital or the morgue?

Yet female victims of domestic violence fill the shelters, hospitlas and morgues..... very strange.

Remember if you hear a man making a sexist joke or mysoginist comment....tell him to STFU.
If you stay silent, laugh along or chip in yourself...youre part of the problem.

Which one will you be?

Wibbs

T runner wrote: »

The lack of female domestic serious assaults or homicides of males (except in self defence) would seem to bear this out.

Letter perfect example of the "it's always the man's fault and the woman is always the victim" thinking. A real howler of an example. Even if a woman(always the victim) seriously injures or even kills a man(always the aggressor), it's a case of self defence. Oh man you really couldn't make this up.

Wibbs

T runner wrote: »

Ok "lads".

Here we go. Patronising and a little childish a debating tactic but let's run with it.

Ill leave you with this. If 4 in 10 females commit domestic violence. How can it be that men are too traumatised to go to a refuge....and those who remain are not traumitised enough to warrant a visit to the hospital or the morgue?

You really have zero clue as to why this may be the case? How many shelters for men exist? How many lifelines? In common parlance the "battered woman" is a meme, but one doesn't even exist for the battered man. As for the morgue, male completed suicide rates are far higher for men than women. They're three times higher post divorce.

Remember if you hear a man making a sexist joke or mysoginist comment....tell him to STFU.
If you stay silent, laugh along or chip in yourself...youre part of the problem.

Which one will you be?

Ahh brilliant. More of the "men! stop other men from raping" nonsense and right on student underdeveloped thinking with it.

Though this sideline of completely changing tack also illustrates the usual third wave feminist scattergun approach to debate when they can't back up their arguments except by constant repetition of their original position, because it's just true!!!

Oh and the next time anyone says "ah sure that US college ivory tower feminism isn't part of the mainstream feminism over here" I'll point them to the last few pages of this thread.

ancapailldorcha

T runner wrote: »

Remember if you hear a man making a sexist joke or mysoginist comment....tell him to STFU.
If you stay silent, laugh along or chip in yourself...youre part of the problem.

Which one will you be?

Just to clarify, sexist jokes against men and misandry are still ok? Grand-o.

I'll make my own mind up, ta.

iptba

I haven't managed to keep up with this thread but just a piece of information on this:

T runner wrote: »

Ill leave you with this. If 4 in 10 females commit domestic violence. How can it be that men are too traumatised to go to a refuge....and those who remain are not traumitised enough to warrant a visit to the hospital or the morgue?

On average about seven women and two men are killed by their current or former partner every month in England and Wales.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-22610534

Taken from:
(UK) Office for National Statistics:
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/focus-on-violent-crime-and-sexual-offences--2012-13/rpt---chapter-2---homicide.html?format=print

Maguined

T runner wrote: »

Ok "lads".

Ill leave you with this. If 4 in 10 females commit domestic violence. How can it be that men are too traumatised to go to a refuge....and those who remain are not traumitised enough to warrant a visit to the hospital or the morgue?

Yet female victims of domestic violence fill the shelters, hospitlas and morgues..... very strange.

Remember if you hear a man making a sexist joke or mysoginist comment....tell him to STFU.
If you stay silent, laugh along or chip in yourself...youre part of the problem.

Which one will you be?

How do you reconcile your view that women fill thousands of shelters while men need none when Erin Pizzey the woman that practically invented womens shelters in the UK and America states that from all her experience she found domestic violence was most commonly reciprocal (not a woman defending herself from a aggressive man but two people who took turns initiating violence against each other) and even when it wasn't reciprocal it occured relatively evenly amongst both genders?

So this woman is clearly mistaken despite being the first person to organise dedicated services for domestic violence, and despite being on the front lines to expierience the people involved in domestic violence she is clearly wrong?

T runner

Wibbs wrote: »

........Though I have found no amount of evidence will convince such otherwise............
Ok then it got interesting. Even with the caveats attached by Harvard the article was quietly pulled from their website. Here's a backup of it. Why does this not surprise me. US college gets the jitters over article that doesn't back up the "it's always men's fault and women are always victims" mantra.

