Saay NO to violence against women!

Ahnimus · November 2007

prism wrote:

and

a total police escort to jail? the police aren't going to escort a DV victim any place else. plus if the police arrest her she sits in jail until it goes before a judge and charges are dropped or continued. and while that's all going on any kids in the home get a total escort into children's protective custody.

so yeah instead of deciding who's the initial primary aggressor and arresting that person lets make DV even more tramatic for all the parties involved including any kids.

Let's see: she has a black eye, has numerous bruises and abrasions all over, and perhaps a couple of cracked ribs. he has a red mark on his skin from where she tried to push him away and the back of his hand is kinda swollen and red from throwing punches. yeah lets just go ahead and throw both of these violent pieces of shit in jail. because it's easier on the cops that way

Ah the old women and children card.

I don't really see a better way of involving police in domestic violence. To be honest, I think the best method I know of is a complete separation of all parties effective immediately. Then it should be handled like any other assault case. Hard evidence must be used to convict someone, not just allegory and stereotypes. People are quick to accuse and convict, and not so quick to require proof. You could try to use generalities as an argument for a more biased approach. However, generalities are delicate and no evidence supports them. I'd rather not see police involvement. I think domestic violence should be approached from an awareness perspective.

prism · November 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Ah the old women and children card.

I don't really see a better way of involving police in domestic violence. To be honest, I think the best method I know of is a complete separation of all parties effective immediately. Then it should be handled like any other assault case. Hard evidence must be used to convict someone, not just allegory and stereotypes. People are quick to accuse and convict, and not so quick to require proof. You could try to use generalities as an argument for a more biased approach. However, generalities are delicate and no evidence supports them. I'd rather not see police involvement. I think domestic violence should be approached from an awareness perspective.

and if the aggressor goes to jail and the victim (and any kids in the home) to a DV shelter how are they not seperated? why should the person that was attacked go to jail also?

proof is needed to convict someone in court. unless the accused pleads guilty that's how it goes. a prosecuetor isn't even going to take a case to court without any proof.

as if someone that attacks another person is going to give a shit to approach it from an awareness perspective.

Ahnimus · November 2007

prism wrote:

and if the aggressor goes to jail and the victim (and any kids in the home) to a DV shelter how are they not seperated? why should the person that was attacked go to jail also?

proof is needed to convict someone in court. unless the accused pleads guilty that's how it goes. a prosecuetor isn't even going to take a case to court without any proof.

as if someone that attacks another person is going to give a shit to approach it from an awareness perspective.

How do the police know who was attacked? How do they know anything? It really depends on the situation. Who is reporting it? If police respond to report from a neighbour, then they shouldn't have any assumptions about the situation. They shouldn't be thinking "...some guy, beating his wife, kids are scared... traumatized.". They are likely to show up arrest the guy and leave. Meanwhile he's got serious injuries, stab wounds. Who knows? Other people are prone to bruising and others injure themselves. Police shouldn't have any assumptions at all about a situation.

On the other hand, if you mean a complete case against someone, then that's completely different. That should require good evidence. In that case you detain the person who is being charged with assault. I have no idea why they charged my friend for defending himself. His wife admitted to being the offender. Some how my friend was perfectly fine with it. The whole thing was biased against him as a man and he didn't seem to care. I care, but that's a different story.

OutOfBreath · November 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Then cut out the rhetoric and actually debate like a mature adult. Or I mean, like someone who is capable of a debate. You know, with logical arguments and physical evidence. The statscan link I posted has all the details right down to the correlation coefficient, which is a hugely important value of any statistical study. All I saw from you was opinionated statements from bias individuals.

Did you read your own linked report? Apparently noone else here did either, because the following is directly quoted from the summary of your linked report:

• Women were more likely than men to report what could be considered more severe forms of violence. Women were
more than twice as likely as men to report being beaten, five times more likely to report being choked, and almost
twice as likely to report being threatened by or having a gun or knife used against them. Men were more likely than
women to report being slapped (57% versus 40%), having something thrown at them (56% versus 44%) and being
kicked, bit or hit (51% versus 33%).

• Women were also more likely than men to report repeated victimizations. Sixty-five percent of women who were
assaulted by a partner were victimized on more than one occasion, 26% more than 10 times. By comparison, 54%
of men who experienced marital violence were the targets in more than one incident and 13% said it happened more
than 10 times.

