Society/Culture Feminism part 1 - continued in part 2

[fleabitten]

Start one.

Targeted campaigns against drink driving don't replace the campaigns against speeding or wearing your seat belt or making sure you're properly rested, etc. So your post was a bit silly. DV campaigns target male offenses against women and children and there's barely any acknowledgement that men can be victims. Razorback's comment above is spot on. It's just like if there was a campaign to prevent male workplace accidents and everyone acted like it doesn't happen to women at all.

 

[Chief]

Targeted campaigns against drink driving don't replace the campaigns against speeding or wearing your seat belt or making sure you're properly rested, etc.

Do domestic violence campaigns targeting male violence replace those on female violence?

 

[fleabitten]

Do domestic violence campaigns targeting male violence replace those on female violence?

They need not be separate campaigns. Just like worksafe don't have separate campaigns targeting men and women. Domestic violence is domestic violence. Just because it happens to one gender more than the other doesn't mean we should divide it into two separate issues.

 

[romeoh]

They need not be separate campaigns. Just like worksafe don't have separate campaigns targeting men and women. Domestic violence is domestic violence. Just because it happens to one gender more than the other doesn't mean we should divide it into two separate issues.

But the suggestion is a good one -the incessant amount of whinging and sooking on this forum could be better spent working on campaigns to target DV against males. Go ahead - you lot can put all that energy and aggression to constructive use.

 

[fleabitten]

But the suggestion is a good one -the incessant amount of whinging and sooking on this forum could be better spent working on campaigns to target DV against males. Go ahead - you lot can put all that energy and aggression to constructive use.

But it's a not a good one. The best idea would just be to include all kinds of domestic violence in campaigns against domestic violence and not make it seem like women are always the victims and men always the perpetrators. Take a look at this website: http://www.domesticviolence.com.au/

Oh look, we have a tab for "Men & Domestic violence". Wow, thanks for recognising that....oh...the sub headings:
FREQUENTLY ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT MEN WHO ABUSE
GETTING HELP FOR ABUSIVE BEHAVIOUR
WHAT MEN CAN DO TO HELP STOP DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
IF YOU KNOW SOMEBODY WHO IS ABUSIVE
WHAT ABOUT WOMEN WHO USE VIOLENCE?
WHITE RIBBON CAMPAIGN
MENTORS IN VIOLENCE PROGRAM

Well, at least they have a sub-section about women who use violence which is a start I...oh...most of that is just providing excuses for violent women and telling us that violence against men almost never happens. There's a total of one sentence on the entire website that is somewhat sympathetic to male victims.

"The Domestic Violence Prevention Centre provides safety information and referrals for men who are victims of domestic and family violence and have been abused by their partner, son, brother, other family member or same sex partner."

And even that insinuates that the male was most likely the victim of another male.

The rest of the site is geared entirely to female victims. Which is a bit messed up because in their section about "Forms of Abuse", quite a lot of them are things that women can be just as guilty of if not more so.

Intimidation
Includes smashing things, destroying her possessions, putting a fist through the wall, handling of guns or other weapons, using intimidating body language (angry looks, raised voice), hostile questioning of the victim or reckless driving of vehicle with the victim in the car. It may also include harassing the victim at her workplace either by making persistent phone calls or sending text messages or emails, following her to and from work or loitering near her workplace.

So it's not domestic abuse if she destroys his possessions or harasses him at work?

Verbal abuse
Using words as a weapon to cause significant damage. This may include screaming, shouting, put-downs, name-calling, swearing, using sarcasm or ridiculing her for her religious beliefs or ethnic background. Verbal abuse may be a precursor to physical violence.

Nah, a woman would never do anything like that. Or is it just not abuse when a female does it to a male?

It goes on and on like this with behaviours that women exhibit just as often as men do. So while men may more often perpetrate physical violence against a spouse (compared to how often it happens in reverse), according to their definitions of abuse, there would be almost as many male victims as female. The hilarious stereotype of the hen-pecked husband is that of a domestic abuse victim.

There's no need to concentrate only on female victims. Victims are victims.

 

[romeoh]

Like I said-you have such an interest and such a sense of aggrievement-channel it -get going and get to work changing things.

 

[fleabitten]

Like I said-you have such an interest and such a sense of aggrievement-channel it -get going and get to work changing things.

Actually more like I had 15 minutes to kill and there was nothing happening in the RFC board's mafia game. As a former victim of domestic abuse, it's a subject that interests me and I have some opinions on it.

