Saay NO to violence against men!

Jeanie

surferdude wrote:

Thank you.

You're welcome.

It just pisses me off when people negate another's situation like that.
Saying that a man should grow a pair and stand up to a woman and that he's a complete wuss if he doesn't is about as helpful as saying that a woman deserved to get raped because of what she was wearing.

prism

Jeanie wrote:

It just pisses me off when people negate another's situation like that.
Saying that a man should grow a pair and stand up to a woman and that he's a complete wuss if he doesn't is about as helpful as saying that a woman deserved to get raped because of what she was wearing.

exactly. it provides nothing helpful on how that person can deal with their situation.

Jeanie

prism wrote:

exactly. it provides nothing helpful on how deal with that person's situation

Well actually I think it's worse than it not providing anything helpful it actually is detrimental. It compounds the abuse for the victim. Not only are they being abused but it seems that other people think they are deserving of it in some way.

Ahnimus

OutOfBreath wrote:

All fine! The "expert" in me is awakened mostly when statistics are involved, and particularly social statistics as that is, after all, my field. I have little issue with what you say here.


But right here you walk into the stereotyping of feminism trap. The radical feminist you talk of are such a fringe faction in the whole picture. Feminazis exist, and they are not at all representational for anything. Some of those are off their rockers, agreed. That does not go for a an UN agency specifically in this case, nor statistics agencies generally. There may be bias inherent in the data, but that is impossible to avoid for any field. Data must be read for what it is. Interpretation of the data is more loose. (although outright skewing or cherry-picking must be avoided)

As for the general issue, yes stereotyping should be avoided, and we should see things for what they are. However, if data show that there are indeed empirical differences between the sexes, well, then there is a difference between the sexes. As to why, that's something else entirely.

I think we are essentially on the same page, but we rub eachother the wrong way with the delivery.

Peace
Dan

Sure, I think radical feminism is on a decline. But the remnants of it's war are still in law and soceity. Even in Canada where the stats are more even, the bias is still apparent in everything. Take this for example:

Department of Justice Canada wrote:

Public legal education and information organizations (PLEI groups), family violence prevention agencies and victim services groups in most provinces and territories have developed specific products on family violence. These include, for example, abuse handbooks for women, children and the elderly, information about victim services, and numerous publications about criminal and family law matters for women leaving violent relationships.

However, the primary focus of the inventory is on the strategies developed to ensure the various forms of relevant materials are accessible to rural women, seniors and others experiencing family violence.

It goes on and on. "Women, children, elderly and others." Hmm, could that mean MEN? why are they called "others"? Perhaps they mean hemaphrodites and androdgynous people and not men. WTF is "others"?

Everything in our society is geared towards this stereotypical view. Like Bill Maher says all husbands/fathers depicted on TV these days are useless morons and the women are smart and keep everything together. Almost the exact opposite of the "oppressive" soceity women used to complain about. Feminism, and not just radical feminism, is turning our soceity on it's head and making it female dominant instead of equal. That's my only complaint, I'm gonna stand in the way. I don't want men to be superior or go back to a male dominant society, I just don't want women to get overzealous about what they are doing and fuck shit up just as bad.

Ahnimus

I felt very sort of unloved and you know, insignificant, and um I felt that, you
know the biggest contribution I was making in the family was just bringing
home a wage each fortnight.
And
Tim saw himself as a victim of his wife’s attacks:
Tim: My wife doesn’t take long to lash out and hit me. She lashes out
very quickly and she’s hit me a number of times and I’ve struck
her back a couple of times.
Interviewer: When she hits you, do you feel frightened of her?
Tim: No.
Interviewer: When you hit her, is she frightened of you?
Tim: Yeah, probably. She says, ‘you’re bigger than me and when
you hit back it hurts a lot more than when I hit you’. (James et al.
2002, p. 11)

Seems like a common argument for bias. "I should be able to hit you because I'm weaker and you can't hit me or it's abuse." fuck off. That doesn't work. I can just go around punching boxers and wrestlers and not expect one to kick my ass. Ironically, the paper this is from is an Australian paper that criticizes the Canadian statistics because "actions of the female partner were likely to have been retaliatory
or in self defence." It sure doesn't sound like it to me. Sounds like Tim was acting out of self-defence, he just happens to be "bigger". But perhaps his wife shouldn't think that she can physically abuse Tim to begin with and none of that would happen. Bottom line is no violence is every ok, in retaliation or not. Get the hell out of there if you feel like hitting someone. There was a few times I told my GF "Right now, I feel like kicking you." and then I would leave the apartment.