• Women were more likely than men to be injured by spousal violence. Women were three times more likely than men
to be injured by spousal violence and five times more likely to require medical attention.

• During the 5-year period almost one-quarter (24%) of spousal violence victims feared their lives were in danger. This
fear was much more prevalent among women than men: 38% of women compared to 7% of men feared for their lives
because of the violence.

• Women were more likely than men to report negative emotional consequences as a result of the spousal violence.
Twenty-two percent of men who reported spousal violence in the past 5 years reported that the violence did not have
much impact on them compared to only 5% of women. Meanwhile, women were much more likely than men to
report being fearful for themselves and their children, and to have depression or anxiety attacks, sleeping problems
and lowered self-esteem.

What you do is to take one single stat out of context to make the opposite point than what is the finding in the report based on numerous stats. That's skewing the results based on your own agenda, and not in any way scientific. Even if you know words like correlation coefficient.

The report, apart from the one stat you posted, gives the opposite result. What's your defence there?

Peace
Dan

Ahnimus · November 2007

OutOfBreath wrote:

Did you read your own linked report? Apparently noone else here did either, because the following is directly quoted from the summary of your linked report:

What you do is to take one single stat out of context to make the opposite point than what is the finding in the report based on numerous stats. That's skewing the results based on your own agenda, and not in any way scientific. Even if you know words like correlation coefficient.

The report, apart from the one stat you posted, gives the opposite result. What's your defence there?

Peace
Dan

These stats you posted are referring to reports. The number of reports does not convey number of incidences. Neither does this element debase the fundamental point that a biased system is erroneous. The point is to cast doubt on the usefulness of generalizations and the efficacy of drawing conclusions from correlations. A .33 is not that great? We don't even know what 95% of them are. Men and Women are both the victims of domestic violence. Children and Adults. Domestic Violence doesn't seem to imply a child battering his dad. But I can certainly recall a few incidences of it. Why is it such an offense to ask that domestic violence be approached differently? Why have UNIFEM? Why have this stereotypical view of domestic violence? Are there not sociological implications to this? Does a husband and father dare leave his wife with the threat of losing his kids? Because in his mind he will lose them and from what I've seen probably will. There is no evidence supporting the folk theory that women are better parents is true either. That same evidence can be rendered totally useless by serious philosophical debate anyway. Factor into those stats the stats I posted. Women reported more, that was already covered in my statistic. Men reported less and were less likely report. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. My stat says it did happen, they just didn't report it.

OutOfBreath · November 2007

Sorry to break it all up like that, but there were so many different issues and statements being adressed in so small a space, I divide it up in order to adress them individually and throughly.

Ahnimus wrote:

These stats you posted are referring to reports. The number of reports does not convey number of incidences.

Obviously, as it's pretty hard having facts about things that are not reported in any way... Unreported = unknown.
But my quotes are from the highlights of the same study. When you use the legitimacy of the entire study to support your cherry-picking of numbers you are making an error.

Neither does this element debase the fundamental point that a biased system is erroneous. The point is to cast doubt on the usefulness of generalizations and the efficacy of drawing conclusions from correlations. A .33 is not that great?

A biased system will on the whole be erronous, yes. When using statisitics, to generalize ius precisely the point and the goal. So by referring stats, you are already generalizing yourself. Science on the whole = generalization, you know. A finding in a limited study/experiment is sought to be made applicable to the universe/population as a whole. A correlation of .33 can be considered quite a bit depending on circumstances and context. Where did you pull that number btw? If that was the correlation between violence and sexes, then if 33% of variation in violence is explained solely by sex, well, that's a lot!

(edit) I see where you got it from. What a correlation of .33 means there, is that the effect of gender alone, before you consider any other variables, accounts for 33% of the variation of choking, weapons and sexual assault. That is a lot of explanatory power in this context. (I would like to see a regression analysis with more variables too, ideally, to check whether other variables explain it better)

We don't even know what 95% of them are.

Are you referring to confidence intervals?

Men and Women are both the victims of domestic violence. Children and Adults. Domestic Violence doesn't seem to imply a child battering his dad. But I can certainly recall a few incidences of it.

I dont think anyone is saying that violence is always man against a woman. What many are saying is that women are disproportionally the victims, even in a country like Canada which is considered pretty equal. Look back on my quotes. If you view severity as well as incidence, I think you see the discrepancy just as well as I. The reasons for discrepancy is up for debate ofcourse.

