Yet another young woman attacked by a male. When will it end?
Comments
-
As before, you're deflecting when meeting resistance to your opinions. Each time, I've written long detailed posts in response to you, and each time you've dismissed them, without actually engaging with what was written.
As for meeting of minds... I suspect you believe that people should just agree with you... which is not a meeting of minds. A consensus is not reached by both parties immediately accepting that the other is true/correct. A true consensus can only come about through discussion, revelation and understanding over each parties beliefs/ideas, and a meeting in the middle.
0 -
Right, so women need to be seen to do it first, before men will take them seriously. Until then men don't have to do anything. Gotcha.
For the record, I regularly call out other women for behaving badly or putting men down, and have done so for years. I have also called out men in my workplace and was never ostracised for it. Usually got a shame-faced blush followed by an apology.
Maybe check out some of my posts on Separation/Divorce or Personal Issues before painting me as some kind of man hater.
1 -
There was a suggestion on one of the other threats that a ring-fenced man-tax of even a quarter of a percent on men's incomes would be able to fund womens' refuges and domestic violence charities beyond all their wildest dreams. That is not even a bad idea. it could be introduced for a couple of years and would have minimal impact on men's income but would revolutionise the supports available to women who are victims of male violence.
Such refuges are already supported by the State, who gains revenue from taxing both men and women. Men are already supporting such refuges, and private contributions to domestic abuse charities is not exclusive to women...
In any case, the idea seems to reinforce the belief that all men are responsible for the actions of a minority of men. When you look at the statistics on female violence towards men, both in the home and elsewhere, it's accepted that they're a minority and not representative of the majority of women.. so, you're encouraging a double standard. Especially as better reporting and more research has been financed, the rates/statistics of female violence towards males have increased significantly showing that there is a definite problem in society regarding this behaviour, but due to the focus on women's issues, there's little to no support to tackle the problem.
Over the last decade there have been calls to create refuges and supports for male victims of female violence, but there's no state support for such an initiative, so would you expect all women to be taxed to create such supports?
It makes no sense to make the majority responsible for what a minority do. That's not a reasonable answer.
Convictions could be secured more frequently, and more victims will feel empowered to come forward.
You're also going to get a lot more innocents charged and their lives ruined by such accusations. There's a balance involved, which is why "beyond all reasonable doubt" is encouraged.
4 -
The phrase pot / kettle \ black comes to mind.
You can talk rings around the subject but ultimately, that's all you are - all talk, no action, because you don't actually want to take any action. So nothing further to be said.
Have a nice day.
3 -
Grand. Whatever.
Have a nice day.
You too.
2 -
Advertisement
-
A very well presented analysis
2 -
Monsters, deranged loopers…it was just a question of time before before this would come up. And so respectfully phrased.
1 -
If mine had done something like that at aged 13 or even now, I would have beaten them black and blue, paraded them to the victims house to apologise while calling the police at the same time to hand him in…..
4 -
@[Deleted User] & @[Deleted User]
Sure there is some female on male domestic abuse, but the reality of it is that male on female abuse tends to be more physically violent in nature, and that violence has the potential to cause a lot more harm. Women also can be more vulnerable by being the primary care giver to children, and if they have left the workforce to raise children, they have less access to resources to escape the situation than a man might have. Not always, but often it is the case. So while female on male and male on female domestic abuse exists, and both forms are endemic, male on female has the potential to cause greater harm and therefore it ought to be given a higher priority. There I said it.
For the funding of it, there is a broad acknowledgement here that men ought to do more to address the issue, but as many of us have also said, what can men do practically? In the real world, there are very few practical ways to challenge it. Either regular men are not moving in the same circles as petty street harrassers, or there is literally nothing that the average man can do about the deranged psychopaths and schizophrenics walking the streets. (I would like to add, remember the two hunter lads who rescued that woman from the clutches of Larry Murphy in 2000? Fair play to them lads, they did something. But it must be realised that the opportunity to pull off such heroic rescues are exceedingly rare indeed!!) Therefore, a way for men to do their extra bit to help out would be to have a very very small additional tax taken from their income and sent to provide services for female victims of male violence. That allows men to do something, and to contribute to the provision of services that cater for women in need of help. You will now ask why should men pay more tax than women to pay for womens abuse services? Well, the reality I am sure you will agree, is that violence against women is overwhelmingly inflicted on them by men. And it is a double edged sword too - because violence against men is inflicted on them overwhelmingly by other men too. So men, as a whole, have an extraordinarily bigger tab to cover when comes to paying for the cost fallout of violent behaviour.
