Louise O Neill on rape culture.

jimgoose · 10-11-2016 04:32PM

demfad wrote: »

I have demonstrated with substantiation and reference that gender based violence has the characteristic of male privilege and entitlement...

"The lawyers' clerks were sprouting some learned rot about fee-simple and peppercorns." :pac::pac::pac:

Cianmcliam · 10-11-2016 04:36PM

demfad wrote: »

I have demonstrated with substantiation and reference that gender based violence has the characteristic of male privilege and entitlement.
If you can show me any study that shows that violence that men experience from women has anything to do with female privilege then please do so.
Perhaps you should inform your opinions?

In fairness the article you linked to was entirely based on the authors reading newspaper articles (?!) about family annihilation and also explicitly excluded the cases where the mother was the perpetrator. This was then followed by a purely theoretical and subjective explanation for the motivations behind different cases.

Wibbs · 10-11-2016 04:37PM

demfad wrote: »

If a man or woman who defends themselves against domestic abuse is themselves counted as an abuser in a study then this is clearly wrong. Anyone can see that.

The tiny amount of men seeking refuge tallies with the tiny amounts who needed hospitalisations, were killed etc etc. The wild outlier is the 40% figure for the reasons indicated.

This is wikipedia but…. Just on how the authorities may handle things when it gets to the stage where they are called;

Furthermore, some studies have shown that women who assault their male partners are more likely to avoid arrest than men who attack their female partners,[16] and that female perpetrators of IPV are often viewed by law enforcement agencies and the courts as victims rather than offenders.[17] As such, men fear that if they do report to the police, they will be assumed to be the aggressor, and placed under arrest.[18][19] The 1985 U.S. National Family Violence Survey, carried out by Murray A. Straus and Richard J. Gelles on a nationally representative sample of 6,002 couples, found that when a woman called the police to report IPV, the man was ordered out of the house in 41.4% of cases. However, when a man called, the woman was ordered out of the house in 0% of cases. When a woman called, the man was threatened with immediate arrest in 28.2% of cases; when a man called, the woman was threatened with arrest in 0% of cases. When a woman called, the man was threatened with arrest at a later date in 10.7% of cases; when a man called, the woman was threatened with arrest at a later date in 0% of cases. When a woman called, the man was arrested in 15.2% of cases; when a man called, the woman was arrested in 0% of cases. In fact, in 12.1% of cases when the man called, the man himself was arrested.[20]

The 2010-2011 [British Crime survey]report found that whilst 27% of women who experienced IPV reported it to the police, only 10% of men did so, and whilst 44% of women reported to some professional organization, only 19% of men did so.[23] In a 2005 report carried out by the National Crime Council in the Republic of Ireland, it was estimated that 5% of men who had experienced IPV had reported it to the authorities, compared to 29% of women.[4]

In the Republic of Ireland, a 2005 report carried out by the National Crime Council found that 15% of women and 6% of men had suffered severe IPV in their lifetime, equating to roughly 213,000 women and 88,000 men.[26]

Apparently those 6%, those 88,000 men don't count, cos Patriarchy and sure it was probably their fault in some way anyway.

In New Zealand, the twenty-one year Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study, published in 1999, reported that of their sample of 1,037 people, 27% of women and 34% of men reported being physically abused by a partner, with 37% of women and 22% of men reporting they had perpetrated IPV.[

More men that don't apparently count either.

Oh and I don't buy into the "gender symmetry" stuff BTW. Sounds like more social "science" BS pushing another BS agenda. However someone would want to have the visual acuity of Stevie effin Wonder to see this as a one sided gender issue.

On a purely anecdotal level I've seen the different approaches taken by the Gardai on this. A friend of a friend who was being physically assaulted by his live in girlfriend to the point of obvious bruising was asked to vacate his house after a neighbour called reporting his girlfriend hitting him in the back garden. It took him a long time and quite a bit by ways of legal fees to get her out and he was bloody lucky there were no kids involved or he'd still be paying the mortgage and not living there.

Zulu wrote: »

Women: the perpetual victim. Really???

As I maintain this is the primary commandment of the church of feminism. It is always men's fault. Always. Even if they'll acknowledge where men might be victims, it's the "patriarchy's fault". Still men. When the stats about abuse in lesbian relationships came out the response was "they're just aping the patriarchy's toxic values by proxy". Two women in a relationship, no men involved and still it's men's fault. Women are always blameless creatures with no agency. It's a black and white position that could only be held by zealots.

midnight city · 10-11-2016 04:39PM

Deleted User wrote: »

But saying Le Pen is racist is hardly some left wing conspiracy theory.

How is she racist?

Zulu · 10-11-2016 04:46PM

demfad wrote: »

I have demonstrated with substantiation and reference that gender based violence has the characteristic of male privilege and entitlement.

No you haven't. If you believe you have you must be mad.