Why is it such an offense to ask that domestic violence be approached differently? Why have UNIFEM? Why have this stereotypical view of domestic violence?

No, it's not. But delivery, Ahnimus, delivery is the main reason you get flaked again. UNIFEM highlights it, becuase if you view it globally, women are to a much larger degree the victims of violence targetted at them for being women, and being placed so low in hierarcies many many places. Look at the rape-victim in Saudi Arabia for instance. That the problems are smaller in Canada, US, parts of Europe, certainly. But as your Canadian data shows, also here there are significant discrepancies.

The focus is not on violence targetting women per se, but violence targetting women for not much more reason than being a woman. This could be because of machismo or discrimination in regards to rights. There is also violence being done almost exclusively to women (like rape).

Are there not sociological implications to this?

Of course, many.

Does a husband and father dare leave his wife with the threat of losing his kids? Because in his mind he will lose them and from what I've seen probably will.

I dont see the relevance.

There is no evidence supporting the folk theory that women are better parents is true either.

Sure, but relevance? Just because something is generally thought, doesnt make it always wrong, even if it sometimes is.

That same evidence can be rendered totally useless by serious philosophical debate anyway. Factor into those stats the stats I posted. Women reported more, that was already covered in my statistic. Men reported less and were less likely report. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. My stat says it did happen, they just didn't report it.

But that is pure speculation and "what if". Maybe men doesnt report, because they generally are affected less physically and even mentally than women are. More women report because they're beaten the shit out of, while men dont report a slap. But this will be speculation and hearsay. You can't assume a reason about lack of reports, and expect it to be accepted just like that. You have no backing for that save gut feeling, anecdotal evidence and conventional wisdom and logic.

Point is the survey pretty conclusively show that women get abused harder and more often. Twice as many women (26%) as men (13%) reported "more than 10 times". And that is percentage of the sexes, so lower reporting by males doesnt figure into it. Many more women reported beating/choking/weapon, while males were more in danger of being slapped and thrown things at. And women used a bit more emotional abuse.

Women DO get more of this, even in countries that are suppsoedly free and equal. Why they do so is the question. Perhaps residual machismo from patriarchy? Men are by nature more agressive? Who knows? The numbers are as presented here. You can not invalidate them through speculation about what is not reported.

And finally, why do you have to shit on people focusing on a particular situation with violence? Would you shit on people arguing for action in Israel to end the atrocities on the grounds that people are hurting in Sudan, India, Iran etc too?

(edit) Just to be crystal clear, women have the potential and ability to be just as violent and crazy as men. The point is that in general, they arent, and that in general men are more prone to commit acts of violence, or at the very least use more severe violence against women.

Peace
Dan

CaterinaA · November 2007

OutOfBreath wrote:

Sorry to break it all up like that, but there were so many different issues and statements being adressed in so small a space, I divide it up in order to adress them individually and throughly.

Obviously, as it's pretty hard having facts about things that are not reported in any way... Unreported = unknown.
But my quotes are from the highlights of the same study. When you use the legitimacy of the entire study to support your cherry-picking of numbers you are making an error.

A biased system will on the whole be erronous, yes. When using statisitics, to generalize ius precisely the point and the goal. So by referring stats, you are already generalizing yourself. Science on the whole = generalization, you know. A finding in a limited study/experiment is sought to be made applicable to the universe/population as a whole. A correlation of .33 can be considered quite a bit depending on circumstances and context. Where did you pull that number btw? If that was the correlation between violence and sexes, then if 33% of variation in violence is explained solely by sex, well, that's a lot!

Are you referring to confidence intervals?

I dont think anyone is saying that violence is always man against a woman. What many are saying is that women are disproportionally the victims, even in a country like Canada which is considered pretty equal. Look back on my quotes. If you view severity as well as incidence, I think you see the discrepancy just as well as I. The reasons for discrepancy is up for debate ofcourse.

No, it's not. But delivery, Ahnimus, delivery is the main reason you get flaked again. UNIFEM highlights it, becuase if you view it globally, women are to a much larger degree the victims of violence targetted at them for being women, and being placed so low in hierarcies many many places. Look at the rape-victim in Saudi Arabia for instance. That the problems are smaller in Canada, US, parts of Europe, certainly. But as your Canadian data shows, also here there are significant discrepancies.

