Violence in Relationships Towards Women Needs To Stop

UCDCritic

Disclaimer: Some viewers may find this video upsetting.

I want to highlight this video to go with the campaign about stopping violence towards women in relationships and how women have to suffer in silence without a voice and if they try to speak about it no one will listen or mock them because they made a complaint

I thank you for watching.

My name is URL

This won't end well

FatherLen

violence in relationships needs to end...

leggo

Violence needs to end. Let's just all eat cake instead. Why will nobody go along with my ****ing 5-point cake plan?

FloatingVoter

Does the OP expect us to say it needs to start ? Because I'm not in a relationship at the moment and I haven't started getting drunk yet. So I'll have to pass.

catallus

I watched the video.

What's your point OP? Some crazy chick beating up on her ex?

V.W.L 11

I'm a man who suffered violence in a relationship at the hands of a woman!because i'm a man that makes it all ok does it??? yeah I bet it fcuking does doesn't it:mad:

TheBeardedLady

UCDcritic, you're not right in the head. Fact.

Just because a campaign is anti-violence against women doesn't mean it's pro-violence against men.

I can campaign for a blindness charity but it doesn't mean there's no room for a deafness charity.

shruikan2553

Im very confused right now. I watched the video and have no idea what people are talking about.

KeithM89

You've changed your tune from last week, op.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92296444&postcount=1

smash

Violence in Relationships Towards Women Needs To Stop

Thanks captain obvious. But I'm more inclined to say that violence towards either sex in a relationship needs to stop.

Why not just a campaign to stop domestic violence in all aspects? whether its against a male or a female. Why start a campaign to just stop domestic abuse against women?

hatrickpatrick

Candie wrote: »

Just because a campaign is anti-violence against women doesn't mean it's pro-violence against men.

I can campaign for a blindness charity but it doesn't mean there's no room for a deafness charity.

By differentiating between genders when talking about victims of an identical crime, it implies that one gender's happiness / safety / whatever is more important than the other's.

Violence in relationships needs to end. Qualifying it further implies that some humans are more deserving of safety than others, which is automatically discriminatory.

Czarcasm

From the OP who brought you such gems as -


People You'd Like To Punch In The Face

and -


Women Caught Being Perverts


One can't help but be cynical of the OP's sincerity.

TheBeardedLady

The OP seems to have no qualms about punching a woman in the face. Can't say I take his concerns seriously.

GLaDOS

I love when threads backfire like this

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Why not just a campaign to stop domestic violence in all aspects? whether its against a male or a female. Why start a campaign to just stop domestic abuse against women?

Why raise money for lung cancer research when there's liver cancer too.

Targeted campaigns are considered more effective than broad ones. It helps it's target demographic to identify more closely with the message.

Male campaigns should take place also, but I don't think the answer is a unified drive.

hatrickpatrick

Candie wrote: »

Why raise money for lung cancer research when there's liver cancer too.

Targeted campaigns are considered more effective than broad ones. It helps it's target demographic to identify more closely with the message.

Male campaigns should take place also, but I don't think the answer is a unified drive.

I'm sorry but this is an absolutely awful analogy. A better analogy would be if a cancer society launched a campaign which targeted lung cancer, but only in black people.

Two different kinds of cancer which can affect anyone is not the same as differentiating between an identical crime which affects every demographic and only helping one of those demographics. That's discrimination.

Sleepy

Deleted User wrote: »

Why not just a campaign to stop domestic violence in all aspects? whether its against a male or a female. Why start a campaign to just stop domestic abuse against women?

Because genuine equality would make far too many of our highly qualified gender studies graduates unemployable...

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm sorry but this is an absolutely awful analogy. A better analogy would be if a cancer society launched a campaign which targeted lung cancer, but only in black people.

Two different kinds of cancer which can affect anyone is not the same as differentiating between an identical crime which affects every demographic and only helping one of those demographics. That's discrimination.

I wouldn't agree, since the circumstances of the victims tend to be different with male and female victims, and advice suitable for male victims would be difficult for women victims to identify with and vice versa. Men can run into different problems to women in reporting, prosecuting and escaping domestic violence.

I don't see the problem with running parallel campaigns, with targeted information and advice.

Wibbs

The major difference between the experience of the genders in the case of domestic abuse is that men are usually the physically stronger, so if they do get physically aggressive the damage caused is likely to be much higher.

However in 2007 Harvard Medical School published the results of a US study involving 11,000 men and women by the American Journal of public health which showed that in 70% of cases of non reciprocal partner abuse, that is one sided abuse by one partner, women were the perpetrator. In the cases of reciprocal partner abuse where both were involved, both genders agreed it was the woman most likely to throw the first blow. That study's results have been repeated elsewhere with pretty much the same figures.