OutOfBreath

Ahnimus wrote:

Sure, I think radical feminism is on a decline. But the remnants of it's war are still in law and soceity. Even in Canada where the stats are more even, the bias is still apparent in everything. Take this for example:



It goes on and on. "Women, children, elderly and others." Hmm, could that mean MEN? why are they called "others"? Perhaps they mean hemaphrodites and androdgynous people and not men. WTF is "others"?

Perhaps they should reformulate some of those. They are geared to traditional views.

Everything in our society is geared towards this stereotypical view. Like Bill Maher says all husbands/fathers depicted on TV these days are useless morons and the women are smart and keep everything together. Almost the exact opposite of the "oppressive" soceity women used to complain about. Feminism, and not just radical feminism, is turning our soceity on it's head and making it female dominant instead of equal. That's my only complaint, I'm gonna stand in the way. I don't want men to be superior or go back to a male dominant society, I just don't want women to get overzealous about what they are doing and fuck shit up just as bad.

I for one think that "feminization" is largely overrated as a phenomenon. Even if there are some feminists that just want to "switch sides". And even if sit coms depict men as doofuses.

I want there to be equality, but we are not there yet. The moment we are, I'll be all for pulling the brakes. But a lot of those debates are premature at this point, as most data still shows differences between the sexes and most in the disfavour of women, even in places like Canada and Norway. That "male/masculinity under attack" side, which you seem to be aligning yourself with here, is premature at best, and mere sour grapes at worst.

Action, reaction, synthesis to put it Hegelian. We are still in the reaction, and will hopefully soon move into synthesis.

Anyway, we are talking about perceptions, opinions and ideology now, which is much more fitting to what you are trying to convey.

Peace
Dan

onelongsong

Ahnimus wrote:

How about a stab in the chest? Or a frying pan to the head? I think Loraina is out of jail now looking for a new hubby.

i got a rope and a tree for him.

onelongsong

Ahnimus wrote:

Seems like a common argument for bias. "I should be able to hit you because I'm weaker and you can't hit me or it's abuse." fuck off. That doesn't work. I can just go around punching boxers and wrestlers and not expect one to kick my ass. Ironically, the paper this is from is an Australian paper that criticizes the Canadian statistics because "actions of the female partner were likely to have been retaliatory
or in self defence." It sure doesn't sound like it to me. Sounds like Tim was acting out of self-defence, he just happens to be "bigger". But perhaps his wife shouldn't think that she can physically abuse Tim to begin with and none of that would happen. Bottom line is no violence is every ok, in retaliation or not. Get the hell out of there if you feel like hitting someone. There was a few times I told my GF "Right now, I feel like kicking you." and then I would leave the apartment.

this is the invisible affirmative action where the woman is always right or the "victim". my ex brother in law had a wife who; when she was drinking; would put him in the hospital. he'd be bloody and she wouldn't have a scratch on her; yet he went to jail every time. this was in wisconsin.
any wisconsinites out there that can back this?

onelongsong

Jeanie wrote:

You're welcome.

It just pisses me off when people negate another's situation like that.
Saying that a man should grow a pair and stand up to a woman and that he's a complete wuss if he doesn't is about as helpful as saying that a woman deserved to get raped because of what she was wearing.

when i was a little boy my dad told me that if i ever hit a girl; he'd beat the living hell out of me. i've never hit a girl in my entire life.

no matter how much they deserved it.

Ahnimus

OutOfBreath wrote:

Perhaps they should reformulate some of those. They are geared to traditional views.


I for one think that "feminization" is largely overrated as a phenomenon. Even if there are some feminists that just want to "switch sides". And even if sit coms depict men as doofuses.

I want there to be equality, but we are not there yet. The moment we are, I'll be all for pulling the brakes. But a lot of those debates are premature at this point, as most data still shows differences between the sexes and most in the disfavour of women, even in places like Canada and Norway. That "male/masculinity under attack" side, which you seem to be aligning yourself with here, is premature at best, and mere sour grapes at worst.

Action, reaction, synthesis to put it Hegelian. We are still in the reaction, and will hopefully soon move into synthesis.

Anyway, we are talking about perceptions, opinions and ideology now, which is much more fitting to what you are trying to convey.

Peace
Dan

I don't think it's premature, I think it's late. It's not that I'm trying to protect a traditional view of masculinity either. Since I'm not that type of man. But I will never have children because of the system. Because first of all I need to spend 3+ years with a woman to confirm that she'll never leave me with my kids, and even then I could be wrong. It'll never happen and I'll always live with the fear that I could be halled away on rape or DV charges and lose everything I have because one woman fingered me as her abuser. Even in the event that it was a mutual divorce, I would still lose primary custody of my children and there is no conclusive evidence in psychology to support the assertion that women are better parents. This folkpsychology infects popular culture like a plague and seeps into our justice system.

