NationStates Jolt Archive

Seriously. Would anyone deny this ( http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=trafficking+of+woman+&btnG=Search)? Women and children are trafficked more than men. It is a bigger problem. Should we, in the interests of equality, ignore this and focus on men, women and children equally? Would focusing more on women be sexist? I was told just this, yesterday, by a colleague, but I doubt this is a widely held view.

And why is it considered 'sexist' to focus more on women as victims of domestic violence? Focusing on the group that is MORE abused is not sexism. It's pragmatism. Men are abused too. But there is no reliable evidence that it is to the same extent, or frequency as women. Yet you bring this subject up in RL, or here on NS, and all of a sudden, advocating more funds for domestic abuse programs for women is a terrible, sexist act. Would the majority of you say this about trafficking?

So let's get it all off our collective chests. All the ugly stuff. All the discontent we feel about this subject. Let's be honest about what bugs us about domestic abuse...the reactions to, the information about, the view towards...all of it. Do we want EQUAL response (the same) or EQUITABLE response (fair, based on need) to the abuse of men, women and children?

I think the last stats I read about domestic abuse showed that the victims were 60% women and 40% men. One of the main problems when estimating male victim rates is that men are scared to come forward about their problems for fear of being seen as weak.

Clearly women and children are trafficked more than men. Because of that fact traffickers of women and children should recieve higher priority from law enforcement. We can use our resources to help a few people or a large number of people. The choice is pretty clear.

Just wait until someone brings some statistic about men getting trafficked. The only reason I can imagine for that to happen is illegal immigration. Trafficking for sexual exploitation and men as victims just doesn't figure, unless you consider very young boys as "men" already, in which case I still figure that there would be a lot more women being trafficked, as there are probably more men after women and girls than after young boys.

I think the last stats I read about domestic abuse showed that the victims were 60% women and 40% men. One of the main problems when estimating male victim rates is that men are scared to come forward about their problems for fear of being seen as weak.
Even if that is proven as true, women are still facing the more serious abuse (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9149105&postcount=103). The problem is, all abuse is not equal. A slap is not the same as being burned. Emotional and verbal abuse is terrible too. ALL abuse is terrible. But if you look at the crimes that HAVE to be reported (abuse ending in hospital visits), women by far outnumber men. That can not be attributed to fear of reporting on behalf of men. We can not approach all abuse the same. Obviously we need to prioritise, and deal with the most serious abuse first. That doesn't mean the rest of the abuse is not important. We always have to make these choices when it comes to resources...we need to decide where they are best used.

Just wait until someone brings some statistic about men getting trafficked. The only reason I can imagine for that to happen is illegal immigration. Trafficking for sexual exploitation and men as victims just doesn't figure, unless you consider very young boys as "men" already, in which case I still figure that there would be a lot more women being trafficked, as there are probably more men after women and girls than after young boys.
Trafficking of Men (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=trafficking+of+men), as you say, is mostly in the form of illegal immigration, or bondage slavery (to fight in wars and such). It is very serious as well...but does not occur to the same extent as the trafficking of women. I don't see how you can truly compare the two either, but apparently I'm a horrible sexist for thinking they aren't equal. *shrugs*

Even if that is proven as true, women are still facing the more serious abuse (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9149105&postcount=103). The problem is, all abuse is not equal. A slap is not the same as being burned. Emotional and verbal abuse is terrible too. ALL abuse is terrible. But if you look at the crimes that HAVE to be reported (abuse ending in hospital visits), women by far outnumber men. That can not be attributed to fear of reporting on behalf of men. We can not approach all abuse the same. Obviously we need to prioritise, and deal with the most serious abuse first. That doesn't mean the rest of the abuse is not important. We always have to make these choices when it comes to resources...we need to decide where they are best used.

I agree completely with you. I was just trying to give some more info for people to use in their arguments.

Seriously. Would anyone deny this ( http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=trafficking+of+woman+&btnG=Search)? Women and children are trafficked more than men. It is a bigger problem. Should we, in the interests of equality, ignore this and focus on men, women and children equally? Would focusing more on women be sexist? I was told just this, yesterday, by a colleague, but I doubt this is a widely held view.

And why is it considered 'sexist' to focus more on women as victims of domestic violence? Focusing on the group that is MORE abused is not sexism. It's pragmatism. Men are abused too. But there is no reliable evidence that it is to the same extent, or frequency as women. Yet you bring this subject up in RL, or here on NS, and all of a sudden, advocating more funds for domestic abuse programs for women is a terrible, sexist act. Would the majority of you say this about trafficking?

So let's get it all off our collective chests. All the ugly stuff. All the discontent we feel about this subject. Let's be honest about what bugs us about domestic abuse...the reactions to, the information about, the view towards...all of it. Do we want EQUAL response (the same) or EQUITABLE response (fair, based on need) to the abuse of men, women and children?


