"Man Up" campaign by SafeIreland

iptba

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSj4lvbS_3A

One interesting thing about this is that the woman would even think to sue, that somehow she would think she hadn't done wrong.

As we've discussed before, there seems to be different attitudes when men and women lose it e.g. when a famous golfer's wife allegedly lost it and started swinging a golf club around in the house and chased him out of the house, many people seem to see that as more justified than if the genders had been reversed and a man had started swinging a golf club and chased his wife out of their house.

ancapailldorcha

iptba wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSj4lvbS_3A

One interesting thing about this is that the woman would even think to sue, that somehow she would think she hadn't done wrong.

As we've discussed before, there seems to be different attitudes when men and women lose it e.g. when a famous golfer's wife allegedly lost it and started swinging a golf club around in the house and chased him out of the house, many people seem to see that as more justified than if the genders had been reversed and a man had started swinging a golf club and chased his wife out of their house.

Fair play to that judge. Nice contrast to that judge on that Whoopi Goldberg video who said men can only defend themselves when their life is in danger.

Cool Mo D

iptba wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSj4lvbS_3A

One interesting thing about this is that the woman would even think to sue, that somehow she would think she hadn't done wrong.

As we've discussed before, there seems to be different attitudes when men and women lose it e.g. when a famous golfer's wife allegedly lost it and started swinging a golf club around in the house and chased him out of the house, many people seem to see that as more justified than if the genders had been reversed and a man had started swinging a golf club and chased his wife out of their house.

Ok, but that's just a TV show like Judge Judy. It's not a real court of law.

Pawwed Rig

Cool Mo D wrote: »

Ok, but that's just a TV show like Judge Judy. It's not a real court of law.

Judge Judy was similar to small claims court. The cases were real. Her judgement was final.

Wompa1

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Judge Judy was similar to small claims court. The cases were real. Her judgement was final.

*SLOW CLAP* Somebody had to say it.

But yes, I believe it is actually a legit ruling..it's just that the production company pays the fine, I believe.....

Cool Mo D

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Judge Judy was similar to small claims court. The cases were real. Her judgement was final.

Judge Judy was a TV set. It was not a real court. The way it worked is that both parties in the cases she oversaw signed legal documents waiving their right to sue in an actual court in return for appearing on her show and getting an appearance fee. It's a form of binding arbitration.

Judge Judy could come to her verdict whatever way she liked, and she didn't have to follow any real legal principles or laws. Judge Judy was an actual judge in a real court once, but she is certainly not acting as a real judge ion her TV show. TV court shows have exactly nothing to do with how real courts operates or reach their decisions.

Wompa1

Cool Mo D wrote: »

Judge Judy was a TV set. It was not a real court. The way it worked is that both parties in the cases she oversaw signed legal documents waiving their right to sue in an actual court in return for appearing on her show and getting an appearance fee. It's a form of binding arbitration.

Judge Judy could come to her verdict whatever way she liked, and she didn't have to follow any real legal principles or laws. Judge Judy was an actual judge in a real court once, but she is certainly not acting as a real judge ion her TV show. TV court shows have exactly nothing to do with how real courts operates or reach their decisions.

Your anti-Judge Judy agenda has been clear for some time!

iptba

White girls bully and attack black dude
http://www.avoiceformen.com/women/white-girls-bully-and-attack-black-dude/

(2 minutes 27 seconds)

iptba

One-third of domestic violence victims in active-duty military families are men

http://www.armytimes.com/article/20140827/NEWS/308270080/One-third-domestic-violence-victims-active-duty-military-families-men

Has an example of a male victim not being taken seriously.