The focus is not on violence targetting women per se, but violence targetting women for not much more reason than being a woman. This could be because of machismo or discrimination in regards to rights. There is also violence being done almost exclusively to women (like rape).

Of course, many.

I dont see the relevance.

Sure, but relevance? Just because something is generally thought, doesnt make it always wrong, even if it sometimes is.

But that is pure speculation and "what if". Maybe men doesnt report, because they generally are affected less physically and even mentally than women are. More women report because they're beaten the shit out of, while men dont report a slap. But this will be speculation and hearsay. You can't assume a reason about lack of reports, and expect it to be accepted just like that. You have no backing for that save gut feeling, anecdotal evidence and conventional wisdom and logic.

Point is the survey pretty conclusively show that women get abused harder and more often. Twice as many women (26%) as men (13%) reported "more than 10 times". And that is percentage of the sexes, so lower reporting by males doesnt figure into it. Many more women reported beating/choking/weapon, while males were more in danger of being slapped and thrown things at. And women used a bit more emotional abuse.

Women DO get more of this, even in countries that are suppsoedly free and equal. Why they do so is the question. Perhaps residual machismo from patriarchy? Men are by nature more agressive? Who knows? The numbers are as presented here. You can not invalidate them through speculation about what is not reported.

And finally, why do you have to shit on people focusing on a particular situation with violence? Would you shit on people arguing for action in Israel to end the atrocities on the grounds that people are hurting in Sudan, India, Iran etc too?

(edit) Just to be crystal clear, women have the potential and ability to be just as violent and crazy as men. The point is that in general, they arent, and that in general men are more prone to commit acts of violence, or at the very least use more severe violence against women.

Peace
Dan

Hi there Dan

I started the thread, but then I had to travel abroad for work (I'm still away), so I couldn't answer some of the posts.

Thanks por providing a sensible answer; I would have posted pretty much the same

.

Anhimus, about UNIFEM: this is not a bogus organization with an obscure organization. If UNIFEM exists it is because indeed women are victims of specific crimes more often than men; and this situation is compounded in developing countries. Take a look at Mexico's statistics for instance, you'll find very scary stories. And about Muslim countries, what UNIFEM encourages is respect for Human Rights. See the UN is all for multiculturalism and respecting differences, but multiculturalism has a limit and that's Human Rights, which are universal and acknowledged by all of the countries that are part of the UN.

Furthermore, UNIFEM also promotes women's rights to make decisions about their bodies, i.e. reproductive rights (which, "surprinsingly" don't exist everywhere). For example, in some indigenous communities of the Andes, women cannot decide for themselves whether to take the pill; it has to be decided by all community members. So, UNIFEM and similar organizations, try to bring awareness about the importance of birth-control and women's right to choose for themselves.

Anhimus, about statistics: you need you to do your homework, the correlation coefficient has to be assessed with other indicators, estimators and taking into account the number of independent variables, for starters. Also, the correlation belongs to a cohort study, a time series study or a cross-section study? Are there any dummy variables in the model? What kind of model are you using? Logit, Probit, Multi-lineal, Fixed Effects?... I coud go on, since I really had to study this for over three years to get my degree, but gotta go...

Peace
Caterina

Ahnimus · November 2007

Wow, neither Dan nor CaterinA read anything. Congratulations for basing your entire posts on received wisdom.

Look at the stats again, lesbian couples are more likely to report domestic violence than heterosexual or gay couples.

Yet, the ads these organizations like UNIFEM run depict a stereotypical DV case and often leave out statistics. "4 women a day are murdered by the husbands that said they loved them." that is the stat often quoted, it doesn't say "2 men are murdered every day by the wives who said they loved them."

Now you are talking about severity, ok, so twice as many women are killed, I guess the men don't matter then. It's better to make men out to be the bad guys than address the whole issue unbiasedly.

The research shows that women are more territorial in the household and more likely to be violent at home. Men are more likely to be violent in public. Women are more likely to plan their revenge. By cutting off their husbands penis while he is asleep for example.

CTV.ca wrote:

A new Statistics Canada study on family violence suggest an alarming, and perhaps surprising, trend is on the rise. More women than ever before are attacking their domestic partners.

According to the 2003 edition of Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile, Statistics Canada says more women killed, hurt or threatened their partners in 2001 than in years before.

From 1995 to 2001, the rate of incidents of spousal violence reported by police increased -- for both men and women. In 2001, there were 344 incidents for every 100,000 women aged 15 and older, an increase from 302 in 1995.

