Violence in Relationships Towards Women Needs To Stop

Czarcasm

V.W.L 11 wrote: »

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.

You're aware that you could have informed them that you would feel more comfortable speaking to a male Garda?

Even at that, you are also entitled to make a complaint to the Garda Ombudsman?

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!

Your perspective is more disheartening to me personally than encouraging tbh. You claim that you're trying to encourage men to report domestic violence, yet in the same post and others, you claim you were dismissed by Gardai!

Your 'what doesn't kill you makes you stronger' attitude is a crock. There's no nicer way of saying that. With regard to domestic violence, what doesn't kill you only kills you from the inside out. The psychological damage it can do to a person can last long after the physical scars have healed.

Little CuChulainn

Yeah_Right wrote: »

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.

So a group dedicated to supporting women who are victims of domestic abuse are presenting figures that show women are victims of domestic abuse. Can you explain why people are so upset about this?

Czarcasm

newport2 wrote: »

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.

That's not what I said, but it's one way to spin what I said. That's not what women's support groups are doing either. They are addressing the issue of female victims of domestic violence. They're not including male victims of domestic violence because that's not who they are supposed to be advocating for.

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?

That's not what I said either, and their information isn't false, it's presented in such a way that it focuses solely on female victims of domestic violence, as you would expect support groups for female victims of domestic violence to do. They aren't belittling female victims of domestic violence by concentrating solely on advocating for, and providing support for, female victims of domestic violence.

newport2

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

So a group dedicated to supporting women who are victims of domestic abuse are presenting figures that show women are victims of domestic abuse. Can you explain why people are so upset about this?

Picture a group that was set up and dedicated to supporting men who are victims of domestic abuse. Then they started presenting figures cherry picked to maximise the supposed effect DV had on men and tried to minimise/play down female victims, saying that male on female DV wasn't as big an issue as the media made it out to be. They also published dubious figures from commissioned repsorts, while ignoring any official research that presented figures not suiting their position.

Do you think some people would get upset about this scenario? Even though it was just a group dedicated to supporting men who are victims of domestic abuse who were presenting figures that show men are victims of domestic abuse?

Little CuChulainn

newport2 wrote: »

tried to minimise/play down female victims, saying that male on female DV wasn't as big an issue as the media made it out to be. They also published dubious figures from commissioned repsorts, while ignoring any official research that presented figures not suiting their position.

This is the part I have an issue with. On the Womens Aid site that people are linking, they have one small section on gender showing that domestic violence against women is more prevalent than against men, which it is, and this seems to be taken as an attempt to downplay violence against men. It doesn't say that females don't assault men or that it isn't a serious issue, just that the majority of cases involve men assaulting women.

KomradeBishop

Czarcasm wrote: »

"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?

Something can be ethically fraudulent/corrupt, without being illegal - exactly like the way prejudice against gay people used to be legal, while it was ethically corrupt.

I suppose you come from the school of "if it's legal, it's ok" - which is bullshít, which the vast majority of people will not agree with, since even a child can tell the difference between something being illegal and legal-but-unethical/still-wrong.

Czarcasm wrote: »

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.

Here your tactic is to try and spout nonsense again, to try and spin the discussion away from the fact that you are supporting the promotion of statistics (regardless of whether the organization actually did it, you support it...), which downplays domestic violence against men, in order to remove funding for supporting them - which is sexist/bigoted.

I am not sexist, and I would describe myself exactly as egalitarian - and I'd give most people in this thread the benefit of the doubt, in having similar views (except for posters who made obvious or borderline misogynistic comments - there were a few).

You are the only openly admitted sexist in this thread - and now that you've admitted it, it goes a long way to explaining your utterly dire and intentionally divisive quality of argument here - and that you see nothing wrong with that is, to be honest, disgusting.

Little CuChulainn

KomradeBishop wrote: »

which downplays domestic violence against men, in order to remove funding for supporting them

What have you established this motive from?

KomradeBishop

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

What have you established this motive from?

It's not motive, it's the effect of any potentially fraudulent statistics.

Little CuChulainn

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It's not motive, it's the effect of any potentially fraudulent statistics.

No, you attributed a motive to their actions. It's pretty clear in your post. You did it again there by calling them fraudulent statistics.

