Violence in Relationships Towards Women Needs To Stop

AudreyHepburn

OP perhaps a better and more accurate title would have been simply ' violence needs to stop, regardless of against whom it is committed'.

Why do you single out male abusers of women? The issue of domestic violence is a lot more complicate than that.

Wibbs

bnt wrote: »

Yes, violence against women needs to end. What I'm not getting is why all men are being blamed for it, or being "tasked" with responsibility for stopping it. I'm hearing platitudes about "having conversations" ... with who? I don't know any men who are violent towards women, nor would I want to. So where or when would I have these "conversations"? Being a man isn't like being in a club, we don't have meetings ...

Yep, not unlike the daft "Man Up" campaign by SafeIreland, or others around the western world along the lines of "men, stop other men from raping women" etc. Real ivory tower first year student thinking. Heart in the right place, head squarely inserted in arse. Never mind the nonsensical notion that men "allow" such things, the plain fact is men hate rapists, and wife beaters and child abusers and are even likely to get violent in expressing this hatred. Stick a rapist, wife beater or child abuser in the main population in a prison and take bets on how long before they end up in the infirmary or the morgue. Men in the real world have an extremely low tolerance for that sort of crap in other men, but god forbid don't let that observation get in the way of the daft "feminist" barely disguised mantra that it's always men's fault and women are always victims.

Kav0777

bnt wrote: »

Yes, violence against women needs to end. What I'm not getting is why all men are being blamed for it, or being "tasked" with responsibility for stopping it. I'm hearing platitudes about "having conversations" ... with who? I don't know any men who are violent towards women, nor would I want to. So where or when would I have these "conversations"? Being a man isn't like being in a club, we don't have meetings ...

Did you not get the memo?

KomradeBishop

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

I'd only view it as worth mentioning if the complaints about inaction by society were accusatory ones.
Otherwise it's a valid concern/discussion of course.

Okey, but he is replying to me, when I personally didn't make accusatory complaints, only asked what good reason is there for shelter groups to discriminate based upon gender - so isn't his implication of hypocrisy against me (and basically an entire gender) baseless and not valid, and just a distraction from the actual arguments I made?

That's part of why I avoid replying to him - all debates with him on gender-based topics, turn into something like that; then if you engage him in debate, it just becomes multiple pages of multiquote-spot-the-fallacy/whack-a-mole, and quickly the original point gets totally lost.

KomradeBishop

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

No, I'm not saying the topic shouldn't be discussed - it should of course; someone was saying on this thread that he experienced domestic abuse and the guards just dismissed it, which goes to show how the issue drastically needs to be highlighted. But there's nothing wrong with someone suggesting that those who are very vocal about nothing being done, initiate something themselves; whatever the issue may be.

The thing about the way people are saying that (men should do more) in this thread, is that many posters are saying it to contest/bat-down concerns from others, about domestic abuse support being highly gender-biased - it does not come across as offering a useful/constructive suggestion.

This is particularly the case, because perhaps the very best way to promote action by men, is for the existing support groups for domestic abuse (who are already well established and have the resources) - all of them, including those currently dedicated to women - to promote awareness and provide support for men as well.

It makes zero sense to implicitly suggest that men should start from scratch, building a network of support groups, when it would be a massive waste/duplication of resources, creating a needless barrier to solving the problem, because we already have all of that - an entire network of organizations dedicated to domestic abuse - but with an unnecessary gender bias.


So, can you see from that, how when posters say "domestic support groups should support men more", countering that or trying to imply hypocrisy with the argument "men should do more" (which implicitly suggests men should 'get their own' support groups, starting from scratch) - particularly when addressing the gender-bias in support groups can make men do more - can you see how that comes across as kind of disingenuous/antagonistic, trying to block reform/discussion, rather than offering a useful criticism/suggestion?

Czarcasm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Okey, but he is replying to me, when I personally didn't make accusatory complaints, only asked what good reason is there for shelter groups to discriminate based upon gender - so isn't his implication of hypocrisy against me (and basically an entire gender) baseless and not valid, and just a distraction from the actual arguments I made?

Because these shelters are to provide a safe space for that particular demographic that they cater to, and so that they can provide adequate services in safety to those people.

A mere handful of people suggesting they wouldn't have an issue with shared shelters doesn't mean that the vast majority wouldn't have an issue with them. ie - a male victim of domestic violence may be perceived as a threat to their safety by female victims of domestic violence, and a female victim of domestic violence may be perceived as a threat by male victims of domestic violence, and that's even before you'd get into the issues of the dynamics involved in trying to provide support services tailored specifically for either gender.