Does political correctness know no bounds?

Does political correctness know no bounds?
Clarify. What do you consider to be politicaly correct in this post?

I agree completely with you. I was just trying to give some more info for people to use in their arguments.
Yup, I know. I was just expanding on it:)

Trafficking of Men (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=trafficking+of+men), as you say, is mostly in the form of illegal immigration, or bondage slavery (to fight in wars and such). It is very serious as well...but does not occur to the same extent as the trafficking of women. I don't see how you can truly compare the two either, but apparently I'm a horrible sexist for thinking they aren't equal. *shrugs*I'm always amazed at some people's ignorance. You missed an interesting post on the abortion poem thread where someone wanted to use one of those father's first type sites as a source for their statistics, claiming it was a good counter balance to the femenist influence in government sources.

[QUOTE=Sinuhue]snipity snipQUOTE]

i think that colleague of yours is a bit of a twit if he thinks its sexist. Time and effort should be proportionate to the problem. More time should be spent on women and children because its a bigger problem.

One thing, i don't personally believe women are MORE abused than men. Its just unfortunately with women it tends to be physical abuse. Men tend to be abused more mentally by women.

One thing, i don't personally believe women are MORE abused than men. Its just unfortunately with women it tends to be physical abuse. Men tend to be abused more mentally by women.
Unfortunately, stats on emotional and verbal abuse are hard to come by, or gather.

But even if we could prove that kind of abuse happened in equal proportions, would that change the fact that the most severe abuse is focused on women? Would we change the way we use our resources? I doubt it.

Seriously. Would anyone deny this ( http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=trafficking+of+woman+&btnG=Search)?

So let's get it all off our collective chests. All the ugly stuff. All the discontent we feel about this subject. Let's be honest about what bugs us about domestic abuse...the reactions to, the information about, the view towards...all of it. Do we want EQUAL response (the same) or EQUITABLE response (fair, based on need) to the abuse of men, women and children?

I'm in favor of an equitable response, depending on who decides what "fair" is. Rather than raising taxes though, I'd suggest a funding shift from social welfare systems.

Clarify. What do you consider to be politicaly correct in this post?


Well, I would say that denying the obvious in an attempt to edify one's pseudo-egalitarian philosophy is kinda overstepping the line. Are we not abused more than men? Are we able to fight back? Who is physically more capable? Let's be honest with ourselves and see to it that the true victims get the support.

Well, I would say that denying the obvious in an attempt to edify one's pseudo-egalitarian philosophy is kinda overstepping the line. Are we not abused more than men? Are we able to fight back? Who is physically more capable? Let's be honest with ourselves and see to it that the true victims get the support.
Bozzy (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=428594&page=28&pp=15) would be hating you right now!:)

Bozzy (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=428594&page=28&pp=15) would be hating you right now!:)
Since Bozzy basically hates everything, including himself, using him as an example is a bit counterproductive

Unfortunately, stats on emotional and verbal abuse are hard to come by, or gather.

But even if we could prove that kind of abuse happened in equal proportions, would that change the fact that the most severe abuse is focused on women? Would we change the way we use our resources? I doubt it.

ok so if 20% of women are physically abused
and 20% of men are mentally abused.
I say it should be equal as i don't see physical abuse as more severe than mental abuse. But then this is a hypothetical situation

I think the last stats I read about domestic abuse showed that the victims were 60% women and 40% men. One of the main problems when estimating male victim rates is that men are scared to come forward about their problems for fear of being seen as weak.

I've heard this argument before about reporting, but if that were true wouldn't we expect to see more even trends in other types of familial abuse (child abuse)? Or are children more likely to report child abuse from males?

The second argument that men are just stronger but women are equally violent (therefore more women get badly hurt than men) is also able to be examined in child abuse. The willingnesss to hit a spouse and willingness to hit a child is not the same but it does say a lot about the tendence toward violence of each of those groups. Child abuse gives us the ability to factor out strength since obviously women are well-equiped to abuse and damage children, no?

Yet, the trends still show that the majority of deaths from physical abuse are committed by men.

http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/factsheets/fatality.cfm

The point is that men are far too often the perpetrators of violence again women, children and, of course, other men, both with intimates and among strangers. I don't think it's sexist to address this point as it benefits everyone for men to deal with the socialization that attributes to these behaviors.

And why is it considered 'sexist' to focus more on women as victims of domestic violence? Focusing on the group that is MORE abused is not sexism. It's pragmatism. Men are abused too. But there is no reliable evidence that it is to the same extent, or frequency as women. Yet you bring this subject up in RL, or here on NS, and all of a sudden, advocating more funds for domestic abuse programs for women is a terrible, sexist act. Would the majority of you say this about trafficking?


