Body of Alan Hawe to be exhumed

dok_golf

Did the gardai publish the findings of there investigation? If so where? Where has the porn theory come from? Where has the masturbating theory come from?

jh79

dok_golf wrote: »

Did the gardai publish the findings of there investigation? If so where? Where has the porn theory come from? Where has the masturbating theory come from?

The Sun and The Star.

Intothesea

I'm not sure if you mean my viewpoint or the viewpoint of those calling 'misandry' - if the former, then no my viewpoint isn't invalidated by the frequent attacks on feminism on these discussion boards.

I assumed something about your take or understanding was being contradicted, for example, the lack of acceptance of the value of gender-based analysis in this case.


I believe that it is both social and pathological and that the two should not be treated as discrete. The conjectural diagnosis of Hawe's narcissism elides the other social factors, which were all too apparent at the time of the murders in relation to how he and the killings were represented. It seemed the social norms and discourse demanded sympathy for him, and that was a continuation of the values (and capital) he believed he was set to lose.

I believe the reply I just made to demfad on the last page addresses some aspect of the social and pathological issues in cases like these. Mistaking narcissist manifestations of masculinity for genuine manifestations of problematic patriarchal society constructs is apparently a mistake that currently pervades the studies given by demfad, and I suppose it remains to be seen if anyone studying these phenomenons will confront clinical narcissism in enough detail and depth to be able to discern the difference. Hopefully it happens, and quickly.

seamus

dok_golf wrote: »

Did the gardai publish the findings of there investigation? If so where? Where has the porn theory come from? Where has the masturbating theory come from?

The Sun and the Star have printed allegations that he was discovered viewing porn in the school and "pleasuring himself".
Their decision to use that relatively benign phrase rather than something more salacious or specific would indicate to me that the incident was probably quite minor; hand in his pocket rather than pants around his ankles.

They quote Garda sources saying that as part of the overall investigation they examined computers and phones, but found nothing illegal.

demfad

Intothesea wrote: »

Well, I can see that talking about the genesis of narcissism isn't making the case as I'd thought it would. But in any case, here's a small write-up of how the narcissistic brain operates:


A normal man puts positive value on being head of the family/the breadwinner/being a good role model/father because he has internalized these values from childhood and over the course of all of the positive interactions extolling these virtues throughout his life. These are values that reside deep inside his identity, and can virtually never be lost.


By contrast, the narcissist has a tableau of apparent value, ones learnt by imitating people who get the respect or awe that they crave. Therefore, a narcissist may show signs of being a good or dependable man, but not because it is the nature of his identity, but because it works for him.

You define a 'normal man' as putting a positive value to being head of the family/the breadwinner etc.

The problem is the societal view this 'normal' man learns is a worldview with men on top, with females and children subordinate. It is a patriarcal view by any definition. Depending on the society or era this 'normal' man might stay silent when one of the 'lads' make a sexist joke, a decade ago he might laugh along.

In 60s and 70s Ireland, the 'normal' man might see nothing wrong with a woman giving up her job when she gets married, or he might not understand the concept of 'marital rape', or think domestic violence is a private matter 'understandable' possibly in cases.
So what Alan Hawe viewed as a 'normal' man would depend on what the society that shaped him thought. Rural 80s Ireland would not differ greatly from the preceding decades. Men as head of settled family, women in their place.

A man like Alan Hawe would put all importance in his self image, and believing women and children as possessions and something less than a normal human (patriarcal male) he was willing to take them with him, or blame Clodagh in his self righteous rage.

The problem is not the existance of 'normal' men or narcissists. It is when society views some people as less than others that the incidence of murder for these 'lesser' people rises (usually murdered by 'greater' people).

That's why all indications of this inequality need to be ruthlessly removed from society so that no more Alan Hawe's are created.

PS: Your argument is based on the assumption that a man with a patriarcal worldview is 'normal' which meas "good and dependable".
It may be normal in such a society. It is rarely good for those other than the patriarcal male.

Intothesea

demfad wrote: »

You define a 'normal man' as putting a positive value to being head of the family/the breadwinner etc.