Yes. He makes clear that he is describing any type of violence which he insists shouldn't be confused with severe male violence against women.

I.e don't confuse common couple violence with patriarcal domestic violence/abuse.

An elite. Mostly men, but there are women among their numbers.

Out of 1645 worldwide billionaires, only 172 are women.

This power elite are a vanishingly tiny percentage of men and always have been. The vast majority of men throughout history were outside this loop.

And all women.

As far as spending power goes, women.

...... over the next decade and [will] be the beneficiaries......

So men hold the wealth but women might hold more...maybe..at some point in the future. Men hold the wealth, moving on.

developed world women's income is rising, growing at 8.1% by comparison to 5.8% for men.

28 out of the top 500 CEOs are women If that grows at the rates you suggest we should have parity by the next millennia.

Again you're discussing elites, not your average man or woman for that matter..

Men own the land. Farmers are youre average man literally and well over 90% of farm landowners are men.

In any event there are enough women CEO's coming along

No there areent. 28 out of 500 and 56 out of 1000.

Who votes more, men or women? I'll give you a hint, it ain't men. So women are voting for their own political representation.

Men and women show no prejudice in gender voting.
It is acknowledged on an EU level that there are many barriers to equal female candidacy and participation in politics. We have never exceeded 14% of female dail seats in Ireland.

Yep, but just as often by women themselves. Who buys celeb magazines? Who buys fashion magazines? Who drives the fashion for photoshopping and stick thin models? Men? Nope.

The sexual objectification of women is driven by men who value women more for their sexuality. The porn industry is for men, the prostitution industry is for men. Minors are wearing sexually suggestive clothes in this horror show.
The fact that all society must participate in this perversion does not mean that you get to blame women as "foot soldiers".

However let's look at our own history of Magdalene laundries and orphanages and the like. Who ran them on a daily basis? Who were the footsoldiers?

Women were imprisoned in these hellholes because they're behavior was in breach of the heavily patriarchal male ruled Catholic church. The fact that nuns were the foot soldiers chosen for this task does not negate the fact that a heavily patriarchal culture was to blame.

The media industry has one of the higher female percentages of any industry. The aforementioned magazines aimed at women with pics of celebs and cellulite are almost entirely run by women.

I was referring the to type of media with power to have an influence on policy in society. Almost exclusiviley male dominated.

Both are concerns for men and women. Given that men are extremely unlikely to ever get custody in a divorce, it's hardly surprising more women are primary carers and child care facilities affect both, unless you're being patriarchal in your own way.

Women tend to get custody because they are the primary carers and its usually in the child's interest to keep the primary relationship intact. Women don't become primary carers in order to get custody. In a patriarchal society the vast amount of primary child carer's will be women because the society believe that women's place is still in the home.

If society wanted to change this it would provide decent affordable child care facilities that would allow more people to child rear and work. It doesn't. This affects females and males because a patriarchal society respects males who want to child rear about as little as females who want to child rear.

I could go on about how if anything Ireland and the Irish are and have been a deeply matriarchal society with a thin veneer of patriarchy(that's a lot thinner today), but I fear it would be a waste of time

Yes. Yu'd have even less success than you did "proving" your points above, I fear.

*they used to add unequal educational access too, but that has become so obviously women biased at third level that it had to be dropped. I can see the health one going the same way.

Patriarchy is anti-intellectual. Go figure

T runner

Maguined wrote: »

How do you reconcile your view that women fill thousands of shelters while men need none when Erin Pizzey the woman that practically invented womens shelters in the UK and America states that from all her experience she found domestic violence was most commonly reciprocal (not a woman defending herself from a aggressive man but two people who took turns initiating violence against each other) and even when it wasn't reciprocal it occured relatively evenly amongst both genders?

The fact that the only male shelter in Ireland had to close because of lack of use, informs me.

So this woman is clearly mistaken despite being the first person to organise dedicated services for domestic violence, and despite being on the front lines to expierience the people involved in domestic violence she is clearly wrong?[/QUOTE]

SaturnV

T runner wrote: »

In that case yes. And you may never get that knowledge because he might choose to lie.