Yes i think that is sexist. Why? Because your only focusing on helping one group. If your advocating more funds for domestic abuse, it should be to help people who have suffered domestic abuse whether man/women, gay/straight, etc... It should not be only for women who have been abused by men.

(assuming your from the USA) Its the same as the preferential treatment given to certain racial groups because of poverty, etc... To me that's wrong, you help people based on their circumstances, not whether they fit into a specific demographic only.

I've heard this argument before about reporting, but if that were true wouldn't we expect to see more even trends in other types of familial abuse (child abuse)? Or are children more likely to report child abuse from males?

The second argument that men are just stronger but women are equally violent (therefore more women get badly hurt than men) is also able to be examined in child abuse. The willingnesss to hit a spouse and willingness to hit a child is not the same but it does say a lot about the tendence toward violence of each of those groups. Child abuse gives us the ability to factor out strength since obviously women are well-equiped to abuse and damage children, no?

Yet, the trends still show that the majority of deaths from physical abuse are committed by men.

http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/factsheets/fatality.cfm

The point is that men are far too often the perpetrators of violence again women, children and, of course, other men, both with intimates and among strangers. I don't think it's sexist to address this point as it benefits everyone for men to deal with the socialization that attributes to these behaviors.

I'd like to believe that women are less prone to abuse. Have been hit by my ex on several occasions, I know that men can very definitely be abused by women and not report it. Of course, I wasn't seriously injured (cut foot from having a glass thrown at me, had the wind knocked out of me from a punch to the SP) so and I didn't want her prosecuted anyway... just to stop, which is one of the reasons I'm divorced.

Anyway, I think comparing men's abuse of children to women's abuse of children is a poor barometer. Women have far more socialization to be protect of children, where as hitting a man has little or no social consequence or socialization against as men are seen as being able to defend themselves.

That said, I'm still far more concerned about abuse of women and children than men, precisely because, on average, men are more able to defend themselves. That doesn't mean that I'm in favor of women abusing men, I just don't see it as as big a problem.

I fail to see the problem, allocate money equally for each victim. With respect to the seriousness of the crime.

Yes i think that is sexist. Why? Because your only focusing on helping one group. If your advocating more funds for domestic abuse, it should be to help people who have suffered domestic abuse whether man/women, gay/straight, etc... It should not be only for women who have been abused by men.

(assuming your from the USA) Its the same as the preferential treatment given to certain racial groups because of poverty, etc... To me that's wrong, you help people based on their circumstances, not whether they fit into a specific demographic only.

She's from Canada, but I'm from the USA and your thinking is flawed.

Domestic abuse victims are often brought to shelters. If I have twice as many women who need shelters and they receive the same funds I am either going to have too little space for women (not addressing the problem), too much space for men (a waste of funds) or each men's shelter has way more funds than each women's shelter (inequality). Obviously, there is a need for these shelters to not be unisex, so you have a definitive problem, one that can only be solved by looking at the percentage of victims and advocating the dispersal of funds to address those percentages. Anything less would just be silly and would amount to inequality. Your comparison to welfare is adequate. People don't recieve more money because of their race or demographic. The per capita rate is the same if you live in the same places under the same circumstances (same city with the same number of kids and no spouse, for example). If you have a per capita rate for funding abuse victims women would receive more funding and it would completely make sense to do so.

I'd like to believe that women are less prone to abuse. Have been hit by my ex on several occasions, I know that men can very definitely be abused by women and not report it. Of course, I wasn't seriously injured (cut foot from having a glass thrown at me, had the wind knocked out of me from a punch to the SP) so and I didn't want her prosecuted anyway... just to stop, which is one of the reasons I'm divorced.

Anyway, I think comparing men's abuse of children to women's abuse of children is a poor barometer. Women have far more socialization to be protect of children, where as hitting a man has little or no social consequence or socialization against as men are seen as being able to defend themselves.

That said, I'm still far more concerned about abuse of women and children than men, precisely because, on average, men are more able to defend themselves. That doesn't mean that I'm in favor of women abusing men, I just don't see it as as big a problem.

Generally, I agree with your points. However, you brought up socialization. I think we should accept the fact that men are more socialized to accept and dole out violence. When I was a child I would get in trouble for fighting, but if my father found out I ran away or left to avoid a fight, I would be ridiculed as a sissy. My story is not remotely unique, but a woman who was called a sissy or ridiculed for not being willing to fight would be. In our culture, it is considered okay for boys to fight (boys will be boys) and generally, not okay for women to (it's unladylike). Men are acceptable on front lines killing people, but not women.

That said, are we as men trained told to not hit women even if they hit us, yes, but it's no surprise that when we are brought up to be violent or to accept violence that men are more likely to allow that spill into domestic relationships. Women are not just trained to be nurturing and protective of children, but of their spouses as well. Some women may find it acceptable to become violent towards intimates, but given their socialization it's far less likely they actually will.