KomradeBishop

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

No, you attributed a motive to their actions. It's pretty clear in your post. You did it again there by calling them fraudulent statistics.

Stating that the stats may be fraudulent, doesn't imply any motive.

Maguined

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

This is the part I have an issue with. On the Womens Aid site that people are linking, they have one small section on gender showing that domestic violence against women is more prevalent than against men, which it is, and this seems to be taken as an attempt to downplay violence against men. It doesn't say that females don't assault men or that it isn't a serious issue, just that the majority of cases involve men assaulting women.

This is the issue, according to the independent study provided earlier in this thread domestic violence against women is not more prevalent than domestic violence against men.

Czarcasm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Something can be ethically fraudulent/corrupt, without being illegal - exactly like the way prejudice against gay people used to be legal, while it was ethically corrupt.

I suppose you come from the school of "if it's legal, it's ok" - which is bullshít, which the vast majority of people will not agree with, since even a child can tell the difference between something being illegal and legal-but-unethical/still-wrong.

Wasn't it yourself earlier who said, and I quote -

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You're entitled to your own opinion but you're not entitled to your own facts

All of the above is just your own opinion, and wedging the word "potential" into your opinion doesn't make it fact. You have an opinion, but none of it is facts.

Here your tactic is to try and spout nonsense again, to try and spin the discussion away from the fact that you are supporting the promotion of statistics (regardless of whether the organization actually did it, you support it...), which downplays domestic violence against men, in order to remove funding for supporting them - which is sexist/bigoted.

Again, more opinion, no facts.

Women's support groups advocate for female victims of domestic violence. They aren't concerned with male victims of domestic violence or the consequences for male victims of domestic violence of their maximising the effect of domestic violence on women. Male victims of domestic violence aren't part of their client profile.

I am not sexist, and I would describe myself exactly as egalitarian - and I'd give most people in this thread the benefit of the doubt, in having similar views (except for posters who made obvious or borderline misogynistic comments - there were a few).

I never claimed you were sexist. That's kinder than what I actually implied which was that despite your claims to egalitarian credentials, your credibility is damaged by the fact that your views in this discussion, and many previous discussions, are quite simply the opinions of a misogynist, no 'borderline' about it.

You are the only openly admitted sexist in this thread - and now that you've admitted it, it goes a long way to explaining your utterly dire and intentionally divisive quality of argument here - and that you see nothing wrong with that is, to be honest, disgusting.

Coming from a poster with a misogynistic agenda as transparent as their argument, I'll take your opinion with a pinch of salt, rather than treat it as fact.

Are we done now with the ad hominem fallacies?

They're bringing down the tone of the discussion.

Little CuChulainn

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Stating that the stats may be fraudulent, doesn't imply any motive.

Yes it does. A mistake is without motive. Fraud carries the motive to make a gain or cause a loss.

Maguined wrote: »

This is the issue, according to the independent study provided earlier in this thread domestic violence against women is not more prevalent than domestic violence against men.

I had a look at the report methodology. The study appears to have been based on admissions by the assaulter. A pretty unreliable statistic in my view. My own experience has shown me that women are more likely to be the victim of domestic violence.

KomradeBishop

Czarcasm wrote: »

Wasn't it yourself earlier who said, and I quote

All of the above is just your own opinion, and wedging the word "potential" into your opinion doesn't make it fact. You have an opinion, but none of it is facts.

Eh, deliberately pushing misleading statistics is unethical - that is a fact. Regardless of whether the organization did that (I haven't said they did), you directly defended the idea of pushing misleading statistics - which is ethically fraudulent/corrupt - that is not merely opinion.

Czarcasm wrote: »

your credibility is damaged by the fact that your views in this discussion, and many previous discussions, are quite simply the opinions of a misogynist, no 'borderline' about it.

Back that up with a quote from me - what, exactly, have I said, which is misogynistic?

You are directly lying here, to try and smear me - and you can't back that claim up.


You directly admitted in your post previous to this one, that you are sexist as well - so that's not just an opinion based on your arguments thus far, it's also now your own word.

KomradeBishop

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Yes it does. A mistake is without motive. Fraud carries the motive to make a gain or cause a loss.

