Society/Culture Domestic Violence

[ABSOLUTE MADMAN]

Stopped there. Do better.

"White Ribbon. Australia's campaign to prevent
men's violence against women."

White ribbon cares specifically about men's violence against women.

Not women's violence against women(lesbian relationships more violent per capita than heterosexual relationships)
Not women's violence against men.
Not women's violence against children.

Cannot really see a focus even on men's violence against children.

Leave the thread if you do not like uncomfortable information that challenges your views.

 

[Chief]

"White Ribbon. Australia's campaign to prevent
men's violence against women."

White ribbon cares specifically about men's violence against women.

Not women's violence against women(lesbian relationships more violent per capita than heterosexual relationships)
Not women's violence against men.
Not women's violence against children.

Cannot really see a focus even on men's violence against children.

Leave the thread if you do not like uncomfortable information that challenges your views.

Sooo... why isn't the Heart Foundation doing more to protect children from liver disease?

 

[ABSOLUTE MADMAN]

Sooo... why isn't the Heart Foundation doing more to protect children from liver disease?

Because gives shits about heart disease and does not give shits about liver disease just like White Ribbon does not give shits about children or the women on women violence.

In other words their cause does nothing for liver disease in the way that white ribbon does nothing for women who suffer violence in lesbian relationships and seemingly children. Except white ribbon is worse because it goes out of its way to exclude some forms of violence by actually adding a word and changing "violence against women" to "men's violence against women". Denying women could possibly be violent is obviously more important that those victims of violence in lesbian relationships.

 

[ABSOLUTE MADMAN]

BTW we are seeing Chief enter the "de-rail thread" mode when the information posted goes against his world view but he cannot argue against the whole.

Notice how he is trying to focus on one little thing to deflect attention from the rest of that post and engaging in pure semantics. This is a common move by this poster repeated ad nauseam on this site.

 

[romeohwho]

So you just pulled the same s**t that the BORK post pointed out of focusing on women's needs ahead of children and tried finding some random reasoning for it. FFS. The majority of child abuse victims in Australia are the victim of a female perpetrator. A child that lives with both it's biological mother and biological father is per capita many times less likely to be abused than a child living with a single biological mother.

You are clutching an non existent straws if you think seeing violence committed against women(terrible thing) is the "area of greatest damage to children".

Just another person finding an excuse to put women's needs ahead of children.

I would also note that children who have been the victims of abuse are more likely to become abusers later in life. Of course a common sense approach that would benefit children now and both men and women in the future by facing less potential abusive intimate partners who were victims of abuse as children, is not as important as maintaining the false narrative.

Firstly, what's it got to do with bork?
Then- you claim that it's all about the children, yet you rail against the greatest area of damage done to children. If you want good outcomes for the majority of children-address the domestic violence against women. It's very simple. if you can't see that you aren't looking in the right places.

 

[fleabitten]

Firstly, what's it got to do with bork?
Then- you claim that it's all about the children, yet you rail against the greatest area of damage done to children.

You're saying that the greatest damage to children in family violence is seeing their mother abused?

If you want good outcomes for the majority of children-address the domestic violence against women. It's very simple. if you can't see that you aren't looking in the right places.

If you want good outcomes for the majority of children, surely you address domestic violence against children (including violence and abuse perpetrated by mothers).

 

[Chief]

Because gi

Sorry mate, TL; DR. I'm time poor and can't be wasting precious temporal resources on your posts.



On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Lethality]

Sooo... why isn't the Heart Foundation doing more to protect children from liver disease?

White Ribbon Foundation professes to be fighting domestic violence, so it should be noting violence on all family members, rather than just man on woman.

 

[La Dolce Vita]

Sooo... why isn't the Heart Foundation doing more to protect children from liver disease?

Wow the feminists really have zero arguments
This kind of denial, ignorance and obtuse circle jerk is on another level

 

[romeohwho]

You're saying that the greatest damage to children in family violence is seeing their mother abused?



If you want good outcomes for the majority of children, surely you address domestic violence against children (including violence and abuse perpetrated by mothers).

Just finding the selective outrage a bit interesting Flea. An awful lot of outrage on here about the 'poor men'. And a bit of outrage about the 'children' abused by mother's. None however, for the mothers who are taken from their children. Not seeing any outrage for those children. (Despite that surely being a form of child abuse)

 

[Chief]

BTW we are seeing Chief enter the "de-rail thread" mode when the information posted goes against his world view but he cannot argue against the whole.

Notice how he is trying to focus on one little thing to deflect attention from the rest of that post and engaging in pure semantics. This is a common move by this poster repeated ad nauseam on this site.

Plenty of people doing that job for me.

Endlessly returning to Rosie Batty for example. Insinuating she doesn't care about children or men.

Why aren't the Heart Foundation called The Health Foundation? Why oh why do they not care a jot for people with prostate cancer??