Experientially. I've known dozens of men who have had their lives ripped apart by a flippant woman who is under the impression that she is somehow being oppressed by a patriarchal society. My own mother went through a similar period when her psychologist was divorced from her husband and went on a radical feminist tangent. She spread that sickness to my mother who was psychologically unstable at the time. These istitutions that have been erected to support "Violence Against Women" emit the same plague that memory regression therapy does. Their strong convictions alone can convince unstable people that they are the victims of some heinous imbalance, while in reality there is nothing of the sort. The sickness encompasses all aspects of modern society, from media to law to health care services to the privacy of the home.

Jeanie

onelongsong wrote:

when i was a little boy my dad told me that if i ever hit a girl; he'd beat the living hell out of me. i've never hit a girl in my entire life.

no matter how much they deserved it.

Well that's great OLS. And I know that my brother and other male relatives were raised the same. However I think it's important that we're ALL of us taught not to hit. Girls and boys. There are some women out there that I've seen attack that probably could do with a snap to the head, but I doubt it would change their behaviour. The thing is, nobody deserves to be hit and everyone needs to learn other ways of coping with their anger and frustration. I can understand people lashing out in anger sometimes and I can understand them retaliating with violence if they are subjected to violence but ultimately it solves nothing.

Ahnimus

onelongsong wrote:

this is the invisible affirmative action where the woman is always right or the "victim". my ex brother in law had a wife who; when she was drinking; would put him in the hospital. he'd be bloody and she wouldn't have a scratch on her; yet he went to jail every time. this was in wisconsin.
any wisconsinites out there that can back this?

Yea, physical stature is somewhat irrelevant when you love the person. I would never hit a woman I loved. I would hit a strange woman that was attacking me if I had no opportunity for escape. Regardless, knives and other weapons are hard to defend against. I have no problem standing up to the likes of some tough guy unless he's weilding a 7" blade or a 9MM handgun. It takes virtually no strength at all to pull the trigger on a pistol. And anyone who thinks that all men are bigger than all women haven't been outside in a couple of centuries.

OutOfBreath

Ahnimus wrote:

I don't think it's premature, I think it's late. It's not that I'm trying to protect a traditional view of masculinity either. Since I'm not that type of man. But I will never have children because of the system. Because first of all I need to spend 3+ years with a woman to confirm that she'll never leave me with my kids, and even then I could be wrong. It'll never happen and I'll always live with the fear that I could be halled away on rape or DV charges and lose everything I have because one woman fingered me as her abuser. Even in the event that it was a mutual divorce, I would still lose primary custody of my children and there is no conclusive evidence in psychology to support the assertion that women are better parents. This folkpsychology infects popular culture like a plague and seeps into our justice system.

Experientially. I've known dozens of men who have had their lives ripped apart by a flippant woman who is under the impression that she is somehow being oppressed by a patriarchal society. My own mother went through a similar period when her psychologist was divorced from her husband and went on a radical feminist tangent. She spread that sickness to my mother who was psychologically unstable at the time. These istitutions that have been erected to support "Violence Against Women" emit the same plague that memory regression therapy does. Their strong convictions alone can convince unstable people that they are the victims of some heinous imbalance, while in reality there is nothing of the sort. The sickness encompasses all aspects of modern society, from media to law to health care services to the privacy of the home.

Well what can I say, I am sorry for you and yours. You have obviously been through a lot, and the entire first paragraph signals trust issues in general. And it does suck that men are discriminated when it comes to kids. And dozens of men being ripped apart by women? Either you hang with the wrong crowd, or just very many people. But I wont take away from your experience and perception of course. It does colour your overall view of the issue, though.

But the thing is, the only place where women "gain" from those old gender roles, are in those instances you name with the children. So focusing everything on that, I feel isn't right either. That is also wrong of course, but so is the various ways that women have been hindered and discriminated for ages and which still holds today on many other issues. Like being at the receiving end of more violence generally. (while many individual women can certainly be violent)

Now, it doesnt help to go overboard with victimization of women either, and like all people, they can also be fucking nuts, of which there is no quick cure, and no legislation can help.

Peace
Dan

Ahnimus

OutOfBreath wrote:

Well what can I say, I am sorry for you and yours. You have obviously been through a lot, and the entire first paragraph signals trust issues in general. And it does suck that men are discriminated when it comes to kids. And dozens of men being ripped apart by women? Either you hang with the wrong crowd, or just very many people. But I wont take away from your experience and perception of course. It does colour your overall view of the issue, though.