For men, there were 62 incidents for every 100,000 -- up 40 per cent from the 37 cases in the report's first edition six years ago.

In the report, spousal violence is defined as cases of murder, attempted murder, sexual and physical assault, threats, criminal harassment and other violent offences in which the accused attacker is a spouse, ex-spouse or common-law partner of the victim.

For some abused men -- shut out of federal funding that has, so far, only been offered to groups helping abused women and children -- the report's findings suggest a need for services geared to male abuse victims and their children.

Earl Silverman has created the Men's Line Support group in Calgary -- only the second shelter for abused men in Canada. There are currently 508 women's shelters across Canada.

Himself an abused spouse, Silverman knew what it was like to be assaulted by a woman and not be taken seriously about it.

"I got hurt, she hit me and no one believed me," Silverman said, explaining why he was compelled to spend his life savings on the project.

While Statistics Canada says 6 out of 10,000 men in Canada report incidents when their partner has tried to kill or injure them, family violence specialist Dr. Reena Sommer believes there is a lot more abuse that goes unreported.

Because men are usually bigger more powerful, it's often embarrassing for most men to concede weakness and report abuse, Sommer told CTV. "I think that there is a lot of shame."

But abuse happens to men for the same reasons it happens to women.

"It's a relationship dynamic," Sommer said, explaining the cycle of abuse stemming from an inability to cope with an emotional trauma from the past.

"I recall I did an interview once and it was a call-in show. The individual says ' I'm six-foot-two, I'm a police officer and my wife beats me.' "

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1058111132247_51/

From the 2005

Rates of spousal violence by a current or previous partner in the 5 year period were 7% for women and 6% for men,
representing an estimated 653,000 women and 546,000 men. While there was no statistically signifi cant change in the
level of spousal violence against men since 1999 (7% versus 6%), there was a small but statistically signifi cant decline
for women during this period (8% versus 7%).

Then there is this tidbit

Aboriginal people were three times more likely to be victims of spousal violence than were those who were non-Aboriginal
(21% versus 7%).

Perhaps we should follow the trend and restrict our concern to Violence against Aboriginal Women?

Oh and this

While the rate of spousal violence among those who are gay or lesbian was twice the rate of reported violence experienced
by those who are heterosexual (15% versus 7%), the survey found that those who indicated that their sexual orientation
is gay or lesbian were more likely not to have a current partner (40% versus 16%) than those who are heterosexual.

So, let's focus on Violence against Lesbian Aboriginal Women?

Common-law spouses and those separated from a spouse were overrepresented as victims of spousal homicide
relative to their population in Canada. A larger proportion of separated women were killed by a spouse compared to
separated men (26% compared to 11%) while a larger proportion of males (54%) were killed by their common-law
partner compared to females (35%).

Among all those who indicated that they were injured,
bruises (92%) and cuts (40%) were the most frequently
self-reported injuries for both women and men (Figure 1.4).
While women were more likely to say that they had been
bruised than men (96% versus 82%), men were more
likely to have been cut (56% versus 35%). These results
are consistent with police-reported data that reveal that
women in cases of spousal violence are more likely to
rely on weapons than men, while men are more likely
to use physical force against their spouse (Brzozowski,
2004).[/quote]

So men are more likely to bruise, their wives, and women are more likely to cut their husbands with a knife. Just as I said. Let's look at the actual numbers instead of this word "More"

From figure 1.4 pg 17

Bruises involved in 92% of cases

96% of females reported bruises
82% of males reported bruises

Cuts involved in 40%

45% of females reported cuts
56% of men reported cuts

Ok, so how does 14% more bruises equate to "more" while men are cut 11% "more"?

See, I think it's ridiculous to even get to this point. It shouldn't even be a battle of statistics. We should all just dislike violence, period. And abuse centers should be egalitarian not "Women and Children". The people and the government need to step up to the plate and quite playing this stupid numbers game anyway.

http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/85-224-XIE/85-224-XIE2005000.pdf

Ahnimus · November 2007

Earl Silverman has created the Men's Line Support group in Calgary -- only the second shelter for abused men in Canada. There are currently 508 women's shelters across Canada.

Well if that isn't totally disproportionate I don't know what is.

Even if twice as many women are abused as men, there are 254 times as many shelters available for them. The men's abuse shelters are independently funded, not government funded.