 

[Chief]

They need not be separate campaigns. Just like worksafe don't have separate campaigns targeting men and women. Domestic violence is domestic violence. Just because it happens to one gender more than the other doesn't mean we should divide it into two separate issues.

As mentioned, targeted campaigns are more effective than general campaigns.

"Don't drink and drive" is more effective than an "abide by all road laws" campaign. "Men don't accept this from your mates" or "get your mates to get help" is different to "girls talk to your doctor if you feel like you're losing it".

fleabitten do you believe that men and women are absolutely the same in every respect? Do you think they respond the same way to everything? It would seem that given men are far more likely to respond violently to situations that this is not the case. Historically, giving the wife a love-tap to keep her in line was not a big deal in many social groups.

But it's a not a good one. The best idea would just be to include all kinds of domestic violence in campaigns against domestic violence

We know so much about the ways men and women respond to things, and how likely they are to seek help from friends or the medical profession. And they are not identical.

Do you think a campaign about elder abuse is also discriminatory against men because it doesn't talk about men specifically?

 

[blackcat]

 

[blackcat]

I reckon Ian Cohen deserves an apology. he is just the cipher that has channeled the dominant culture, and he is getting blamed. I think he is an automaton, a non-entity. But he WAS the target for the burden.

go Nike before you do Cohen. Go the producers before you go Cohen. he is not the problem.

I dont even see Nike as that evil or pernicious or a blight on the culture. they are neutral. I could not give a shit. To give a shit, one would have to channel some BS religion view that seeks to impart values on this.

 

[tesseract]

OK demonstrating your incapacity to engage in rational argument again. Man has dominion over nature and chicks - is that how it goes?

This is projection. You came in with preconceived conclusions with no supporting evidence and say that I'm demonstrating an incapacity for rational argument? That's a laugh! I've already provided dozens of pieces of evidence that contradict your views. If you're gonna play, get up to speed.

 

[tesseract]

Just don't see where men have not been considered. To me domestic/family violence is children, females and males and doesn't necessarily have to be physical to be destructive so not sure what you are getting at.

Feminism-related threads on GD and SRP have discussed, and have videos, on the issue of male DV victims lacking recognition, empathy, funding, shelters, political lobby, men's centres and a specific government minister for men that advocates in support of these men. For you to say "Just don't see where men have not been considered" is either disingenuous, and hence typically dismissive, or you haven't been paying attention.

Feminists are attempting to expand the definition of DV to incorporate non-violent acts. This goes against the definition of 'violence'. For the definition to be inclusive of acts of a non-violent nature makes DV all encompassing and open to interpretation, misuse and corruption. This undertaking eventually culminates in the enslavement of men. For example: "Men who exercise “coercive control” over their partners by restricting their personal or financial freedom, or through overt criticism could face up to 14 years in jail under new laws". If she asks for money from him and he says "no" due to her wants being considered wasteful and unnecessary, he's assumed to be financially coercive and can be jailed for a very long time.

This is why DV moving into territory of non-violence culminates in enslavement. The woman will have the power to say 'do as I want or be arrested and charged'. Women en masse will lap this up as it favours them and gives them absolute control and power in a relationship with a man. I can confidently say this because when there are laws that advantage women there's nothing but silence from them. Women's silence is implicit approval of these laws and/or its unequal application. It's also in part why I see Feminism as an extension and symptom of a greater problem - female nature and its inherent solipsism. Feminism is female nature on steroids.

Husbands Who Yell at Their Wives Face up to 14 Years in Prison Under New Law

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/...s-face-up-to-14-years-in-prison-under-new-law

For now, this new law only applies in England where leftist lunacy is far more advanced than in America, but it’s a good illustration of where our society is headed if we don’t reverse course.

Men who exercise “coercive control” over their partners by restricting their personal or financial freedom, or through overt criticism could face up to 14 years in jail under new laws set to be announced by Home Secretary Theresa May this week. Campaigners, who have been arguing for a change in the law to bring emotional abuse into line legally with physical abuse, have praised the proposals as a “major step forward”.

The new law will be introduced as a series of amendments to the Serious Crime Bill, and will alter the legal definition of domestic abuse to include psychological, as well as physical damage. It is expected to pass into law in the new year.

Seema Malhotra, Labour’s shadow anti-domestic violence minister, suggested earlier this year that husbands criticizing their wives weight or appearance may be guilty of domestic abuse. “It can be part of a pattern of controlling behavior that leaves people feeling fearful and terrorized in their own homes,” she said, and may be an “indicator of physical abuse in the future”.

 

[tesseract]

Men are also victims of DV but women and children are more the victims so why would you take issue with that?