She's from Canada, but I'm from the USA and your thinking is flawed.

Domestic abuse victims are often brought to shelters. If I have twice as many women who need shelters and they receive the same funds I am either going to have too little space for women (not addressing the problem), too much space for men (a waste of funds) or each men's shelter has way more funds than each women's shelter (inequality). Obviously, there is a need for these shelters to not be unisex, so you have a definitive problem, one that can only be solved by looking at the percentage of victims and advocating the dispersal of funds to address those percentages. Anything less would just be silly and would amount to inequality. Your comparison to welfare is adequate. People don't recieve more money because of their race or demographic. The per capita rate is the same if you live in the same places under the same circumstances (same city with the same number of kids and no spouse, for example). If you have a per capita rate for funding abuse victims women would receive more funding and it would completely make sense to do so.

Well said. :)

ok so if 20% of women are physically abused
and 20% of men are mentally abused.
I say it should be equal as i don't see physical abuse as more severe than mental abuse. But then this is a hypothetical situation
Thankfully, the law disagrees with you. Because if I yell profanities at you, I will be punished less severely than if beat you into unconsciousness. Degree, and severity are important.

Generally, I agree with your points. However, you brought up socialization. I think we should accept the fact that men are more socialized to accept and dole out violence. When I was a child I would get in trouble for fighting, but if my father found out I ran away or left to avoid a fight, I would be ridiculed as a sissy. My story is not remotely unique, but a woman who was called a sissy or ridiculed for not being willing to fight would be. In our culture, it is considered okay for boys to fight (boys will be boys) and generally, not okay for women to (it's unladylike). Men are acceptable on front lines killing people, but not women.

That said, are we as men trained told to not hit women even if they hit us, yes, but it's no surprise that when we are brought up to be violent or to accept violence that men are more likely to allow that spill into domestic relationships. Women are not just trained to be nurturing and protective of children, but of their spouses as well. Some women may find it acceptable to become violent towards intimates, but given their socialization it's far less likely they actually will.

I'm with you up to the part about women being trained to be nurturing and protective of spouses part. 50 yrs ago I'd have agreed with you completely, but there has actually been good deal of socialization away from that idea in the past 45-50 years.

I would agree that men are more apt to be violent in general, for sure. When it comes to spousal relationships, I'd say the gap has narrowed dramatically in the last 20 years. Exactly what that gap is has yet to be measured in a genuinely reliable and valid study.

Obviously funds should be spent on projects which help both men and women where possible and in proportion to the respective number of male and female victims when this is impossible.

While I agree that women are more likely to suffer abuse and be trafficked I also think that some posters have a point about men being pressured to just take abuse rather than report it.

I think the fairest solution would be to recognise that more funds should be spent on the more numerous female victims but also to teach society as a whole that violence against men is just as wrong and unnacceptable.

I'm with you up to the part about women being trained to be nurturing and protective of spouses part. 50 yrs ago I'd have agreed with you completely, but there has actually been good deal of socialization away from that idea in the past 45-50 years.

I would agree that men are more apt to be violent in general, for sure. When it comes to spousal relationships, I'd say the gap has narrowed dramatically in the last 20 years. Exactly what that gap is has yet to be measured in a genuinely reliable and valid study.

I think you are letting your personal experiences color your judgement on that one. Women are still, in general, not encouraged to engage in violence of any sort and are encouraged to, in fact, look down upon violence. I have never seen a women who wasn't physically abused as a child hit a man. The explanation for that is obvious. However, unless child abuse has dramatically increased over the years, your argument wouldn't hold.

I think you are letting your personal experiences color your judgement on that one. Women are still, in general, not encouraged to engage in violence of any sort and are encouraged to, in fact, look down upon violence. I have never seen a women who wasn't physically abused as a child hit a man. The explanation for that is obvious. However, unless child abuse has dramatically increased over the years, your argument wouldn't hold.

I've been knee'd, punched and kicked by quite a few women (although some situations were my own fault) and i dont know of any of them who were abused. Your point seems to be a bit of a generalisation

She's from Canada, but I'm from the USA and your thinking is flawed.

Domestic abuse victims are often brought to shelters. If I have twice as many women who need shelters and they receive the same funds I am either going to have too little space for women (not addressing the problem), too much space for men (a waste of funds) or each men's shelter has way more funds than each women's shelter (inequality). Obviously, there is a need for these shelters to not be unisex, so you have a definitive problem, one that can only be solved by looking at the percentage of victims and advocating the dispersal of funds to address those percentages. Anything less would just be silly and would amount to inequality. Your comparison to welfare is adequate. People don't recieve more money because of their race or demographic. The per capita rate is the same if you live in the same places under the same circumstances (same city with the same number of kids and no spouse, for example). If you have a per capita rate for funding abuse victims women would receive more funding and it would completely make sense to do so.