So, you're saying that - if the stats are skewed in a misleading way - that it is a mistake? Be glad to hear an explanation of that, doesn't sound very convincing.

Little CuChulainn

KomradeBishop wrote: »

So, you're saying that - if the stats are skewed in a misleading way - that it is a mistake? Be glad to hear an explanation of that, doesn't sound very convincing.

That's not what I said though is it. I said a mistake was without motive. If you think they were purposely skewed, you are implying a motive. In the case of the original poster i replied to, this poster claimed it was to stop funding to mens organisations and I see no evidence of that motive.

Czarcasm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Eh, deliberately pushing misleading statistics is unethical - that is a fact. Regardless of whether the organization did that (I haven't said they did), you directly defended the idea of pushing misleading statistics - which is ethically fraudulent/corrupt - that is not merely opinion.

It's a good thing then they're not publishing misleading statistics. They're picking the information they want from the statistics available, that supports their point of view. You're familiar with statistics, so you understand how they can be interpreted depending on a particular point of view.

You could waste your time countering their point of view, or you could use those same statistics to present your own point of view from the perspective of male victims of domestic violence. Your call.

Back that up with a quote from me - what, exactly, have I said, which is misogynistic?

You are directly lying here, to try and smear me - and you can't back that claim up.

Couldn't care less about making you look bad tbh, not when you're doing a bang up job of making yourself look bad already with your claims to be egalitarian while at the same time you're attacking groups that support women who are victims of domestic violence.

You directly admitted in your post previous to this one, that you are sexist as well - so that's not just an opinion based on your arguments thus far, it's also now your own word.

The fact I'm sexist is neither here nor there. This thread despite it's misleading opening post, is supposed to be about support for male victims of domestic violence, not attacking groups that support female victims of domestic violence.

I advocate for male victims of domestic violence. I also advocate for female victims of domestic violence, but they're not what this thread is about. You seem to be more interested in using this thread to attack groups that support female victims of domestic violence.

But that's just my opinion.

KomradeBishop

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

That's not what I said though is it. I said a mistake was without motive. If you think they were purposely skewed, you are implying a motive. In the case of the original poster i replied to, this poster claimed it was to stop funding to mens organisations and I see no evidence of that motive.

If the stats are skewed in a misleading way (which I'm not saying they were), then I doubt many people would be convinced it was a mistake.

Given that, labeling any potential misleading statistics as 'ethically fraudulent/corrupt' seems fair - you can say that, without implying a specific motive.

Little CuChulainn

KomradeBishop wrote: »

If the stats are skewed in a misleading way (which I'm not saying they were), then I doubt many people would be convinced it was a mistake.

Given that, labeling any potential misleading statistics as 'ethically fraudulent/corrupt' seems fair - you can say that, without implying a specific motive.

But you are implying they are skewed and did state a specific motive.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

in order to remove funding for supporting them

KomradeBishop

Czarcasm wrote: »

It's a good thing then they're not publishing misleading statistics. They're picking the information they want from the statistics available, that supports their point of view. You're familiar with statistics, so you understand how they can be interpreted depending on a particular point of view.

You could waste your time countering their point of view, or you could use those same statistics to present your own point of view from the perspective of male victims of domestic violence. Your call.

Eh, what you're describing is cherry picking statistics - a well known method of statistical fraud:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_of_statistics#Data_manipulation

Czarcasm wrote: »

Couldn't care less about making you look bad tbh, not when you're doing a bang up job of making yourself look bad already with your claims to be egalitarian while at the same time you're attacking groups that support women who are victims of domestic violence.

So you're not going to back up your lie/slur that I am misogynistic - given you have nothing that can back that up. Ok.
I think any reasonable person, can judge that as being a direct lie by yourself - given your complete inability to back that up.

I think the fact that you describe yourself as sexist, and see nothing wrong with it (wtf? ), paints you in a pretty bad light for probably the majority of posters here.

I'll say it for the third or fourth time also: I support all groups that tackle domestic violence and support victims, including ones focused on women - and I particularly support them expanding their support, to all genders.
I am against all groups that promote ethically fraudulent statistics - across all areas of political advocacy and scientific research.

Carlos Orange

Czarcasm wrote: »

It's a good thing then they're not publishing misleading statistics.

