Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Sexist preconceptions in Irish Life

  • 24-09-2004 5:29pm
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭


    More stuff coming off about this:

    http://www.breakingnews.ie/2004/09/24/story168052.html

    OK, this is a horrible case, but a few things struck me:
    The three appeal judges who studied the case decided such savage violence against women had to be punished hard.

    “While few cases involve the level of violence that was inflicted on the victim on this occasion, courts have a duty to send a clear message to those who engage in violence on women that severe penalties will be imposed on those who are found guilty of it,” the judge said.
    “It sends a better message out to the violent men that have the murder of their partners on their minds.”
    First of all, why specifically violence against women. Violence by women against men is apparently widespread, and getting worse. Why not violence of men against other men, or women against other women? What is so special about this level of violence by men against women that makes it that much more heinous as to be deserving of special treatment. 75 stab wounds and multiple punches/kicks to head would have the same effect on any human being, male or female.

    And then the second quote. She makes out like there are actually hordes of *men* intent on killing their female partners. If there are *any* men considering this, then there is an eual amount of women considering it.

    "Oh look, this guy got an extra five years for killing his wife, maybe I'll rethink it and just have another child, maybe take a holiday instead."

    WTF.


Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,334 ✭✭✭OfflerCrocGod


    They are the "Weaker Sex".....although sometimes you'd wonder who came up with that idea, the men or the women?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,647 ✭✭✭impr0v


    I would imagine that they view the scenario of violence being perpetrated by a husband/partner upon their wife/female partner as justifying the imposition of extra deterrents due not only to the mismatch in physical strength that would typically be a factor in such situations, but because the victim can have difficulty escaping from the situation, or even admitting that it occurs because of the emotional attachment to the perpetrator. It's also frequently the case that the woman's instinct to protect her children can overcome her self-preservation instincts and render her a very vulnerable target to domestic violence.

    You're correct in that the majority of the factors exist in the reversed scenario of female partner inflicting physical harm on male-partner, but I think it's a fact that in the majority of cases the physical size factor is going to be on the males side and the fundamental biological bond is not just as strong. (There obviously is a very strong bond, before I get a single father in a batman suit perched on the front of my house.)

    The second quote which you highlight is in my view simply a stupid, and very possibly sexist, statement. If there are men out there planning the murder of their partners I don't think they are thinking rationally, which they would need to be in order to take the 'message' she mentions to heart. But then again, I think she can be forgiven, as I would imagine her opinion of men and relationships is understandly beyond recovery after the fate her daughter suffered.

    As you mentioned yourself, I think the case in question is a bad example to use when making what are undoubtedly valid points, due to its particularly brutal nature. The subject matter is so strong that it polarises debate on the wider issues involved.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,577 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    For a moment I was thinking of "Irish Life" the financial services company.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,647 ✭✭✭impr0v


    Spotted a secretarial staff advent where they refer to potential candiates using only a feminine pronoun?

    'The successful candidate will have an excellent phone manner, and she will make a great cup of cha...'


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 14,483 ✭✭✭✭daveirl


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,892 ✭✭✭bizmark


    Equality just means giveing as many advanages as you can to women over men as possible tbh


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,180 ✭✭✭keu


    Female dominated professions.

    I don't think being a nun would suit you dave.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,366 ✭✭✭luckat


    Equality doesn't yet exist, in the terms that it should, such as equal pay and opportunities.

    Things like free passes for women to clubs - I think that's just to bait the trap for the boys, who have more money to spend in the clubs.

    Violence against women: presumably the judge was speaking from her experience in her own court, the cases that came before the court? I mean, I know there's supposed to be a lot of beaten men out there too embarrassed to bring their abusers to court, but honestly a visit to an outpatient department any weekend will show that a lot of women come in with injuries that are obviously caused by beatings; the same isn't true of men.

    I have no doubt that women are *capable* of violence against their partners, but that is not the same as doing it. We are all creatures of society - we do, largely, what society allows us to do. And in the end, that means that women don't beat their partners up much, and while most men don't either, those people who do beat their partners are more likely to be men, because this is behaviour more accepted by and from men.

    Similarly, there are few male prostitutes walking the street who look for their custom among women - there are male prostitutes, but their customers are mostly gay men. Not because women would not go to prostitutes, but because it's *not acceptable* for women to do so, whereas it is, well, less *un*acceptable for men to do so.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,892 ✭✭✭bizmark


    I have no doubt that women are *capable* of violence against their partners, but that is not the same as doing it.

    Ya sure seems to be that way in america and england

    link
    Psychology Today reported that two National Family Violence Surveys, conducted in 1975 and 1985 with a total of 8,145 married and cohabiting couples, concluded that 12.4 percent of women have assaulted their spouses, compared to 12.2 percent of men. In severe assaults, the numbers were 4.6 percent for women and 5 percent for men. Across the pond the numbers are similar. A 1999 British Home Office study found 4.2 percent of both men and women had been assaulted by a partner the previous year. True, assaults by women often result in less serious injury, but apparently not for lack of trying.

    Figures speak for themselfs tbh


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,083 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    They are the "Weaker Sex".....although sometimes you'd wonder who came up with that idea, the men or the women?

    I believe it was decided in an arm-wrestling competition.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,647 ✭✭✭impr0v


    eye-opening stats.


Advertisement