I don't see it as flawed. More money should be raise to fight domestic abuse. Each individual victim should expect the same level of assistance no matter age or sex. If that means on a breakdown women get more, so be it. BUT trying to raise money ONLY to help women is sexist.

on the second point, i was refering to something I heard about black people receive extra point on their SAT or something like that simply because they were black? or to go to university. damn can't remember now.....

Thankfully, the law disagrees with you. Because if I yell profanities at you, I will be punished less severely than if beat you into unconsciousness. Degree, and severity are important.

don't be silly and read what i said.

If the same amount of women were being abused as men, then funding should be equal. But i said it was hpythetical. I think most people agree that more women and children are abused than men in the household.
and mental abuse can be longer lasting and more damaging that physical abuse, ecxept in extremes of course.

p.s. i realise the post was cryptic, apologise had to right fast on that 20%/20% post

I've been knee'd, punched and kicked by quite a few women (although some situations were my own fault) and i dont know of any of them who were abused. Your point seems to be a bit of a generalisation

Yes, and my best friend used to punch me in the arms and legs on my birthday. However, he was playing around and from how you describe it so were they. That hardly counts even as anecdotal evidence.

don't be silly and read what i said.

If the same amount of women were being abused as men, then funding should be equal. But i said it was hpythetical. I think most people agree that more women and children are abused than men in the household.
and mental abuse can be longer lasting and more damaging that physical abuse, ecxept in extremes of course.

p.s. i realise the post was cryptic, apologise had to right fast on that 20%/20% post

You called her silly? She replied to exactly what you said - that people should treat mental and physical abuse as equal. She said she doesn't agree and neither does the law. She wasn't talking about the funding for abuse but that degree and type are definitely factors in dealing with these issues legally. You cannot ignore the FACT that not all types of abuse are equal.

I don't see it as flawed. More money should be raise to fight domestic abuse. Each individual victim should expect the same level of assistance no matter age or sex. If that means on a breakdown women get more, so be it. BUT trying to raise money ONLY to help women is sexist.

No one suggested that money be raised to only help women. Sinuhue suggested that funding be proportionate to the problem.

on the second point, i was refering to something I heard about black people receive extra point on their SAT or something like that simply because they were black? or to go to university. damn can't remember now.....

You heard wrong.

You called her silly? She replied to exactly what you said - that people should treat mental and physical abuse as equal. She said she doesn't agree and neither does the law. She wasn't talking about the funding for abuse but that degree and type are definitely factors in dealing with these issues legally. You cannot ignore the FACT that not all types of abuse are equal.

i don't.
If we're talking about crippling or permanent physical injury. hell even death, then physical is by far worse.

But outside of this mental abuse can be equally as damaging if not more so. Of course it we're talking severe emotional abuse.

Again i realise i was far to cryptic in my original post.

Yes, and my best friend used to punch me in the arms and legs on my birthday. However, he was playing around and from how you describe it so were they. That hardly counts even as anecdotal evidence.

Getting knee'd in the groin and given a bloody nose are hardly examples of playing around

i don't.
If we're talking about crippling or permanent physical injury. hell even death, then physical is by far worse.

But outside of this mental abuse can be equally as damaging if not more so. Of course it we're talking severe emotional abuse.

Again i realise i was far to cryptic in my original post.

Actually, I can emotionally abuse as much as I like, provided I don't touch you or threaten to or give the impression that physical harm is likely, the law will not intervene (though you could go after me civilly). However, if I poke you in the chest, I've committed a crime. The law only cares about physical damage.

Now as far as funding goes, if we're comparing severe physical abuse to severe mental abuse (severe physical abuse almost never exists without severe mental abuse, however) then I'm going after the severe physical abuse. The severe physical abuse is more immediately threatening to the individual's person and is more likely to result in severe injury or death immediately.

You make it sound like you want to exclude severe physical abuse from the comparison with severe mental abuse and this is obviously stacking the deck. The premise is faulty at its root.

I think you are letting your personal experiences color your judgement on that one. Women are still, in general, not encouraged to engage in violence of any sort and are encouraged to, in fact, look down upon violence. I have never seen a women who wasn't physically abused as a child hit a man. The explanation for that is obvious. However, unless child abuse has dramatically increased over the years, your argument wouldn't hold.

Sure it would. The socialization to protect children is still there and if anything getting stronger, where as socialization against physical aggression with a spouse for females has diminished. Child abuse isn't the correct control for abuse between adults. There has very definitely been a great deal made of teaching women self-defense and or a willingness to be physically agressive with men in ways that are new to western society within the past 20-50 years.

In my personal experience, my ex was not abused as a child, btw. True that is ancedotal, but it is at least one clear exception to your theory.