You don't think it is misleading to publish a set of stats about the prevalence of domestic violence in Ireland and not publish anything about men who are abused.
Is the aim to educate the public about domestic abuse or to perpetuate the myth that men form a tiny unmeasurable proportion of abuse victims?

KomradeBishop

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

But you are implying they are skewed and did state a specific motive.

KomradeBishop wrote:

in order to remove funding for supporting them

You are quote-mining, in a way that misrepresents what I said - please quote full sentences instead of quote-mining:

KomradeBishop wrote:

Here your tactic is to try and spout nonsense again, to try and spin the discussion away from the fact that you are supporting the promotion of statistics (regardless of whether the organization actually did it, you support it...), which downplays domestic violence against men, in order to remove funding for supporting them - which is sexist/bigoted.

That's a comment on what Czarcasm is advocating - and given that this thread heavily discusses how this would impact funding for male DV support, he can't be unaware of that - so ya, I'm taking a bit of liberty in judging his motives there (he is self-admittedly sexist after all, so there are plenty of grounds for doing so).

mariaalice

I know this is a bit nutty!

One of the meaning of the myth of Adam and Eve is that before the 'fall' men and women lived in harmony with each other and each understood the other perfectly and after the fall a divide was put between men and woman and they would ever after be strange to each other their would always be a Vail of misunderstanding between them.

All most people want in an intimate relationship is to love and be loved in return.

Czarcasm

psinno wrote: »

You don't think it is misleading to publish a set of stats about the prevalence of domestic violence in Ireland and not publish anything about men who are abused.
Is the aim to educate the public about domestic abuse or to perpetuate the myth that men form a tiny unmeasurable proportion of abuse victims?

Their aim is to advocate for female victims of domestic violence. That's all they're interested in, and that's all they do.

What you're suggesting is like saying Apple don't promote Microsoft products. Why would they?

It's up to Microsoft to promote their own products, just like it's up to men to advocate for male victims of domestic violence.

KomradeBishop

Is anyone else even a little bit surprised, that Czarcasm is directly admitting being sexist, and sees nothing wrong with that?

The way I'm looking at this now, is that I can probably safely discard/disqualify/ignore all future contribution from him to this and other threads touching on gender-issues, based on him self-admittedly being sexist; any issues with this logic?

Will save me having to bother with this one anymore at least.

tritium

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

So a group dedicated to supporting women who are victims of domestic abuse are presenting figures that show women are victims of domestic abuse. Can you explain why people are so upset about this?

That isn't the problem. The problem is they're (miss)using these same statistics to infer that men aren't victims of domestic violence to any appreciable extent. Even though the statistics actually say the exact opposite.

Do you see the issue with this?

Little CuChulainn

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You are quote-mining, in a way that misrepresents what I said - please quote full sentences instead of quote-mining:

That's a comment on what Czarcasm is advocating - and given that this thread heavily discusses how this would impact funding for male DV support, he can't be unaware of that - so ya, I'm taking a bit of liberty in judging his motives there (he is self-admittedly sexist after all, so there are plenty of grounds for doing so).

I apologise if I have taken your post up wrong but the fact remains that if you refer to something as fraudulent, you are implying a level of deceit and a motive of making a gain or causing a loss. If you do not wish to imply such a motive you would refer to something as a mistake or error. You can try and downplay the implication with words such as skewing or fudging but the implication of deceit for gain is still there.

Dasmen wrote: »

They are publishing blatant lies, that's more than interpreting data a certain way.

You openly stated in the past that you are both a sexist and a hypocrite. For someone dishing out advice about how to be perceived by society maybe you should take a look at the nonsense that comes out of your own mouth.

Why should anyone take you seriously given you have admitted that you are a hypocrite?

Which are the blatant lies?

Dasmen wrote: »

Is it up to blonde haired people to advocate for blade haired victims of domestic abuse?

Your sexist notions are ridiculous. Men and women aren'the opposing teams. We're all just people.

If a group is set up to help people in a certain situation then they will do their best to get the best for them. If they try to help everyone they will never help anyone. AMEN was set up to help men, Womens Aid was set up to help women. IT's a pretty simple concept.

Carlos Orange

Czarcasm wrote: »

Their aim is to advocate for female victims of domestic violence. That's all they're interested in, and that's all they do.