Shelters main priority is providing a safe space for a particular client profile, they're not concerned with gender equality, nor should they be.

I'm not sure why you keep pushing for gender equality instead of arguing for more support for male victims of domestic violence tbh.

That's part of why I avoid replying to him - all debates with him on gender-based topics, turn into something like that; then if you engage him in debate, it just becomes multiple pages of multiquote-spot-the-fallacy/whack-a-mole, and quickly the original point gets totally lost.

The original point is only lost because you're more concerned with playing spot the fallacy instead of answering a simple question, and that's when it turns into a multiquote-fest as I try to address each of your points that are completely off the point. A debate at least has a set specific number of points, whereas a discussion (this is a discussion forum) can include any number of points of view, unless of course you choose to ignore other peoples points of view because you have no answer for them.

KomradeBishop

Every one of your posts turns into a multiquote-fest, even when posters make a point of ignoring you, as there is little point dealing with your usually-fallacious arguments - taking the above post as an example, you start off by replying to "what good reason is there for shelter groups to discriminate based upon gender" by answering:
"Because these shelters are to provide a safe space for that particular demographic that they cater to"
i.e. 'because they discriminate based on gender', a circular argument, which leaves me happy to discard the rest of your post.

I mean, look at some of the shíte you've come out with so far on this thread - I feel no need to reply to any of the points you make:

Czarcasm wrote: »

Nope, I believe men just don't give a shìt about themselves the same way women do, quite simple really and no need for a scientific analysis. If you want men to care issues that affect men, you have to get them to care about themselves first, and then get them to care about each other.

Pointing fingers at women's support groups and saying they should care for men too gives the impression of men that want to revert back to childhood when women took care of them, if you really want to get all Freudian about it.

Czarcasm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

can you see how that comes across as kind of disingenuous/antagonistic, trying to block reform/discussion, rather than offering a useful criticism/suggestion?

Suggesting that men should not be trying to muscle in on organisations that provide support only to women is a valid suggestion. It's just not one you're willing to accept, because you think women's support organisations should be more concerned with gender equality.

Can you really not see how your ideas are antagonistic, disingenuous, disrespectful, not to mention completely unrealistic and simply never going to happen.

You're criticising organisations for not doing something that was never their original aim in setting up in the first place.

Czarcasm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Every one of your posts turns into a multiquote-fest, even when posters make a point of ignoring you, as there is little point dealing with your usually-fallacious arguments - taking the above post as an example, you start off by replying to "what good reason is there for shelter groups to discriminate based upon gender" by answering:
"Because these shelters are to provide a safe space for that particular demographic that they cater to"
i.e. 'because they discriminate based on gender', a circular argument, which leaves me happy to discard the rest of your post.

I mean, look at some of the shíte you've come out with so far on this thread - I feel no need to reply to any of the points you make:

So it's basically not good enough reason for you specifically then?

Well I'm ok with that, as it's not me is looking for women's support groups to support men, and you haven't given any good reason why they should either.

tritium

I don't think most people have any great problem with the idea, for example, that women's aid provide services for women who experience domestic violence. That bits they have a problem with include some of the following:

-the massively disproportionate allocation of funds between female and male victims. Women's aid is 2/3 state funded while amen only in recent years started to receive state funding.

- the propagation of deliberately misleading statistics such as that "women are massively overrepresented as victims of DV" by a large number of support groups and their spokespeople even though the statistics don't support this.

-the proliferation of this same fallicy by government even though their own statistics show otherwise.

-The willingness of uncritical media to give a platform to this nonsense without challenge while largely ignoring the other half of the issue.

-The use of gender stereotyping in campaigns against DV by organisations that receive state support.

This stuff actually matters! There's a reason for the historic (and ongoing) unwillingness amongst services like the gardai to take male DV victims seriously and its not just old school machismo. We have socially educated people to see 'woman =victim, man =aggressor' where DV is concerned. And by funding a fallicy we are continuing to do so.

Now I don't expect that women's aid for example are going to stop some of the fallacies they come out with if it will lead to a reduction in their funding. And with a finite pot they might quite logically assume that more for male DV victims really translates as a more equitable split of the same pot. I do however expect politicians and state services who are paid and funded by the taxpayer to not buy into populist nonsense that's easily disproved.