You heard wrong.
Not really, after all the University of Michigan(or perhaps Michigan State Uni. not sure) had a points-based system in place where you got an extra 20 points if you were a black applicant.

Getting knee'd in the groin and given a bloody nose are hardly examples of playing around

Yes, but I'm guessing you've struck many more times by men than women, no?

Other than my mother, I've only been struck by one woman in anger and I hit her back. Yep, that's right, I hit her back.

Let's not pretend it's different than it is. You may never have hit a woman but I promise you more women have gotten bloody noses from men than vice versa.

Not really, after all the University of Michigan(or perhaps Michigan State Uni. not sure) had a points-based system in place where you got an extra 20 points if you were a black applicant.

...which was found to be unconstitutional.

Yes, but I'm guessing you've struck many more times by men than women, no?

Other than my mother, I've only been struck by one woman in anger and I hit her back. Yep, that's right, I hit her back.

Let's not pretend it's different than it is. You may never have hit a woman but I promise you more women have gotten bloody noses from men than vice versa.

Actually I havent been in that many fights with men. Only twice that I can recall. I'm not taking into account martial arts training of course but in that situation aggression is not the reason for the fight. In my own experience I feel that the women who struck me did so because they knew I wouldnt fight back. This is only my own personal experience though

p.s. of the people i've trained with i've always found women to be the most cunning fighters and i'm not ashamed to say i've had my ass kicked by plenty :p

...which was found to be unconstitutional.
Note the past tense. What he heard was true, but no longer is.

Other than my mother, I've only been struck by one woman in anger and I hit her back. Yep, that's right, I hit her back.

Is that a humble confession or a proud one? I'm having a hard time figuring it out :confused:

Not really, after all the University of Michigan(or perhaps Michigan State Uni. not sure) had a points-based system in place where you got an extra 20 points if you were a black applicant.

Yes, but that's not what s/he said, first. Second, that was overturned by the SCOTUS. That policy was deemed unconstitutional. The one that was upheld was the admissions for the Law School which does not use the 20 point rule. And it was the University of Michigan.

http://www.npr.org/news/specials/michigan/

Is that a humble confession or a proud one? I'm having a hard time figuring it out :confused:

A proud one. She was hitting another gentleman, and I stepped in between them to break it up. She told me if I didn't move she'd hit me. I told her I'd hit her back. She hit me. I hit her back (punched right in the middle of her chest). I didn't injure her or even really make it hurt much. It was much more shock value. I told her that though size and strength is a reason for me to avoid hitting her in aggression, it's does not give me reason to not defend myself or others. There was not a person there who didn't defend my position on that one. We were on a team together and I'd seen her hit many people before that but not one afterwards, so it was apparently effective. For the record, at the time I was as small as many women (about 125-130 pounds).

I don't generally like situations that end in violence, but in this case it was already violent when I entered it and the violence had stopped when I walked away.

A proud one. She was hitting another gentleman, and I stepped in between them to break it up. She told me if I didn't move she'd hit me. I told her I'd hit her back. She hit me. I hit her back (punched right in the middle of her chest). I didn't injure her or even really make it hurt much. It was much more shock value. I told her that though size and strength is a reason for me to avoid hitting her in aggression, it's does not give me reason to not defend myself or others. There was not a person there who didn't defend my position on that one. We were on a team together and I'd seen her hit many people before that but not one afterwards, so it was apparently effective. For the record, at the time I was as small as many women (about 125-130 pounds).

I don't generally like situations that end in violence, but in this case it was already violent when I entered it and the violence had stopped when I walked away.

In my line of work and through out my life I've experienced my fair share of violence and have defended others when necessary, but when I had to be physically aggressive myself, I always saw it as a personal failure or at the very least a disappointing situation, even when defending others. I am capable of self defense, but am always disappointed, not proud, when I have to use those skills.

Jocabia, could you not have just grabbed her by the wrists and held her until she calmed down or just twist her arm behind her back?

Note the past tense. What he heard was true, but no longer is.

But it was never supported by law, which is the point. It was held to be a violation of the constitution, thus it was always a violation of the constitution.

[QUOTE=Jocabia]No one suggested that money be raised to only help women. Sinuhue suggested that funding be proportionate to the problem.

between male/female/child abuse in homes? If we doubled the amount being given it would probably not be enough.

but fair enough. i read it differently. But men do receive alot of abuse in the home and they are underfunded compared to other groups.

No one suggested that money be raised to only help women. Sinuhue suggested that funding be proportionate to the problem. .


between male/female/child abuse in homes? If we doubled the amount being given it would probably not be enough.

but fair enough. i read it differently. But men do receive alot of abuse in the home and they are underfunded compared to other groups.