As for the change of burden of proof of court. Sexual and domestic violence is not the same as other crimes. It is not like robbing a post office, or stealing a car. It is a particular type of crime and the whole procedures presently in place very much discourage victims coming forward, and it is notoriously difficult to get a conviction.
I did not say that it should be as simple as an accusation is good enough for a conviction. I propose merely an adjustment of the burden of proof.
The current beyond all reasonable doubt makes for it being extrememly difficult to secure conviction. Think of a victim trying to get justice against a partner or relation who raped or molested them while they were growing up. Of course, we do see such cases, but I would expect that for every conviction we see in the paper, there are a multitude of others which never made it to court or never even reported it as the victims do not have to confidence to come forward.
Changing to balance of probabilities means that the court looks at all the facts and rather than absolute and total concrete proof, they consider well, based on the facts before us, which is more likely - he did do it , or he didn't do it. It is a 50%/50% burden of proof rather than 99%. An accused who is genuinely innocent should still be able to present their defence and clear their name if they are truly innocent.
Is there the slim possibility of an innocent being convicted wrongly? Possibly, yes. But look at it the other way, with "beyond all reasonable doubt" there is a vastly greater chance of an offender getting away with it for lack of physical evidence or whatever, than there is of an innocent man being convicted wrongly under balance of probability.
The other thing is, what serves a better societal outcome......
A. A paucity of convictions, while a large number of genuine victims are denied true justice, or are afraid to even come forward as they know how biased the system is against them.
B. More victims are empowered to seek justice, and a much larger nbumber of them can secure convictions and justice against their abusers, but there may be the very very odd outlier case here or there where an innocent man might get wrongly convicted.
To be honest, at a societal level, I think Option B is the better for society. I would support it.
If a small handful of men get some jail time by mistake, that is tough for them, but it is better than a huge cohort of society (female victims of abuse) having to live their lives knowing that the can't get justice, or are so disillusioned that they won't come forward, meaning their abusers are walking free every day, possibly going on to abuse again.
The MFV Creadan Lady is a mussel dredger from Dunmore East.
0 -
Penalizing half the population for the misdeeds of a small percentage is not how you're going to win hearts and minds on this one I'm afraid.
I'm all for helping out people in need, stepping in and saying something when I see a situation that's not right - but hitting me through my payslip when I've literally done nothing wrong with yet another tax is going to make me very cold towards your cause.
18 -
Advertisement
-
So while female on male and male on female domestic abuse exists, and both forms are endemic, male on female has the potential to cause greater harm and therefore it ought to be given a higher priority. There I said it.
It already receives the higher priority and has for decades. Nobody is disputing the difference in rates of violence or the statistics involved.
For the funding of it, there is a broad acknowledgement here that men ought to do more to address the issue, but as many of us have also said, what can men do practically?
The idea was what men could do to reduce the violence. The further funding of such centres or support services doesn't change that amount of violence involved, or that it happens at all.
So men, as a whole, have an extraordinarily bigger tab to cover when comes to paying for the cost fallout of violent behaviour.
I disagree. I don't have a tab to pay for what other men might, possibly do. I can only be held responsible for what I do, and my influence over others around me.
You're pushing collective responsibility.. and that's wrong. Very very wrong.
As for the change of burden of proof of court. Sexual and domestic violence is not the same as other crimes. It is not like robbing a post office, or stealing a car. It is a particular type of crime and the whole procedures presently in place very much discourage victims coming forward, and it is notoriously difficult to get a conviction.
I'm well aware of what's involved, having attended sessions with a close male friend of mine who was physically abused by his wife, who also abused their children, who tried seeking protection from domestic abuse and lost custody of his children as a result. So I have an idea of what's involved, and how people can be punished even when they're innocent, and also how gender stereotypes play a role in "justice".