I don't think the figures would necessarily be representative of the general population. I think military men would be more aggressive than the average guy (on average). Also, might be more likely to drink heavily.

iptba

(2 minutes 11 seconds)
(She turned up at his place)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXlMtnaEkG8

iptba

Kelly Brook admits she HIT two of her ex-boyfriends Jason Statham and Danny Cipriani

Sunday 31 Aug 2014 5:07 pm

http://metro.co.uk/2014/08/31/kelly-brook-admits-she-hit-two-of-her-ex-boyfriends-ahead-of-book-release-4851996/

The original version was different (didn't see it myself):

Article amended 02/09/14: We apologise for the tone previously taken in this article. At Metro.co.uk we take the issue of domestic violence very seriously and would like to direct readers to www.amen.ie, a website that offers help and support to male victims of domestic abuse.

Mr. RED

I recently and accidentally was watching that muck with Philip Schofield; All Star Mr & Mrs; yes. That's the one. Anyway I think the husband got a question wrong or something similar and the wife; rather than say - "don't worry dear; we ALL sometimes get questions wrong; I love you!" thinks it would be more appropriate to say...

"I am going to slap you on the face when we get home" or something similar, if not worse.

Rather than recoil in horror; the audience erupts into roars of laughter and I'm like...

What the f***? Did she just say she is going to physically attack her husband when they get home for getting a question in a lighthearted, family quiz show; wrong. Did everybody in the audience think this was actually extremely funny?

Nobody should be hitting anybody!!! It's OK to get questions wrong sometimes.

flyingsnail

iptba wrote: »

The original version was different (didn't see it myself):

It appears that

Oh Kel, let’s just hope it’s all a little less violent from now on…

changed to

Brook is now engaged to former Gladiators star David McIntosh, who recently appeared in the current series of Celebrity Big Brother.

source: http://web.archive.org/web/20140831194017/http://metro.co.uk/2014/08/31/kelly-brook-admits-she-hit-two-of-her-ex-boyfriends-ahead-of-book-release-4851996/

LostinBlanch

Oops wrong thread.

The Purveyor of Truth

iptba wrote: »

The original version was different (didn't see it myself):

Did anyone see it? Wonder if it was only online or in the paper version also.

Be interested in seeing a scan of the original if anyone has it.

iptba

September 11 piece:

Why has Kelly Brook got away with punching two men?

Jason Statham and Danny Cipriani were assaulted but there’s no room for male victims in the discourse we have created around gender and violence

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/11/kelly-brook-punching-two-men-jason-statham-danny-cipriani-male-victims-violence

iptba

iptba wrote: »

September 11 piece:

First comment underneath:

One of my ex's has hit me on many occasions, once she was scratching my face with pretty sharp nails when I decided enough was enough, I restrained her and removed myself from the situation, she then went completely nuts at me so I rang the police as I had no idea what to do. When explaining the situation I was cuffed and given a caution for assault.

I've now learnt if attacked by a woman just run the hell away as any kind of defence could land you in trouble. Being a fully grown man a woman hitting me isn't much bother and I know I could if need be defend myself, but at what point is it acceptable to?

the PETA files

If you can run away then it is not self defence.

ahnowbrowncow

the PETA files wrote: »

If you can run away then it is not self defence.

Nonsense, good thing you aren't a legislator.

Lemming

the PETA files wrote: »

If you can run away then it is not self defence.

It is considered not to be self defence once you have done enough that you could get yourself out of danger, yet choose to stand and fight. At that point, you have moved from self-defence into a fight.

Before you get to that point, you will note that the law is deliberately unspecific as to what it considers to be getting yourself out of danger; it could be to turn and run, it could be to plant your attacker and then get out of there and/outrun your attacker, it could be to run but have your attacker catch up in which case you have to floor them, etc. etc. etc.

Saying it's not self defence if you can run away is childlike simplicity that fails utterly in considering the complexity and sheer variety of possible scenarios one might be faced with.

the PETA files

I was looking at it as if he knew he could have run away but decided to use some force instead.

Lemming

the PETA files wrote: »

I was looking at it as if he knew he could have run away but decided to use some force instead.