Now, if you were female and married to your attacker and he repeated told you what he wanted you to do and used different methods including violence to achieve it, then a picture gets built. All the things you are supposed to do put you in the position of the patriarchal wife's role.

You've assumed I'm a man, haven't you? I suspect your notions of how men and women think are not as sophisticated as you would hope.

T runner wrote: »

If it talks like a duck, walks like a duck, and acts like a duck, its a duck.

Indeed...

T runner

SaturnV wrote: »

You've assumed I'm a man, haven't you? I suspect your notions of how men and women think are not as sophisticated as you would hope.

You cant say that. I don't know your gender, thus the conditional "if". I could have asked you directly of course, but I chose not to.

Indeed...

If the perpetrator states and reveals his motives as patriarcal, and uses control over the woman to achieve patriarchal ends....and does so to achieve similar motives repeatedly over a pattern of many years...then we know his motives. These are learned thought patterns.

That's why I believe that the "man-up" campaign is flawed. Those men who have behaved like that over years ain't going to change by a slogan like that however well intended. Its best that male culture changes. That means men of good will cutting sexism and mysoginy out of male culture. Thse men wont get affirmation from other men then, and other men wont learn to view women as subordinates.

I'm posting here in case that strikes a chord with any lurkers. That will do!

Maguined

T runner wrote: »

The fact that the only male shelter in Ireland had to close because of lack of use, informs me.

So this woman is clearly mistaken despite being the first person to organise dedicated services for domestic violence, and despite being on the front lines to expierience the people involved in domestic violence she is clearly wrong?

The people running the shelter claimed it was closed due to lack of funding not through lack of use.

http://www.amen.ie/Papers/15112.htm

This shelter is completely separate to the experiences of Erin Prizzy so your point is irrelevant. So you do believe the founder of domestic abuse shelters is wrong about her experiences and views towards domestic violence?

ancapailldorcha

T runner wrote: »

If the perpetrator states and reveals his motives as patriarcal, and uses control over the woman to achieve patriarchal ends....and does so to achieve similar motives repeatedly over a pattern of many years...then we know his motives. These are learned thought patterns.

That's why I believe that the "man-up" campaign is flawed. Those men who have behaved like that over years ain't going to change by a slogan like that however well intended. Its best that male culture changes. That means men of good will cutting sexism and mysoginy out of male culture. Thse men wont get affirmation from other men then, and other men wont learn to view women as subordinates.

I'm posting here in case that strikes a chord with any lurkers. That will do!

Why would anyone who beats their spouse get affirmation from all but the smallest minority of the population.

Can you explain what patriarchal ends are please? It sounds like insipid, vacuous nonsense but just on the off-chance...

Wibbs

Look "lads"*pats collective heads* you must always bear in mind that when dealing with third wave feminists it is always the fault of men and women are always the victims. And said women have little or no agency. Note how in these last few pages the blinkers come on the second any stat shows any men to have been victims. Men are never victims of spousal abuse, hence they don't need support. Hell even if they get killed in a domestic it's "self defence". As I said you couldn't make this nonsense up if you tried.

T runner wrote: »

Yes. He makes clear that he is describing any type of violence which he insists shouldn't be confused with severe male violence against women.

So you agree with the study that in situations where severe violence isn't in play women are more likely to be the attackers and in such situations men are more likely to be injured? Hmmmm so now you're saying men can be victims of assault?

I.e don't confuse common couple violence with patriarcal domestic violence/abuse.

Ahhh now I see. Kelly Brook has joined Boards, or one of the editorial staff of Jezebel... Good to know.

OK then, what about ipta's link that shows "about seven women and two men are killed by their current or former partner every month in England and Wales." Let me guess those two guys are killed in self defence?

Like I said folks it is always the fault of men and women are always the victims. This is height of the level of debate you're ever going to get.

Out of 1645 worldwide billionaires, only 172 are women.

Out of a world population of 7 billion. Like I pointed out, elites.

And all women.

1) among the elites quite a number of women held direct and great power throughout history and many others held the power behind the power. 2) Many more men died in war and industry throughout history. That continues today. You don't see too many "Women's studies" types carrying banners asking about the glass ceiling in coal mining.