The problem is the societal view this 'normal' man learns is a worldview with men on top, with females and children subordinate. It is a patriarcal view by any definition. Depending on the society or era this 'normal' man might stay silent when one of the 'lads' make a sexist joke, a decade ago he might laugh along.

In 60s and 70s Ireland, the 'normal' man might see nothing wrong with a woman giving up her job when she gets married, or he might not understand the concept of 'marital rape', or think domestic violence is a private matter 'understandable' possibly in cases.
So what Alan Hawe viewed as a 'normal' man would depend on what the society that shaped him thought. Rural 80s Ireland would not differ greatly from the preceding decades. Men as head of settled family, women in their place.

A man like Alan Hawe would put all importance in his self image, and believing women and children as possessions and something less than a normal human (patriarcal male) he was willing to take them with him, or blame Clodagh in his self righteous rage.

The problem is not the existance of 'normal' men or narcissists. It is when society views some people as less than others that the incidence of murder for these 'lesser' people rises (usually murdered by 'greater' people).

That's why all indications of this inequality need to be ruthlessly removed from society so that no more Alan Hawe's are created.

PS: Your argument is based on the assumption that a man with a patriarcal worldview is 'normal' which meas "good and dependable".
It may be normal ins sich a society. It is rarely good for those other than the male head.

I personally don't define normal men as that, reality has done it for thousands of years, without it being a negative thing for women generally outside of cultural ideas and norms, for example.

As far as the rest of it goes, I take it that because I don't subscribe to the feminist viewpoint on this occurrence that I'm fundamentally in the wrong about everything.

Well, all I can say to that is, I have enough unacknowledgeable filters on my thinking without adding another lopsided one.

I understand why Professore threw the overstated red herring into the mix now.

Also, demfad, you just ignored everything in my last post to you. There's not many ways to reconcile a narcissist account with a malcontent feminist one. Rage against the patriarchal machine if you must, but realize that willfully ignoring the psychological issues at the heart of such situations, even if they interfere with your feminist take, is to the detriment of people in those situations.

That's all I can say, apart from viva la difference, in relation to the differences between men and women.

dense

jh79 wrote: »

The Sun and The Star.

Must be true then.

Not.

dok_golf

jh79 wrote: »

The Sun and The Star.

Thank god, I was afraid there, that it might all be gossiipmongering and speculation.

dense

dok_golf wrote: »

Did the gardai publish the findings of there investigation? If so where? Where has the porn theory come from? Where has the masturbating theory come from?

Thin air by the looks of things.
It's only now being said that he wasn't viewin porn in the school and wasn't found **** off to it in the school.

The Gardai don't usually publish anything of a sort.

The valley of the squinting windows comes to mind here.

demfad

Intothesea wrote: »

I personally don't define normal men as that, reality has done it for thousands of years, without it being a negative thing for women generally outside of cultural ideas and norms, for example.

As far as the rest of it goes, I take it that because I don't subscribe to the feminist viewpoint on this occurrence that I'm fundamentally in the wrong about everything.

Well, all I can say to that is, I have enough unacknowledgeable filters on my thinking without adding another lopsided one.

I understand why Professore threw the overstated red herring into the mix now.

Also, demfad, you just ignored everything in my last post to you. There's not many ways to reconcile a narcissist account with a malcontent feminist one. Rage against the patriarchal machine if you must, but realize that willfully ignoring the psychological issues at the heart of such situations, even if they interfere with your feminist take, is to the detriment of people in those situations.

That's all I can say, apart from viva la difference, in relation to the differences between men and women.

One can objectively say that women have their lives impacted negatively in societies where culture and religion are patriarcal. Societies where domestic violence/rape is 'normal' and accepted, where women are not allowed to work, get divorced, be educated: we can objectively say that female experience in these societies are worse than societies where domestic violence/rape is illegal, women can divorce, get educated, work, purchase etc.
In these societies what it means to be 'masculine' is also changeable.

A man like Alan Hawe's view of 'masculinity' is shaped by how society defines 'masculinity': male dominant, female passive. This is what fed into his core beliefs when they were formed.