If you don't think there is anything wrong with intentionally misleading people about the state of domestic violence in Ireland then that is fair enough. Your morals and ethics are your own concern.

tritium

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

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.

?

Fudging is the example I gave earlier. Deliberately misleading and even lying to their audience through the creative combination and interpretation of statistics.

Little CuChulainn

tritium wrote: »

Because they're using these same statistics to infer that men aren't victims of domestic violence to any appreciable extent.

Do you see the issue with this?

They aren't inferring that, you are. They are highlighting the fact that it is a more widespread issue for women, presumably to highlight that they represent more victims and should get more funding. Saying "It is a more prevalent issue for women than it is for men" is not the same as saying "Men don't suffer as much as women". It's about quantity of occurence not degree of seriousness.

Maguined

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I had a look at the report methodology. The study appears to have been based on admissions by the assaulter. A pretty unreliable statistic in my view. My own experience has shown me that women are more likely to be the victim of domestic violence.

Why would you view it as less realistic than admission from an assaultee?

Erin Pizzey who founded the first domestic violence shelters in the UK, Canada and the USA also found in her experience that domestic violence was experienced by both genders at an equal rate. Do you view her years of experience in dealing directly with domestic violence as unreliable as well?

tritium

Czarcasm wrote: »

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.

I think our disagreement here is on approach. I'd argue that its how you present the reality of the lie that matters to peoples reaction. Yes that's a delicate process, and yes its difficult sometimes to separate the critique of the message from the messenger, especially when they will often claim it as a personal attack but I don't think that should act as a deterrent

As I've said before I actually support what women's aid do in the aid sense, its the bs they use to secure as much funding as possible that I take exception to (there may be other stuff going on within that organisation, perhaps understandably given what they do but I prefer to assume these decisions are business decisions)

Little CuChulainn

Maguined wrote: »

Why would you view it as less realistic than admission from an assaultee?

Because there's a different stigma attached to each gender. A man is going to be more likely to lie about it because there is a deeper level of shame attached to it.

Maguined wrote: »

Erin Pizzey who founded the first domestic violence shelters in the UK, Canada and the USA also found in her experience that domestic violence was experienced by both genders at an equal rate. Do you view her years of experience in dealing directly with domestic violence as unreliable as well?

I guess her years differ to mine. Or maybe things are just different in Ireland.

tritium

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

They aren't inferring that, you are. They are highlighting the fact that it is a more widespread issue for women, presumably to highlight that they represent more victims and should get more funding. Saying "It is a more prevalent issue for women than it is for men" is not the same as saying "Men don't suffer as much as women". It's about quantity of occurence not degree of seriousness.

Please actually read the example I gave before rushing back with Ill informed counterpoints. I'll repost it for you

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

Statements like 'the vast majority of victims are women and children:, '90% of violence initiated by men' and 'a small percentage of men suffer domestic violence' absolutely infer this. This isn't my imagination, its there in English to read and no amount of mealy mounted why's and wherefors on your part will change that. In many cases they've actually cross quoted reports that disagree fundamentally with each other to sell this line!

Czarcasm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Eh, what you're describing is cherry picking statistics - a well known method of statistical fraud:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_of_statistics#Data_manipulation

Nowhere is the word 'fraud' mentioned in that link. For someone who isn't claiming that women's groups are engaging in fraudulent activity, you're pretty hell bent on rehashing it again and again as if it actually makes any difference.

So you're not going to back up your lie/slur that I am misogynistic - given you have nothing that can back that up. Ok.
I think any reasonable person, can judge that as being a direct lie by yourself - given your complete inability to back that up.

I already stated why I am of the opinion your opinions are misogynistic, I never claimed it was fact. I could be mistaken, but I have no motive in claiming your views are misogynistic, so it's not a lie.

I think the fact that you describe yourself as sexist, and see nothing wrong with it (wtf? ), paints you in a pretty bad light for probably the majority of posters here.

That wouldn't be you taking your opinion and applying it as a generalisation now would it? Because that's exactly what you pulled me up on earlier.

I'll say it for the third or fourth time also: I support all groups that tackle domestic violence and support victims, including ones focused on women - and I particularly support them expanding their support, to all genders.