So men hold the wealth but women might hold more...maybe..at some point in the future. Men hold the wealth, moving on.

Blinkers to down position.

28 out of the top 500 CEOs are women If that grows at the rates you suggest we should have parity by the next millennia.

Again with the elite.

No they arent. Men and women show no prejudice in gender voting.

You do know just because you hold an opinion this doesn't make it a fact? I know this is a common fallacy these days, but I feel it useful to point it out every so often.Example. And there are plenty more where that came from.

The sexual objectification of women is driven by men who value women more for their sexuality.

Yep that would be all men. We'll ignore the hordes sqeeeing over Justin Beiber while we're at it. As for the fashion industry and its attendant issues, it's got more women and gay men than straight men running it.

The porn industry is for men,

More and more women are watching porn and are just as likely to get hooked on it.

the prostitution industry is for men.

I'd agree on that one. Though the percentage of men using such services is very low, but let's go with "all men" just to keep things rattling along.

Minors are wearing sexually suggestive clothes in this horror show.

Who is designing and buying said clothes? Just as likely if not more likely women. Hell look at the "beauty" pageants parading little kids in make up and heels in the US and elsewhere. Near zero male involvement there.

The fact that all society must participate in this perversion does not mean that you get to blame women as "foot soldiers".

Why not? Do women not have agency of their own? Apparently not according to third wave feminist "thinking". Which I always found sidesplitting in it's irony.

Women were imprisoned in these hellholes because they're behavior was in breach of the heavily patriarchal male ruled Catholic church. The fact that nuns were the foot soldiers chosen for this task does not negate the fact that a heavily patriarchal culture was to blame.

Ah yes the patriarchy. The cause of and solution to all feminist rhetoric. Again where is the agency of women?

Sorry, what was I thinking. Yes of course you're right it is always the fault of men and women are always the victims.

I was referring the to type of media with power to have an influence on policy in society. Almost exclusiviley male dominated.

*blinkers down. Ignore the other point*

Women tend to get custody because they are the primary carers and its usually in the child's interest to keep the primary relationship intact.

This gets more and more hilarious in irony. Actually on that score and as an aside I've oft found it interesting how society views partners leaving the family unit. If men leave they're almost always seen as the bastard, yet women are overwhelmingly the ones who call for separation and divorce, so in effect they're "leaving the family unit" too, but get all the support and usually all the legal protection and primary assets like the domicile. Funny how that works in a patriarchal society.

Women don't become primary carers in order to get custody. In a patriarchal society the vast amount of primary child carer's will be women because the society believe that women's place is still in the home.

The gift keeps on giving.

This affects females and males because a patriarchal society respects males who want to child rear about as little as females who want to child rear.

Try reading that back to yourself a couple of times.

Patriarchy is anti-intellectual. Go figure

Wut? This is entertaining anyway.

But just so I'm right on and non patriarchal and all that it is always the fault of men and women are always the victims.

T runner

Wibbs wrote: »

You really have zero clue as to why this may be the case? How many shelters for men exist? How many lifelines?

There was a male shelter but it was closed because it was not used. The answer is therefore zero. NO shelters because of lack of need. Does that not tell you anything?

In common parlance the "battered woman" is a meme, but one doesn't even exist for the battered man.

If you re-read the thread youll note that Steinmetz coined "battered husband" as far back as the 70s.

As for the morgue, male completed suicide rates are far higher for men than women.

Not as a direct result of domestic violence. Were talking about domestic violence aren't we?

Maguined

T runner wrote: »

There was a male shelter but it was closed because it was not used. NO shelters because of lack of need. Does that not tell you anything?

You are incorrect as I have already posted above the shelter was closed from lack of funding not from lack of use. The shelter was actively in use when it was shut.

Wibbs

T runner wrote: »

There was one but it was closed because it was not used. NO shelters because no need for lifelines. Bring it up with the mens group who closed it I guess.

Did you willfully ignore the link which Maguined posted that explained that it was shut because of lack of funding, not lack of use>

If you re-read the thread youll note that Steinmetz coined "battered husband" as far back as the 70s.