Equally I expect them to cherish all the people of this nation equally and ensure that victims have respite regardless of gender. Unfortunately there's currently more headlines been pictured with a women's aid demonstration outside Leinster house than doing the right thing. Our media can by extension take a slice of blame here, the IT for example has pushed one side of the problem while shamelessly ignoring the other

Some posters may say its up to men to fight for this. Frankly its not, the state has a duty of care here. Unfortunately (and as many women victims have found in the past) the only way to force that state to live up to their responsibilities is through he courts- an appaling vista

Czarcasm

tritium wrote: »

Some posters may say its up to men to fight for this. Frankly its not, the state has a duty of care here. Unfortunately (and as many women victims have found in the past) the only way to force that state to live up to their responsibilities is through he courts- an appaling vista

So basically tritium what you're saying is that men should bear no responsibility for advocating for themselves, and women's support groups that have fought for themselves, should now have to fight for men too?

Well you could blame everyone else but men for the current situation (and that'll continue to get you nowhere, and only come across like you're trying to discredit the work of women's support organisations, because that IS how it reads!), or you can encourage more men to care about men, because without public support among men, you're going to get nowhere either, because all they'll see is your efforts to discredit the work of women's support organisations, and there's not too many men will think very highly of any men trying to do that.

tritium

Czarcasm wrote: »

So basically tritium what you're saying is that men should bear no responsibility for advocating for themselves, and women's support groups that have fought for themselves, should now have to fight for men too?

Well you could blame everyone else but men for the current situation (and that'll continue to get you nowhere, and only come across like you're trying to discredit the work of women's support organisations, because that IS how it reads!), or you can encourage more men to care about men, because without public support among men, you're going to get nowhere either, because all they'll see is your efforts to discredit the work of women's support organisations, and there's not too many men will think very highly of any men trying to do that.

Nice way to twist my words C!

Did you actually read my post or just scan it for outrage? The (pretty clear) point is that the state has a responsibility to its citizens, even its male citizens. Unfortunately it, as it has done in the past, generally tries to dodge this. That however doesn't excuse it accepting and indeed helping to fund a proliferation of innacurate nonsense designed to discredit and marginalise those (men and women) who are actually fighting for supports in this area.

Do you actually disagree that this has happened or are you just arguing that the statistics they've represented are accurate. You've a tendency in previous posts to argue that men's groups don't get the funding because they don't lobby for it/ spend too much time trying to point score etc. So straight up question, do you disagree that inaccurate statements about DV have been put out as accepted fact? Do you accept the statistics indicating near parity between male and female victims?

Czarcasm

I think you should by now at least know me better than that tritium, I'm genuinely not intending to twist anything you're saying and I actually don't dispute anything you've said above.

The problem though as I see it with what you're saying is that you're missing the real issue. The issue is the perception in society of female on male domestic violence.

You keep directing people to look at the issue of male on female domestic violence and keep pointing out that they're getting funky with their figures and creating the perception that male on female domestic violence is more prevalent in society than it actually is. You're arguing against a perception by trying to focus people's attention on that perception, and people aren't making the link between that, and the issue of female on male domestic violence.

You're basically making yourself look bad by trying to make women's support groups look bad, when what you should be focussing people's attention on is the issue of female on male domestic violence, and encouraging support for that specific issue among men, rather than focusing on discrediting the work of other groups doing what they're supposed to be doing for women.

KomradeBishop

Ya the idea that people are trying to discredit womens support organizations is idiotic, and the only purpose of that accusation is to try to deliberately smear posters and inflame the debate, and get people into "Us vs Them" positions - where debating the entire topic will become impossible, because it is clear that arguments are being made in bad faith.

Posters have made it pretty clear they support tackling domestic abuse, and if anything I would argue posters want to promote existing domestic abuse institutions, in supporting all genders.

There is zero point in creating a whole new set of institutions and support networks from the ground up, for promoting public awareness and getting people help, when all of that is already built and put together, only needing policy adjustments to support more people - that both creates totally unnecessary obstacles, and is completely inefficient, through duplication of efforts.

Czarcasm

The point you consistently seem to be missing though KB, is that domestic violence will never be seen as a gender equality issue, ever.

You're arguing for diluting the support given to women, that's the way people see it, no matter how many times you argue that it's going to support male victims of domestic violence too.

People just won't see it that way, no matter how much you argue that they should.

Your argument is based on idealism about gender equality rather than the reality of gender based domestic violence.

KomradeBishop

You're speaking for yourself and then generalizing your point of view to all people, based on assertion alone - playing 'spot the fallacy' again here.