He could run, but again ... you're making overly simplistic assumptions. Unless his name is Bolt, I wouldn't be so quick to assume he can decisively just run away. How fast can he run? How fast can his attacker run? How long can he run for? What are the surroundings? Can he get to a lockable door? etc. etc. rinse repeat with possible variations.

T runner

Men's violence against women is related to her gender. The man perceives how the role of a woman and a man should be (usually a traditional patriarchal role) and tries to control her into that role.

Women who are violent against men generally has nothing to do with how they believe a man should act. The women have often psychological issues and/or are just extremely violent.

This difference explains the vast difference in numbers between men perpetrating domestic violence, abuse and rape...and women doing it.

Tom Meaghar who knows a thing or two about violent men puts it well here.

http://whiteribbonblog.com/2014/04/17/the-danger-of-the-monster-myth/

There was a shelter opened for men in Ireland. It closed. Not needed.
There are many hundreds for women.

The "man-up" idea is I guess geared to communicate with tehse men who believe putting the woman in her place, wearing the pants in the family etc is the manly thing to do. Its not, youre just a weak man taking male culture t its natural extreme.

I don't actually agree with the campaign. Think guys conditioned to hate women will do it unless forcibly stopped.

Better option is to try and change male culture..as Tom suggests.

Not easy. Women even get blamed for violence against women as exemplified by this thread.

Guys here seem more interested in perceived slights against them, than in protecting women, men and children who are victims of violent men. One in 4 Irish people have been abused, in the vast majority of cases, by an Irish man. WHY DONT YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS?

Lemming

T runner wrote: »

Men's violence against women is related to her gender. The man perceives how the role of a woman and a man should be (usually a traditional patriarchal role) and tries to control her into that role.

Women who are violent against men generally has nothing to do with how they believe a man should act. The women have often psychological issues and/or are just extremely violent.

This difference explains the vast difference in numbers between men perpetrating domestic violence, abuse and rape...and women doing it.

Tom Meaghar who knows a thing or two about violent men puts it well here.

http://whiteribbonblog.com/2014/04/17/the-danger-of-the-monster-myth/

There was a shelter opened for men in Ireland. It closed. Not needed.
There are many hundreds for women.

The "man-up" idea is I guess geared to communicate with tehse men who believe putting the woman in her place, wearing the pants in the family etc is the manly thing to do. Its not, youre just a weak man taking male culture t its natural extreme.

I don't actually agree with the campaign. Think guys conditioned to hate women will do it unless forcibly stopped.

Better option is to try and change male culture..as Tom suggests.

Not easy. Women even get blamed for violence against women as exemplified by this thread.

Guys here seem more interested in perceived slights against them, than in protecting women, men and children who are victims of violent men. One in 4 Irish people have been abused, in the vast majority of cases, by an Irish man. WHY DONT YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS?

Your entire argument is flawed in your first assumption; that men perpetrate violence against women because of their gender. Some do, others do not. And like Peta files above, you have tried to distill a very complex issue into an absolute.

Some people are psychologically unhinged; some people have overly sexist notions of "place", some are slaves to drugs of varying description that have altered their behavioral patterns to lash out at those closest to them (i.e. partners, children, etc.), some are scumbags who have been raised in a culture of violence, and some people are just sadists.

jackofalltrades

T runner wrote: »

Men's violence against women is related to her gender. The man perceives how the role of a woman and a man should be (usually a traditional patriarchal role) and tries to control her into that role.

Women who are violent against men generally has nothing to do with how they believe a man should act. The women have often psychological issues and/or are just extremely violent.

This difference explains the vast difference in numbers between men perpetrating domestic violence, abuse and rape...and women doing it.

Do you have anything to back up the above?

Women even get blamed for violence against women as exemplified by this thread.

Where?

T runner

Lemming wrote: »

Your entire argument is flawed in your first assumption; that men perpetrate violence against women because of their gender. Some do, others do not. And like Peta files above, you have tried to distill a very complex issue into an absolute.

