men involved with domestic violence

[PeterMerkin69]

I think it captures the essence of your argument perfectly.

It's so much caps and straw, man. I apologize for upsetting you so much that you had to resort to Internet yelling, though.

But actually my argument is that if you're unwilling to help yourself when you are very much capable of doing so then you shouldn't expect anyone else to help you. And then I shot down some lame excuses for why men can't or won't defend themselves because... everyone likes an easy target, I suppose.

 

[chikusho]

How is this an attack on women? I've never claimed any such thing.

A man being attacked by a woman and nobody caring is not because men are supposed to be tough. It's because they are supposed to be tougher than women. To be able to rise above what society dictates is the lowest bar of personal agency, aka a woman.
So when the woman is aggressive and the man submits that comes off as comical because that dynamic is not something that people expect to happen. Our perception of women here is still so low that a woman can't be seen as a threat in almost any way.

It's the same reason we laugh when a woman is sexually aggressive and rapey against a man in movies, because society as a whole just don't find that situation to be plausible. And that's because in our minds a woman shouldn't be able to do that, so we laugh it off. Just like it's funny when the mouse turns around and beats the crap out of a cat in a cartoon.

Violence IS violence. But using the above example as some kind of proof of male victimization is rather silly.

For you, an attack of a man by a woman and nobody stepping in to help the man is less about people not caring about violence against men and more about the status of women. Does a man have to die before he becomes a priority?

Wow, talk about talking out of context and misrepresenting my argument...

To me a woman attacking a man is assault.

On the other hand, an ad campaign about peoples reaction to female violence against men pin points the fact that women are still thought so little of for that not to be a concern. You know, as I just explained.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Snip

Norway does not need to depend on charities for these services because Norway funds government programs through state-owned sale of natural resources in the North Sea, so is not really comparable to the funding methods used in the United states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Norway

If you wish to discuss Norway, I will not be of much assistance as I am not familiar with the issues facing Norwegians, and since the issues involved with domestic violence is regional, I can only discuss those facing the US and Native American reservations in the US.

In the US, the situation is so severe for women we have men trying to force their way into women's shelters to attack, kidnap or murder the women in them, so some of them are surrounded by electric fences, barbed wire and have armed guards to keep the women safe from attackers. Under no circumstances could we allow men into the facilities as there have already been instances where they have sent women family members in to try and coerce or trick them out of the shelters as it is, and women have already been kidnapped from the shelters. The situations of the women in shelters is often dire, and the prison system fails to protect victims in the US, so even putting the attackers in prison does not mean the victims are out of harms way, as they often carry out hits placed on victims from behind bars by hiring others to do it for them. Our shelters and safe houses are all we have to try and keep these women alive currently so it is not possible to add men to the existing shelters and would need provide them with their own separate facilities.

 

[generals3]

It IS about the status of a woman because if you had a man beating the crap out of another man, people would be worried. Women are seen so low that people think it is comical, like if a baby were to be attacking him. Until societies view of women as equals becomes more widespread this will continue to be the case.

Seen as babies? Now you're being ridiculous. But you want people to women as equals when it comes to physical strength. Well i guess we'll need to start genetic manipulation. People learn from their experience and in the vast majority of the cases women are physically weaker. And thus our brain, which loves to use its memory, will always keep that in mind. Trying to alter the very essence of how our brain function is an impossible task. However what we can do is stop the witch hunt against the evil wife beating man started by you know who. because that witch hunt has resulted in men being unable to defend themselves or to seek help from authorities (because yes, it is very likely he will be the suspect).

 

[chikusho]

nice

That exists too, but I guess you associated my analogue to another type of scene.
I was thinking specifically about unwelcome advances.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

It IS about the status of a woman because if you had a man beating the crap out of another man, people would be worried. Women are seen so low that people think it is comical, like if a baby were to be attacking him. Until societies view of women as equals becomes more widespread this will continue to be the case.

Seen as babies? Now you're being ridiculous. But you want people to women as equals when it comes to physical strength. Well i guess we'll need to start genetic manipulation. People learn from their experience and in the vast majority of the cases women are physically weaker. And thus our brain, which loves to use its memory, will always keep that in mind. Trying to alter the very essence of how our brain function is an impossible task. However what we can do is stop the witch hunt against the evil wife beating man started by you know who. because that witch hunt has resulted in men being unable to defend themselves or to seek help from authorities (because yes, it is very likely he will be the suspect).