This is how you, personally, tank almost every thread on gender equality issues; every-single-post ends up having one or a bunch of really obvious fallacies built into its arguments, and you drag the quality of debate down to gutter-levels (while trying to misrepresent/smear the point of view of posters you disagree with - pulling them into responding to you when they'd probably rather not) - then any chance of actually debating the topic is soon gone.

hatrickpatrick

Candie wrote: »

I wouldn't agree, since the circumstances of the victims tend to be different with male and female victims, and advice suitable for male victims would be difficult for women victims to identify with and vice versa. Men can run into different problems to women in reporting, prosecuting and escaping domestic violence.

I don't see the problem with running parallel campaigns, with targeted information and advice.

Can you cite some examples of how advice geared towards one gender would be useless towards the other?
To be clear, I disagree fundamentally with the very term "violence against women" just as I would disagree fundamentally with the term "violence against men". Violence is wrong. Which demographic the person experiencing violence belongs to does not alter how horrible that is, and whether intentionally or not, the term "violence against women" gives the impression that women should be especially free from violence. This is obviously wrong and offensive to men, especially to those who have experienced identical violence to that which the media constantly portrays as only going in the other direction.

Czarcasm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You're speaking for yourself and then generalizing your point of view to all people, based on assertion alone - playing 'spot the fallacy' again here.

I'm clearly not just speaking for myself, because the whole point of us having this discussion is that you're arguing that society doesn't see female on male domestic violence in the same way as it views female on male domestic violence. So it isn't just me, which is the very issue you're trying to highlight!

This is how you, personally, tank almost every thread on gender equality issues; every-single-post ends up having one or a bunch of really obvious fallacies built into its arguments, and you drag the quality of debate down to gutter-levels (while trying to misrepresent/smear the point of view of posters you disagree with - pulling them into responding to you when they'd probably rather not) - then any chance of actually debating the topic is soon gone.

You're trying to build your argument off the built-in fallacy that society already views both genders equally, so there should be equal support for both genders.

There's nothing to be gained by you either by trying to make me responsible for your replying to my posts. I'm not responsible for your choice to respond to my posts.

If this were a thread on gender equality I wouldn't be here, as I have no interest in gender equality. Gender based domestic violence on the other hand...

KomradeBishop

None of my arguments have said anything about how society views 'female on male domestic violence' - another attempt by you to deliberately misrepresent what I have said, to try and fit it to your arguments.

You make arguments in bad faith, and make it 'almost' impossible to properly debate topics like this.

Maguined

Czarcasm wrote: »

I
If this were a thread on gender equality I wouldn't be here, as I have no interest in gender equality. Gender based domestic violence on the other hand...

What makes it gender based domestic violence and not simply domestic violence? Wibbs has already provided a report saying that domestic violence is experienced equally by both genders. Do you disagree with that report?

Czarcasm

Maguined wrote: »

What makes it gender based domestic violence and not simply domestic violence? Wibbs has already provided a report saying that domestic violence is experienced equally by both genders. Do you disagree with that report?

No, I don't disagree with that report at all. Does that report accurately reflect society's perception of domestic violence? Of course it doesn't.

In order to change that perception, you have to encourage more men to stand up, rather than telling women's support groups to sit down.

What makes it gender based domestic violence is that the perception of male perpetrated domestic violence against women is seen as a more prevalent issue in society than the issue of female perpetrated domestic violence against men.

Women's support groups are doing what they were set up to do. Men's support groups aren't doing what they were set up to do. Rather than offer support to men, their bigger concern seems to be that women shouldn't be doing what they're supposed to do. It's counter-productive, even from an egalitarian point of view.

Czarcasm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

None of my arguments have said anything about how society views 'female on male domestic violence' - another attempt by you to deliberately misrepresent what I have said, to try and fit it to your arguments.

You make arguments in bad faith, and make it 'almost' impossible to properly debate topics like this.

Well at least you acknowledge that much. Now how about instead of taking counter-productive swipes at me, you concentrate on convincing me that treating both genders equally is the best way to deal with domestic violence, because if you can't make a convincing argument for one person, good luck to you trying to make an argument to convince not only other men, but women also.

recylingbin

If i was indiscriminately violent in all my relationships, would I be a feminist?

KomradeBishop

Czarcasm wrote: »

Well at least you acknowledge that much. Now how about instead of taking counter-productive swipes at me, you concentrate on convincing me that treating both genders equally is the best way to deal with domestic violence, because if you can't make a convincing argument for one person, good luck to you trying to make an argument to convince not only other men, but women also.

Your reply here has absolutely zero relevance to any of my posts, and makes no logical sense as a reply at all - the tactic you are using in this particular post, is just to spout nonsense, to make it look like you have provided a substantive reply, to rebut someones post - just for the sake of point-scoring.