However, some changes are simply short sighted and open pandora's box for the amount of damage it could cause to others.
If a small handful of men get some jail time by mistake, that is tough for them, but it is better than a huge cohort of society (female victims of abuse) having to live their lives knowing that the can't get justice, or are so disillusioned that they won't come forward, meaning their abusers are walking free every day, possibly going on to abuse again.
There's the assumption that a huge cohort of women are not getting that justice, when society tends to place a hefty amount of sympathy in their court. Society has already been shifting towards being more supportive in law cases, including the case of domestic abuse... what you're suggesting is exaggerating the changes, and removing a lot of the measures in place to prevent abuse. It's dangerous.
Also, you have no idea how many men would be wrongly accused because by your suggestions, less investigations would be performed to establish actual guilt, and more expectation to simply believe the claims of the woman.. based entirely on her gender.
Nope. I wouldn't support this. It's unfair to men, and encourages sexism/discrimination based on gender.
12 -
So men should pay more tax to fund female domestic violence services.....and this is in a country that doesn't have even one refuge for male victims.
That is one of the most ridiculous things I have read on this site and I've been here nearly 15 years.
"If a small handful of men get some jail time by mistake, that is tough for them, but it is better than a huge cohort of society (female victims of abuse) having to live their lives knowing that the can't get justice, or are so disillusioned that they won't come forward, meaning their abusers are walking free every day, possibly going on to abuse again."
This is absolutely scandalous too, if a poster said that about females you'd nearly be sitebanned.
22 -
"I disagree. I don't have a tab to pay for what other men might, possibly do. I can only be held responsible for what I do, and my influence over others around me.
You're pushing collective responsibility.. and that's wrong. Very very wrong."
But the thing is you said we should all pay equal level of tax, some of which is to go to abuse shelters? Fair enough. Now you are changing you tune and saying that you only have be held responsible for what you do yourself? So why then shoudl you pay any any portion of tax that goes into fighting any of society's ills that you had no personal responsibility for.
Also, collective responsibility, is nothing new. War reparations for example, axis nations were made to make war reparations for their wrongdoing. That trickeled down to the ordinary german people who had to pick up the tab in taxes, regardless of whether they were an SS private or whether they were a dairy maid working in a field of cows for the duration of the war.
I know I've goddwinned it, but my point is this... sometimes some people do bad things and sometimes there is little other option to put it right that for others to pay to fix it.
The converse of it is this, some bad men rape and assault women. But then other women, because of that end up living in fear of their safety because there are men out there who are dangerous, and there is know way of knowing which one is decent and which one is a dangerous rapist. So you have to restrict your self and where you go and when through no fault of your own because of the actions of a handful of bad people.
The MFV Creadan Lady is a mussel dredger from Dunmore East.
0 -
Imagine if people who were against Islamic extremism used all these arguments: "Muslims need to listen to Europeans", "If a few innocent Muslims goes to prison, then that's tough for them", "Muslims need to change their ways in public, to placate fearful Europeans". The very same posters making similar arguments about men, would be screaming from the rooftops.
“The man who lies to himself can be more easily offended than anyone else. You know it is sometimes very pleasant to take offense, isn't it? A man may know that nobody has insulted him, but that he has invented the insult for himself, has lied and exaggerated to make it picturesque, has caught at a word and made a mountain out of a molehill--he knows that himself, yet he will be the first to take offense, and will revel in his resentment till he feels great pleasure in it.”-― Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov11 -
What happened with the Kilkenny attack? Dropped out of the news very quick
3 -
Also, collective responsibility, is nothing new. War reparations for example, axis nations were made to make war reparations for their wrongdoing. That trickeled down to the ordinary german people who had to pick up the tab in taxes, regardless of whether they were an SS private or whether they were a dairy maid working in a field of cows for the duration of the war.
And before that, the Germans were hit with a reparations bill, and what did it lead to? The Nazis and Hitler. You people never seem to think your arguments through.