As far back as the 70's :pac::pac: oh man. And you still can't see it?

As you say after divorce.

I said that was but one example of the higher suicide rate among men.

What are you displaying?

I'm "displaying"?

Men are more likely to take female, male, children's lives...and their own.

Do you still believe all is well in male culture? How do you explain this phenomenum of killing amongst men?

Jesus Christ. It's "reasoning" like this that made me slough off any support for modern feminism a long time ago. Like I said almost their entire position is that it is always the fault of men and women are always the victims, without agency or responsibilities of their own. It reduces women to childish victimhood allowed to be "free"(in a very precise "feminist" way of course) to do what they will with no thoughts of agency or accountability just because of their gender. The joke is in a real patriarchal society they would agree with this position to an uncomfortable degree.

T runner

Wibbs wrote: »

Did you willfully ignore the link which Maguined posted that explained that it was shut because of lack of funding, not lack of use

From Amen : " IRELAND'S only shelter for abused men has been shut because of a lack of funding, Amen, an organisation that supports male victims of domestic violence, said the closure was the result of sexism........The council claimed it was forced to stop some of the funding because it believed there were less than five men staying at the shelter.

So Meath county council couldn't justify it based on the low numbers.

Meath County council reasons were lack of use. Amen attributing the closure to the word "sexism" highlights exactly why organisations like Amen are not taken as seriously as they think they should be and why they continually let the people they represent down.

As far back as the 70's :pac::pac: oh man. And you still can't see it?

I see that your argument that a phrase did not exist has been refuted.

I said that was but one example of the higher suicide rate among men.

You said suicide rates were 3 times higher post divorce. Which has exactly no relevance to the massive disparagy between the amount of female victims of domestic abuse in shelters, hospitals and morgues in this country.....and the number of equivalent male counterparts....so low they couldn't keep the only shelter in Ireland open.

Jesus Christ. It's "reasoning" like this that made me slough off any support for modern feminism a long time ago. Like I said almost their entire position is that it is always the fault of men and women are always the victims, without agency or responsibilities of their own. .

Answer the question. How do you explain the fact that the vast majority of murders in domestic violence are carried out by men? Isnt there an issue with male culture? Or do you believe these men were born to kill which doesn't explain the disparagy with females?

Straight questions. Please don't avoid this time.

PS*** Please try to answer without reference to "third wave feminism" or without the use of the word "hilarious". Continually installing such props in your argument draws attention too, (rather than disguises) their weakness.

Kav0777

John, a victim of domestic violence, has stayed at the Amen shelter for the last three years. Since the closure, he has been staying in the Portakabin

Clearly no need for a shelter at all.

jackofalltrades

T runner wrote: »

I've referenced it at least 5 times now. Prove it? whos the judge.... you? all I have to do here is make my argument stronger than yours.....I think I'm winning hands down there in fairness.

No you haven't proven it. Stop making things up.

You claimed that:

EVERY researcher into domestic violence acknowledges that a patriarcal outlook rooted a patriarcal upbringing is a motive for male domestic violence against women.

I'm asking you to prove that EVERY researcher into domestic violence acknowledges that a patriarcal outlook rooted a patriarcal upbringing is a motive for male domestic violence against women.

If your going to make wild/improbable claims you need to be able to back them up.

constance tench

Maguined wrote: »

The people running the shelter claimed it was closed due to lack of funding not through lack of use.

http://www.amen.ie/Papers/15112.htm

This shelter is completely separate to the experiences of Erin Prizzy so your point is irrelevant. So you do believe the founder of domestic abuse shelters is wrong about her experiences and views towards domestic violence?

Yes, just one refuge in Navan town which was shut down for lack of funding in 2004.

Can you imagine having (or even trying) to bring your children in car (if you have one)to Navan after being violently attacked!...imagine that scenario played out on the street!...not the safest for your Family, whereas there are at least 6 women's refuges in Dublin city alone (who out-and-out refuse entry to boys over 12).

Wibbs

T runner wrote: »

I see that your argument that a phrase did not exist has been refuted.

