Violence in Relationships Towards Women Needs To Stop

V.W.L 11

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

No. No it doesn't. Who on earth would say it does?

Man goes to cop shop "wife has beaten the living sh1t out of me,no further action! "man beats woman" woman goes to cops,man gets charges,convicted,jailed,stopped from seeing kids (if any) name published in court reports,need I go on????? :rolleyes:

women were complaining at the ill treatment they received in unmarried mothers homes decades ago,in decades to come men will look back on the justice system for how they were treated in the family law courts!

tritium

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

Its worth noting in the statistics above that under no cut of them is it possible let to come up with the arguement often proferred on behalf of some women's group that 'the vast majority of victims are women'. The figures for partner murder are also insightful reflecting the reality that the physical difference in gender is often offset by the use of weapons far more frequently when the woman is the abuser - again the claim is often put that women are vastly more likely to suffer violent death at the hand of their partner but a 70:30 split scarcely supports this. There is of course the counter claimn oft made of self defensive violence, yet the statistics on who typically initiates mutual violence significantly undermine this.

One of the interesting things to note is how fluid the use of statistics often is. Women's groups fought for a long time to have emotional violence included in DV stats. However the downside there is that the figures for male victims actually go up in relative terms when you include that (as an aside many groups have actively fought to prevent long term emotional needling -basically nagging on speed left out here because that would make the numbers shift even more towards male victims). As a result its stark how often the emphasis is put back on violence in domestic abuse to get the most dramatic separation possible. Yet on the same breath the figures for total numbers of victims invariably scoop up anything that can fit in the pot!

Bafucin

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

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!

just kill me now

mrkiscool2

Bafucin wrote: »

just kill me now

Good debating there, really concise argument.

Rubberchikken

There's no need for violence in any relationship.

mrkiscool2

Rubberchikken wrote: »

There's no need for violence in any relationship.

I think that's what we are trying to point out the fact that there needs to be an increase of funding for supports for male victims of domestic violence.

Bafucin

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Good debating there, really concise argument.

oh gawd make it stop..

Bafucin

Loro hanno i piatti wrote: »

If you're not interested is discussing points made then I'd suggest you do everyone a favour and leave the thread.

Done.

V.W.L 11

Bafucin wrote: »

Done.

hhhmmm account closed!!!I suspect he'll get withdrawal symptoms and be a re-reg by the end of the week

dark crystal

krudler wrote: »

Did anyone actually do that?

Yes...

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Wow, you did not just use a report commissioned by an organisation that gets funding because women are abused in relationships, did you? Of course it is going to say the majority of domestic violence is committed by men against women, funding and jobs depend on it. Also, you know its bogus because even the most conservative report has males as being the victim in 40% of all domestic abuse cases. There is a report posted twice in this thread, I suggest you find it and read it!

I posted a link containing statistics from a number of sources including the WHO, an EU report on domestic violence, the British Home Office, Dublin Rape Crisis Centre, the National Crime Council and ESRI, Domestic Abuse of Women and Men in Ireland, the Male Victims of Domestic Violence: A Substantive and Methodology Research Review and An Garda Siochana Annual Report, 2003.

These statistics were labeled as bogus because they were included in a Women's Aid site and as such, must have all been commissioned by said site, which of course wasn't the case.

mrkiscool2

dark crystal wrote: »

Yes...



I posted a link containing statistics from a number of sources including the WHO, an EU report on domestic violence, the British Home Office, Dublin Rape Crisis Centre, the National Crime Council and ESRI, Domestic Abuse of Women and Men in Ireland, the Male Victims of Domestic Violence: A Substantive and Methodology Research Review and An Garda Siochana Annual Report, 2003.

These statistics were labeled as bogus because they were included in a Women's Aid site and as such, must have all been commissioned by said site, which of course wasn't the case.

My bad, I couldn't be bothered reading it and assumed it was a commissioned report. However, it very much picks and chooses what backs it's main goal up. Also, women are way more likely to report domestic violence. A lot of statistics taken from the site are using crime statistics. Any report worth it's salt knows that there is more to domestic violence than reported instances.

tritium

krudler wrote: »

Did anyone actually do that?

Did anyone say women's groups are fudging the figures? Yes, I did! Take this gem from the FAQs section on women's aid.ie;

Who is affected by domestic violence?
Domestic Violence is a serious crime that affects 1 in 5 women in Ireland (Making the Links, 1995). Domestic violence occurs in every social and economic grouping of society, all ethnic groups and cultures and among people of every educational background. There is no "type" of woman to whom it occurs, and there is no "type" of home in which it happens. Sadly, domestic violence is a feature of contemporary family life.

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

Over 30 years of data and research have confirmed that men are generally the perpetrators of domestic violence and that women are generally the victims. Irish and worldwide research - as well as data from hospitals and police stations all over the world - reveal a consistent pattern of violence in intimate relationships where men are the perpetrators 90 per cent of the time. This violence frequently results in physical injury, often serious, and sometimes results in death. Of the 190 female murders in Ireland since 1996, 54% of the resolved cases were committed by a husband, ex-husband, partner or ex-partner.