His outward role in society as 'Patriarch' which is so vital to how he defines himself requires acting as he is a selfish man. What is important is to hide his private reality from public view. He doesn't act at home. He doesn't hide his absolute self righteousness and hypocrisy. I would have little doubt he would blame others for his weakness: Clodagh.

The solution is to change how society views and supports women. There will still be assholes like Alan Hawe, but they would be less inclined to take out their families if he didn't believe them ultimately as no more than owned pets.

You may disagree with this opinion or those of teh studies on family annihilation. But please do better than the 'sounds feminist' sentiment as argument.

dense

demfad wrote: »

A man like Alan Hawe's view of 'masculinity' is shaped by how society defines 'masculinity': male dominant, female passive. This is what fed into his core beliefs when they were formed.

His outward role in society as 'Patriarch' which is so vital to how he defines himself requires acting as he is a selfish man. What is important is to hide his private reality from public view. He doesn't act at home. He doesn't hide his absolute self righteousness and hypocrisy.

You must have known him very well.

Men like him, do you spot them often? Can you tell by their clothes, the way they walk?

Should they all be locked up, just in case?
Or sent on special courses to divest themselves of their masculinity?

Does femininity and matriarchs also present similar serious issues for society?

Should they be locked up too, just in case?

professore

tayto lover wrote: »

This thread is not a man v woman though. It's about one man's murdering spree.

Agreed, but if other posters insist on making it about men in general then I have to respond.

nice_guy80

If the Sun or Star knew anything about Irish schools, they would know that stuff like that is blocked or restricted in schools by the internet service (which is provided through the department of education IT section)

professore

iodd7 wrote: »

I find it moving but strange that posters on this thread are so emphatic about what Hawe did being unjustifiable in any way - of course it wasn't. But veering into a diatribe about radical feminism seems a red herring, and a hijack by someone with their own bugbear. I think the article referred to says that it is masculinity (which seems to be defined here as societally-produced ideal male values) and patriarchal ideals that are an underlying issue. Mothers have killed their children too of course, but very very rarely their spouses AND children but have rarely been described as having controlling or narcissistic personalities afterwards. Is that because of gendered ways of reporting these stories, or is it because the pattern and profile differs between men and women?

I'm all for looking for gender differences as an explanation for crime. However it is only ever used in conjunction with men and in terms used by radical feminism. If someone wrote that women murder their children in overwhelming numbers because the female brain is incapable of rational logical thought and is taken to flights of emotions then that would be quite rightly called out as ridiculous and sexist. Yet the same explanations are trotted out in reverse - i.e. it's some sort of innate flaw in MEN that causes this rather than that they are nutjobs - and no one bats an eyelid.

Now for example if someone said men were more likely to murder stepchildren because it would give their own DNA a better chance of survival, well there might be something in that, and it makes some sense biologically. I have no idea if this is the case, just citing an example.

pawdee

nice_guy80 wrote: »

If the Sun or Star knew anything about Irish schools, they would know that stuff like that is blocked or restricted in schools by the internet service (which is provided through the department of education IT section)

I'd imagine it wouldn't take a genius to bypass whatever restrictions are in place? How times have changed. When I was in primary school the teacher spanked us regularly but left the monkey alone.

Intothesea

demfad wrote: »

One can objectively say that women have their lives impacted negatively in societies where culture and religion are patriarcal. Societies where domestic violence/rape is 'normal' and accepted, where women are not allowed to work, get divorced, be educated: we can objectively say that female experience in these societies are worse than societies where domestic violence/rape is illegal, women can divorce, get educated, work, purchase etc.
In these societies what it means to be 'masculine' is also changeable.

A man like Alan Hawe's view of 'masculinity' is shaped by how society defines 'masculinity': male dominant, female passive. This is what fed into his core beliefs when they were formed.

His outward role in society as 'Patriarch' which is so vital to how he defines himself requires acting as he is a selfish man. What is important is to hide his private reality from public view. He doesn't act at home. He doesn't hide his absolute self righteousness and hypocrisy. I would have little doubt he would blame others for his weakness: Clodagh.

The solution is to change how society views and supports women. There will still be assholes like Alan Hawe, but they would be less inclined to take out their families if he didn't believe them ultimately as no more than owned pets.