Widdershins · 10-11-2016 04:50PM

demfad wrote: »

Why don't you inform yourself and just google why women don't leave abusive relationships before being so unpleasantly judgemental?

If you also look at case studies you will find women who thought themselves tough and independent than who have ended up in abusive relationships not recognising themselves. Stronger, tougher, more independent women than you.

You can't really say if it would or would not happen you because you don't know how such a relationship develops and you seem unwilling to find out.

I agree with your point here. It is a little more complicated than people realise.

demfad · 10-11-2016 04:54PM

Cianmcliam wrote: »

In fairness the article you linked to was entirely based on the authors reading newspaper articles (?!) about family annihilation and also explicitly excluded the cases where the mother was the perpetrator. This was then followed by a purely theoretical and subjective explanation for the motivations behind different cases.

The scolarly study linked was based on interviews with any surviving close family members, other family members, friends, aquantances work colleagues etc as well as well as any other information available including all newspaper articles their sources etc.
You are entitled to your opinion but this report would is the largest and most respected undertaken on the subject in the UK coordianted by a professor who is expert in this field.
There are American studies also. You will find the same characteristic of male entitlement common to those studies too.

Widdershins · 10-11-2016 04:55PM

Mortpourvelo wrote: »

Why ? Because it asks for a certain amount of independence and self reliance ???

I am throughly sick and tired of reading stories in magazines where someone has been beaten, abused, etc and takes the f****r back!

"He seemed so genuinely sorry".

Wtf ??? Did he seem genuine when you were getting a kicking ?

Anyone who abuses someone weaker than themselves is a scumbag - gender is irrelevant.

But if you allow that person to do it again, yes you bear some responsibility.

Oh and I don't have "studies" to quote. I live in the real world not a Gender Studies Course.

They take them back because their head is fu**** from being treated like dirt. Often they believe the things their abuser has been telling them, feel like a failure, like they're not good enough for a man to be proud enough to treat them better. Sometimes they wonder if they played a role in starting a fight, winding the abuser up, disappointing them in one way or another.
Sometimes they share a house or otherwise have their finances entangled with theirs and can't afford to go it alone.
and on top of everything else going on, they can't focus on getting out of their trap, and can't afford to go it alone.

It's too easy to say nobody would ever walk all over me because I just wouldn't let them. Abusers don't just cop on to themselves when you stand up to them.

demfad · 10-11-2016 04:57PM

Zulu wrote: »

No you haven't. If you believe you have you must be mad.

Go and inform yourself then. Prove me wrong.

demfad · 10-11-2016 05:01PM

Mortpourvelo wrote: »

Perhaps you need to live in the real world.

You mean your real world where women who experience domestic violence could simply stand up and walk out but foolishly stay?

The real world is where domestic violence actually happens. You should talk to people and read about some real cases before judging from your position of ignorance.

Cianmcliam · 10-11-2016 05:04PM

demfad wrote: »

The scolarly study linked was based on interviews with any surviving close family members, other family members, friends, aquantances work colleagues etc as well as well as any other information available including all newspaper articles their sources etc.
You are entitled to your opinion but this report would is the largest and most respected undertaken on the subject in the UK coordianted by a professor who is expert in this field.
There are American studies also. You will find the same characteristic of male entitlement common to those studies too.

According to their own writings, they didn't interview anyone involved at all:

However, as might be imagined with incidents of this kind, these news-
paper sources were rarely dispassionate and clearly the views of surviving
family members, neighbours, acquaintances and friends about the
murders do not necessarily have to reﬂect the motivation of the family
annihilator, or, indeed, accurately depict what actually took place. As a
consequence, we read the various accounts of the family annihilation
independently of each other and thereafter came to a consensus through
discussion as to possible motivations. The fact that there were often several
accounts of the family annihilation, in competing newspapers, written by
different journalists, also afforded some degree of internal data triangu-
lation at the point at which the story was reported.

Then they looked for very general facts such as age, date, whether the perpetrator killed themselves.

o1s1n · 10-11-2016 05:22PM

demfad wrote: »

You mean your real world where women who experience domestic violence could simply stand up and walk out but foolishly stay?

The real world is where domestic violence actually happens. You should talk to people and read about some real cases before judging from your position of ignorance.

Why are you continually talking about domestic violence as if it's something only experienced by females?

Wibbs · 10-11-2016 05:28PM

Widdershins wrote: »

It's too easy to say nobody would ever walk all over me because I just wouldn't let them. Abusers don't just cop on to themselves when you stand up to them.