The 2005 National Crime Council and ESRI research into the domestic abuse of women and men in Ireland found that 1 in 7 women in Ireland compared to 1 in 17 men experience severe domestic violence. Women are over twice as likely as men to have experienced severe physical abuse, seven times more likely to have experienced sexual abuse, and are more likely to experience serious injuries than men. According to the research, women are twice as likely to be injured as a result of domestic abuse; more likely to experience serious injuries; more likely to require medical attention as a result of abuse; and the impact of the abuse in terms of fear, distress and health impacts is more significant for women than men. (NCC & ERSI, 2005)

What about male victims?
Since 1974, Women's Aid has existed to support women and children experiencing domestic violence. That is one of our principal objectives and the basis from which we work. Statistics show that in most incidents of domestic violence women are the victims, but we recognise that a small percentage of men experience domestic violence. We are unable to support male victims of domestic violence but there are other organisations that do. If you are a man who is being abused, please access www.cosc.ie

It pretty much covers all the bases I alluded to. The claim throughout that men are a tiny minority of victims. The selective use of key statistics (some of which aren't particularly consistent with each other) to force a particular slant to any given paragraph. The repeated use of men predator/ women victims mantras. This unfortunate slice of bile tells us for example that men are the perpetrators 90% of the time but then offers a figures of 1 in 7 vs 1 in 17 for female to male victims of severe domestic violence. Its nonsense but it goes unchallenged (yes you can do all sorts of social science acrobatics to explain how it could happen but let's have some realism)

It talks about a small percentage of men being victims of DV. Well if we take the stats for severe DV that women's aid offer 1/17 translates to a small percentage. Oddly that see fit to ignore that 1/7 isn't a huge percentage either. That's before you point out that their selective use of extreme DV here (but not elsewhere) is somewhat self serving, since the percentages are much closer (and obviously higher) when all forms of domestic abuse are rolled up.

Basically its tabloid level propaganda. But sadly its a propaganda that has been effectively drummed into society and forms part of government policy.

Carlos Orange

dark crystal wrote: »

These statistics were labeled as bogus because they were included in a Women's Aid site and as such, must have all been commissioned by said site, which of course wasn't the case.

A series of claims gets more credibility when it links to the source material. Almost none of the claims on that page link back to the source material.

The first section is labelled "Prevalence of domestic violence in Ireland" and yet it makes no mention of violence against men. If you read that section at face value 100% of domestic violence in Ireland is against women. 5 of the 6 referenced stats are from bodies or reports that only study violence against women. They are inherently incapable of presenting the "Prevalence of domestic violence in Ireland". Here is the 6th stat.

"National Research by the National Crime Council found that 1 in 7 women have experienced severe abusive behaviour of a physical, sexual or emotional nature from a partner at some times in their lives."

Here is a quote from a page on www.esri.ie about the report

"The report shows that 15 per cent of women (or about one in seven) and six per cent of men (or one in 16) have experienced severely abusive behaviour of a physical, sexual or emotional nature from an intimate partner at some time in their lives."

https://www.esri.ie/news_events/press_releases_archive/2005/domestic_abuse_of_women_a/index.xml

So that source indicates domestic violence is 70:30 split between female and male victims.

Maybe the other sections are better but it isn't a promising start.

dark crystal

tritium wrote: »

Did anyone say women's groups are fudging the figures? Yes, I did! Take this gem from the FAQs section on women's aid.ie;



It pretty much covers all the bases I alluded to. The claim throughout that men are a tiny minority of victims. The selective use of key statistics (some of which aren't particularly consistent with each other) to force a particular slant to any given paragraph. The repeated use of men predator/ women victims mantras. This unfortunate slice of bile tells us for example that men are the perpetrators 90% of the time but then offers a figures of 1 in 7 vs 1 in 17 for female to male victims of severe domestic violence. Its nonsense but it goes unchallenged (yes you can do all sorts of social science acrobatics to explain how it could happen but let's have some realism)

It talks about a small percentage of men being victims of DV. Well if we take the stats for severe DV that women's aid offer 1/17 translates to a small percentage. Oddly that see fit to ignore that 1/7 isn't a huge percentage either. That's before you point out that their selective use of extreme DV here (but not elsewhere) is somewhat self serving, since the percentages are much closer (and obviously higher) when all forms of domestic abuse are rolled up.

Basically its tabloid level propaganda. But sadly its a propaganda that has been effectively drummed into society and forms part of government policy.

Seriously, how do you even begin to debate issues like domestic violence when words like bile and propaganda are used against an organisation like that? Accusing them of cherrypicking, fudging figures etc. when any links are provided.
Women's Aid provide support for female victims of domestic violence - the clue is in the name -AMEN supports male victims of domestic violence - there's a clue in that name too. Both do great work and don't set out to demonise anyone, but exist to help their core demographic.

