Domestic violence

[CM86]

If it's not an issue, why call it 'gender-based' in the first place?

Because it's a complicated issue, and this language includes people who don't identify as a woman...


As in, if a female identifies as non-binary, it's still accepted that they shouldn't have to just live with 'domestic violence'.

I think I'll pause here, because I'll just become abusive if we don't have this base point of understanding.

 

[evolved2]

If they came out and stated as part of Government policy, that all men need to reduce their violence against women... It wouldn't upset me at all.
I wouldn't feel attacked, I wouldn't feel oppressed.

Sticks and stones may break my bones but words shall never hurt me.
I understand any hyperbole to reduce the harm across Australia.

Who would oppose "all men need to reduce their violence against women"? And why?

I'm not quite sure how I'm supposed to reduce my violence against women given I'm not violent against women.

Would I be offended? Not by the message itself, but rather the silliness of it. Sorry mate, that's not one of your better suggestions.

 

[CM86]

I'm not violent against women.

Then why the heck would you be against the message?

If it isn't about you, doesn't address you, and doesn't impact you...

But it MIGHT have the smallest impact in reducing violence against women.

Why be against it??????


'They're calling out people, that aren't me. In a way that doesn't impact me at all. But, if I strain my neck I can virtue signal that it might impact people like me, so I oppose it'??

Like. Why oppose it?

 

[evolved2]

Feeling lectured is subjective. So how can you possibly create a national message that has any impact, without it feeling like a 'lecture' to people who don't care?


It's not your job, but do you think you could begin to imagine creating a message for all Australians that is impactful, without being a 'lecture'?

I don't agree feeling lectured is subjective. The religious right lecture us on the morality of abortion, don't they?

People switch off when they're being lectured. I'm not sure what good messaging on the issue looks like, but I know what turns me off.

Gough offered a good suggestion in post#24.

Compassion, understanding, therapy. You know that all of those aspects have been and are still part of the progress.

But we aren't talking an individual level in this regard, we're talking about a societal shift about the understanding of gendered and domestic violence.

Right?

How do you possibly talk about violence against women, without addressing male violence and societal actions?
It might be boring, but if society still views violence against women as a trans issue, or a non-issue... what the * can be done?

I see your point. This may sound like a copout, but it's not - I honestly don't know. It's a worthwhile discussion.

 

[CM86]

I don't agree feeling lectured is subjective. The religious right lecture us on the morality of abortion, don't they?

Yes, most people switch off when being 'lectured' by the religious right about abortion.
Because it actively impacts and harms the rights of people, and is baseless.

That's not comparable to people trying to reduce violence against women. Right?

 

[evolved2]

Because it's a complicated issue, and this language includes people who don't identify as a woman...


As in, if a female identifies as non-binary, it's still accepted that they shouldn't have to just live with 'domestic violence'.

I think I'll pause here, because I'll just become abusive if we don't have this base point of understanding.

It's not a sticking point for me - I have no opinion on whether the DV discussion should be framed through sex or gender. I'm purely making observations which I believe are fact-based.

Feel free to abuse me via PM if you want to continue the discussion there. I'm not offended easily.

 

[evolved2]

Then why the * would you be against the message?

If it isn't about you, doesn't address you, and doesn't impact you...

But it MIGHT have the smallest impact in reducing violence against women.

Why be against it??????


'They're calling out people, that aren't me. In a way that doesn't impact me at all. But, if I strain my neck I can virtue signal that it might impact people like me, so I oppose it'??

Like. Why oppose it?

Because it makes no sense to label all men as violent when they aren't. I can't imagine how inaccurate messaging will fix anything - if you can convince me, I'm on board.

 

[Festerz]

Because it makes no sense to label all men as violent when they aren't.

Whose doing this?

 

[evolved2]

Whose doing this?

 

[Gethelred]

Then why the * would you be against the message?

If it isn't about you, doesn't address you, and doesn't impact you...

But it MIGHT have the smallest impact in reducing violence against women.

Why be against it??????

Because it allows for an easy deflection by those whose good faith is questionable; from gendered violence away to a wedge issue upon which prog/cons can never agree. Alt right proponents - or those who learned to argue in online spaces - always try to control the conversation by littering a reasonable debate with bad arguments in order to lure people into disputing things in the direction they want you to go.