Some people are psychologically unhinged; some people have overly sexist notions of "place", some are slaves to drugs of varying description that have altered their behavioral patterns to lash out at those closest to them (i.e. partners, children, etc.), some are scumbags who have been raised in a culture of violence, and some people are just sadists.

None of these explanations explains the massive disparagy between men carrying out violence and women doing so.

I think this article (there are many out there) may clarify it for you. It illustrate two distinct types of domestic violence.

Patriarchal Terrorism and Common Couple Violence: Two Forms of Violence against Women Page 286.

Patriarcal terrorism which is rooted in a patriarchal upbringing is adopted almost entirely by men who feel with a vengeance a need to control "their" women by any means necessary. It escalates in different ways: if she resists, he escalates the violence until she is subdued. Even if she submits he may feel the need not only to control, but to display that control in which no amount of compliance will help her avoid a beating.

Common couple violence is an intermittent response to the need to control particular situations in everyday life, often by people with a violent upbringing.
This tends not to escalate.

It seems to me that the campaign described in this thread is an attempt to tell the guys who commit patriarchal terrorism against their families that men don't do such a thing. This is flawed. These sheep clearly believe that men are supposed to wear the trousers and that men DO in fact control their wives.

Better to persuade men of good will to stand up to patriarchal behavior. Staying silent when someone makes a joke about "hitting her a slap", or "id do her", or any demeaning behavior against women, girls children, is akin to silent acceptance. And some of the young guys listening will go on to beat, rape and abuse. The figures say so,
Because we tend to stay silent when the "men" are having their jokes.
If you want to bring the statistics down, if you feel in your gut that there might be some truth in this: then investigate it with an open mind.
Because if all it takes is to tell the sexists to STFU in order to cleanse male culture of this scourge: Then we need to start doing it.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Do you have anything to back up the above?

See above.

Lemming

"Patriarcal terrorism"?

Right. I don't need to even read that article.

constance tench

T runner wrote: »

None of these explanations explains the massive disparagy between men carrying out violence and women doing so.

I think this article (there are many out there) may clarify it for you. It illustrate two distinct types of domestic violence.

Patriarchal Terrorism and Common Couple Violence: Two Forms of Violence against Women Page 286.

Patriarcal terrorism which is rooted in a patriarchal upbringing is adopted almost entirely by men who feel with a vengeance a need to control "their" women by any means necessary. It escalates in different ways: if she resists, he escalates the violence until she is subdued. Even if she submits he may feel the need not only to control, but to display that control in which no amount of compliance will help her avoid a beating.

Common couple violence is an intermittent response to the need to control particular situations in everyday life, often by people with a violent upbringing.
This tends not to escalate.

It seems to me that the campaign described in this thread is an attempt to tell the guys who commit patriarchal terrorism against their families that men don't do such a thing. This is flawed. These sheep clearly believe that men are supposed to wear the trousers and that men DO in fact control their wives.

Better to persuade men of good will to stand up to patriarchal behavior. Staying silent when someone makes a joke about "hitting her a slap", or "id do her", or any demeaning behavior against women, girls children, is akin to silent acceptance. And some of the young guys listening will go on to beat, rape and abuse. The figures say so,
Because we tend to stay silent when the "men" are having their jokes.
If you want to bring the statistics down, if you feel in your gut that there might be some truth in this: then investigate it with an open mind.
Because if all it takes is to tell the sexists to STFU in order to cleanse male culture of this scourge: Then we need to start doing it.






See above.

What disparity?

Seriously?

T runner wrote: »

None of these explanations explains the massive disparagy between men carrying out violence and women doing so.

This disparity between men and females who commit domestic violence, it wouldn't by chance be how society condemns the former and largely ignores the later ?


Also it's hard to take any position seriously which references the mythical 'Patriarchy'.

constance tench

Lemming wrote: »

"Patriarcal terrorism"?

Right. I don't need to even read that article.

Key Words: Domestic Violence, Feminism, Gender, Violence, Wife Beating

...Outdated, unbalanced article (Pennsylvania State University circa 1995)