It's been said that this issue shouldn't become an 'us vs them' battle, but that's exactly what every thread on this topic becomes.

mrkiscool2

dark crystal wrote: »

Seriously, how do you even begin to debate issues like domestic violence when words like bile and propaganda are used against an organisation like that? Accusing them of cherrypicking, fudging figures etc. when any links are provided.
Women's Aid provide support for female victims of domestic violence - the clue is in the name -AMEN supports male victims of domestic violence - there's a clue in that name too. Both do great work and don't set out to demonise anyone, but exist to help their core demographic.

It's been said that this issue shouldn't become an 'us vs them' battle, but that's exactly what every thread on this topic becomes.

No, it's not an "us vs them" battle, far from it. You won't find a single poster on here who claims that women's shelters and support services should get less funding We are just saying the way they go about getting their funding is wrong (we can pretty much say most propaganda is wrong). We are also saying that there needs to be more funding and better services for male victims of domestic violence, as well as removal of the stigma that men shouldn't be beaten up by women or that men are more likely to commit domestic violence.

tritium

dark crystal wrote: »

Seriously, how do you even begin to debate issues like domestic violence when words like bile and propaganda are used against an organisation like that? Accusing them of cherrypicking, fudging figures etc. when any links are provided.
Women's Aid provide support for female victims of domestic violence - the clue is in the name -AMEN supports male victims of domestic violence - there's a clue in that name too. Both do great work and don't set out to demonise anyone, but exist to help their core demographic.

It's been said that this issue shouldn't become an 'us vs them' battle, but that's exactly what every thread on this topic becomes.

Look I absolutely support the provision of services and funding for female DV victims. I absolutely accept that separate services for men and women are appropriate. What I don't support is the use of misinformation or fudging to push an agenda. I also dont support a system that works to deny services to male DV victims by minimising them.

Another poster has said it's up to men to argue for what they need. Well part if that is to challenge the deliberate innacuricies and distortion that act as a barrier to men getting the services they need. That's not to diminish the experience of female victims, but equally its wrong not to challenge attempts to diminish the experience of MALE victims. And that's exactly what the section I linked to does- small percentage, vast majority...these read like a guidebook on how to misconstrue statistics. And the complexity of the text gives a pretty good indicator that its no accident. What is the text I quoted except propaganda? Its certainly not the unvarnished truth. You talk about how people make it a 'them and us'thing but material like like takes it there long before I entered the debate. And I refuse to take the moral high ground when crap like that is being used to help maintain the utterly inadequate status quo.

Simple question dark crystal, do you think the section I quoted is a fair representation of the statistics? Would you agree it fudges the statistics?

Little CuChulainn

V.W.L 11 wrote: »

Man goes to cop shop "wife has beaten the living sh1t out of me,no further action! "man beats woman" woman goes to cops,man gets charges,convicted,jailed,stopped from seeing kids (if any) name published in court reports,need I go on????? :rolleyes:

women were complaining at the ill treatment they received in unmarried mothers homes decades ago,in decades to come men will look back on the justice system for how they were treated in the family law courts!

This kind of thing rarely happens. I've seen plenty of women prosecuted for violence against men and plenty of domestic violence orders issued against women. What I've noticed is that men who attempt to report domestic violence do so with an existing belief that reports from men aren't taken seriously, even if they've never had any interaction with the justice system before. It's not based on experience at all.

In my experience, it's bitter people like you that create the biggest obstacle to men coming forward. People who shout about how it's futile and embarrassing. When men go through the proper procedure they can get exactly the same protections as women.

KomradeBishop

dark crystal wrote: »

It's been said that this issue shouldn't become an 'us vs them' battle, but that's exactly what every thread on this topic becomes.

In fairness, criticizing groups for misleading statistics (and: I don't know if the stats are misleading, I haven't looked for myself yet), isn't pushing towards an Us vs Them set of arguments; what was pushing towards that though, was the dire quality of argument through much of the thread earlier - routine use of fallacies, deliberately painting other posters as holding views they don't, reframing what they say to create straw-men, i.e. just looked like argument in bad faith (n.b. you definitely didn't do any of this) - it was all of that which was pushing the thread towards 'Us vs Them' type stuff, and hopefully that stays out of the thread hereon.

People need to call that stuff out when they see it, especially when that kind of poor quality of argument, is in support of their own views - if it looks like only the 'other side' is contesting the poor quality of argument, it's still pushing towards 'Us vs Them' arguments, but someone on the 'same side' contesting it, destroys its credibility pretty quickly (I realize the irony of 'other side' and 'same side' here it's just the easiest way to explain it).
If people back that kind of poor quality of argument though, that is going to do more than anything else, to cement 'Us vs Them' positions.

FactCheck

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

This kind of thing rarely happens. I've seen plenty of women prosecuted for violence against men and plenty of domestic violence orders issued against women. What I've noticed is that men who attempt to report domestic violence do so with an existing belief that reports from men aren't taken seriously, even if they've never had any interaction with the justice system before. It's not based on experience at all.

In my experience, it's bitter people like you that create the biggest obstacle to men coming forward. People who shout about how it's futile and embarrassing. When men go through the proper procedure they can get exactly the same protections as women.