Ahnimus · November 2007

Here are the 2007 stats from Canada

http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/85-224-XIE/85-224-XIE2007000.pdf

Interestingly over 2,500 kids were reported to have abused one of their parents.

polaris · November 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Earl Silverman has created the Men's Line Support group in Calgary -- only the second shelter for abused men in Canada. There are currently 508 women's shelters across Canada.

Well if that isn't totally disproportionate I don't know what is.

Even if twice as many women are abused as men, there are 254 times as many shelters available for them. The men's abuse shelters are independently funded, not government funded.

but why are you using Canada's stats? ... this initiative is clearly focused on other parts of the world where the gap between opportunity and life are far greater ...

i haven't read the whole thread - but i don't see how a petition or awareness campaign like this can be bad?

soulsinging · November 2007

prism wrote:

a total police escort to jail? the police aren't going to escort a DV victim any place else. plus if the police arrest her she sits in jail until it goes before a judge and charges are dropped or continued. and while that's all going on any kids in the home get a total escort into children's protective custody.

so yeah instead of deciding who's the initial primary aggressor and arresting that person lets make DV even more tramatic for all the parties involved including any kids.

Let's see: she has a black eye, has numerous bruises and abrasions all over, and perhaps a couple of cracked ribs. he has a red mark on his skin from where she tried to push him away and the back of his hand is kinda swollen and red from throwing punches. yeah lets just go ahead and throw both of these violent pieces of shit in jail. because it's easier on the cops that way

i can easily see a scenario where a girl tries stabbing a guy and he ends up with nothing but she is badly beaten. the fact is, DV is always a crime in progress with 2 parties who are both impassioned and screaming and fighting and pointing fingers. it's impossible to sort it out while their emotions are both still hot on the scene.

the scene you describe sounds more like flat out battery. they could book him on battery instead of DV if it is clearly a one-sided beating.

Ahnimus · November 2007

polaris wrote:

but why are you using Canada's stats? ... this initiative is clearly focused on other parts of the world where the gap between opportunity and life are far greater ...

i haven't read the whole thread - but i don't see how a petition or awareness campaign like this can be bad?

It's the stereotypical approach. Stereotypes hurt us. Such that there is disproportionate support for different people. If you ask me, men in these countries are equally the victims of destiny, they are the victims of ideology.

You can find women that agree with the ideology too. When they immigrate to Canada, many muslim women continue to cover themselves up. Ann Coulter thinks Mysoginy is great! Go figure? The ideology is the problem. But feminism is it's own form of dogma. It's not a solution to the problem, it's just a diversion, a way to redirect the problem.

polaris · November 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

It's the stereotypical approach. Stereotypes hurt us. Such that there is disproportionate support for different people. If you ask me, men in these countries are equally the victims of destiny, they are the victims of ideology.

You can find women that agree with the ideology too. When they immigrate to Canada, many muslim women continue to cover themselves up. Ann Coulter thinks Mysoginy is great! Go figure? The ideology is the problem. But feminism is it's own form of dogma. It's not a solution to the problem, it's just a diversion, a way to redirect the problem.

that's an interesting point of view ... i can't say that my experiences traveling to various countries supports that ... is there any substantive literature on that?

Ahnimus · November 2007

polaris wrote:

that's an interesting point of view ... i can't say that my experiences traveling to various countries supports that ... is there any substantive literature on that?

I'm not sure which point you are asking about. But about the redirection of problems, there is plenty. Take this as an example

1. About half of the married men who have contacted the Equal Justice Foundation for assistance report that they were charged with domestic violence or abuse after they found their wife was having an affair. Filing such charges gives her both vengeance against her husband (how dare he spy on her) and the house, the car, the kids, the bank account, credit cards, and anything else she wants to take.

2. With a sample size of well over 300,000 DNA paternity tests per year it is evident that some 30%, or roughly one in three, of these tests show the alleged father could not possibly have fathered the child.

You can be certain any children you have will be used as weapons against you in the divorce and DV case. Thus, when charged with DV or abuse and you have children it is essential to have DNA paternity testing done to verify, or deny you are the biological father. In today's world it would be wise to have the DNA paternity test done immediately after her child is born. However, if she has been having an affair she will likely do everything in her considerable power, as given to her by the false DV charges, to keep you from the kids and prevent DNA testing from being done.