+1. And in my experience abusers *trigger warning* regardless of gender *trigger warning* have an amazingly acute radar for seeking out those people they will be able to abuse. It's almost nothing to do with some nebulous idea of "strength" either. There was a Boards poster here way back who was a well built in the gym man, like if he stared at me too hard I'd end up in casualty well built, and he spoke of his emotional and physical abuse at the hands of an ex girlfriend of his. I know a woman who the world would think is very strong and they'd be right, but she went through a very abusive relationship at the hands of an ex boyfriend. That bastard's abuse was entirely emotional, never laid a hand on her, but really hurt her(emotional abuse can be worse in many ways).

Cianmcliam wrote: »

According to their own writings, they didn't interview anyone involved at all:

Colour me not shocked TBH CC. Too much science and not just the "soft" sciences are chock full of really shaky research and all too often the results are based on predetermined conclusions or where the future grants may lay. There's quite the bit of talk among scientific circles about how studies of all kinds are being run and the conclusions they come to.

mzungu · 10-11-2016 05:33PM

demfad wrote: »

This is a British study on family annihilation as recently as 2013.

The common characteristic of the 4 types of annihilations identified was a sense of family ownership/male entitlement. Nothing mystical about this, it is sensible and evidence based. In these cased the private reality of domestic violence is made public when the annihilation occurs. In most of these cases the murders occurred when the woman left or tried to leave the man thus breaking his control threatening his 'masculinity'.

Who was talking about family annihilations? Nice goalpost shifting there

How about this, mothers are more likely to commit filicide. Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2922347/
Patriarchy at fault there again?

But I digress, my original post mentioned the high instances of violence in lesbian relationships. So, what is your view on the fact that there are higher instances of domestic abuse in lesbian relationships?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)'s 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey reports on the lifetime prevalence of rape, physical violence or stalking by an intimate partner, focusing for the first time on victimization by sexual orientation. It finds a victimization prevalence of 43.8 percent for lesbians, making it the second most affected group after bisexual women (61.1 percent), ahead of bisexual men (37.3 percent), heterosexual women (35 percent), heterosexual men (29 percent) and homosexual men (26 percent).
Link: http://www.cdc.gov/violencepreventio...sofindings.pdf

If by your assertion that gender roles are the problem, why is it that relationships featuring two women also feature issues such as domestic violence?

demfad · 10-11-2016 05:33PM

Wibbs wrote: »

This is wikipedia but…. Just on how the authorities may handle things when it gets to the stage where they are called;

Furthermore, some studies have shown that women who assault their male partners are more likely to avoid arrest than men who attack their female partners,[16] and that female perpetrators of IPV are often viewed by law enforcement agencies and the courts as victims rather than offenders.[17]........
.

You see, if you count a woman defending herself against an abuser as committing Intimate partner violence you will get your skewed statistics.
If on occasion a man is arrested for domestic violence and claims that a woman also hit him then this would be taken into consideration by authorities. Clearly, if they feel this is self defense she will not be arrested. If a man is abusing a woman and she defends himself it's probably a very dumb idea to report it. As has been pointed out in all statistics of actual domestic abuse, in statistics like Intimate partner homicide, family annihilations, hospitalisations etc etc. the figure is always well above 90%.
Even though there are many many hundreds of DV refuges in the country the only male one could not even stay open (average less than 5 people).

Wibbs · 10-11-2016 05:34PM

o1s1n wrote: »

Why are you continually talking about domestic violence as if it's something only experienced by females?

Because O women are always victims, men are always to blame. It's as rigid a fundamentalist dogma as any Bible Belt crawthumper could muster and has just the same resistance to debate. Arguing with a religious third wave feminist is akin to arguing evolution with a creationist. No amount of evidence will ever suffice.

demfad · 10-11-2016 05:35PM

Cianmcliam wrote: »

According to their own writings, they didn't interview anyone involved at all:

However, as might be imagined with incidents of this kind, these news-
paper sources were rarely dispassionate and clearly the views of surviving
family members, neighbours, acquaintances and friends about the
murders do not necessarily have to reﬂect the motivation of the family
annihilator, or, indeed, accurately depict what actually took place. As a
consequence, we read the various accounts of the family annihilation
independently of each other and thereafter came to a consensus through
discussion as to possible motivations. The fact that there were often several
accounts of the family annihilation, in competing newspapers, written by
different journalists, also afforded some degree of internal data triangu-
lation at the point at which the story was reported.

Then they looked for very general facts such as age, date, whether the perpetrator killed themselves.

You are correct, the interviews of family members etc were taken from newspapers. One American study used actual survivors testimony and testimony from perpetrators who botched their suicide.
The method of concensus and triangulation used is outlined above.

Here is a summary of some American studies on familicide:

You can check any study on violence against women and find the same underlying characteristic.

Wilson and Daly:
1) Angry and accusatory (various grievances
against partner, including jealousy)
2) Despondent (underlying depression and mental
illness, thwarted ambitions)
- more likely to commit suicide
Both types appear to operate from proprietary
beliefs toward partner
Male entitlement is a strong factor for both.