As for abuse that actually leads to murder? On average about seven women and two men are killed by their current or former partner every month in England and Wales(2011 figures)..

The issue I have is that women suffering abuse have representation, have support in the community and have actual practical support in the sense of helplines, charities, media and social awareness and shelters. And this is a bloody good thing, but if there ever was a case for "whataboutery" this is bloody one of them. Where are the helplines, charities, media and social awareness and shelters for men? Oh wait...

Yes, abuse should be highlighted, the victims supported and the perpetrators exposed and if need be locked the fcuk up for the scum they are, but when one group are pretty much ignored because their gonads happen to be external one does ask what the holy Fcuk is going on. If the reverse was the case and there were no shelters for women in this country, no support, the idea that they should "suck it up" and remain invisible there would be murder today. It was like that in the past and women were told to remain invisible and that was damned wrong on all fronts and today things are much better, but yet we're doing the same for another group in society. That's only partial progress.


EDIT I've had personal experience of how this societal perception and response can actually affect real life outcomes. A mate of a mate was in an abusive relationship with the mother of his child. One night she attacked him and actually split his lip. She called the Guards and when they showed up they saw him, a big bruiser of a chap, and her a petite woman and promptly asked him to leave his home and his kid, the home he bought and paid for and his kid he raised more than her. He with the split lip with it and not a mark on her. He ended up sleeping on friends and family couches for quite the while and years later she's living in his gaff. Extreme example? Maybe, though I know of one other that's similar and I doubt I'd be alone in that.

Czarcasm

Wibbs wrote: »

It was like that in the past and women were told to remain invisible and that was damned wrong on all fronts and today things are much better, but yet we're doing the same for another group in society. That's only partial progress.

You make some good points Wibbs, but the more pertinent question is why don't men care enough about themselves to try and gain support for these services for themselves, in the same way as women had to do for themselves?

To me it should be less about whataboutery, and more about "Ok, that's what women have done, now how can we get men to start supporting each other?". Men's sheds are a good start, but just the same as these services didn't come about for women overnight, they won't come about for men overnight either, and calls of discrimination, etc only distract from the actual cause men are trying to get support for.

I just think pointing out that women get support so men should get the same support is a bad strategy that just perpetuates the stigma around MRAs and that stigma is the reason why most men want nothing to do with them.

biko

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JrtpCM4yMM

Doublecream

Czarcasm wrote: »

You make some good points Wibbs, but the more pertinent question is why don't men care enough about themselves to try and gain support for these services for themselves, in the same way as women had to do for themselves?

To me it should be less about whataboutery, and more about "Ok, that's what women have done, now how can we get men to start supporting each other?". Men's sheds are a good start, but just the same as these services didn't come about for women overnight, they won't come about for men overnight either, and calls of discrimination, etc only distract from the actual cause men are trying to get support for.

I just think pointing out that women get support so men should get the same support is a bad strategy that just perpetuates the stigma around MRAs and that stigma is the reason why most men want nothing to do with them.

Why do you view it to be the responsibility of only men to help men who are the victims of domestic abuse?

I would view it as the responsibility of society to protect men who are the victims of domestic abuse not just men. Reverse genders and the same applies.

Czarcasm

Doublecream wrote: »

Why do you view it to be the responsibility of only men to help men who are the victims of domestic abuse?

Well that's putting a dodgy twist on what I said. I never said it was the responsibility of only men to help men, I said, if you want to put it that way, that more men need to be encouraged to take responsibility for themselves. Men need to encourage men to care, rather than try to point fingers at support groups for women and claim that they should support men too.

Women had to fight hard for what little resources they have, and now you think they should have to offer support to men too? In what world do you think that's ever likely to happen?

I would view it as the responsibility of society to protect men who are the victims of domestic abuse not just men. Reverse genders and the same applies.

Reverse the genders all you like, it still won't have any bearing on reality.

Doublecream

Czarcasm wrote: »

Well that's putting a dodgy twist on what I said. I never said it was the responsibility of only men to help men, I said, if you want to put it that way, that more men need to be encouraged to take responsibility for themselves. Men need to encourage men to care, rather than try to point fingers at support groups for women and claim that they should support men too.

Women had to fight hard for what little resources they have, and now you think they should have to offer support to men too? In what world do you think that's ever likely to happen?





Reverse the genders all you like, it still won't have any bearing on reality.

Most women have done absolutely nothing to fight for women's rights. Should we only encourage black people to encourage black people to fight for their rights?

johnnyskeleton

Wibbs wrote: »

EDIT I've had personal experience of how this societal perception and response can actually affect real life outcomes. A mate of a mate was in an abusive relationship with the mother of his child. One night she attacked him and actually split his lip. She called the Guards and when they showed up they saw him, a big bruiser of a chap, and her a petite woman and promptly asked him to leave his home and his kid, the home he bought and paid for and his kid he raised more than her. He with the split lip with it and not a mark on her. He ended up sleeping on friends and family couches for quite the while and years later she's living in his gaff. Extreme example? Maybe, though I know of one other that's similar and I doubt I'd be alone in that.