3. Colorado law now prohibits a man from challenging child support once orders are entered or the divorce is final. Thus, a domestic violence conviction may often lead to a man being enslaved to pay child support for children he is not the biological father of, and for children he does not, or cannot have contact with.

many more examples at dvmen.org

As for the female voice in Islam. CCMW looks to be a good source. This is from one of their publications called "Voices of Muslim Women"

The hijab is directly linked to the previous section on religious freedoms. The hijab has always been a contentious issue, a separate heading was needed to effectively address the issue. Although it is positive to see discourse on a religious practice, the issue of hijab continues to dominate religious debates within Muslim and non-Muslim communities. October 5th 2001, Oprah Winfrey dedicated an entire show to, what she called 'Islam 101'. This was promising but as one young Muslim women wrote, "after a quick discussion of what Islam was about, the show veered off to the discussion of women in Islam, and particularly the dress code. The 'after show' segment was entirely about the hijab. The undue emphasis on hijab needs to be put to rest so that more pressing matters like "why our young men are turning themselves into bombs, why we do not have democracy in Muslim countries, whether American foreign policy is based on principles of equality and liberty for all.

Within this context, it is imperative to look at the women who wear the hijab and how they were effected by 9/11. Some North American Muslim organizations, like the Islamic Services Association of the United States and Canada and imams of local mosques advised women to take off their hijab. Some women removed their scarves and others wore hats so that they were not stigmatized as Muslim. A few women admitted to not leaving their homes for days because they were afraid of being targeted because they were visibly Muslim. Some participants said that they were advised by their non-Muslim co-workers to remove their scarf, for fear that they would be harassed.

Most people can easily make the connection that a woman wearing the hijab is Muslim, making Muslim women an easy target for harassment but also an easy source of information on Islam and its practices. Many women who wear the hijab, especially young women in high school and college felt a tremendous amount of responsibility was placed on them as teachers, colleagues, friends would come to them for answers on Islam. These women were forced into a position where they had to talk about Islam and more often than not, defend Islam. Although some women accepted the task, some felt that they were being forced into a more vocal position, one that they did not necessarily want to assume.

However, 9/11's effect on women who wear the hijab was not all negative. Many women felt their determination grew stronger, that they wore their veils tighter and with more pride. As an expression of her Islamic identity, one Vancouver woman wore the veil post-9/11.

http://www.ccmw.com/resources/res_pub_VoiceofWomen_FullText.html

The census I get is that muslim women are largely annoyed by the western view of their religion. They do not feel oppressed wearing the veil.

New York Times
When asked what they resented most about their own societies, a majority of Muslim women polled said that a lack of unity among Muslim nations, violent extremism, and political and economic corruption were their main concerns. The hijab, or head scarf, and burqa, the garment covering face and body, seen by some Westerners as tools of oppression, were never mentioned in the women's answers to the open-ended questions, the poll analysts said.

http://www.racematters.org/muslimwomennotoppressed.htm

Ms. Mogahed, who was born in Egypt and wears a Islamic head scarf, rejected the idea that Muslim women had been brainwashed by the dominant male culture, citing as proof the fact that women freely stated that they deserved certain rights.

CaterinaA · November 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Here are the 2007 stats from Canada

http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/85-224-XIE/85-224-XIE2007000.pdf

Interestingly over 2,500 kids were reported to have abused one of their parents.

I'm really curious about what leads you to believe that women's situation in Mexico, Bolivia, Nigeria, Iran, et al can be compared to the situation of Canadian women.

Caterina

OutOfBreath · November 2007

Well, ahnimus, I was expecting something more than a complete and utter dodge from you on this. You adressed none of my points, apart from saying I read nothing, and then post a load of other stats. I am tempted to say that you dont read your own material either, if you can completely bypass what I have highlighted twice now in regards to that source.

I'm behind Caterina, on how you compare canadian and other women, since your data is mostly canadian. (I havent looked through all the new links yet, but it is late. I might look them over in the morning.)

Peace
Dan

Ahnimus · November 2007

CaterinaA wrote:

I'm really curious about what leads you to believe that women's situation in Mexico, Bolivia, Nigeria, Iran, et al can be compared to the situation of Canadian women.

Caterina

I don't know anything about the situation in Mexico, Bolivia or Nigeria. But I do know that the situation in Iran is not nearly as dark as it's made out to be.

I can really only talk about the women in my own country, since the only option for Iran is to invade and probably kill more people in the process.