More arguing in bad faith.

This thread could lead to some interesting debates, which I would like to see and participate in, but that is not possible while you are tanking it with nonsense gutter-level arguments like this.

There's not even any value added to the thread by rebutting all of the fallacies in your arguments, it just blocks all discussion; the only way to contest it, is to try and directly show other posters, exactly what you're doing and how it's harmful to debate.

Czarcasm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

the only way to contest it, is to try and directly show other posters, exactly what you're doing and how it's harmful to debate.

You've essentially got nothing then, and you expect everyone to come round to your way of thinking before you'll ask them to support your ideas.

I'm sure I don't need to point out the gaping hole in your logic.

Maguined

Czarcasm wrote: »

What makes it gender based domestic violence is that the perception of male perpetrated domestic violence against women is seen as a more prevalent issue in society than the issue of female perpetrated domestic violence against men.

Women's support groups are doing what they were set up to do. Men's support groups aren't doing what they were set up to do. Rather than offer support to men, their bigger concern seems to be that women shouldn't be doing what they're supposed to do. It's counter-productive, even from an egalitarian point of view.

Do you not think there is a direct link between societies belief that violence against women is more prevalent due to the continuing use of false statistics proposing such a prevalence?

Do you believe the ends justifies the means? IF a womans support group used false statistics to imply women suffer significantly higher rates of domestic abuse compared to men to justify receiving more government funding do you find this acceptable because they are still achieving their desired goal or do you find it unacceptable to achieve a goal through dishonest means?

What more do you want mens groups to do? They setup a single shelter that was eventually shut down due to lack of funding. They receive barely any government funding because it is all spent on womens shelters because they believe women encounter significantly more domestic violence than men which is perfectly logical thinking.

So the only way mens groups can get more funding for male victims of domestic violence is to point out that men actually encounter the same rates which you criticise them for just trying to devalue the womens groups.

KomradeBishop

Czarcasm wrote: »

You've essentially got nothing then, and you expect everyone to come round to your way of thinking before you'll ask them to support your ideas.

I'm sure I don't need to point out the gaping hole in your logic.

More nonsense - me wanting to show other posters exactly how your method of argument is in bad faith and regularly filled with fallacious argument, somehow means I "expect everyone to come round to [my] way of thinking before 'll ask them to support [my] ideas".

Your reply is an exact template of your last one: It makes absolutely no logical sense, as a reply to my post, it is used only to provide the pretense of rebutting my post - for point scoring (as well as this time trying to smear me, by painting me as holding views which I do not).

I will keep pointing out your dishonest methods of argument; there's no point engaging with fallacious arguments, but I'll point them out so others can see them clearly.

krudler

Czarcasm wrote: »

I was only working off my experience of talking to both men and women, although I do tend to talk to women more frequently as most of my friends are women. My closest friend however is a man I've known nearly 20 years, and we talk about all manner of personal stuff - because we care for each other. How is that not the same as the women you gave in your example that care about each other?

You're hardly alone in being there for friends who need to talk about stuff, I dont know any guys who dont have mates they can go to about personal issues, myself included.

Yeah_Right

Czarcasm wrote: »

No, I don't disagree with that report at all. Does that report accurately reflect society's perception of domestic violence? Of course it doesn't.

In order to change that perception, you have to encourage more men to stand up, rather than telling women's support groups to sit down.

What makes it gender based domestic violence is that the perception of male perpetrated domestic violence against women is seen as a more prevalent issue in society than the issue of female perpetrated domestic violence against men.

Women's support groups are doing what they were set up to do. Men's support groups aren't doing what they were set up to do. Rather than offer support to men, their bigger concern seems to be that women shouldn't be doing what they're supposed to do. It's counter-productive, even from an egalitarian point of view.

Read through this thread and I can't find anyone telling women's groups to "sit down". People seem to be pointing out that the funding from the government is skewed in favour of women's groups to the detriment of men's groups.

In relation to domestic violence -
Should men's groups do more? Yes.
Should women's groups do less? No.
Should men's groups receive more funding than they do now? Yes.
Should women's groups receive less funding? No.

You are the only one making it into an Us vs. Them argument.

Czarcasm

Maguined wrote: »

Do you not think there is a direct link between societies belief that violence against women is more prevalent due to the continuing use of false statistics proposing such a prevalence?

I think the general perception in society that domestic violence against women is more prevalent has very little to do with statistics, and more to do with the perception of women as the weaker sex. There's more of a direct link can be made between the general public's misunderstanding of domestic violence, and the perception that men are the main perpetrators of domestic violence. The general public doesn't really care for statistics, they're more affected by perception.