Jocabia, could you not have just grabbed her by the wrists and held her until she calmed down or just twist her arm behind her back?

Absolutely could have, but I hit her for the sake of hitting her. I wanted for her to know that I found striking her if she struck me to be perfectly acceptable. Again, I hit her in the chest so I didn't and most likely couldn't have injured her.

Absolutely could have, but I hit her for the sake of hitting her. I wanted for her to know that I found striking her if she struck me to be perfectly acceptable. Again, I hit her in the chest so I didn't and most likely couldn't have injured her.

Why should you feel pride in using unneccessary force on someone weaker than you?

between male/female/child abuse in homes? If we doubled the amount being given it would probably not be enough.

but fair enough. i read it differently. But men do receive alot of abuse in the home and they are underfunded compared to other groups.

I'd like to see you support that statement.

http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/AGP.Net/Components/documentViewer/Download.aspxnz?DocumentID=39236

79% of the people killed by intimate partners were women. That's a drastic difference don't you think.

19% of violent crimes where women were the victim were perpetrated by their intimate partner versus 3% of violent crimes where men were the victim.

I'd like to see you support that statement.

http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/AGP.Net/Components/documentViewer/Download.aspxnz?DocumentID=39236

79% of the people killed by intimate partners were women. That's a drastic difference don't you think.

19% of violent crimes where women were the victim were perpetrated by their intimate partner versus 3% of violent crimes where men were the victim.

You have to take into account mental abuse against men by women. Of course men are less likely to be injured by women due to women being weaker, on average, than men

Why should you feel pride in using unneccessary force on someone weaker than you?

I didn't use unnecessary force. She hit me in the face. I hit her in the chest specifically not to injure her. She was uninjured. It was effective. Sounds like appropriate force to me. My response was measured, designed not to injure, designed to end the problem. I'd call that successful.

And you highlight the problem. You don't seem to have a problem with the fact that she hit me in the face or that she hit me at all. Or that she was hitting someone else when I intervened or that I had witnessed her hit people before.

In my line of work and through out my life I've experienced my fair share of violence and have defended others when necessary, but when I had to be physically aggressive myself, I always saw it as a personal failure or at the very least a disappointing situation, even when defending others. I am capable of self defense, but am always disappointed, not proud, when I have to use those skills.

I would have handled the situation differently today whether man or woman, but I can't be anything but proud of a situation where I could have reacted disproportionately (which was my tendency back then) but instead used a measured response that ended the current violence and prevented violence in the future with no one being injured.

You have to take into account mental abuse against men by women. Of course men are less likely to be injured by women due to women being weaker, on average, than men

Fine support that statement. Otherwise, I don't have to take it into account because I can't see it's effects.

Yeah it is principles like mine that lead to many men being afraid to come forward about abuse for fear of being labelled weak but I still hold it as one of principles. I also apologise for implying you used unneccessary force. I should have read your posts better

Fine support that statement. Otherwise, I don't have to take it into account because I can't see it's effects.

You cant see the effects of mental abuse but they are still a major problem. Consider bullying in the school playground. It isnt visible (unless you are there when it is occurring) but it is still very harmful to the child in question and in extreme cases children have commited suicide because of this. The same applies to domestic abuse between men and women.

You cant see the effects of mental abuse but they are still a major problem. Consider bullying in the school playground. It isnt visible (unless you are there when it is occurring) but it is still very harmful to the child in question and in extreme cases children have commited suicide because of this. The same applies to domestic abuse between men and women.

I don't deny that it happens. You made the claim that it is undersupported and that it happens in great frequency. Support this claim. Or do you suppose people should guess that it's happening and throw money at it? How do we know how much it affects men, women and children or how often it occurs? What is your proposed action, remembering that the government does not have the right to interfere in the home without compelling interest? You're making claims without support, complaining that no one is doing anything about it, and not offering a solution of a proposed course to find a solution. Can you even show what evidence you base your speculation on?

I didnt claim that it occured in greater frequency than abuse against women. I didnt even complain that it was anywhere near as bad as abuse against women. All I said was that it does happen and should be recognised as more than just some fringe problem to be looked at later while female victims are helped first. I dont seek to belittle the pain of female victims but I do believe both groups should be helped albeit with different levels of spending

http://www.oregoncounseling.org/Handouts/DomesticViolenceMen.htm

This site gives a bit more of an insight into abuse against men

I didnt claim that it occured in greater frequency than abuse against women. I didnt even complain that it was anywhere near as bad as abuse against women. All I said was that it does happen and should be recognised as more than just some fringe problem to be looked at later while female victims are helped first. I dont seek to belittle the pain of female victims but I do believe both groups should be helped albeit with different levels of spending

http://www.oregoncounseling.org/Handouts/DomesticViolenceMen.htm

This site gives a bit more of an insight into abuse against men

That site contradicts itself and makes specious assumptions.