This. Do people really think the gardai don't believe women are violent? They see it literally every day. Do people think judges think women can't be domestic abusers? They remove children from violent, abusive mothers every day.

The justice system is well aware that the world is full of violent, abusive people and it will work to protect someone if they engage with it.

But coupled with the above misapprehension is the fact that people seem to be wildly overestimating how easy it is to leave an abusive situation if one is female. Er, no. It is incredibly difficult, refuges are not pleasant places to be, the vast majority of DV victims don't go anywhere near them. People complain about men having to leave their homes if they are victims - the reality is that the vast, vast majority of female victims also have to leave (and take a massive cut in their income/living standards/wealth).

Being a victim of domestic violence is rubbish no matter your gender. The charities set up to support victims are not overflowing with cash and resources - they are incredibly strained. Regardless of gender. None of them can adequately help everybody they set out to help. They need more money.

If everybody who has the time to write long posts on boards (and I include myself in that) instead contacted some of these charities and actually started helping out they would do infinitely more good than yet another identical thread outlining the same complaints.

It would be lovely if the next time one of these charities had a thread started about it, it was somebody describing the work they're involved in and explaining how more people could help. But I suspect it will just be the same old same old armchair generals moaning about how charities they've never contacted or worked for operate.

Czarcasm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

In fairness, criticizing groups for misleading statistics (and: I don't know if the stats are misleading, I haven't looked for myself yet), isn't pushing towards an Us vs Them set of arguments...

If people back that kind of poor quality of argument though, that is going to do more than anything else, to cement 'Us vs Them' positions.

That's exactly what it's doing. That's the poor argument. That's a logical fallacy called a red herring. In a discussion about how to support male victims of domestic violence, attacking women's support groups achieves nothing.

I'm not sure you understand the difference between a debate, and a discussion. Boards is a discussion forum, where everyone's opinion is welcome. If other people contributing to a discussion doesn't suit you, that's your tough titty. Kicking up your heels like a child and screaming "fallacy, fallacy, fallacy" contributes nothing to the discussion, and you have admitted already that you have contributed nothing on the subject.

Other people are perfectly capable of drawing their own conclusions from people's opinions, and hardly need you to point things out to them as if they're stupid and you're the smartest guy in the room, who has yet to actually contribute anything on topic to the discussion.

Little CuChulainn

Czarcasm wrote: »

That's exactly what it's doing. That's the poor argument. That's a logical fallacy called a red herring. In a discussion about how to support male victims of domestic violence, attacking women's support groups achieves nothing.

I'm not sure you understand the difference between a debate, and a discussion. Boards is a discussion forum, where everyone's opinion is welcome. If other people contributing to a discussion doesn't suit you, that's your tough titty. Kicking up your heels like a child and screaming "fallacy, fallacy, fallacy" contributes nothing to the discussion, and you have admitted already that you have contributed nothing on the subject.

Other people are perfectly capable of drawing their own conclusions from people's opinions, and hardly need you to point things out to them as if they're stupid and you're the smartest guy in the room, who has yet to actually contribute anything on topic to the discussion.

It's an odd state of affairs where you go to help someone and instead of being congratulated for doing good work you are criticised for not helping everyone else too.

tritium

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

It's an odd state of affairs where you go to help someone and instead of being congratulated for doing good work you are criticised for not helping everyone else too.

Why do folk always assume that people calling for recognition of male victims are attacking groups for women victims on the basis they're not offering these services to men?

As many people are probably getting tired of pointing out on this thread in general (im not going back through every post) criticism isnt being aimed at any group for helping victims.

Spinning figures and deliberately diminishing the suffering of a second group of victims however is a very different thing. If someone is influencing social policy to the detriment of a section of society on the basis of a lie then that should absolutely be called out.

The good news is all it would take to fix it is for these groups to accurately and fairly report the statistics out there- the numbers of victims across both genders are horrific enough without spin and I can't see society's sympathy diminishing just because a bigger and wider group is suffering. The bad news is no one can fix this except the groups themselves - when they behave with integrity in their interaction with media then it's far harder to disagree with them.

KomradeBishop

Czarcasm wrote: »

That's exactly what it's doing. That's the poor argument. That's a logical fallacy called a red herring. In a discussion about how to support male victims of domestic violence, attacking women's support groups achieves nothing.

I'm not sure you understand the difference between a debate, and a discussion. Boards is a discussion forum, where everyone's opinion is welcome. If other people contributing to a discussion doesn't suit you, that's your tough titty. Kicking up your heels like a child and screaming "fallacy, fallacy, fallacy" contributes nothing to the discussion, and you have admitted already that you have contributed nothing on the subject.

Other people are perfectly capable of drawing their own conclusions from people's opinions, and hardly need you to point things out to them as if they're stupid and you're the smartest guy in the room, who has yet to actually contribute anything on topic to the discussion.

You're entitled to your own opinion but you're not entitled to your own facts - and that's exactly the idiotic nonsense you're defending here: An organization potentially falsifying statistics, in order to get funding.