How many times do you need to be told that women's support groups only advocate for women? Women's groups do not advocate for men and never will. Men's groups advocate for men. You know this well, but feigning ignorance helps your "egalitarian" image that disguises your misogynistic views.

I am against all groups that promote ethically fraudulent statistics - across all areas of political advocacy and scientific research.

That's great, if this thread were actually about groups that promote potentially ethically fraudulent statistics.

This thread is about male victims of domestic violence, not potentially ethically fraudulent statistics, not women's support groups that provide support to female victims of domestic violence.

mariaalice

In a way its not really about womans aid all advocacy groups are the same they are presenting a one side and one view that's there job it how the media and modern society works its one dimensional surely every one realised that ...look at the unions, groups representing the homeless, farmers, teachers.

Almost always the first thing they do when interviewed is ask for more money its like a mantra and after that its stick to the party line.

hatrickpatrick

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.

Naturally, some people find the term "violence against women" offensive by its very nature. For the record, I would find the term "violence against men" offensive as well. Violence is violence. It's equally appalling no matter which demographic the victim belongs to, and differentiating it by demographic creates the impression, whether deliberate or not, that certain demographics are more important than others or more cared about than others.

I accept that this isn't intentional, but that doesn't mean it isn't a problem. A term like "violence against women" simply shouldn't exist, when violence is something that both men and women experience. It's equally bad regardless of gender, and yet the term "violence against women" is painted as worse than simple "violence".

tritium

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Yes it does. A mistake is without motive. Fraud carries the motive to make a gain or cause a loss.



I had a look at the report methodology. The study appears to have been based on admissions by the assaulter. A pretty unreliable statistic in my view. My own experience has shown me that women are more likely to be the victim of domestic violence.

This is why anecdote is not better than hard won statistical evidence....

V.W.L 11

Czarcasm wrote: »

You're aware that you could have informed them that you would feel more comfortable speaking to a male Garda?

Even at that, you are also entitled to make a complaint to the Garda Ombudsman?





Your perspective is more disheartening to me personally than encouraging tbh. You claim that you're trying to encourage men to report domestic violence, yet in the same post and others, you claim you were dismissed by Gardai!

Your 'what doesn't kill you makes you stronger' attitude is a crock. There's no nicer way of saying that. With regard to domestic violence, what doesn't kill you only kills you from the inside out. The psychological damage it can do to a person can last long after the physical scars have healed.

the mental damage is in most cases permanent!if you let these things take over your life then people don't have a chance!have you ever been on the receiving end of a domestic hammering by half a chance?just curious as it may help me understand your negative opinions

Little CuChulainn

tritium wrote: »

Please actually read the example I gave before rushing back with Ill informed counterpoints. I'll repost it for you




Statements like 'the vast majority of victims are women and children:, '90% of violence initiated by men' and 'a small percentage of men suffer domestic violence' absolutely infer this. This isn't my imagination, its there in English to read and no amount of mealy mounted why's and wherefors on your part will change that. In many cases they've actually cross quoted reports that disagree fundamentally with each other to sell this line!

Like I said, indicating that it is a more prevalent issue for women is not downplaying the issue for men. It's highlighting the issue for women. You are looking at the two aspects as if they are on the same scale and people have a finite amount of concern to divide between the two. Both issues can be acknowledged separately and more emphasis placed on one without diminishing the acknowledgement of the other.

tritium wrote: »

This is why anecdote is not better than hard won statistical evidence....

Yet the vast majority of statistics indicate it is an issue experienced much more by women than men. And the one study that has been produced to show the opposite relies on abusers self identifying.

KomradeBishop

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I apologise if I have taken your post up wrong but the fact remains that if you refer to something as fraudulent, you are implying a level of deceit and a motive of making a gain or causing a loss. If you do not wish to imply such a motive you would refer to something as a mistake or error. You can try and downplay the implication with words such as skewing or fudging but the implication of deceit for gain is still there.

No worries, I can see how it could be taken in the way you interpreted it.

If the group does publish misleading stats, I think the claim that it is doing that by mistake, would not really be credible - making it fair to judge as ethically fraudulent, without having to specify an exact motive.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

If a group is set up to help people in a certain situation then they will do their best to get the best for them. If they try to help everyone they will never help anyone. AMEN was set up to help men, Womens Aid was set up to help women. IT's a pretty simple concept.