I used " babies" as to make the understanding of the feeling that the bypassers have when they say " he was not in any danger" or " she was not a threat" Not that she was an actual baby, however, people would have been more concerned about a male teen attacking him than a woman, so that isn't that far off in comparison. I am not saying that people will ever see "me" for example, as physically equal to a male, I am petite and only weigh 115lbs or 52.16kg. When men think of women as " fiesty little dolls" when they get angry, and are not taking them seriously of course you are going to have an issue where they do not think the man is in danger. For example:
http://www.imnotobsessed.com/wp-content/uploads/INFphoto_948460.jpg
If she was hitting him, people would laugh like it was a baby attacking him because he is so much bigger than her, not understanding that she could actually hurt him. Even a dog attacking him would be seen as more of a threat than a woman.

No, I am not saying we need to be genetically altered silly. It should be considered that women are more likely to go for a weapon because they lack strength. If men think of the woman attacking as one with a weapon, they suddenly do not see her as weak at all. They should recognize that abuse and violence is bad no matter who is doing it and take the woman more seriously as a threat. If it takes mentally picturing the woman with a weapon to accomplish this in your mind in order to perceive her as a threat, maybe they should do so rather than overlook the violence.

What exactly are you suggesting, that men should defend themselves with violence? That is going backwards rather than forwards. We need to end the violence from both men and women, not add more to it. Instead of promoting violence, we should promote legal action against perpetrators of violence and offer more resources and protection to the victims of violence to help them get away from their attackers. This applies to both male and females.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

To put it bluntly, Patriarchy theory allows one to explain away the chaotic mess of external influences that create negative effects in their lives, without having to lay blame on the individuals creating a moral conflict of interests with the "victim". It simultaneously deflects any personal responsibility while nebulously creating opportunity for individualistic interpretations of oppression for anyone.

I'm sure you'll think I'm picking nits, but "Patriarchy theory" is just a theory. It doesn't do anything, and while it might allow for muddy thinking on account of being a muddy term, it is not a guarantee of it. Arguing that every application of it is "utterly ridiculous", even in informal discussion such as a message board, strikes me as the exact kind of lazy one-size-fits-all thinking you're purporting to oppose.

It just strikes me as needlessly provocative, given this is already a stupidly contentious and polarized discussion, in which most of the contributors have shown up armed to the teeth with confirmation bias.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

And no, I don't believe for a second anything you say to the contrary.

I guess that leaves no room for discussion. I will agree to disagree and part ways. Good Day.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

To put it bluntly, Patriarchy theory allows one to explain away the chaotic mess of external influences that create negative effects in their lives, without having to lay blame on the individuals creating a moral conflict of interests with the "victim". It simultaneously deflects any personal responsibility while nebulously creating opportunity for individualistic interpretations of oppression for anyone.

I'm sure you'll think I'm picking nits, but "Patriarchy theory" is just a theory. It doesn't do anything, and while it might allow for muddy thinking on account of being a muddy term, it is not a guarantee of it. Arguing that every application of it is "utterly ridiculous", even in informal discussion such as a message board, strikes me as the exact kind of lazy one-size-fits-all thinking you're purporting to oppose.

It just strikes me as needlessly provocative, given this is already a stupidly contentious and polarized discussion, in which most of the contributors have shown up armed to the teeth with confirmation bias.

Now I agree we may be armed to the teeth with confirmation bias, even so I was expecting to find a 24 hour men's hotline in the UK and was disappointed to see that I could not find one easily. I may have bias due to my experience with rape and abuse at the hands of men, but even I can see there should be a 24 hour hotline for men in need of help. There really is no excuse for that. I wish to actively help solve these problems but it is often hard to do when men keep screaming " womenz don't care about us!" when that simply is not true.

 

[chikusho]

I don't think you realize how little I care. Not because the Patriarchy benefits me in some way. Not because I know the Patriarchy doesn't exist in the ways in which it's been described by those who lay blame on it. And not because I believe people who fight against the nebulous monolithic idea only do so for personal gain. But because you can't demonstrate why it's a system I should challenge if it's been so successful for human existence and how any other system would be better given even a basic understanding of human psychology.