So no, Czarcasm, you can't just make shít up and have it be a valid 'opinion' - but that perfectly describes your quality of debate on this thread so far; right in the above post you're just making up yet more stuff that I never said as well, and are applying it to me: "you have admitted already that you have contributed nothing on the subject"

While you keep tanking the quality of debate in the thread - by literally making stuff up, deliberately misrepresenting what people say, and using reams of fallacious arguments (these don't qualify as being "just opinions", especially when you are directly defending potentially fraudulent statistics) - while you keep on doing that, I'm going to highlight every instance of it, and I'm going to encourage other posters to call you out on that too - because you destroy the quality of debate in every thread like this, in a way that pushes a poisonous "Us vs Them" divide.

Little CuChulainn

tritium wrote: »

Why do folk always assume that people calling for recognition of male victims are attacking groups for women victims on the basis they're not offering these services to men?

I don't assume that. People in this thread are clearly and overtly doing it.

tritium

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I don't assume that. People in this thread are clearly and overtly doing it.

Would you perhaps like to engage with the points being made here instead of just sniping?

What is your view on the use of statistics of various groups in this area? Do you agree or disagree that the statistics have been fudged? Would you accept or not that fudging occurs in the example I gave? Is it acceptable for a group to fudge statistics in the way I've indicated to secure funding and profile? Should we be cognisant of the very negative impact that fudging may have on other groups of victims?

Over to you

KomradeBishop

tritium wrote: »

Why do folk always assume that people calling for recognition of male victims are attacking groups for women victims on the basis they're not offering these services to men?

Ya it's ridiculous: Attacking potential statistical fraud does not equal 'attacking womens support groups'.

If anything, people in this thread are heavily in support of all domestic violence support groups, and want policy changes to increase support for groups lacking adequate support as well.

Why does this perception exist in the thread at all? It's due to an 'Us vs Them' divide having been successfully created in the thread - suddenly you can't criticize a group for potential statistical fraud, because it happens to be a womens support group.

This is why it's important for all posters, to call out people for really crap quality of argument; even (or especially) if you're friendly with someone and agree with their general views - pan-them and call them out for the crap quality of argument anyway, where you recognize it.
What worries me, is that some posters seem to indirectly/tacitly support that kind of poor quality of argument - which again creates a perception of an 'Us vs Them' divide.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Candie wrote: »

Just because a campaign is anti-violence against women doesn't mean it's pro-violence against men.

I can campaign for a blindness charity but it doesn't mean there's no room for a deafness charity.

Nothing wrong with that at all, but if you chose to campaign for blind women, well... that's sexist.

tritium

Katelyn Spoiled Vacuum wrote: »

Nothing wrong with that at all, but if you chose to campaign for blind women, well... that's sexist.

I'd actually be fine with a support group for blind women, more power to them for helping a deserving and needy group. Just so long as they don't try to tell me there are no blind men so can they have all the state funding available for victims of blindness.

Czarcasm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I'm going to encourage other posters to call you out on that too - because you destroy the quality of debate in every thread like this, in a way that pushes a poisonous "Us vs Them" divide.

Any opinion at all on supporting male victims of domestic violence WITHOUT attacking support groups for female victims of domestic violence then?

Czarcasm

tritium wrote: »

The good news is all it would take to fix it is for these groups to accurately and fairly report the statistics out there- the numbers of victims across both genders are horrific enough without spin and I can't see society's sympathy diminishing just because a bigger and wider group is suffering. The bad news is no one can fix this except the groups themselves - when they behave with integrity in their interaction with media then it's far harder to disagree with them.

Can you see society's sympathy diminishing for men who attack groups that offer support to female victims of domestic violence?

tritium

Czarcasm wrote: »

Can you see society's sympathy diminishing for men who attack groups that offer support to female victims of domestic violence?

That depends C, are we talking about an unwarranted attack driven by envy and mysogony? Or are we talking about a valid criticism of a policy to deliberatly distort statistics to the detriment of a needy group. In the former, sure. In the latter case,if the criticism is valid and properly articulated I'd suggest that it may not be the men who loose sympathy over time.

Now, your turn. Do you accept or not that the figures are being fudged?

Adamantium

I find it arbitary and surprising/hypocritical how people draw the line on violence, we just had a bullying thread where we had the majority of people say that if there kid was being mentally/physically bullied they'd tell their kid to stand his ground and fight.
You wouldn't let a stranger kid who isn't any sort of familial relation to you torture you for any length of time, but it seems that people would stand by and let men be tortured because its for the good of "perceived societal order"

What is moral and just about that "order"?

Shakespeare's Sister

Adamantium wrote: »

I find it arbitary and surprising/hypocritical how people draw the line on violence, we just had a bullying thread where we had the majority of people say that if there kid was being mentally/physically bullied they'd tell their kid to stand his ground and fight.
You wouldn't let a stranger kid who isn't any sort of familial relation to you torture you for any length of time, but it seems that people would stand by and let men be tortured because its for the good of "perceived societal order"

What is moral and just about that "order"?

People are standing by and letting men be tortured?