You do realise that the 70's wasn't that long ago? Never mind that my original point was that as a societal meme "battered wife" is the one with real weight and usage behind it.

You said suicide rates were 3 times higher post divorce. Which has exactly no relevance to the massive disparagy between the amount of female victims of domestic abuse in shelters, hospitals and morgues in this country.....and the number of equivalent male counterparts....so low they couldn't keep the only shelter in Ireland open.

I know I know it's always men's fault and women are always the victims. That has been your entire pitch from post one. You ignore/avoid/deflect when it's shown to you that women are worse in the case of non "severe" violence(as you would have it). They abuse more often and instigate it more often. I'd bet the farm that they're higher in the stats in emotional abuse too.

Answer the question. How do you explain the fact that the vast majority of murders in domestic violence are carried out by men?

Again did you read the link to the figures of the UK home office? Figures which show on average about seven women and two men are killed by their current or former partner every month in England and Wales. Yep a majority on the male side, but not a vast one, especially considering that men are generally more physically powerful than women and more likely to cause serious injury should they have a mind to.

Isnt there an issue with male culture?

Given there is more chance of being struck by a woman in "non serious" violence, that in equally violent couples they're usually the first to resort to hitting and they're 2/3rds more likely to strike in non reciprocal violence, where the usually more physically powerful man doesn't retaliate, is there not just as much an issue with "female culture"?

Put it another way, going by such results if women were more physically powerful than men you'd expect a lot more injured and dead blokes about the place.

And one of the reasons such women feel freer to strike a man is that the simple fact is they can because they can get away with it. And do so in your "patriarchal" society. Like I noted the recent Kelly Brook incident where she happily admitted she thumped exes because of jealousy or just momentary daftness illustrates this(the Jezebel editorial team even laughed about their examples). Sure eyebrows were raised, but imagine the reverse if one her exes admitted to hitting her in exactly the same manner. There would be hell to pay. Funny enough the vast majority of men wouldn't respond to a punch by a woman precisely because of "Chivalry" and all that. As another experiment showed when people on the street saw a woman being hit, even verbally abused by a man passersby, mostly men dove in to help her. Whereas with the reverse people walked on by or even laughed at the whole thing.

As for men holding other men to account for "sexism" and all that stuff. If a woman is being attacked/assaulted in public by a man, you can damn near guarantee it'll be another man who will attempt to come to her aid and stop him. Even among the worst criminals in prisons they have to separate the wife beaters, the rapists and the child abusers or the other men will injure even kill them.

Or do you believe these men were born to kill which doesn't explain the disparagy with females?

What disparity? Oh wait, sorry, I forgot, it's always men's fault and women are always the victims with no agency. Maybe I should do a Bart Simpson and write it out 100 times on a blackboard.

Straight questions. Please don't avoid this time.

The irony keeps on giving.

PS*** Please try to answer without reference to "third wave feminism" or without the use of the word "hilarious". Continually installing such props in your argument draws attention too, (rather than disguises) their weakness.

Maybe this jumping around debate stylee works in an environment with like minded individuals who agree with you(very common with your third wave types. Common in the "manosphere" too), but it's not so useful outside such arenas.

Wibbs

jackofalltrades wrote: »

I'm asking you to prove that EVERY researcher into domestic violence acknowledges that a patriarcal outlook rooted a patriarcal upbringing is a motive for male domestic violence against women.

If your going to make wild/improbable claims you need to be able to back them up.

Indeed so. Actually one area that seems to throw her/his argument for a loop is abuse in same sex couples. Given that gay relationships have about the same, if not slightly higher rate of partner abuse that kinda makes a laugh of it being the "patriarchy" at fault. If it's two men in a relationship and one is being abused is that the "patriarchy"? Better again if two women are in a relationship and one is being abused is that the "patriarchy"? Hmmm. Riiight. Let's look at lesbian folks a little closer shall we?

"How common is lesbian partner violence?