By that logic we might as well start developing more slavery.

 

[chikusho]

Now I agree we may be armed to the teeth with confirmation bias, even so I was expecting to find a 24 hour men's hotline in the UK and was disappointed to see that I could not find one easily. I may have bias due to my experience with rape and abuse at the hands of men, but even I can see there should be a 24 hour hotline for men in need of help. There really is no excuse for that. I wish to actively help solve these problems but it is often hard to do when men keep screaming " womenz don't care about us!" when that simply is not true.

Sorry to hear about your trauma but... It took google 0.4 seconds to find like, a dozen male specific hotlines in the UK.

 

[generals3]

No, I am not saying we need to be genetically altered silly. It should be considered that women are more likely to go for a weapon because they lack strength. If men think of the woman attacking as one with a weapon, they suddenly do not see her as weak at all.

But what if she doesn't have any, as in the video you shown? And what if people expect her to have one, will they just dare to jump in or call the cops? in which case you'd still have the issue where cops have been so pressured as to help the female victims from tha bad oppressing men they'll still be suspecting him.

They should recognize that abuse and violence is bad no matter who is doing it and take the woman more seriously as a threat.

In a physical conflict which doesn't involve weapons that will be extremely hard. And this still doesn't address the issue people are being drilled to believe men are the ones being evil oppressors towards women (because "patriarchy") and thus assumed to be the bad guys.

If it takes mentally picturing the woman with a weapon to accomplish this in your mind in order to perceive her as a threat, maybe they should do so rather than overlook the violence.

And how can you get people to force themselves to do that? I think that will require some hefty nasty propaganda which i'd rather not see.

What exactly are you suggesting, that men should defend themselves with violence?

If necessary yes. Self defence using proportionate violence is considered ok in any other scenario so why make an exception here?

That is going backwards rather than forwards.

Not really i don't think allowing someone to stand up against their aggressors is regression, that's progress.

We need to end the violence from both men and women, not add more to it.

Ideally yes. But the world isn't ideal. Ideally we would just magically get rid of crimes without having to take away people's freedoms, having cops shooting at certain types of people in certain scenarios, etc. But that's idealistic talk. You can (or should) always strive towards that ideal but you shouldn't dismiss certain solutions just because they're not fitting this idealistic utopia.

Instead of promoting violence, we should promote legal action against perpetrators of violence and offer more resources and protection to the victims of violence to help them get away from their attackers. This applies to both male and females.

I also suggested that. I suggested both because both are lacking. Both the ability of defending yourself and being able to rely on the Law to help you are necessary. The former is also necessary because the law isn't always there for you.

 

[Aaron Sylvester]

A man has only 10-20% natural advantage in upper body strength.

*40-50% difference in upper body strength, 20-30% in lower body strength, 60-65% in hand grip strength (hand grip plays a huge role in physical domestic violence).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_human_physiology#Strength.2C_power_and_muscle_mass
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17186303
"The results of female national elite athletes even indicate that the strength level attainable by extremely high training will rarely surpass the 50th percentile of untrained or not specifically trained men."

Before someone says that males are more encouraged to do strength-training exercises, well that's the reality of things. I would argue that more women than ever before are getting into gyms or engage in at least some form of exercise (pilates, yoga, etc). Hell just walk into any modern gym today and you're bound to see tons of women. Go back a few decades and you wouldn't see that. If anything, strength training only further highlights the gap between male vs female body strength.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

Domestic violence can happen to anyone.

To raise awareness for a particular kind of violence seems silly to me. Like raising money to cure breast cancer. Just raise money to cure cancer.

Cancer is a term covering various different diseases some of which need to be treated differently, so trying to cure "cancer" is like trying to cure "illness", its not specific enough.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Now I agree we may be armed to the teeth with confirmation bias, even so I was expecting to find a 24 hour men's hotline in the UK and was disappointed to see that I could not find one easily. I may have bias due to my experience with rape and abuse at the hands of men, but even I can see there should be a 24 hour hotline for men in need of help. There really is no excuse for that. I wish to actively help solve these problems but it is often hard to do when men keep screaming " womenz don't care about us!" when that simply is not true.

Sorry to hear about your trauma but... It took google 0.4 seconds to find like, a dozen male specific hotlines in the UK.