KomradeBishop

Czarcasm wrote: »

Any opinion at all on supporting male victims of domestic violence WITHOUT attacking support groups for female victims of domestic violence then?

This is the perfect example of gutter-level argument that people should pillory, for creating an 'Us vs Them' divide in the debate:
Czarcasm is stating that criticizing potential statistical fraud, is "attacking support groups for female victims of domestic violence", if the organization being criticized is for supporting women.

He tries to change it from an issue of statistical fraud, to an issue of 'Male DV support vs Female DV support'.

It's a completely dishonest gutter-level of argument, that more people should be calling him out on.

KomradeBishop

Adamantium wrote: »

I find it arbitary and surprising/hypocritical how people draw the line on violence, we just had a bullying thread where we had the majority of people say that if there kid was being mentally/physically bullied they'd tell their kid to stand his ground and fight.
You wouldn't let a stranger kid who isn't any sort of familial relation to you torture you for any length of time, but it seems that people would stand by and let men be tortured because its for the good of "perceived societal order"

What is moral and just about that "order"?

Nobody argued that?

V.W.L 11

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

This kind of thing rarely happens. I've seen plenty of women prosecuted for violence against men and plenty of domestic violence orders issued against women. What I've noticed is that men who attempt to report domestic violence do so with an existing belief that reports from men aren't taken seriously, even if they've never had any interaction with the justice system before. It's not based on experience at all.

In my experience, it's bitter people like you that create the biggest obstacle to men coming forward. People who shout about how it's futile and embarrassing. When men go through the proper procedure they can get exactly the same protections as women.

bitter?hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahah


no chance of that let me tell you,i've moved on from that troubled woman,whilst she avoided prosecution she didn't succeed in thrashing my relationship with my now wife,i've moved on and am glad I did,is it any wonder people on here wont sign up under their real names with clowns like yourself talking the way you just have to me!i expect you are a woman with that talk,but if you are a man you must be wearing a bloody knickers!!!!!

kryogen

UCDCritic wrote: »

Disclaimer: Some viewers may find this video upsetting.

I want to highlight this video to go with the campaign about stopping violence towards women in relationships and how women have to suffer in silence without a voice and if they try to speak about it no one will listen or mock them because they made a complaint

I thank you for watching.

Instead of making odd videos of her you should have just left her after she cheated on you the first on second time dude.

I say at this point you just accept your position as her bitch and make the best of it, she clearly has physical dominance over you too.

She is probably gonna beat the piss out of you when she sees this thread actually

Shakespeare's Sister

V.W.L 11 wrote: »

bitter?hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahah


no chance of that let me tell you,i've moved on from that troubled woman,whilst she avoided prosecution she didn't succeed in thrashing my relationship with my now wife,i've moved on and am glad I did,is it any wonder people on here wont sign up under their real names with clowns like yourself talking the way you just have to me!i expect you are a woman with that talk,but if you are a man you must be wearing a bloody knickers!!!!!

Why do you suspect they're a woman? Would your wife agree?
What gender were the guards who dismissed you?

Czarcasm

V.W.L 11 wrote: »

bitter?

...

but if you are a man you must be wearing a bloody knickers!!!!!

The irony.

You claim to be a male victim of domestic violence perpetrated by a woman, yet if another poster is a man they must be wearing women's knickers. You still perpetuate the 'women are inferior, men are superior' nonsense, despite the fact that it was a woman who made you feel inferior as a man.

It doesn't help when male victims of domestic violence are treated as though they are 'little women'. You wonder why male victims of domestic violence aren't taken seriously? Because some of them have really ****ty attitudes towards women and those people that want to help them.

That small but vocal minority of men does more to prevent other men from coming forward, than any amount of PR spin by women's support groups.

Czarcasm

Shredder5th wrote: »

Czarcasm you really do try your best to insult people don't you.

You spin things whatever way you want to suit your misaligned view of reality.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out propaganda and lies coming from an organisation. That propaganda is harmful to male victims of domestic abuse as it gives them less credibility when people view abuse on males as a tiny minority.

What gives male victims of domestic violence less credibility is the tiny minority of people who criticise women's groups that advocate for female victims of domestic violence.

How can you not see that if you are a male victim of domestic violence perpetrated by a woman, it's really not a good idea to criticise women's groups trying to help female victims of domestic violence?

Would it not be a better strategy to concentrate on advocating for male victims of domestic violence instead?

Czarcasm

tritium wrote: »

That depends C, are we talking about an unwarranted attack driven by envy and mysogony? Or are we talking about a valid criticism of a policy to deliberatly distort statistics to the detriment of a needy group. In the former, sure. In the latter case,if the criticism is valid and properly articulated I'd suggest that it may not be the men who loose sympathy over time.

Can you not see tritium that most people will see those two things as one and the same?

You may of course suggest that it may not be the men who lose sympathy over time, but I'd suggest it's far more likely that those men won't even get off the starting blocks while they continue to divert attention away from male victims of domestic violence, and focus on criticizing women's support groups for female victims of domestic violence.

Now, your turn. Do you accept or not that the figures are being fudged?