First their source (the source they cite).
http://www.dvmen.org/dv-28.htm#pgfId-1000404
As best we can tell domestic violence is quite a rare crime and the level of danger for the average person is extremely low. For example, citizens are greater than twenty times more likely to die from the flu than from an act of domestic violence.
To measure criminal acts the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) has been collecting data on personal and household victimization of intimate partners since 1973 in an ongoing survey of a nationally representative sample of residential addresses.

Ridiculous. The NCVC (this is another one of those cases where they attempt to get people to confuse their biased study with one done by a reputable group NCVS v NCVC) says that 19% of all reported violent crime where the woman is a victim is by an intimate. That's hardly rare, especially when it is well-known that people are more likely to report random violence than intimate violence. Your site makes it sound like domestic violence is not a problem. 10% of all reported violent crime overall was DV. That's hardly rare. 9% of all murders were domestic violence and a whopping 79% of those were women. That's hardly rare and certainly cause for concern.

In 100 domestic violence situations approximately 40 cases involve violence by women against men. An estimated 400,000 women per year are abused or treated violently in the United States by their spouse or intimate partner. This means that roughly 300,000 to 400,000 men are treated violently by their wife or girl friend.

Made up statistic. They offer no support. Then they go on to contradict themselves.

Why Does Domestic Abuse Against Men Go Unrecognized?

Domestic violence against men goes unrecognized for the following reasons:

The incidence of domestic violence against men appears to be so low that it is hard to get reliable estimates.

A minute ago it was 40% of all cases of violence and now the incidence of DV against men is so low that it's barely noticable. Which is it?

The answer is who cares? This site is an anti-feminist site using a anti-feminist site (http://www.dvmen.org/) as it's source. You really should be more careful about using better substiated sources. Generally, if the site has hate speech or it talks about 'radical feminists' then it's probably not very reliable.

I found this to be an interesting article if anyone is interested.

clickity click (http://www.surinenglish.com/noticias.php?Noticia=6503)

quote: A childhood spent believing beautiful princesses marry charming princes and live happily ever after could well end in a very unhappy adulthood, according to British research that has concluded that girls who over-identify with fairy tales are more likely to fall victim to abusive relationships. /

I found this to be an interesting article if anyone is interested.

clickity click (http://www.surinenglish.com/noticias.php?Noticia=6503)

quote: A childhood spent believing beautiful princesses marry charming princes and live happily ever after could well end in a very unhappy adulthood, according to British research that has concluded that girls who over-identify with fairy tales are more likely to fall victim to abusive relationships. /

Oh, blah, she doesn't argue very conclusively. It's no shock that women who can't justify their lives with reason justify them with fantasy. That doesn't mean that the fantasy caused them to put up with the abuse. Much like it's no shock that children who are violent happen to love violent video games. Doesn't mean violent video games made them violent.

I don't buy it.

Oh, blah, she doesn't argue very conclusively. It's no shock that women who can't justify their lives with reason justify them with fantasy. That doesn't mean that the fantasy caused them to put up with the abuse. Much like it's no shock that children who are violent happen to love violent video games. Doesn't mean violent video games made them violent.

I don't buy it.

I don't know. These characters play a large part in the formative years.
As she says:
"This led me to ponder on the implications of whether fairy stories do in fact have an impact on the way we develop," said Darker-Smith. "It stands to reason that if cultural norms, family and our environment all play a part in our personal development, so too would the role models we are brought up with, whether they be Britney Spears or Cinderella."

Computer games are not generally used as role-models by kids.
Also, fairy-tale characters do kind of get pushed on children by the parents and have been used by some to help teach the child values.
I don't know how much of an influence it would have, but there must be some influence. No?

I don't know. These characters play a large part in the formative years.
As she says:
"This led me to ponder on the implications of whether fairy stories do in fact have an impact on the way we develop," said Darker-Smith. "It stands to reason that if cultural norms, family and our environment all play a part in our personal development, so too would the role models we are brought up with, whether they be Britney Spears or Cinderella."

Computer games are not generally used as role-models by kids.
Also, fairy-tale characters do kind of get pushed on children by the parents and have been used by some to help teach the child values.
I don't know how much of an influence it would have, but there must be some influence. No?

Sure, I think they have some influence. I think the greater influence are the gender roles these stories support. She seems to lay it at the feet of the stories like if we stopped telling them we would see some significant decline in spousal abuse (or at least the tolerance of it by women). Suggesting that these women identify with these stories is like suggesting that the high rate of suicide among gays shows suicide and homosexuality is related genetically. There are better explanations in both cases. These women have ass lives so they identify with fantasy. Generally, they had ass lives as children too. With gays, the suicide rate is better explained by the way they are treated in our society than by some genetic link.

So again I say blah to this woman.