About 17-45% of lesbians report having been the victim of a least one act of physical violence perpetrated by a lesbian partner (1,5,6,13). Types of physical abuse named by more than 10% of participants in one study included:
Disrupting other's eating or sleeping habits
Pushing or shoving, driving recklessly to punish, and slapping, kicking, hitting, or biting (11).
Sexual abuse by a woman partner has been reported by up to 50% of lesbians (12).
Psychological abuse has been reported as occurring at least one time by 24% to 90% of lesbians (1,5,6,11,14)".


Not a man involved. Patriarchy? Though even here with this report the BS is strong. They still try to blame men. :pac:

"Lesbians who abuse another women may do so for reasons similar to those that motivate heterosexual male batterers."

They even blame their fathers and stepfathers. Mothers being women are never at fault of course. Ever the victims. Check, still men's fault by proxy, even with lesbian folks.

"In lesbian relationships, the "butch" (physically stronger, more masculine or wage-earning) member of the couple may be as likely to be the victim as the batterer, whereas in heterosexual relationships, the male partner (usually the stronger, more masculine, and wage-earning member)is most often the batterer

The latter we can see is a nonsense. What this actually shows is that people can be dicks. Men and women. regardless of gonad position. When we look at all female relationships even these researchers fall for the BS. They expect the "butch' woman to be the instigator because she's "more like a man", but because she is a woman and they're more a protected species in such studies they acknowledge she's just as likely to be the abused as the abuser. The male female hetro figures show pretty much the same breakdown, but because of the perception of Men = abuser/women = victim it's glossed over or completely ignored.

ancapailldorcha

Crikey, the last 8 pages of this thread make for a pretty impressive display of ignorance. If I ever doubt some feminists' capacity for making daft assertions I'll come back here.

jackofalltrades

Wibbs wrote: »

Not a man involved. Patriarchy? Though even here with this report the BS is strong. They still try to blame men. :pac:

"Lesbians who abuse another women may do so for reasons similar to those that motivate heterosexual male batterers."

They even blame their fathers and stepfathers. Mothers being women are never at fault of course. Ever the victims. Check, still men's fault by proxy, even with lesbian folks.

And why not blame men, it's unlikely they'll be called on it.

And if someone dares criticise their opinion they'll be labelled a misogynist and thrown to the awaiting twitter/media mob.

In another thread on this website, when I asked for proof that the patriarchy exists in this country, I was equated to being a holocaust denier.

I think we've a long way to go before people can have a reasonable discussion on gender issues.

Wibbs

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Crikey, the last 8 pages of this thread make for a pretty impressive display of ignorance.

Ah man and I was really trying my best. *slinks off*..

Wibbs

Chamber511 wrote: »

Maybe just maybe there are more male CEOs because men have a lot more testosterone coursing though their bodies, has anyone ever considered that, that there might not actually be systematic discrimination taking place.

Could be a factor. Women with higher testosterone levels take more risks and since starting up a company on your own is risky that kind of personality, in a man or woman, is more likely to try, so an individuals hormonal profile might play some part. Men having more of that profile in general are more likely to fire out CEO type personalities. Even then it's a minority. The vast majority of men aren't like that. Rebelliousness is another trait may play a part and again that tends to have more men(especially younger men) showing that behaviour where women tend more towards consensus in a group. Again rebelliousness is a rare enough trait, especially of the constructive kind. The vast majority of people just go with the flow and "fit in".

Seriously?

It will be interesting to see how the following rather harrowing occurrence can be pitched as exclusively male aggression.
Two females orchestrate the rape of a girl by their younger brother.

Link: http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/sister-encouraged-uk-teen-to-rape-girl-642550.html

This is the problem with feminist fantasies like the ‘patriarchy’; they fall down when faced with the harsh light of reality. Though facts and evidence rarely are seen as a problem for the true believers.

Lemming

Seriously? wrote: »

It will be interesting to see how the following rather harrowing occurrence can be pitched as exclusively male aggression.
Two females orchestrate the rape of a girl by their younger brother.

Link: http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/sister-encouraged-uk-teen-to-rape-girl-642550.html

This is the problem with feminist fantasies like the ‘patriarchy’; they fall down when faced with the harsh light of reality. Though facts and evidence rarely are seen as a problem for the true believers.