I take issue with that because you're spouting misinformation.

You keep making the same claim over and over without support, yet I've contradicted your claim with the world's most comprehensive bibliography of studies on the topic, as well as other material. You're willfully ignorant and gullible. You've previously been pointed to these studies yet fail to take the time to research it for yourself.

 

[tesseract]

It would seem that given men are far more likely to respond violently to situations...

The studies I've put forward show that DV occurs at comparable rates between the sexes. This is where a dysfunctional relationship has both parties being instigators and recipients of violence.

In DV cases where only one party initiates the violence and the other party is the recipient, it is women 70% of the time being the instigators of violence. It's also the case that women overcome their physical disadvantage by using weapons.

So, no, it's not the case of "men who're far more likely to respond violently to situations".

Read the studies I've posted and educate yourself, for at the moment you're spouting misinformation.

 

[clogged]

Do you have a job tesseract?

 

[cartwright]

They need not be separate campaigns. Just like worksafe don't have separate campaigns targeting men and women. Domestic violence is domestic violence. Just because it happens to one gender more than the other doesn't mean we should divide it into two separate issues.

Of course they can be different campaigns.

Just as the campaigns about mental health, are different.

 

[fleabitten]

Of course they can be different campaigns.

Just as the campaigns about mental health, are different.

They can be, they just need not be. As there is no campaign in support of male victims, it would be nice if they weren't almost entirely excluded by the mainstream campaigns against DV. Having separate mental health campaigns for men and women is fine and makes sense, but wouldn't you find it a bit unfair if it was only men's mental health that got attention and women's was ignored?

 

[fleabitten]

http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/01/reverse-oppression-cant-exist/

"The dictionary, to begin with, is a really trite resource to use when arguing complex topics."

LOL, tell that to every feminist ever who point to the dictionary every time someone questions whether feminism is really about equality.

 

[cartwright]

They can be, they just need not be. As there is no campaign in support of male victims, it would be nice if they weren't almost entirely excluded by the mainstream campaigns against DV. Having separate mental health campaigns for men and women is fine and makes sense, but wouldn't you find it a bit unfair if it was only men's mental health that got attention and women's was ignored?

The One in 3 campaign springs to mind.

What mental health campaigns are there for women?

 

[fleabitten]

I don't know about campaigns for either side (I don't watch TV or buy newspapers/magazines or look at billboards) but there's a Centre for Women's Mental Health at the Royal Women's Hospital and plenty of other places for women to get help. It's hardly the equivalent of the situation for male DV victims.

 

[cartwright]

I don't know about campaigns for either side (I don't watch TV or buy newspapers/magazines or look at billboards) but there's a Centre for Women's Mental Health at the Royal Women's Hospital and plenty of other places for women to get help. It's hardly the equivalent of the situation for male DV victims.

I think it is similar. Just like DV, anyone can experience mental health issues, it does not discriminate.

Women's mental health has no campaign as strong as the ManTherapy one has been.

This makes sense. 80% of all suicides are by men.

Seeing that women are statistically more likely to be a victim, or die at the hands of their partner, it makes sense to focus awareness and campaigns around that.

 

[fleabitten]

But there's no Centre for Abused Men. Women's mental health may not have as much in the way of media campaigns but there's no shortage of places for them to seek help.

Males being abused by women is funny in our culture. There's very little in the way of help for adult male victims. They are laughed at or sometimes even treated as though they are the aggressor.

 

[Little Big John]

Here's one thing I don't get: why is silence considered implicit approval of a position?

This is not just related to the issues in this thread, but any of a myriad discussed on these here fora. The only thing silence is an approval for is the act of not saying anything.

For instance there's heaps of things/positions/acts I disagree with. I don't always vocalise/write about them because I also disagree with being a whinging carp all the time so I'd end up breaking one position to hold another.

Holding abstaining to be an approval for one position seems terribly reductive and lowers the discussion to a 'who can be more rabid' pissing contest.

 

[kfc1]

Here's one thing I don't get: why is silence considered implicit approval of a position?

This is not just related to the issues in this thread, but any of a myriad discussed on these here fora. The only thing silence is an approval for is the act of not saying anything.

For instance there's heaps of things/positions/acts I disagree with. I don't always vocalise/write about them because I also disagree with being a whinging carp all the time so I'd end up breaking one position to hold another.

Holding abstaining to be an approval for one position seems terribly reductive and lowers the discussion to a 'who can be more rabid' pissing contest.

Its a key feature of DV campaigns at the moment

 

[Little Big John]

Its a key feature of DV campaigns at the moment

And that justifies it….?