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[fleabitten]

Just finding the selective outrage a bit interesting Flea. An awful lot of outrage on here about the 'poor men'. And a bit of outrage about the 'children' abused by mother's. None however, for the mothers who are taken from their children. Not seeing any outrage for those children. (Despite that surely being a form of child abuse)

That outrage is a given. No-one is saying we should stop being outraged when a man kills/abuses a woman. It's just equally horrible when it's a woman doing the murdering and abusing. More horrible in many cases because the victims of women have a much harder time being acknowledged and getting help.

Your 'poor men' attitude is part of the problem. Do these human beings not deserve the same compassion as any other victims of abuse: http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/re...s/news-story/25ad244866c90d0bceac6094e2523a7e

 

[fleabitten]

Plenty of people doing that job for me.

Endlessly returning to Rosie Batty for example. Insinuating she doesn't care about children or men.

Why aren't the Heart Foundation called The Health Foundation? Why oh why do they not care a jot for people with prostate cancer??

I actually agree with you on White Ribbon. Their stated goals are to do with male on female violence, so it's fair for them to be focused on that. But the original point still stands when we look at how family violence is being portrayed, funded and even sometimes explicitly defined as men vs women and their children. There is very little discussion of the abuse of children by women. There is even less on the abuse of men by women.

 

[Chief]

I actually agree with you on White Ribbon. Their stated goals are to do with male on female violence, so it's fair for them to be focused on that. But the original point still stands when we look at how family violence is being portrayed, funded and even sometimes explicitly defined as men vs women and their children. There is very little discussion of the abuse of children by women. There is even less on the abuse of men by women.

Yes I thought Turnbull's definitive claim was bit iffy, and the whole sector needs a lot more funding and discussion. But male on female abuse is the vast majority of the issue and you are going to get more results per dollar tackling that issue.

In some jurisdictions any report of domestic violence results in automatic charges. This has resulted in fewer MALE deaths. The male abuser is far less likely to be killed by his victim if he is taken out of the scene as early as possible. I'd like to see that here, coupled with appropriate resources for counseling and assistance.

 

[romeohwho]

That outrage is a given. No-one is saying we should stop being outraged when a man kills/abuses a woman. It's just equally horrible when it's a woman doing the murdering and abusing. More horrible in many cases because the victims of women have a much harder time being acknowledged and getting help.

Your 'poor men' attitude is part of the problem. Do these human beings not deserve the same compassion as any other victims of abuse: http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/re...s/news-story/25ad244866c90d0bceac6094e2523a7e

Am sure that for you, it is a given but not so convinced it is for everyone.
Re the poor men- if posters just said men are victims too and need more acknowledgment, funding, resources ... and if you had a thread about men's rights that discussed all of these issues-then it would be fine.
However because the poor men brigade premise so much on blaming the feminists for their downtrodden state, dispute so many simple truths, exaggerate so much, it taints their arguments and leads them into propagating incorrect and unfair beliefs.

 

[fleabitten]

Yes I thought Turnbull's definitive claim was bit iffy, and the whole sector needs a lot more funding and discussion. But male on female abuse is the vast majority of the issue and you are going to get more results per dollar tackling that issue.

Male on female is only the vast majority if we're restricting the conversation to spousal abuse (and it still depends how you define "vast"...and how you define "abuse"). If we're including children, there are a significant number of female abusers no matter how you look at it. Some of the anti-violence against women groups include children as victims but don't acknowledge women as potential abusers.

 

[Lethality]

Just finding the selective outrage a bit interesting Flea. An awful lot of outrage on here about the 'poor men'. )

It's not selective, it just seeks to be included. If men were acknowledged properly in DV campaigns, then flea wouldn't be bringing attention to this oversight. Even breast cancer acknowledged men in the recent AFL awareness game, and they're only 1% of victims. The numbers are far higher with DV.

BTW I see plenty of women making the same arguments now on social media. It's not men vs women, its both sexes against rigid thinking.

 

[Lethality]

The male abuser is far less likely to be killed by his victim if he is taken out of the scene as early as possible. I'd like to see that here, coupled with appropriate resources for counseling and assistance.

Assistance for male abusers? Are you being completely facetious, or sarcastically comparing this in some way with wanting assistance for male victims?

 

[Chief]

Assistance for male abusers? Are you being completely facetious, or sarcastically comparing this in some way with wanting assistance for male victims?

Assistance for the whole family. Repeated violence and other abuse warps people, so that method of dealing with life's challenges can be normalised within the family. The kids can act it out with each other and their friends, the victim parent can become the abuser of the kids.

It can become a huge mess so yes, assistance for the family, including the primary abuser.

 

[Chief]

Male on female is only the vast majority if we're restricting the conversation to spousal abuse (and it still depends how you define "vast"...and how you define "abuse"). If we're including children, there are a significant number of female abusers no matter how you look at it. Some of the anti-violence against women groups include children as victims but don't acknowledge women as potential abusers.

I would say look at it from the angle of primary carer.