I did google search earlier in this thread ( see post #134 http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.850952-men-involved-with-domestic-violence?page=4 ) and this link was the second link to appear:
http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/domestic_abuse/where_to_get_help

The first link was for Women's shelters, so I nabbed the second one. It depends on your search terms and I used common terms used for someone looking for a shelter. Not sure the order or the exact words I used but it included "national domestic abuse shelter UK men".
Someone in danger and in a hurry clicks the link that said "where to get help for domestic violence- Shelter England" and sees they have to wait until " business hours" to receive help may do something rash or not seek help again. Why 24 hour hotlines would be listed for women on that site but not for men is a problem for men seeking help. They should list many hotlines if many exist, otherwise they are showing men in desperate situations they have no options. If there are many 24 hour domestic abuse shelter hotlines for men in the UK, that is great, however, they really need to work on how they make that known to men who may not put in the right search terms so that men can find them in seconds when they need them.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Stuff

I cannot agree that adding more violence helps anything in this situation, and only serves to escalate rather than solves the problems.

Instead we should pressure our officials to address this with the law and properly train police to respond accordingly to violence inflicted on men and expand understanding through education. We have to educate people that violence is bad no matter who is doing it, and make this socially unacceptable to " ignore it". These things can be done, and just as it is now often seen as unacceptable to abuse women, we can also make it unacceptable for women to abuse men. This can be resolved through education rather than through adding more violence.

 

[Asita]

Because it bears repeating, let's bring up the ABC video Lil devils X linked on the last page again.

Spoiler

Interesting watch...and kinda scary that one of the people recorded attested that she saw the actress's actions as something admirable and the other was a cop who happily admitted to thinking nothing of it as it stood but that had the tables been turned it would have been an open and shut case he'd readily intervene in. On the upside, the segment does also show a group of women who felt the situation warranted some intervention and a 911 call when it continued.

The trend of victim blaming in the middle does bear some special mention, however, as it may represent a more difficult aspect of this issue than the concept of 'credible threat'; which is to say the apparent de-facto presumption of male guilt in one form or another - with cheating being a notably frequent hypothesis - which is then used as a justification for the violence. We're very quick to condemn victim blaming when it's applied to women, with the popular retort being that "it's never the victim's fault", but we often fail to apply that to male victims, instead often viewing it as a kind of karmic justice even if we're unaware of any wrongdoing on his part. And if we do know of any wrongdoing on his part...well...


Honestly, if this isn't a primary cause for the double standard I'd venture to guess it's at least secondary and a perception that we have to fix if we want to fully fix the problem.

Captcha: "Only way to be sure"

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Fun thing: Apparently ABC News had a similar segment on this a few years ago.

Spoiler

Interesting watch...and kinda scary that one of the people recorded attested that she saw the actress's actions as something admirable and the other was a cop who happily admitted to thinking nothing of it as it stood but that had the tables been turned it would have been an open and shut case he'd readily intervene in. On the upside, the segment does also show a group of women who felt the situation warranted some intervention and a 911 call when it continued.


Captcha: "Only way to be sure"
...I like you today, captcha.

I posted that video on post#199 (Pg6 for me) on this thread and commented on it there. The most upsetting thing to me was the police officers reaction. Even calling 911 is unlikely for them to do anything.

 

[Asita]

I posted that video on post#199 on this thread and commented on it there. The most upsetting thing to me was the police officers reaction.

So you did...and I've got a post immediately below it too...and they were both just posted this afternoon...whelp, my brain was obviously on vacation there. *goes back to edit the post to something more constructive*

 

[UberPubert]

I don't know what to say to this. You are taking the apathy of violence against men and calling it misogyny. I guess anything can be twisted to become misogyny.

This... Is actually a pretty apt statement. Basically anything that's perceived as sexist is - I'm told - a result of patriarchy (and hence, misogyny).

And it's actually gotten me thinking: In the pursuit to bring aid and raise awareness of female victims of abuse in ways disproportionate to men, is feminism/are feminists actually reinforcing gender stereotypes?

While I've heard others refer to domestic and sexual abuse towards women as an "epidemic" among men as aggressive and violent, I'd imagine it'd actually be quite difficult for someone to be told the statistics and then shown the amount of money going into women's aid and shelters and not also come to conclusion that vulnerability and neediness are common traits among women.