Take our OP for example. Discussing gendered violence is an interesting idea, but what's objected to is not violence against women but the labelling of transgendered people as women. Immediately the wedge is sought and those who are inclined to argue are wedged: do you argue a) that gendered violence is a worthy subject without bringing in the culture war stuff (and get labelled a hypocrite or no true believer because you've dismissed the needs of transgender individuals to discuss something within which they are included) or b) that transgendered people are included in the category women, which is where our OP wanted discussion to go?

You're caught between a rock and a hard place, all because your opponent has set the terms of the debate and framing is all important.

'They're calling out people, that aren't me. In a way that doesn't impact me at all. But, if I strain my neck I can virtue signal that it might impact people like me, so I oppose it'??

Like. Why oppose it?

I agree, but you will catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

 

[Festerz]

View attachment 1979074

Ahh - I thought you were talking about the bigger picture.

 

[CM86]

View attachment 1979074

Do you need to reduce your violence against women?
If not... how does this impact you at all?


We have gun laws that apply to EVERY GUN OWNER.
It doesn't impact me in any negative way, and I can see the benefits. So why oppose it???


If you support any possible decrease in violence against women, why do you give a s**t about some virtue signalling bullshit NRA style 'not all guns'????

 

[evolved2]

Do you need to reduce your violence against women?
If not... how does this impact you at all?


We have gun laws that apply to EVERY GUN OWNER.
It doesn't impact me in any negative way, and I can see the benefits. So why oppose it???


If you support any possible decrease in violence against women, why do you give a s**t about some virtue signalling bullshit NRA style 'not all guns'????

I have strong feelings about DV towards women (females and transwomen) and will gladly support almost any initiative that is likely to reduce violence towards women.

You haven't provided evidence that lecturing or inaccurate messaging (all men are violent) will result in a reduction of DV.

Why would anyone who wants positive results support your proposal?

 

[CM86]

I have strong feelings about DV towards women (females and transwomen) and will gladly support almost any initiative that is likely to reduce violence towards women.

For example?
What's an initiative that you would (or have) supported the messaging of (in terms of DV)?
And how does it differ to any of the actual messaging (outside of the virtue signalling bs about 'all men are violent')?

You haven't provided evidence that lecturing or inaccurate messaging (all men are violent) will result in a reduction of DV.

I haven't said that all men are violent.
The same way I support seatbelts without saying no driver wears seatbelts.
The same way I support anti-drinkdriving messages without saying all drivers drink.
The same way I support advertising on how to properly wash your hands, without saying no one knows how to wash their hands.


You need to actively look for insult, in order to take the message of 'decrease violence against women' as a personal attack.

What you're saying is that "telling gun owners that guns kill people is an attack on gun owners! Guns don't kill people, people kill people!!".

Why would anyone who wants positive results support your proposal?

Because they want to see a reduction in violence against women.

Why would anyone oppose it?


And is what I'm currently doing, lecturing?

 

[CM86]

"Men aren't violent! Violent men are violent!!".

Yes. So let's push the message that men need to be less violent...
"NOT ALL MEN!!".
Yes... And not all women are being violently assaulted.

But we don't need to wait for all men to be violent, or all women to be assaulted, before we can start talking about reducing these negative aspects of our society.


We didn't oppose 'one punch laws', because 'not all men'.
We just accepted the inherent dangers and need for more social awareness.

So why the heck do we need to be so gentle and slow to the point of stand-still in terms of DV messaging????

 

[evolved2]

For example?
What's an initiative that you would (or have) supported the messaging of (in terms of DV)?
And how does it differ to any of the actual messaging (outside of the virtue signalling bs about 'all men are violent')?


I haven't said that all men are violent.
The same way I support seatbelts without saying no driver wears seatbelts.
The same way I support anti-drinkdriving messages without saying all drivers drink.
The same way I support advertising on how to properly wash your hands, without saying no one knows how to wash their hands.


You need to actively look for insult, in order to take the message of 'decrease violence against women' as a personal attack.

What you're saying is that "telling gun owners that guns kill people is an attack on gun owners! Guns don't kill people, people kill people!!".


Because they want to see a reduction in violence against women.

Why would anyone oppose it?


And is what I'm currently doing, lecturing?

No, I wouldn't say you're lecturing. Your proposed messaging - or what I took from reading your posts - is the suggestion that government lectures ALL men. I can't see how that would be effective in reducing DV. If it is, I'm on board. If there's no evidence it would be effective, then I'm against it because it would be meaningless virtue signalling.

DV isn't an area that I have expertise in, so I have no suggestions to offer. I'm happy to step back and support any and all initiatives that the experts propose.