That is an appalling incident. What concerns me the most is the snapshot into the mindset of some younger generation folk that sexual violence is a blaise thing. Equally telling in that despite their youth, the attackers understood the psychological implications of the attack - not for sexual jollies, but to control and humiliate; to objectify the victim; classic rapist territory stuff.

It's all just warped.

Henry9

T runner, you are Jessica Valenti and I claim my £5.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/19/men-women-rape-prevention-its-on-us

The notion that it is just the extremists who think like this is absurd. You only have to read boards to see that.

Henry9

Wibbs wrote: »

Could be a factor. Women with higher testosterone levels take more risks and since starting up a company on your own is risky that kind of personality, in a man or woman, is more likely to try, so an individuals hormonal profile might play some part. Men having more of that profile in general are more likely to fire out CEO type personalities. Even then it's a minority. The vast majority of men aren't like that. Rebelliousness is another trait may play a part and again that tends to have more men(especially younger men) showing that behaviour where women tend more towards consensus in a group. Again rebelliousness is a rare enough trait, especially of the constructive kind. The vast majority of people just go with the flow and "fit in".

The idea that men are more risk taking is allowed in the context of them doing something dangerous, like speeding.
The idea that women are less risk taking and are more likely to take a reasoned, long term view is allowed, in the context of demanding more female TDs or company directors.

Of course the corollary of this, that more men will take the risks to propel them to CEO, or to drop out of college to start their own company, is not allowed, is irrelevant, and you are a misogynist. Shame on you.

Henry9

Wibbs wrote: »

And one of the reasons such women feel freer to strike a man is that the simple fact is they can because they can get away with it. And do so in your "patriarchal" society. Like I noted the recent Kelly Brook incident where she happily admitted she thumped exes because of jealousy or just momentary daftness illustrates this(the Jezebel editorial team even laughed about their examples).

It's only a few weeks ago that some feminist drones were posting about the use of the word 'crazy' in relation to women, how it was demeaning and oppressive blah blah blah.

Of course this doesn't apply when a woman is defending her actions, it's allowed to commit assault if you're a bit crazy, sure isn't she a woman after all.

Funnily enough the feminist language police and the Twitter sexism mob will have nothing to say on the matter.

py2006

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Crikey, the last 8 pages of this thread make for a pretty impressive display of ignorance. If I ever doubt some feminists' capacity for making daft assertions I'll come back here.

At times I thought it was a wind up. There is a lot of quotable stuff there. I don't think I've seen the word, 'patriarch', as much in my life!

Every time I try to convince myself that I may have got it wrong when it comes to feminists they themselves put a halt to that.

Wibbs

Some feminists. Though I have noted more of the nuttier end being taken seriously, ignored, or not questioned as much as it should be in the mainstream and wider world. As we've seen it's a deeply held conviction, impervious to logic and insulting to both sexes on a fair few levels. It's why I wouldn't self identify as "feminist" anymore, or not nearly as much as I would have in the past.

py2006

Wibbs wrote: »

Some feminists. Though I have noted more of the nuttier end being taken seriously, ignored, or not questioned as much as it should be in the mainstream and wider world. As we've seen it's a deeply held conviction, impervious to logic and insulting to both sexes on a fair few levels. It's why I wouldn't self identify as "feminist" anymore, or not nearly as much as I would have in the past.

Agreed. Its odd the nuttier ones only seem to frustrate men. Or at least we only voice or frustration. Does that make sense? Its early and I had a late night!

Btw, much respect for your posts on here.

constance tench

T runner wrote: »

...I'm posting here in case that strikes a chord...

http://www.lougogan.com/worst-chord/01-TheEarWaxDisintegrator.mp3


Take your pick!
http://www.lougogan.com/worst-chord/worst-chord.php

iptba

(Sept 19 UK article)

Compulsory relationship lessons should be included in curriculum to prevent violence against women, says Shadow Home Secretary

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2761674/Labour-s-school-lessons-beat-abuse-Shadow-Home-Secretary-says-children-receive-compulsory-relationship-education-prevent-violence-against-women.html