“The man who lies to himself can be more easily offended than anyone else. You know it is sometimes very pleasant to take offense, isn't it? A man may know that nobody has insulted him, but that he has invented the insult for himself, has lied and exaggerated to make it picturesque, has caught at a word and made a mountain out of a molehill--he knows that himself, yet he will be the first to take offense, and will revel in his resentment till he feels great pleasure in it.”-― Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov0 -
@CreadanLady any proposal that admittedly locks up innocent people is not going to get the public support you require. Would you be happy locked up to help how another person feels? I’m sure you would 🤣
2 -
@[Deleted User] you seem to interpret my proposed changes to the burden of proof as simply taking an accusation, looking to see whether it is plausible, and then slapping down a conviction on it. No NO NO. Both sides of the cases heard in the normal way, prosecution and the defence and any facts or evidence they wish to present. But the judge and jury, between them decide which whether or not guilt is more likely than the absence of guilt. It has to be proven still - but to a less rigourous degree that "beyond all reasonable doubt".
Civil judgements for many many of millions of euros, and many other things are judged in court on the basis of that burden of proof. So it is not as blaze as the courtroom scene in the film Idiocracy (2006), as you seem to want to have us believe. nothing could be farther from the trust of what I am suggesting. You are exaggerating.
The MFV Creadan Lady is a mussel dredger from Dunmore East.
0 -
important to note that sex attacking is a covert activity and most of us are completely unaware of what our sex attacker friends are plotting, and therefore cannot intervene.
3 -
But both suggestions are so mind numbingly stupid, I can't believe you even attempted to defend them.
If your exceptionally flawed proposal of "on the balance of probability" comes to fruition, then I assume that you would be in favour of severely punishing women in instances when men are found innocent? Because to paraphrase your quote "If a small handful of WOmen get some jail time by mistake, that is tough for them".
Also, with your ludicrous taxation idea, would biological men who self ID as a woman need to pay the tax?
Men have a higher tab? I don't and frankly if someone suggests that I do, they can **** off. I raised my eldest daughter on my own until I got married. I now look after my two daughters and my wife. I look after them and am raising them to not discriminate against people because of their sex or their race. So you can ask my arse if you think that you can put a "tab" on me for the misbehaviour of others. How dare you even suggest it?
Your outlook on life is so simplistic and frankly ignorant. You feel empowered to collectively group and suggest imposing a punitive tax on a group of people because of the actions of a few? Why do you feel you should be able to say that without ridicule? Would you do that to ANY other grouping of people? No, because you know it would be wrong and you would rightfully be told you are a disgrace for suggesting it.
Your idea to get more innocent men to help women is either make them pay for the crimes of others because they happen to be the same sex, or increase the likelihood of them being the subject of a spurious allegation.
That will get the men onside. Turkeys voting for Christmas.
And your dismissive attitude towards female on male violence is telling.
You say women should be listened to but your post is proof that some shouldn't.
The mind boggles...
10 -
Advertisement
-
No how would anyone? but then I don't go putting myself into ambiguous or risky situations where dubious accusations could be made.
This is a well established procedure in many organisations, workplaces, and clubs nowadays. Don't be alone with someone like a vulnerable client. Don't give a lift to someone unless you have a third person come a long as a witness. Have meetings or consultations in area that are openly visible to other staff, etc etc.
A good rule of thumb I heard a few years back for those types of situations "less than three there shall not be"
The MFV Creadan Lady is a mussel dredger from Dunmore East.
0 -
I think the best thing, I as a parent of daughters, can do is to show them your last two posts as an example of toxic femininity.
For years and years, feminists fought to be seen as equals in society. Something I gladly stood behind.
Now look at you...
You know you've lost the plot when you can't argue a point without saying that a tax on men is justified because of reparations paid by the axis of evil countries during World War II.
EDIT: Make that the last THREE posts.
The insinuation that anyone at the receiving end of a false allegation has put himself in an ambigious or risky situation is disgusting. Flip the sex of the people accused and people would **** hang you for it.
Disgusting.
13 -
You don’t go outside the house?
0 -
The risky situation of being a man in the presence of a woman, is one that is difficult enough to avoid.
7 -
Ah right, the 'no smoke without fire' / 'I have nothing to hide' arguments.