Anyway, I feel we're going round and round in circles here. Not sure if it's worth continuing this discussion - do you agree?

 

[Grin]

I reckon it's really cool how Fox and our resident Centralists enthusiastically support and encourage rapists, whilst bitterly complaining that the issue of gendered based violence has been raised of late. Those people marching the other day should be grateful they weren't shot, or at least bashed

 

[Farm Boy]

When domestic violence is framed as violence against women - it’s already a lost conversation. White Ribbon ran this narrative years ago, when Andrew O’Keefe fronted the campaign, and nothing came of it. Now it’s rinse and repeat. If we’re heading down this path again, I just hope some researchers can actually zero on a specific cohort of offenders, for example, are perpetrators from a broken home more likely to offend than those who aren’t? Are perpetrators battling custody issues more likely to offend than those who aren’t fighting custody issues, same with drugs, housing, etc. otherwise, the narrative of men as violent is tarring all men with one brush.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[evolved2]

I reckon it's really cool how Fox and our resident Centralists enthusiastically support and encourage rapists, whilst bitterly complaining that the issue of gendered based violence has been raised of late. Those people marching the other day should be grateful they weren't shot, or at least bashed

Never change, Grin

 

[evolved2]

'They're calling out people, that aren't me. In a way that doesn't impact me at all. But, if I strain my neck I can virtue signal that it might impact people like me, so I oppose it'??

Like. Why oppose it?

I agree, but you will catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

But it does affect me - a statement that all men need to reduce their violence against women implies that all men are violent. I'm considered violent purely because of something inherent to me that I can't change.

If someone was to say that all black men need to reduce their violence against women, I'm sure you'd agree the wording is inappropriate and racist. Though I'm sure CM86 didn't intend it, their wording comes across to me as prejudiced against men.

I simply can't get behind any message that infers all men are violent, and I'm not just being a stickler for irrelevant detail - you'll likely find there are many others who feel the same way. If the messaging turns potential allies off, how is it going to be effective?

 

[Grin]

Never change, Grin

Thanks brother.
I'm taking the piss because it's obviously a non issue, probably created by our friends at Sky after dark. A slightly pathetic attempt to distract from, and muddy a very serious issues. I am a bit curious why the right would like to see gendered based violence perpetuated. Is it status quo thing? Violence is usually committed where there is a power imbalance, so maybe the victims are just woke snowflakes who need to grow a pair. Maybe righties just find gendered based violence amusing and entertaining, like interning children in detention centres

Not quite sure where the op is going with the whole socialist/marxist gobbledegook. Again, it sound like he's regurgitating some in-comprehensive nonsense he's heard on Sky or the interwebz.

 

[Gough]

I was watching a documentary on cocaine use in Britain and they were speaking to a young lady, she was a weekend user and she said apart from the obvious reasons for using it when she went out she also cited safety. She said that if she was pissed at the end of the night she felt having a toot made her more aware and less likely to be assaulted getting home. Whether she was just trying to justify her own use or not it was an interesting and fairly sad perspective on how women view their personal safety.

 

[evolved2]

Thanks brother.
I'm taking the piss because it's obviously a non issue, probably created by our friends at Sky after dark. A slightly pathetic attempt to distract from, and muddy a very serious issues. I am a bit curious why the right would like to see gendered based violence perpetuated. Is it status quo thing? Violence is usually committed where there is a power imbalance, so maybe the victims are just woke snowflakes who need to grow a pair. Maybe righties just find gendered based violence amusing and entertaining, like interning children in detention centres

Not quite sure where the op is going with the whole socialist/marxist gobbledegook. Again, it sound like he's regurgitating some in-comprehensive nonsense he's heard on Sky or the interwebz.

There may have been a few breadcrumbs left throughout this thread as to the OP's intentions - those who get a little wound up tend to miss the signs.

As always, I appreciate the update on sky news. My theory is that most of their viewership comes from the left. I hope you guys aren't paying for that s**t!

Who is actually pro gender-based violence? Other than the perpetrators, very few I would have thought.

Some on the left shoot themselves in the foot by claiming a type of self-imagined moral high ground and gatekeeping it. Anyone who's not for you is against you - it doesn't seem like a winning approach to me.

 

[Cmarsh]

There's actually alot more violence of men towards other men.

 

[Gough]

There's actually alot more violence of men towards other men.

When one man killed another is Sydney they rewrote licencing laws in response, not quite seeing that level of urgency here.