Do you believe the ends justifies the means? IF a womans support group used false statistics to imply women suffer significantly higher rates of domestic abuse compared to men to justify receiving more government funding do you find this acceptable because they are still achieving their desired goal or do you find it unacceptable to achieve a goal through dishonest means?

I have to be honest, if I were in their position, I can't say I wouldn't do the very same thing as they're doing, because when I'm looking for funding, I'll fudge the numbers as much as possible in order to get as much funding as possible.

What more do you want mens groups to do? They setup a single shelter that was eventually shut down due to lack of funding. They receive barely any government funding because it is all spent on womens shelters because they believe women encounter significantly more domestic violence than men which is perfectly logical thinking.

See you're arguing using logic, when most people in society when they think of domestic violence, they base their judgment on emotion. Logic takes a back seat.

What do I want men's support groups to do? Start thinking about who they're supposed to be advocating for - men. Start raising awareness among men of their existence, start encouraging more men to make reports, start advocating for men when looking for funding, rather than expecting women's support groups to play fair and give up funding that they need just as badly as men's support groups do. Start promoting themselves among the general public and ask more men to get involved.

Increased awareness is directly related to increased funding from the general public.

So the only way mens groups can get more funding for male victims of domestic violence is to point out that men actually encounter the same rates which you criticise them for just trying to devalue the womens groups.

Ehh, no, I criticise them for trying to devalue women's support groups. By all means point out that men suffer domestic violence, but focus on the sole aim of highlighting the plight of male victims of domestic violence, rather than pointing out the fact that women don't suffer as much from domestic violence as women's support groups say they do. That's only likely to paint men's support groups in a very bad light, and that's unlikely to do their public perception any favours.

hatrickpatrick

Czarcasm - how do you feel about the term "violence against women" for starters?

krudler

Czarcasm wrote: »

Ehh, no, I criticise them for trying to devalue women's support groups. By all means point out that men suffer domestic violence, but focus on the sole aim of highlighting the plight of male victims of domestic violence, rather than pointing out the fact that women don't suffer as much from domestic violence as women's support groups say they do. That's only likely to paint men's support groups in a very bad light, and that's unlikely to do their public perception any favours.

Links? Can't ever remember seeing a men's group do this, showing that more domestic violence is suffered by men that goes reported sure, but that women's groups are making things up?

Czarcasm

krudler wrote: »

You're hardly alone in being there for friends who need to talk about stuff, I dont know any guys who dont have mates they can go to about personal issues, myself included.

I don't know any guys either who don't have mates who they can go to about personal issues. I know plenty of men that won't though.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Surely the same can be said about women though? Plenty of women don't want to talk about something that might be happening, not feel comfortable or safe discussing their life with people. Why is it gender specific? No two people are the same. You can't just lump them all into the same category

Czarcasm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Czarcasm - how do you feel about the term "violence against women" for starters?

I don't understand what you mean Patrick tbh?

"Violence against women"... I don't feel any way about it? I wouldn't encourage it if that's what you mean?

It's like you just plonked that there and provided no context, so there's not much to think about.

Czarcasm

krudler wrote: »

Links? Can't ever remember seeing a men's group do this, showing that more domestic violence is suffered by men that goes reported sure, but that women's groups are making things up?

I didn't say that men's support groups did it. I was making the point that it serves no useful purpose in highlighting the plight of male victims of domestic violence for posters to point out that women's support groups are fudging the figures.

Yeah_Right

Czarcasm wrote: »

I have to be honest, if I were in their position, I can't say I wouldn't do the very same thing as they're doing, because when I'm looking for funding, I'll fudge the numbers as much as possible in order to get as much funding as possible.

It could be argued that that's fraud. Lying about your numbers to rip off the tax payer. So you are advocating fixing one crime by committing another crime.

krudler

Czarcasm wrote: »

I didn't say that men's support groups did it. I was making the point that it serves no useful purpose in highlighting the plight of male victims of domestic violence for posters to point out that women's support groups are fudging the figures.

Did anyone actually do that?

Czarcasm

krudler wrote: »

Did anyone actually do that?

Maguined wrote: »

Do you believe the ends justifies the means? IF a womans support group used false statistics to imply women suffer significantly higher rates of domestic abuse compared to men to justify receiving more government funding do you find this acceptable because they are still achieving their desired goal or do you find it unacceptable to achieve a goal through dishonest means?