You may disagree with this opinion or those of teh studies on family annihilation. But please do better than the 'sounds feminist' sentiment as argument.

One can say that, and one can also say that Irish women are in an excellent social position compared to most other women in the world. Why the need for Feminism 101, do you think my statements take value away from the cause in general?

Despite the validity or lack of it in any way of constructing things, there's an associated error of strong interpretive directives creating what I consider to be either inadvertent or deliberate point-misses. The issue after that is one of potential piggy-backing on a serious social issue deserving of many angles of enquiry and consideration for the purposes of validating a pre-decided notion of X.

Please do better than... I have to say, that's a lovely way to get some contempt into proceedings. Please do better than ignoring my basic points because they conflict directly with your world-view and stop making out that I'm rejecting the feminist take in this case because it's feminist. I'm rejecting it because I think it's irrelevant, as well you know.


As for the rest of the patriarchal world-view-ruing account, I gave you my thoughts on this a couple of postings ago.


As well, as the other malcontent feminist poster pointed out in her opening salvo, feminism comes in all shades. Does it cross your mind that making your own mind up without specifically referring to anything but the limitations of your own thinking is a feminist stance to take?

/Exeunt

Charmeleon

demfad wrote: »

You define a 'normal man' as putting a positive value to being head of the family/the breadwinner etc.

The problem is the societal view this 'normal' man learns is a worldview with men on top, with females and children subordinate. It is a patriarcal view by any definition. Depending on the society or era this 'normal' man might stay silent when one of the 'lads' make a sexist joke, a decade ago he might laugh along.

In 60s and 70s Ireland, the 'normal' man might see nothing wrong with a woman giving up her job when she gets married, or he might not understand the concept of 'marital rape', or think domestic violence is a private matter 'understandable' possibly in cases.
So what Alan Hawe viewed as a 'normal' man would depend on what the society that shaped him thought. Rural 80s Ireland would not differ greatly from the preceding decades. Men as head of settled family, women in their place.

A man like Alan Hawe would put all importance in his self image, and believing women and children as possessions and something less than a normal human (patriarcal male) he was willing to take them with him, or blame Clodagh in his self righteous rage.

The problem is not the existance of 'normal' men or narcissists. It is when society views some people as less than others that the incidence of murder for these 'lesser' people rises (usually murdered by 'greater' people).

That's why all indications of this inequality need to be ruthlessly removed from society so that no more Alan Hawe's are created.

PS: Your argument is based on the assumption that a man with a patriarcal worldview is 'normal' which meas "good and dependable".
It may be normal in such a society. It is rarely good for those other than the patriarcal male.

I believe he was in the GAA, but being a member of the Taliban really slipped under the radar. That obviously explains it all.

So if you are correct, in a house fire situation the guy who grabs his golf clubs and makes for the door while his wife and children perished would be a hero of the patriarchy. Obviously. We regularly celebrate men who neglect their families.

Who needs forensic psychiatry or professional investigators when we have gender studies.

demfad

Charmeleon wrote: »

I believe he was in the GAA, but being a member of the Taliban really slipped under the radar. That obviously explains it all.

So if you are correct, in a house fire situation the guy who grabs his golf clubs and makes for the door while his wife and children perished would be a hero of the patriarchy. Obviously. We regularly celebrate men who neglect their families.

Who needs forensic psychiatry or professional investigators when we have gender studies.

(He wasn't a member of the Taliban but was deeply involved in the local Catholic church. Ill ignore the other ranting nonsense above the bolded text)

Not gender studies these are expert studies on family annihilation from past cases from the UK. Absolutely relevant. Studies from the US concur.
Professor Wilson who worked on the UK study said there was absolutely no reason that they could not be applicable to Ireland.

If you have an issue with the studies you should substantiate what is at issue and why. On a thread about the brutal butchering of a woman and 3 children by the man of the house it would be more honorable to keep your ill informed rantings to yourself.

demfad

(QUOTE=Intothesea)

One can say that, and one can also say that Irish women are in an excellent social position compared to most other women in the world. Why the need for Feminism 101, do you think my statements take value away from the cause in general?