Of course the figures are being fudged, and spun, and twisted, and presented in such a way that maximises the impact of domestic violence on women, and almost ignores the impact of domestic violence on men.

You referred to "the domestic violence industry" before, and as distasteful as I found your description, I couldn't argue with it's accuracy in terms of getting support and funding from both the State, and from the general public. The reason I say that is because the financial side of these groups really are run like a business. They need to be, because they are competing with numerous other charities and groups all looking for funding from a finite pot.

So they will engage in spin, and misrepresentation of reality, and all sorts of tactics, in order to maximize funding. I'm sure you're aware of charities that pay professional fundraisers, pay huge sums to PR companies, run massive media campaigns, and then present the human face of the issue to the general public in an effort to tug at their heart strings, and their pockets.

You could spend the rest of your life, and then some, criticizing these groups and charities and 'calling them out' on what you see as their nonsense, misrepresentation of statistics, illogical arguments and all the rest of it, but do you think they'll give a shìt? Do you think anyone besides a tiny minority will give a shìt?

They won't. They'll see your efforts as bitter, and spiteful, and they really won't look at you too kindly for it. You can continue in that same vein, or you can actually do something to help yourself, and concentrate on male victims of domestic violence. Both men and women need support, but you won't gain support for men by criticizing women, and you won't be taken seriously as a male victim of domestic violence either if every second sentence out of your mouth is a bitter and spiteful diatribe against women. You really can't claim the supposedly egalitarian moral high ground after that.

tritium

Czarcasm wrote: »

Can you not see tritium that most people will see those two things as one and the same?

You may of course suggest that it may not be the men who lose sympathy over time, but I'd suggest it's far more likely that those men won't even get off the starting blocks while they continue to divert attention away from male victims of domestic violence, and focus on criticizing women's support groups for female victims of domestic violence.





Of course the figures are being fudged, and spun, and twisted, and presented in such a way that maximises the impact of domestic violence on women, and almost ignores the impact of domestic violence on men.

You referred to "the domestic violence industry" before, and as distasteful as I found your description, I couldn't argue with it's accuracy in terms of getting support and funding from both the State, and from the general public. The reason I say that is because the financial side of these groups really are run like a business. They need to be, because they are competing with numerous other charities and groups all looking for funding from a finite pot.

So they will engage in spin, and misrepresentation of reality, and all sorts of tactics, in order to maximize funding. I'm sure you're aware of charities that pay professional fundraisers, pay huge sums to PR companies, run massive media campaigns, and then present the human face of the issue to the general public in an effort to tug at their heart strings, and their pockets.

You could spend the rest of your life, and then some, criticizing these groups and charities and 'calling them out' on what you see as their nonsense, misrepresentation of statistics, illogical arguments and all the rest of it, but do you think they'll give a shìt? Do you think anyone besides a tiny minority will give a shìt?

They won't. They'll see your efforts as bitter, and spiteful, and they really won't look at you too kindly for it. You can continue in that same vein, or you can actually do something to help yourself, and concentrate on male victims of domestic violence. Both men and women need support, but you won't gain support for men by criticizing women, and you won't be taken seriously as a male victim of domestic violence either if every second sentence out of your mouth is a bitter and spiteful diatribe against women. You really can't claim the supposedly egalitarian moral high ground after that.

You're missing a key point here C. The nature of the spin means that you cannot advance the cause of male victims without attacking it. If you're in a position of dealing with large numbers of male victims and another body is actively working to diminish the scale of that in order to promote their own agenda then you cannot gain any traction until there is an acceptance amongst both key decision makers and the public that actually those figures are wrong and there is a problem here worth addressing.. If the official line is that men don't suffer abuse then what incentive is there to fund supports? And if that official line is influenced by nonsense statistics that you absolutely have to override that message.

That's not attacking women's groups -no one is saying that they don't provide a meaningful service or that there is no issue for female DV victims. It is however dismantling a lie that works against male DV victims. As I said previously, women's aid could fix this themselves by giving an unspin view of the stats. If they don't they can't really complain about being attacked if people question their integrity.

KomradeBishop

Christ Czarcasm...you're defending potential ethical fraud/corruption, which - if true - tries to diminish/minimize the real societal impact of domestic violence on men, thus using unethical means to remove funding from their support groups.

What you're trying to excuse/justify is effectively sexist, making your arguments that excuse/justify that, sexist as well (whether you realize it or not).

V.W.L 11

F.A.O shakespeares sister,my wife as well as myself use this account,the username is our initials and year of marriage to be precise,and the cops that dismissed me both happened to be female sadly.

F.A.O czarcasm,i am hoping this may encourage boardsies who have/are suffering this abuse to report it,what doesn't kill you will only make you stronger is my approach to it,whilst the experience of domestic violence wasn't great naturally,it has given me an insight into what other men are going through!and let me tell ye lads and lassies who haven't had personal experience its no joke I tell you!

Shakespeare's Sister

Fair enough. I just don't get the whole giving out about the opposite gender thing and saying "typical man/woman", "I suspect you're a man/woman" stuff... while being in a relationship with a member of the opposite gender.