Why didnt he refuse to leave? The gardai have no power to compel him to leave his own home and I am not sure a court can order her to be allowed live in his gaff. Did he have a solicitor?

I know people are criticised for saying of women in domestic violence situations why didnt she just leave but really, should there not be some level of personal responsibility?

Reindeer

Gezuz. Why no one's wished violence on the OP for wasting their time with that video is beyond me.

Shakespeare's Sister

V.W.L 11 wrote: »

I'm a man who suffered violence in a relationship at the hands of a woman!because i'm a man that makes it all ok does it??? yeah I bet it fcuking does doesn't it:mad:

No. No it doesn't. Who on earth would say it does?

V.W.L 11

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

No. No it doesn't. Who on earth would say it does?

The Gardai laughed it off and told me go away home

Czarcasm

Doublecream wrote: »

Most women have done absolutely nothing to fight for women'should rights.

Well that's ill informed, no point in even entertaining that one.

Should we only encourage black people to encourage black people to fight for their rights?

I'm only interested in how we get more men to care about their own welfare, so that question is irrelevant.

Down the same tedious repetitive plughole it all goes.

Doublecream

Czarcasm wrote: »

Well that's ill informed, no point in even entertaining that one.





I'm only interested in how we get more men to care about their own welfare, so that question is irrelevant.

can you clarify how I'm ill informed?

We can get the men if domestic abuse to care about their welfare by encouraging everyone to help them, not just men.

Stheno

Czarcasm wrote: »

Well that's putting a dodgy twist on what I said. I never said it was the responsibility of only men to help men, I said, if you want to put it that way, that more men need to be encouraged to take responsibility for themselves. Men need to encourage men to care, rather than try to point fingers at support groups for women and claim that they should support men too.

Women had to fight hard for what little resources they have, and now you think they should have to offer support to men too? In what world do you think that's ever likely to happen?





Reverse the genders all you like, it still won't have any bearing on reality.

AMEN was founded by a woman, and ran a very successful campaign on Dublin Bus a couple of years ago.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Why didnt he refuse to leave? The gardai have no power to compel him to leave his own home and I am not sure a court can order her to be allowed live in his gaff. Did he have a solicitor?

I know people are criticised for saying of women in domestic violence situations why didnt she just leave but really, should there not be some level of personal responsibility?

Sometimes people have no choice. To give you an even starker example of men being skewed against in law, I was once married and when we split, shared a house with my former spouse. I'm female, and despite there being no physical violence involved from either of us, one day I rang my solicitor who calmly informed me she could get him removed from the house and a barring order enforced (for no valid reason)

The law here is skewed in favour of women in circumstances such as those, and the police aren't much better.Despite my exs non violent behaviour I had a legal professional tell me that if I was finding it a struggle to share a house with him, she could have him removed by law.

I changed solicitor fairly sharpish, she seemed inherently biased against men, and in no way interested in facilitating an amicable divorce.

Frynge

Years ago I used to deliver sandwiches up to a women's shelter. They didn't seem to understand when I tried to explain to them that if they just made the sandwiches they wouldn't be there.

Czarcasm

Doublecream wrote: »

can you clarify how I'm ill informed?

I could, but something tells me that if you haven't informed yourself by now, I'm more likely to be wasting my time, so I shan't bother.

We can get the men if domestic abuse to care about their welfare by encouraging everyone to help them, not just men.

But how do you think we can get just men to care more about their own welfare?

ireland.man

Men's Rights nonsense, islamophobia, anti-immigrant fear-mongering, dole threads, ill-informed anti-feminist sh*te, sexual and racially charged 'banter'...

After Hours: where lonely, frightened, mentally unstable men come to vent.

Wibbs

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Why didnt he refuse to leave? The gardai have no power to compel him to leave his own home and I am not sure a court can order her to be allowed live in his gaff. Did he have a solicitor?

I know people are criticised for saying of women in domestic violence situations why didnt she just leave but really, should there not be some level of personal responsibility?

Oh he tried JS and yes he had a solicitor, but it's remarkably difficult to stand one's ground when the weight of societal perception is ranged against you. Basically if the woman in cases like this says "abuse" even if the evidence is nil, the system is much more likely to take her side. Women are much more a "protected species" in such cases where they have no need to be, yet ironically can be less in the cases where they need protection.

Candie wrote: »

Down the same tedious repetitive plughole it all goes.