The way I'm reading that suggests the possibility that women's support groups are fudging their figures in order to get increased funding.

I'm on mobile at the moment so I can't go back through the whole thread, nor previous threads on this issue where the same inferences were made.

Maguined

Czarcasm wrote: »

I think the general perception in society that domestic violence against women is more prevalent has very little to do with statistics, and more to do with the perception of women as the weaker sex. There's more of a direct link can be made between the general public's misunderstanding of domestic violence, and the perception that men are the main perpetrators of domestic violence. The general public doesn't really care for statistics, they're more affected by perception.

Perception is not conjured up out of nowhere, it is based upon statistics. No one woke up and assumes which gender initiates domestic violence based on nothing, people perceive men initiate it more because they are being told by false statistics and lobby groups that this is the case.

Czarcasm wrote: »

I have to be honest, if I were in their position, I can't say I wouldn't do the very same thing as they're doing, because when I'm looking for funding, I'll fudge the numbers as much as possible in order to get as much funding as possible.

So you believe it is perfectly acceptable for an organisation to be purposefully dishonest to secure government funding? Does it not make sense to other organisations that will receive less funding as a result of these dishonest figures to want to highlight this dishonesty to try and get more funding?

Do you not think you are being hypocritical when you approve one organisation to purposefully use false statistic to receive government funding but then to criticise another organisation to point out this dishonesty?

Czarcasm wrote: »

See you're arguing using logic, when most people in society when they think of domestic violence, they base their judgment on emotion. Logic takes a back seat.

What do I want men's support groups to do? Start thinking about who they're supposed to be advocating for - men. Start raising awareness among men of their existence, start encouraging more men to make reports, start advocating for men when looking for funding, rather than expecting women's support groups to play fair and give up funding that they need just as badly as men's support groups do. Start promoting themselves among the general public and ask more men to get involved.

Increased awareness is directly related to increased funding from the general public.

I was talking about government funding. Do you not think the government should be logical with how they assign support funding rather than emotional?

All of your suggestions require funding, so does it not make sense that their direct their energies at receiving more state funding (by pointing out how disproportionate the current split is) so that they can fund these other initiatives?

Czarcasm wrote: »

Ehh, no, I criticise them for trying to devalue women's support groups. By all means point out that men suffer domestic violence, but focus on the sole aim of highlighting the plight of male victims of domestic violence, rather than pointing out the fact that women don't suffer as much from domestic violence as women's support groups say they do. That's only likely to paint men's support groups in a very bad light, and that's unlikely to do their public perception any favours.

I have never seen any mens group devalue the women's support groups, merely devalue the disproportionate split in funding which is realistically the only way they can get the funding they need to provide the services they are supposed to.

Czarcasm

Yeah_Right wrote: »

It could be argued that that's fraud. Lying about your numbers to rip off the tax payer. So you are advocating fixing one crime by committing another crime.

Good luck to you trying to argue that, but because I don't see it that way I don't see anything illegal going on. Therefore your assertion that I'm advocating criminal activity is about as useful as KB critiquing my posting style like nobody else is capable of reading them.

Maguined

Czarcasm wrote: »

The way I'm reading that suggests the possibility that women's support groups are fudging their figures in order to get increased funding.

I'm on mobile at the moment so I can't go back through the whole thread, nor previous threads on this issue where the same inferences were made.

I put that in bold to highlight I was asking a hypothetical question not a statement. Just as your answer to the hypothetical question was that you can't say you wouldn't behave in the same way is not you actually saying you are acting in the exact same way.

Czarcasm

Maguined wrote: »

Perception is not conjured up out of nowhere, it is based upon statistics. No one woke up and assumes which gender initiates domestic violence based on nothing, people perceive men initiate it more because they are being told by false statistics and lobby groups that this is the case.

You're right, they don't, they base it on the fact that they see men as generally stronger than women, and therefore assume that because women are weaker, they're unlikely to be the initiator of physical violence. That's most people's understanding of domestic violence, is that it's only violence if it's physical. They don't particularly care enough to consider that domestic violence also includes psychological violence that can be perpetrated by either gender.

So you believe it is perfectly acceptable for an organisation to be purposefully dishonest to secure government funding? Does it not make sense to other organisations that will receive less funding as a result of these dishonest figures to want to highlight this dishonesty to try and get more funding?

I never said I thought it was acceptable, but I understand why it's necessary. I can live with that. I genuinely don't see how it benefits the perception of other organizations in pointing out the dishonesty of organizations looking for funding as it will just reflect badly on them.