Little CuChulainn

tritium wrote: »

Would you perhaps like to engage with the points being made here instead of just sniping?

What is your view on the use of statistics of various groups in this area? Do you agree or disagree that the statistics have been fudged? Would you accept or not that fudging occurs in the example I gave? Is it acceptable for a group to fudge statistics in the way I've indicated to secure funding and profile? Should we be cognisant of the very negative impact that fudging may have on other groups of victims?

Over to you

Fudging statistics? What exactly do you mean by that? They are an advocacy group for women so they will present the stats in a way that demonstrates their need for funding. What negative impact does it have on other groups? They can present the statistics in the same way.

V.W.L 11 wrote: »

bitter?hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahah


no chance of that let me tell you,i've moved on from that troubled woman,whilst she avoided prosecution she didn't succeed in thrashing my relationship with my now wife,i've moved on and am glad I did,is it any wonder people on here wont sign up under their real names with clowns like yourself talking the way you just have to me!i expect you are a woman with that talk,but if you are a man you must be wearing a bloody knickers!!!!!

I see. Is name calling and insults always your first port of call in an argument?

Czarcasm

tritium wrote: »

As I said previously, women's aid could fix this themselves by giving an unspin view of the stats. If they don't they can't really complain about being attacked if people question their integrity.

I think the key point you're missing tritium is that by questioning their integrity, you are attacking them, and the vast majority of people are going to leap to the defence of women's support groups for female victims of domestic violence, when there is a minority of people attacking them, no matter how well intended your efforts to inform the public and the policy makers.

Think of it like this -

You have the support of the majority in this thread, and clearly I'm in the minority. The vast majority of people here support your opinion and it looks like I'm attacking you. I'm not, but that's the way it looks to most people.

That's the way it looks to most people too when you are in a minority and you look like you're attacking organizations that are trying to do good work. You won't win any popularity contests at that craic, and all the while you're doing that, the people you're supposed to be advocating for, goes ignored, and now because you're seen to be only interested in attacking groups that are providing support to female victims of domestic violence, you're seen as the bad guy, and nobody wants anything to do with you, not even the vast majority of male victims of domestic violence, because the way they see it - you're not interested in helping them, you're only interested in attacking women.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Christ Czarcasm...you're defending potential ethical fraud/corruption, which - if true - tries to diminish/minimize the real societal impact of domestic violence on men, thus using unethical means to remove funding from their support groups.

"Potential" "ethical" what now? There's nothing illegal in any of the activities I just listed. It's business. You're an economics guy, you at least should understand how that works?

You're calling these organizations out for their spin, yet don't mind engaging in a bit of it yourself by claiming these organizations are engaged in potential fraud, corruption and unethical behaviour?

That's the spirit KB, you catch on quick!

What you're trying to excuse/justify is effectively sexist, making your arguments that excuse/justify that, sexist as well (whether you realize it or not).

I've never denied the fact that I'm sexist? At least I'm open about the fact that I'm sexist, rather than trying to disguise my misogyny as "egalitarianism" (whether you realise it or not).

You mentioned duplication of resources earlier as a reason to house male and female victims of domestic violence in the same shelter, and you couldn't think of any good reason why they couldn't be put together.

Now that you're aware of the male poster who claimed they were a victim of domestic violence perpetrated by a female, and they said to another poster that if they were a man they must be wearing knickers, can you see why it wouldn't be a good idea for victims of domestic violence of either gender to be sharing the same space?

It'd be like throwing a fox into the chicken coop - either the fox would come out the worst of it, or the chickens would, but either way, the outcome wouldn't be good for anyone involved.

newport2

Czarcasm wrote: »

Of course the figures are being fudged, and spun, and twisted, and presented in such a way that maximises the impact of domestic violence on women, and almost ignores the impact of domestic violence on men.

Czarcasm wrote: »

How can you not see that if you are a male victim of domestic violence perpetrated by a woman, it's really not a good idea to criticise women's groups trying to help female victims of domestic violence?

So to sum it up, you concede above that certain women's organisations fudge the figures to send a message to the public that domestic violence is all about female victims and make out that male victims of it do not matter.

You then say if someone is a male victim of domestic violence, it is not a good idea for them to challenge publicly communicated false information by these women's organisations that belittles the very thing that they were a victim of?

Little CuChulainn

Can people stop using the word fudge and say what they actually mean? Are they accusing womens groups of making up stats or just presenting them in a way they don't agree with.

Yeah_Right

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Can people stop using the word fudge and say what they actually mean? Are they accusing womens groups of making up stats or just presenting them in a way they don't agree with.

They are correctly pointing out that these groups are cherry picking stats that promote their agenda. They are also using words like "serious" as opposed to "all" when describing DV so that the stats are skewed in their favour.

Fudging is a great way to put it because they aren't really lying but they are promoting a distorted version of the truth.

Maybe you would prefer blurring or distorting but I think I will stick with fudging. Because I like fudge.....mmmmmmmmmmmm chocolate fudge. Hold on just got to pop down to a cafe.