And Irish women in the future will hopefully be in a better position than they are now when there are less family homicides, femicide, rapes and domestic violence? Should people in 1980s Ireland have stopped fighting for women's rights because they had it better than other women in the world?

Your missing the point though: These studies were carried out by experts in family annihilation. These are not feminsist papers. And this is what we are discusssing here: a family annihilation. A UK study is perfectly usable for Ireland as women there would be in a similar (if not better) social situation to here.

Despite the validity or lack of it in any way of constructing things, there's an associated error of strong interpretive directives creating what I consider to be either inadvertent or deliberate point-misses. The issue after that is one of potential piggy-backing on a serious social issue deserving of many angles of enquiry and consideration for the purposes of validating a pre-decided notion of X.

Please point out how this applies to the studies in question. They looked at the perpetrators and found that in almost all cases the commonality was masculinity and the need to exert power and control when masculinity was threatened. The US studies (larger) was able to show previous cases of domestic violence as present in a majority of the cases.

Please do better than... I have to say, that's a lovely way to get some contempt into proceedings. Please do better than ignoring my basic points because they conflict directly with your world-view and stop making out that I'm rejecting the feminist take in this case because it's feminist. I'm rejecting it because I think it's irrelevant, as well you know.

But I don't know. I addressed your point that the narcissist copied a 'normal..head of family' man. I pointed out that this is a patriarcal norm (do you disagree?). I also pointed out that an integral part of this norm is the subordinate role of the woman of the house to the head of family.
Hawe took this to its logical extremes, living the socially acceptable 'community pillar' part of his persona externally and the ugly dominant controlling part of it behind closed doors or disguised in view (rarely letting Clodagh leave his side). If Hawe's personalty was not built on this male dominant/female subversive (normal?) model perhaps he could have been an asshole in less devastating ways.


As well, as the other malcontent feminist poster pointed out in her opening salvo, feminism comes in all shades. Does it cross your mind that making your own mind up without specifically referring to anything but the limitations of your own thinking is a feminist stance to take?

My views on family annihilation are based on studies on family annihilation.
It is you who is rejecting these outcomes based on your pre-existing views.

professore

pawdee wrote: »

I'd imagine it wouldn't take a genius to bypass whatever restrictions are in place? How times have changed. When I was in primary school the teacher spanked us regularly but left the monkey alone.

It's filtered at source by a Dept of Education filter. So you would need to hack into that, or of course just hotspot your mobile phone

gctest50

This maybe ?

https://tonic.vice.com/en_us/article/gqywem/the-medical-mystery-behind-americas-best-selling-hair-loss-drug

professore

demfad wrote: »

And Irish women in the future will hopefully be in a better position than they are now when there are less family homicides, femicide, rapes and domestic violence? Should people in 1980s Ireland have stopped fighting for women's rights because they had it better than other women in the world?

Femicide? Ah here. I'm out.

Intothesea

demfad wrote: »

(QUOTE=Intothesea)

One can say that, and one can also say that Irish women are in an excellent social position compared to most other women in the world. Why the need for Feminism 101, do you think my statements take value away from the cause in general?

And Irish women in the future will hopefully be in a better position than they are now when there are less family homicides, femicide, rapes and domestic violence? Should people in 1980s Ireland have stopped fighting for women's rights because they had it better than other women in the world?

Your missing the point though: These studies were carried out by experts in family annihilation. These are not feminsist papers. And this is what we are discusssing here: a family annihilation. A UK study is perfectly usable for Ireland as women there would be in a similar (if not better) social situation to here.

Despite the validity or lack of it in any way of constructing things, there's an associated error of strong interpretive directives creating what I consider to be either inadvertent or deliberate point-misses. The issue after that is one of potential piggy-backing on a serious social issue deserving of many angles of enquiry and consideration for the purposes of validating a pre-decided notion of X.

Please point out how this applies to the studies in question. They looked at the perpetrators and found that in almost all cases the commonality was masculinity and the need to exert power and control when masculinity was threatened. The US studies (larger) was able to show previous cases of domestic violence as present in a majority of the cases.