Do you not think you are being hypocritical when you approve one organisation to purposefully use false statistic to receive government funding but then to criticise another organisation to point out this dishonesty?

I don't see anything hypocritical in encouraging ANY organizations to fudge their figures in order to get increased funding for themselves. I would say the same if women's support groups were to point out the dishonesty in men's support groups fudging their figures.

I was talking about government funding. Do you not think the government should be logical with how they assign support funding rather than emotional?

In a perfect world, everything would be logical and organizations would put forward accurate figures and nobody would fudge the statistics. Governments would also allocate funding logically. They should, but the reality is they don't, and they won't.

All of your suggestions require funding, so does it not make sense that their direct their energies at receiving more state funding (by pointing out how disproportionate the current split is) so that they can fund these other initiatives?

It may be just me, but I would sooner encourage raising awareness among the general public and organise fundraising events that engage public interest rather than depend on Government for funding. You're only going to torment yourself trying to get funding from Government by pointing out how unfair it is that another organization got more than you did. State agencies aren't known for distributing funding in the most logical manner.

I have never seen any mens group devalue the women's support groups, merely devalue the disproportionate split in funding which is realistically the only way they can get the funding they need to provide the services they are supposed to.

So no fundraising among the public then? How is that supposed to raiise awareness of their existence? I would think if you wanted the public to support your aims, the last place you'd start looking for support is from State agencies.

I'm personally not a fan of encouraging organizations to offer themselves as franchises to do the States dirty work for them and be completely dependent on the likes of the HSE for their continued existence.

Bafucin

Czarcasm wrote: »

So no fundraising among the public then? How is that supposed to raiise awareness of their existence? I would think if you wanted the public to support your aims, the last place you'd start looking for support is from State agencies.

I'm personally not a fan of encouraging organizations to offer themselves as franchises to do the States dirty work for them and be completely dependent on the likes of the HSE for their continued existence.

You are nuts!

That is taking misogynistic paranoia on to a whole new level.

This whole thread is nuts.

The OP was an obvious baiting tool. I am actually quite concerned about some of the posts I have read.

Czarcasm

Czarcasm wrote: »

It is for you, it's not for me.

So you have no issue with more funding going towards women even though the majority of victims are men?

Because I'm not interested in campaigns for men that just strike me as just a campaign of bitterness against women.

Good one.

If I were in your position, I wouldn't be finding any of this very funny at all. In fact I'd be finding it pathetic, and I'd be looking for a way to distance myself from such nonsense and look to promoting positive support among men, for men, with men in mind, and not just sharing bitter anecdotes about bitches.

You were saying something about strawman arguments earlier?

Yeah, that's exactly what I said. I'm off now tbh, stupid thread has just descended to new levels of stupidity, and when that happens, people stop taking anything you say seriously, and they stop listening, and they don't bother entertaining you any more.

You posted quite a bit since. Funny that.

Bafucin

Deleted User wrote: »

So you have no issue with more funding going towards women even though the majority of victims are men?

Because I'm not interested in campaigns for men that just strike me as just a campaign of bitterness against women. Good one.

Good one.

The majority are not men. This IS just bitterness against women.

mrkiscool2

Bafucin wrote: »

The majority are not men. This IS just bitterness against women.

Ok, we have already backed up our claim. Now you back up yours with figures from an independent report, not one from Women's Aid or any other organisation that supports women who have been domestically assualted. Also, we aren't looking to victimise women or blame women's groups. We are just looking for more awareness and funding for male victims of domestic violence. It's not that much to ask to be honest!

krudler

wtf is this thread even about anymore?

krudler

krudler wrote: »

wtf is this thread even about anymore?

I think, though I'm not sure, that I'm a bitter, woman-beating pick-up artist.

Wibbs

Bafucin wrote: »

The majority are not men. This IS just bitterness against women.

Going by the stats where the abuse leads to serious injury and death the majority are women. UK figures as far as partner murders are concerned show around a 7 to 3 ratio and the stats for serious show a bigger majority of women victims. In longterm "low level" non reciprocal abuse, one sided, one partner abuse, emotional and physical, it seems this trend reverses and men are more likely to suffer from it and women are more likely to instigate it.

The main difference is that partner abuse where the woman is the victim is far more highlighted, it is more "acceptable" and encouraged for a woman to come forward and has she far more of a support system in place should a she as a victim of such abuse seek support.

This wasn't always the case. Not even close. Even a generation ago it was hidden, often shameful and support was scant, yet much has changed for the better in the intervening years and more can certainly be done on the support system front, but let's not leave one gender behind living in the 1950's while we do so.