Amnesty International has this to say about women's rights in Iran

Demonstrations in Tehran in March and June demanding an end to discrimination in law against women were broken up harshly by the security forces. Some protesters were injured.

• Former Majles deputy Sayed Ali Akbar Mousavi-Kho'ini was arrested at the June demonstration and held for over four months before his release on bail in October. He reported that he had been tortured in detention.

In August, women's rights activists launched a campaign to gather a million signatures to a petition demanding equal rights for women.

Demonstrations in Canada and the United States are also "broken up harshly" to the point that the RCMP embeds agent provacateurs in crowds to incite riots so they can break them up harshly with tazers and tear gas.

I don't see that as particularly unusual. The police breaking up a protest doesn't convey in any way the governments support for or against the protesters. It's just to break up the protest so a riot doesn't occur.

Of course if this was a riot of men for some men's rights, it wouldn't even be mentioned on Amnesty.org. Just like this article: "Safe Schools are every girl's right" fuck the boys right? Everything is biased as hell from a feminist slant. The exact same crime against a man is more of a crime against a woman.

The other thing is that Amnesty doesn't even care about DV against men, they have a big fat zero statistics on it. Meanwhile they have a page devoted to violence against women. Every organization does, violence against men is almost completely absent from social studies. Meanwhile, the rare organizations that do look at those statistics show there is a lot of it.

The bottom line is, this bias gives you a bias perspective. You are completely oblivious to any incidences of an Iranian woman beating her husband. Because of their culture, I doubt it would ever be reported anyway.

The issue of women's rights is totally exaggerate. The Burqa or Hajib is a good example. Western groups view it as a sign of oppression, many Muslim women do not. The problem is, we are zooming in on and exaggerating issues that we feel strongly about, because our society reinforces those issues. No one gives a rats ass if a guy is beaten by his wife, they only care if it's popular to care about it.

Tehran is the nose job capital of the world
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/02/eveningnews/main692495.shtml

It sure doesn't sound like women are being hugely oppressed in that way. Yet, that's what we'd be led to believe by these feminist groups chirping about the Burqa and Hajib all the time. When it comes to domestic violence, the research is equally skewed and screwed.

Ahnimus · November 2007

CaterinaA wrote:

I'm really curious about what leads you to believe that women's situation in Mexico, Bolivia, Nigeria, Iran, et al can be compared to the situation of Canadian women.

Caterina

The other thing is that cross-cultural studies show that domestic violence is pretty much the same everywhere.

Ahnimus · November 2007

OutOfBreath wrote:

Well, ahnimus, I was expecting something more than a complete and utter dodge from you on this. You adressed none of my points, apart from saying I read nothing, and then post a load of other stats. I am tempted to say that you dont read your own material either, if you can completely bypass what I have highlighted twice now in regards to that source.

I'm behind Caterina, on how you compare canadian and other women, since your data is mostly canadian. (I havent looked through all the new links yet, but it is late. I might look them over in the morning.)

Peace
Dan

I didn't dodge your points. Does supporting the feminist agenda get you lots of pussy or what? You seem like a rational person, but here your just blindly supporting the agenda with straw man arguments. I pointed out that your argument was a straw man and you want to go back to it. I'm not into that, look at the bigger picture and use your brain.

The difference between Canada and Iran is only going to be culture (religion) not physiology. So any differences will be the result of held beliefs and that isn't something you are going to change. The other issue as I already raised is that any action against the Iranian government will likely cause more harm to the people you are trying to protect. Finally, the feminist agenda uses mythical statistics and stereotypes which are ultimately detrimental to our own societies to the extents I've posted and then some.

What you did was pluck out some stats where women were the primary victims and ignored the opposite stats. For example, women are more likely to cut or stab their husbands. This you completely ignored, you ignored the fact that men are less likely to report incidences of domestic violence. Instead you focused in on a few stats in favor of your agenda. Your agenda is illogical, because your approach off the bat is to support feminism and the bullshit it advances. This can only bennefit you by making you more popular with the ladies. You also ignored the over all stat that 8% of women and 7% of men are victims. Yes, women are more often reporting domestic violence, a very small amount more however. Hardly enough to warrant such a biased approach. So what is your true agenda? does all your skepticism and centrality go out the window when you could gain popularity by blindly supporting some irrational propaganda?

Saay NO to violence against women!

Comments

Categories