But the thing is, the only place where women "gain" from those old gender roles, are in those instances you name with the children. So focusing everything on that, I feel isn't right either. That is also wrong of course, but so is the various ways that women have been hindered and discriminated for ages and which still holds today on many other issues. Like being at the receiving end of more violence generally. (while many individual women can certainly be violent)

Now, it doesnt help to go overboard with victimization of women either, and like all people, they can also be fucking nuts, of which there is no quick cure, and no legislation can help.

Peace
Dan

In my mind, children are more important than anything else. I'd like to think I'd give my life to save a child. I'm going to adopt one day and it doesn't matter if I have a female partner. I'd almost rather not because then I won't have to worry about it. So, to me that is the most important thing.

onelongsong

Ahnimus wrote:

Yea, physical stature is somewhat irrelevant when you love the person. I would never hit a woman I loved. I would hit a strange woman that was attacking me if I had no opportunity for escape. Regardless, knives and other weapons are hard to defend against. I have no problem standing up to the likes of some tough guy unless he's weilding a 7" blade or a 9MM handgun. It takes virtually no strength at all to pull the trigger on a pistol. And anyone who thinks that all men are bigger than all women haven't been outside in a couple of centuries.

i watched the end of a show on the tele called "women on death row". i wish i had seen more of it but just watching that; gave me a chill. it made me realize that we truely are equal when we can inflict the same pain on eachother. a woman can just as easily pull a trigger. decades ago a woman wouldn't; but times have changed. women have proven that they are just as capable of violent crimes; and maybe that's the equality they wanted.

onelongsong

Ahnimus wrote:

In my mind, children are more important than anything else. I'd like to think I'd give my life to save a child. I'm going to adopt one day and it doesn't matter if I have a female partner. I'd almost rather not because then I won't have to worry about it. So, to me that is the most important thing.

on this issue; we see eye to eye. the children are our future.

Ahnimus

onelongsong wrote:

i watched the end of a show on the tele called "women on death row". i wish i had seen more of it but just watching that; gave me a chill. it made me realize that we truely are equal when we can inflict the same pain on eachother. a woman can just as easily pull a trigger. decades ago a woman wouldn't; but times have changed. women have proven that they are just as capable of violent crimes; and maybe that's the equality they wanted.

It's true, even when you look at historical serial killers like Charles Starkweather. Certainly the movie is named after him and all the books are mostly about him. But he had an accomplice, his girlfriend Caril Ann Fugate who assisted in the brutal murder of her own family. There are plenty examples of women commiting violent acts. My mother was a matron at a holding cell, I mentioned this before. She told me a number of times that the women were way more uncontrolled than the men. They yelled and screamed and said things my mother has never heard, they bit and kicked and scratched and appeared completely insane. It was a good environment for comparison, because it was a local police station that had cells for men and women so she saw side-by-side how men and women behave under the circumstances. And, you know, I don't mean to paint women as worse, I think men are more likely to take it in stride, but I just want the popular view to be an equal view.

onelongsong

Ahnimus wrote:

It's true, even when you look at historical serial killers like Charles Starkweather. Certainly the movie is named after him and all the books are mostly about him. But he had an accomplice, his girlfriend Caril Ann Fugate who assisted in the brutal murder of her own family. There are plenty examples of women commiting violent acts. My mother was a matron at a holding cell, I mentioned this before. She told me a number of times that the women were way more uncontrolled than the men. They yelled and screamed and said things my mother has never heard, they bit and kicked and scratched and appeared completely insane. It was a good environment for comparison, because it was a local police station that had cells for men and women so she saw side-by-side how men and women behave under the circumstances. And, you know, I don't mean to paint women as worse, I think men are more likely to take it in stride, but I just want the popular view to be an equal view.

thank you for that. it helps establish a perspective. i've been abused and cheated by women yet i was taught to keep my mouth shut. for the longest time i thought i was the only one.

genie

MahoganySouls wrote:

Obviously you have never been in a long term commited monogamous relationship. Too bad. You are missing out on something wonderful.

you misunderstood what i was trying to say....and i'm not going to go out of my way to explain it, all i'm going to say is that if i'm in a relationship with someone of course it's going to be monogamous.

as for missing out on something "wonderful" well nothing lasts forever, definitely not if my life......so i don't want anything wonderful that will turn sour later on.

i tell you what, i've already got this something wonderful, and it's when i listen to music especially Pearl Jam i know my love for the music will always be there.

genie

Ahnimus wrote:

Dude, your a fucking idiot and an asshole. Why don't you just shut the hell up?

i agree tell him like it is Ahnimus!