Please do better than... I have to say, that's a lovely way to get some contempt into proceedings. Please do better than ignoring my basic points because they conflict directly with your world-view and stop making out that I'm rejecting the feminist take in this case because it's feminist. I'm rejecting it because I think it's irrelevant, as well you know.

But I don't know. I addressed your point that the narcissist copied a 'normal..head of family' man. I pointed out that this is a patriarcal norm (do you disagree?). I also pointed out that an integral part of this norm is the subordinate role of the woman of the house to the head of family.
Hawe took this to its logical extremes, living the socially acceptable 'community pillar' part of his persona externally and the ugly dominant controlling part of it behind closed doors or disguised in view (rarely letting Clodagh leave his side). If Hawe's personalty was not built on this male dominant/female subversive (normal?) model perhaps he could have been an asshole in less devastating ways.


As well, as the other malcontent feminist poster pointed out in her opening salvo, feminism comes in all shades. Does it cross your mind that making your own mind up without specifically referring to anything but the limitations of your own thinking is a feminist stance to take?

My views on family annihilation are based on studies on family annihilation.
It is you who is rejecting these outcomes based on your pre-existing views.

Ah, at the risk of repeating myself: I'm not going to repeat myself. I take it your definition of winning the argument for feminism is arguing on in the face of intractable view-point differences until you're the last one standing in the thread. Be my guest.

professore

demfad wrote: »

(QUOTE=Intothesea)

My views on family annihilation are based on studies on family annihilation.
It is you who is rejecting these outcomes based on your pre-existing views.

If I read about X caused almost exclusively by Y, and find out that 20% of X did not involve Y at all but involved Z which is the polar opposite of Y then I would seriously question the premise of the study. I don't care what else is in the study, that's just a rubbish conclusion based on those stats.

A better conclusion might be that Z is in fact not the polar opposite of Y, but a slightly different form of Y, which under the right circumstances, can behave exactly like Y.

X = family annihilation
Y = men
Z = women

iodd7

professore wrote: »

I'm all for looking for gender differences as an explanation for crime. However it is only ever used in conjunction with men and in terms used by radical feminism. If someone wrote that women murder their children in overwhelming numbers because the female brain is incapable of rational logical thought and is taken to flights of emotions then that would be quite rightly called out as ridiculous and sexist. Yet the same explanations are trotted out in reverse - i.e. it's some sort of innate flaw in MEN that causes this rather than that they are nutjobs - and no one bats an eyelid.

It is hardly radical feminism to suggest, as I did, that gender and the values that tend to be attributed to gender might be an underlying issue. It is trying to reason through what to many people is an unfathomable act by looking at some of the patterns and key aspects of the case. To ignore gender is bad science, bad sociology, bad psychology, bad statistical knowledge. If someone thinks anything that includes gender as a factor is radical feminism then they're just plain ignorant. Nobody said there is an innate flaw in men. While class could be a factor, ethnicity could be a factor, geography could be a factor, the dominant factor in cases of spousal and child murder is gender. Unless we ask why men (not all, not most, not the majority) carry out acts of violence and domestic abuse then how can we begin trying to address it? Is the statistic that more than 12,500 women and children every year access domestic abuse services due to male violence really insignificant? Did Clodagh Hawe know about, or have full access to services? Did Alan Hawe believe that he couldn't ask for help when he was going through whatever paranoiac delusions he seems to have been going through?

http://www.safeireland.ie/safeireland-docs/STATE-WE-ARE-IN-SAFE-IRELAND.pdf

professore

iodd7 wrote: »

It is hardly radical feminism to suggest, as I did, that gender and the values that tend to be attributed to gender might be an underlying issue. It is trying to reason through what to many people is an unfathomable act by looking at some of the patterns and key aspects of the case. To ignore gender is bad science, bad sociology, bad psychology, bad statistical knowledge. If someone thinks anything that includes gender as a factor is radical feminism then they're just plain ignorant. Nobody said there is an innate flaw in men. While class could be a factor, ethnicity could be a factor, geography could be a factor, the dominant factor in cases of spousal and child murder is gender. Unless we ask why men (not all, not most, not the majority) carry out acts of violence and domestic abuse then how can we begin trying to address it? Is the statistic that more than 12,500 women and children every year access domestic abuse services due to male violence really insignificant? Did Clodagh Hawe know about, or have full access to services? Did Alan Hawe believe that he couldn't ask for help when he was going through whatever paranoiac delusions he seems to have been going through?

http://www.safeireland.ie/safeireland-docs/STATE-WE-ARE-IN-SAFE-IRELAND.pdf

I feel we are going off topic here, but the insistence that violence is somehow a male only thing is just not true.