It's called debate, people will both agree and disagree, you don't necessarily hold a valid position that goes without enquiry just because it skirts within the realms of "sacred cow" philosophy. Personally speaking I work on the principle that sacred cows should be slaughtered, butchered and put on the spit to let the real flavour come out. After all that's how we came to the point of thinking that women shouldn't be dismissed and discriminated against. If this forum was around in 1814 rather than 2014 and I suggested "eh women are equal to men, the individual and not gender should be deciding factor" I'm quite sure the sacred cow adherents would be out in force to shoot me down.

Wibbs

ireland.man wrote: »

Men's Rights nonsense

Interesting mix of words there Ted.

After Hours: where lonely, frightened, mentally unstable men come to vent.

Ah yes let's break out the "shaming" language that you would break out in a rash before you did similar with [insert "liberal" protected group here].

I know, here's an idea, maybe engage in the debate, break down the internal why's and wherefore's rather than dismiss them? Sure it may take more interaction and brain power, but sure give it the oul college try. You and we might learn something.

KERSPLAT!

ireland.man wrote: »

Men's Rights nonsense, islamophobia, anti-immigrant fear-mongering, dole threads, ill-informed anti-feminist sh*te, sexual and racially charged 'banter'...

After Hours: where lonely, frightened, mentally unstable men come to vent.

And almost half of your posts are right here, in After Hours

MOD

Post constructively/on topic or don't post

-KERSPLAT!

Cienciano

My name is URL wrote: »

This won't end well

I think that's the entire point

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

It's called debate, people will both agree and disagree, you don't necessarily hold a valid position that goes without enquiry just because it skirts within the realms of "sacred cow" philosophy. Personally speaking I work on the principle that sacred cows should be slaughtered, butchered and put on the spit to let the real flavour come out. After all that's how we came to the point of thinking that women shouldn't be dismissed and discriminated against. If this forum was around in 1814 rather than 2014 and I suggested "eh women are equal to men, the individual and not gender should be deciding factor" I'm quite sure the sacred cow adherents would be out in force to shoot me down.

For a start, the comment was on how these threads - started to get a particular reaction, usually, tend to go round in circles and the same posters make the same points - myself included - until it's locked or everyone gets bored and then two weeks later it starts all over again with tedious predictability. The one good thing is that it's happening more concisely recently, and self-destructing in fewer pages.

I don't remember asking or expecting to be above challenge or question. Nor do I believe in 'scared cows', nor need the meaning of debate defined.

KomradeBishop

Can anyone post a single good reason why groups devoted to helping women in such situations, should not devote resources to men in similar situations as well? (that includes in public awareness campaigns and such)

Makes no sense at all, to have any discrimination there.

Stheno

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Can anyone post a single good reason why groups devoted to helping women in such situations, should not devote resources to men in similar situations as well? (that includes in public awareness campaigns and such)

Makes no sense at all, to have any discrimination there.

Well Womens Aid do have safe houses for women who have been abused, who may feel very uncomfortable if men were to share the facilities offered?

KomradeBishop

Stheno wrote: »

Well Womens Aid do have safe houses for women who have been abused, who may feel very uncomfortable if men were to share the facilities offered?

What does a persons gender have to do, with the fact that they have been abused? They all need help, regardless of gender.

tomwaterford

KomradeBishop wrote: »

What does a persons gender have to do, with the fact that they have been abused? They all need help, regardless of gender.

I think its a tradional thing womans aid...going back years and years

don't think its founder set out with a **** them attitude to male sufferes of domestic abuse


*I could be wrong though

Doublecream

Czarcasm wrote: »

I could, but something tells me that if you haven't informed yourself by now, I'm more likely to be wasting my time, so I shan't bother.





But how do you think we can get just men to care more about their own welfare?

I stated that most women have done nothing to fight for women's rights, that's simply a fact. You are the one who is ill informed.

Carlos Orange

Stheno wrote: »

Well Womens Aid do have safe houses for women who have been abused, who may feel very uncomfortable if men were to share the facilities offered?

That only stops organisations that have a single shelter.
Any large organisation could offer segregated safe houses to both genders.

KomradeBishop

tomwaterford wrote: »

I think its a tradional thing womans aid...going back years and years

don't think its founder set out with a **** them attitude to male sufferes of domestic abuse


*I could be wrong though

Ah, of course not, no - it's done with the best of intentions, but why exactly aught male victims be unwelcome? The problem is abusive partners, not a persons gender - so gender should have no bearing on who is accepted in.

Doublecream

Candie wrote: »

For a start, the comment was on how these threads - started to get a particular reaction, usually, tend to go round in circles and the same posters make the same points - myself included - until it's locked or everyone gets bored and then two weeks later it starts all over again with tedious predictability. The one good thing is that it's happening more concisely recently, and self-destructing in fewer pages.

I don't remember asking or expecting to be above challenge or question. Nor do I believe in 'scared cows', nor need the meaning of debate defined.

Ok so do you want to debate the merits of the subject matter or not?