Women as primary carer are very much under represented as abusers of children compared with males. Where the male is primary care giver they are much more likely to abuse a child. You don't like to think about that, or even that idea as a valid point of consideration. But the simple fact is that if you want to improve the situation, broadly, give the kids to the mum and don't let her new partners near the kids. This is indiscriminate and generalised, not taking account of other factors, so of course it can't be any sort of policy if it could even be enforced.

But we've had this argument and the MRAs went away crowing about victory without having proven a single thing.

Males are also much more likely to severely injure or kill their victim in spousal abuse. So a male on female abuse situation is, on average, not as severe as female on male abuse. It simply isn't, on average.

80 to 100 female DV deaths a year compared with what? Sweet FA?

This from NSW in 2015: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-24/domestic-violence-findings-nsw-police-training/6342152

The report also found that 60 per cent of the homicides were considered "intimate partner homicides", where almost all of the women that had been killed had been victims of domestic violence.

Of the 35 men killed in this category, 29 were killed by a current or former female partner. Almost all of the men killed in that context had been the domestic violence abuser in the relationship.​

This is not to say there aren't examples of males being killed or severely injured by abusive spouses.

Kids are not ignored in the debate:

"All the pieces of the puzzle have to be put together in order for us to be able to make an impact on the way domestic and family violence is responded to, particularly when we think about that in relation to the deaths of children."

She said a $100 million investment is needed over the next three years to incorporate all sectors involved, including housing, health, justice, young people and those at high risk.

"We really need to put some money into this," Ms Baulch said.​

And before we start claiming solid statistics on who is abusing and killing kids:

Data on those who abuse children is limited in Australia. The main sources of evidence are from statutory child protection reports, child abuse and neglect prevalence studies, and police statistics of criminal offences relating to child physical and sexual assault. Each of these sources has limitations. For example, child protection reports and police statistics are based on reported cases of child abuse and neglect and are therefore unable to provide an accurate picture of the total incidence of abuse and neglect. Information on the characteristics of those who abuse children is also rarely provided in statistical reports.

Research suggests that both mothers and fathers may physically abuse children. Findings from the ABS Personal Safety Survey (2005) indicated that of participants who had experienced physical abuse before the age of 15, 55.6% experienced abuse from their father/stepfather and 25.9% experienced abuse from their mother/stepmother. A further 13.7% experienced abuse from another known person and the remainder were family friends, other relatives, or strangers (ABS, 2005).
​

Look at that again:
* mother/stepmother: 26%
* father/stepfather: 55%

fathers or father surrogates are responsible for more severe physical abuse and fatalities than female perpetrators (US Department of Health and Human Services [US DHHS], 2005). Other researchers such as Daly and Wilson (1999) have argued that biological parents are less likely than step-parents to physically abuse their biological offspring due to their greater investment in the genetic continuity of their family.​

Over all we will both agree that specifically the response and assistance for male victims of DV probably isn't well aligned with their needs. But generally in this board, the loudest complaints are heard from people who tack on things like women have it better than men anyway, bitter rants about women being favoured in the courts and so on.

 

[Lethality]

But generally in this board, the loudest complaints are heard from people who tack on things like women have it better than men anyway, bitter rants about women being favoured in the courts and so on.

Referring to male deaths as 'sweet FA' isn't much better.

Kids are not ignored in the debate:

They are ignored in the public debate. If we go by those NSW figures and extrapolate them to the entire country, they make up most of the deaths in domestic violence. Yet Malcolm Turnbull saw fit to re-define DV as simply violence against women, and that is still what comes to mind for most people it seems.

 

[Chief]

Referring to male deaths as 'sweet FA' isn't much better.

I referred to numbers compared to women. And you choose to pick that out, and misquote it as if the deaths themselves don't matter. When I specifically said they do.

It seems like you're proving the point I made at the end of my post.

 

[Chief]

They are ignored in the public debate. If we go by those NSW figures and extrapolate them to the entire country, they make up most of the deaths in domestic violence. Yet Malcolm Turnbull saw fit to re-define DV as simply violence against women, and that is still what comes to mind for most people it seems.

Head of DV NSW:
"All the pieces of the puzzle have to be put together in order for us to be able to make an impact on the way domestic and family violence is responded to, particularly when we think about that in relation to the deaths of children."

The prime minister is a twat, so...

 

[Lethality]

I referred to numbers compared to women. And you choose to pick that out, and misquote it as if the deaths themselves don't matter. When I specifically said they do.

I'm not saying you said the deaths don't matter, I'm referring to your rhetoric after your criticised that of the MRAs. Referring to deaths as 'sweet FA' isn't any better.

Head of DV NSW:
"All the pieces of the puzzle have to be put together in order for us to be able to make an impact on the way domestic and family violence is responded to, particularly when we think about that in relation to the deaths of children."

I didn't criticise the report, was referring to public awareness.

The prime minister is a twat, so...

His attitude is representative of the public's. Nobody disagreed with him in the interview when he made those comments.

 

[Chief]

His attitude is representative of the public's. Nobody disagreed with him in the interview when he made those comments.

Why didn't you speak out?