Lots of men suffer domestic violence too. I personally know one and the level of abuse he suffered, both physical and psychological, e.g. leaving him for two weeks alone after major heart surgery, barely able to get out of bed, and having to call his sister for help, and turning his own kids against him, was horrendous. I've never seen a 50 something year old man - successful by the standards of modern society - sob his eyes out like that. And women are more likely to be psychologically violent - just look at the way teenage girls bully each other, it's relentless. Some of them do that to their husbands, completely belittling and controlling them and openly coming on to other men and comparing their husband unfavorably to them but that "doesn't count" since it's not physical violence.

Hardly any of them access domestic abuse services as they are all targeted at women and children, apart from AMEN, which is a very small underfunded charity. Plus the stigma of speaking out is too much for most abused men.

https://www.esri.ie/news/domestic-abuse-of-women-and-men-in-ireland-report-on-the-national-study-of-domestic-abuse/

• The report shows that 15 per cent of women (or about one in seven) and six per cent of men (or one in 16) have experienced severely abusive behaviour of a physical, sexual or emotional nature from an intimate partner at some time in their lives.
• While the risk to women is higher, domestic abuse is something that also affects a significant number of men. The survey suggests that in the region of 213,000 women and 88,000 men in Ireland have been severely abused by a partner.

Stuckforcash

It's a pity a very informative debate on mental illness in relation to serious crime has been ruined by the suggestion that this is a male issue.

iodd7

professore wrote: »

I feel we are going off topic here, but the insistence that violence is somehow a male only thing is just not true.

Lots of men suffer domestic violence too. I personally know one and the level of abuse he suffered, both physical and psychological, e.g. leaving him for two weeks alone after major heart surgery, barely able to get out of bed, and having to call his sister for help, and turning his own kids against him, was horrendous. I've never seen a 50 something year old man - successful by the standards of modern society - sob his eyes out like that. And women are more likely to be psychologically violent - just look at the way teenage girls bully each other, it's relentless. Some of them do that to their husbands, completely belittling and controlling them and openly coming on to other men and comparing their husband unfavorably to them but that "doesn't count" since it's not physical violence

Don't be so disingenuous - nobody said, let alone insisted that violence is only perpetrated by men. We're on a thread discussing someone who killed their spouse and children, and it is astonishing that the mere suggestion that gender might have been a factor has aroused such strident opposition. The wilful ignorance is pretty breathtaking.

iodd7

professore wrote: »

I feel we are going off topic here, but the insistence that violence is somehow a male only thing is just not true.

Lots of men suffer domestic violence too. I personally know one and the level of abuse he suffered, both physical and psychological, e.g. leaving him for two weeks alone after major heart surgery, barely able to get out of bed, and having to call his sister for help, and turning his own kids against him, was horrendous. I've never seen a 50 something year old man - successful by the standards of modern society - sob his eyes out like that. And women are more likely to be psychologically violent - just look at the way teenage girls bully each other, it's relentless. Some of them do that to their husbands, completely belittling and controlling them and openly coming on to other men and comparing their husband unfavorably to them but that "doesn't count" since it's not physical violence

Don't be so disingenuous - nobody said, let alone insisted that violence is only perpetrated by men. We're on a thread discussing someone who killed their spouse and children, and it is astonishing that the mere suggestion that gender might have been a factor has aroused such strident opposition. The wilful ignorance is pretty breathtaking.

dasdog

What and utterly cowardly insular murdering piece of shít. Plunging a knife in to the throat of a sleeping child because he was too weak to have a conversation about being caught masturbating. Rural Ireland can be frightening in it's kick it over the bar for points pretend and look the other way facade.