5 -
My lack of focus on serious female on male violence, is because that is absolutely no-where near the same level of incidence on the country, and when it does occur it does not inflict anywhere near the same level of injury and suffering. Sure some men have been killed by spouses, but that is an exceedingly rare event compared to women murdered by men. And in those rare cases where a woman kills her partner, it has sometimes occurred because they had mentally snapped from being on the receiving end of years or even decades of multi-abuse from their abusive husband. So no, I will not place the same level of importance on it as it is not a societal issue to the same extent.
The MFV Creadan Lady is a mussel dredger from Dunmore East.
0 -
"The vast majority of infanticide killings are carried out by women, therefore women should be taxed more to pay for child refuge centres, all women need to have a conversation with each other to stop this happening and investigations should be curtailed to the point that they're automatically considered guilty until proven otherwise. If a few innocent women get caught out, that's a small price to pay"
This place would implode, if someone posted the above unironically.
14 -
And I can say for me and most others on this thread, I will not place the same level of importance on your frankly disturbing posts as they are not reasonable to any extent.
10 -
But the thing is you said we should all pay equal level of tax, some of which is to go to abuse shelters? Fair enough. Now you are changing you tune and saying that you only have be held responsible for what you do yourself? So why then shoudl you pay any any portion of tax that goes into fighting any of society's ills that you had no personal responsibility for.
No, I said we already pay taxes which are already used to support such refuges/shelters. That comes out of our taxes, that go towards the running of the State. The State decides where that revenue is spent, and the NGOs which cover domestic abuse for women, benefit from that support.
You want an extra tax beyond that aimed solely at men. Which is discriminatory, and also double taxation. I didn't change "my tune" even slightly.
Also, collective responsibility, is nothing new. War reparations for example, axis nations were made to make war reparations for their wrongdoing. That trickeled down to the ordinary german people who had to pick up the tab in taxes, regardless of whether they were an SS private or whether they were a dairy maid working in a field of cows for the duration of the war.
So your justification is to use an unrelated topic/situation, from a period in history which none of us were alive? Yeah... that makes sense. No, it actually doesn't. That's not being goddwinned.. that's confusing the issue. Stick to the scenario at hand as it's suitable enough for the discussion.
I know I've goddwinned it, but my point is this... sometimes some people do bad things and sometimes there is little other option to put it right that for others to pay to fix it.
Others, being the entire Male gender... I could understand somewhat if your idea was to be supported by both genders, but it's not. I've also pointed out other issues with your statements, and you skipped over them.
The converse of it is this, some bad men rape and assault women. But then other women, because of that end up living in fear of their safety because there are men out there who are dangerous, and there is know way of knowing which one is decent and which one is a dangerous rapist. So you have to restrict your self and where you go and when through no fault of your own because of the actions of a handful of bad people.
That's not the converse. And welcome to life. Everyone has to restrict their movements, where they go, who they get drunk with, who they sleep with, etc. Everyone, male or female, are generally expected to take reasonable precautions to limit the risk to themselves. You appear to expect women to be able to do anything without that risk ever manifesting... and that's unrealistic. There's no way to create/maintain such an existence.
I avoid certain bars because of the people who go there. I avoid certain streets because of the history of crime in the area. I never get drunk in public, unless I'm with people I completely trust, and also know that, at least, one of them will stay sober. I don't take strangers to my home unless other friends are joining us.. and I'm a man. I'd expect women to be more careful considering the risks involved. That's simply accepting that living carries risks, and we should be careful of those risks.
It's so unfair that I have to wear a condom because other people might have an STD. Hell! It's so unfair, let's punish everyone with an STD because they place my life at risk, and I should be able to have unprotected sex if I want! That's little different from the logic behind your statement.
See? I can make unrelated comparisons too... and even then, my example does relate to your objection.
So it is not as blaze as the courtroom scene in the film Idiocracy (2006), as you seem to want to have us believe. nothing could be farther from the trust of what I am suggesting. You are exaggerating.
Nope, I'm not exaggerating, and you're being dismissive of others views on the topic.
3 -
Advertisement
-
Man Tax…….heard it all now.
Maybe while we’re at it we could stop charging men the maternity portion on all health insurance policies as men can’t give birth and charge women more.
When policies start dividing along the line of gender, we end up with just as many issues and a more polarised society.
Apply the tax on everyone and stop creating division.
6
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