There is no logic to this - there is nothing to stop any of these groups helping both men and women. The type of support offered does not differ between genders - making a decision to discriminate based on gender, is a totally unnecessary constraint/condition.

mariaalice

KomradeBishop wrote: »

No worries, I can see how it could be taken in the way you interpreted it.

If the group does publish misleading stats, I think the claim that it is doing that by mistake, would not really be credible - making it fair to judge as ethically fraudulent, without having to specify an exact motive.

But does that mean that every advocacy group that has accesses to the media be required not to be advocates for their issue, instead they should be required to present a neutral balanced and gender free view of the issue?

Czarcasm

tritium wrote: »

This is why anecdote is not better than hard won statistical evidence....

Erm, isn't your whole argument tritium based on your objection to hard won statistical evidence?

Czarcasm

V.W.L 11 wrote: »

the mental damage is in most cases permanent!if you let these things take over your life then people don't have a chance!have you ever been on the receiving end of a domestic hammering by half a chance?just curious as it may help me understand your negative opinions

Yes I have, but I don't think my experience will do anything to help you understand my opinion.

Little CuChulainn

KomradeBishop wrote: »

No worries, I can see how it could be taken in the way you interpreted it.

If the group does publish misleading stats, I think the claim that it is doing that by mistake, would not really be credible - making it fair to judge as ethically fraudulent, without having to specify an exact motive.


There is no logic to this - there is nothing to stop any of these groups helping both men and women. The type of support offered does not differ between genders - making a decision to discriminate based on gender, is a totally unnecessary constraint/condition.

There is a reason, especially if the group runs shelters. Men and women are different, physically and psychologically. Different issues affect them differently. Womens Aid run women only shelters because female victims of domestic abuse can be nervous around males and feel more comfortable in a female environment. For the same reason the Rape Crisis Center only allow women to work in their helpline. The people who work in the likes of Womens Aid have experience in helping women and the same methods they use would not be as effective with men.

KomradeBishop

Czarcasm wrote: »

I already stated why I am of the opinion your opinions are misogynistic, I never claimed it was fact. I could be mistaken, but I have no motive in claiming your views are misogynistic, so it's not a lie.

You are directly lying again - you even stated in your last post, that you would not back this up:

Czarcasm wrote:

KomradeBishop wrote:

Back that up with a quote from me - what, exactly, have I said, which is misogynistic?

You are directly lying here, to try and smear me - and you can't back that claim up.

Couldn't care less about making you look bad tbh, not when you're doing a bang up job of making yourself look bad already with your claims to be egalitarian while at the same time you're attacking groups that support women who are victims of domestic violence.

Your quality of argument here is probably the worst I've seen of any poster in 7 or so years on Boards; direct proof of you lying while trying to smear a poster, and even a direct admission that you are sexist, the latter of which pretty much disqualifies any further contribution you make to this thread.

psychotic tantrum

ScienceNerd wrote: »

I love when threads backfire like this

yes its great ! in comes the mod now !!

KomradeBishop

mariaalice wrote: »

But does that mean that every advocacy group that has accesses to the media be required not to be advocates for their issue, instead they should be required to present a neutral balanced and gender free view of the issue?

It's possible for groups to advocate for their issues, without misrepresenting stats - that doesn't mean they have to detail stats on the same issue, for every demographic, just that they don't have to be misleading in their own use of stats.

I would argue in addition to that, that if they are going to discriminate based upon gender, that they need to justify that - but that's a separate discussion from the stats.

Shakespeare's Sister

Misogynistic is way off the mark as a description of the views on this thread, to be fair. I may not agree with all of them but calling them misogyny undermines actual misogyny.

Czarcasm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Your quality of argument here is probably the worst I've seen of any poster in 7 or so years on Boards; direct proof of you lying while trying to smear a poster, and even a direct admission that you are sexist, the latter of which pretty much disqualifies any further contribution you make to this thread.

My heart bleeds KB, honestly.

Now, done with the ad hominems that have added nothing to the discussion.

If you have an issue with any more of my posts, you can use the "report post" function.