Widdershins · 10-11-2016 05:41PM

Wibbs wrote: »

+1. And in my experience abusers *trigger warning* regardless of gender *trigger warning* have an amazingly acute radar for seeking out those people they will be able to abuse. It's almost nothing to do with some nebulous idea of "strength" either. There was a Boards poster here way back who was a well built in the gym man, like if he stared at me too hard I'd end up in casualty well built, and he spoke of his emotional and physical abuse at the hands of an ex girlfriend of his. I know a woman who the world would think is very strong and they'd be right, but she went through a very abusive relationship at the hands of an ex boyfriend. That bastard's abuse was entirely emotional, never laid a hand on her, but really hurt her(emotional abuse can be worse in many ways).

.

an amazingly acute radar for seeking out those people they will be able to abuse...so I've read.Although I still don't understand how it happens.
A lot of the time nobody suspects someone's being abused by their partner, because people have a preconceived image of a feeble partner or a doormat, and the abused partner isn't like that.

Another thing I forgot to mention was that abusers can be charming. They aren't always complete unmitigated horrible people. There could be things that the abused partner still loves about them. They could have many happy memories together (although they become fewer as time goes by, imo) and they are trying to hold onto that.

o1s1n · 10-11-2016 05:43PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Because O women are always victims, men are always to blame. It's as rigid a fundamentalist dogma as any Bible Belt crawthumper could muster and has just the same resistance to debate. Arguing with a religious third wave feminist is akin to arguing evolution with a creationist. No amount of evidence will ever suffice.

I guess my mate who recently came out as having been extremely physically and mentally abused by his last female partner must have goaded her in some way with his male privilege and/or entitlement. How dare he, the monster.

Wibbs · 10-11-2016 05:48PM

As I said, like arguing with a Creationist.

demfad wrote: »

You see, if you count a woman defending herself against an abuser as committing Intimate partner violence you will get your skewed statistics.

What if a man is "defending himself against an abuser as committing Intimate partner violence you will get your skewed statistics"? You see this proves your dogma, because in your rigid gender worldview you can't even consider that this may occur, because that goes against your faith that women are always victims, men are always to blame.

If on occasion a man is arrested for domestic violence and claims that a woman also hit him then this would be taken into consideration by authorities. Clearly, if they feel this is self defense she will not be arrested.

Yet in the reverse case he's still to blame? THis is almost like shooting cationic fish in a tiny barrel.

If a man is abusing a woman and she defends himself it's probably a very dumb idea to report it.

Your blinkers completely ignored the numerous studies that show the complete opposite is the case. That is if a man reports any abuse at all, the woman involved has damn near zero chance of being arrested

As has been pointed out in all statistics of actual domestic abuse,

And your zealots mask drops a little more. Note folks her use of the phase "actual domestic abuse". That is abuse that agrees with the dogma of women are always victims, men are always to blame.

in statistics like Intimate partner homicide, family annihilations, hospitalisations etc etc. the figure is always well above 90%.

I love how the leftie feminist types conflate crimes to try to prove again it's always men's fault. They lump all types together. Just like they lump in catcalling with rape. Like you don't, unless one is insane in the membrane.

Even though there are many many hundreds of DV refuges in the country the only male one could not even stay open (average less than 5 people).

Yet the statistics you mine for your own dogmatic seam ignoring all data that is heresy, the same Irish statistics show that nearly half of all domestic abuse is visited upon men. The fact that there is near zero support for men in such circumstances speaks volumes about your failed religion's influence on society. Never mind the vastly larger suicide rates among men.

mzungu wrote:

If by your assertion that gender roles are the problem, why is it that relationships featuring two women also feature issues such as domestic violence?

I guarantee it's still the patriarchy/men's fault in some way. In this daftness women can never ever be at fault.

demfad · 10-11-2016 05:56PM

mzungu wrote: »

Who was talking about family annihilations? Nice goalpost shifting there

Not at all you just weren't following the thread. Gender based violence always has the perpetrator characteristic of male entitlement. If you had been following you would have noted the studies conclusion that the family annihilation was the public act of something that had been private for a long time (domestic violence).

How about this, mothers are more likely to commit filicide. Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2922347/
Patriarchy at fault there again?

A factor might be that many more women would undeniably be single parents than men? Even giving that. What of the motive? Euthanasia? Substance abuse? Have you any evidence to show that the fillicide was the terminal act in a pattern of domestic violence as it is for men who annihilate their family? You need to give us more.

But I digress, my original post mentioned the high instances of violence in lesbian relationships. So, what is your view on the fact that there are higher instances of domestic abuse in lesbian relationships?
If by your assertion that gender roles are the problem, why is it that relationships featuring two women also feature issues such as domestic violence?

You're getting muddied in your thinking like that other poster. If a person hits another person that does not equate to domestic violence. In your post you made a not so little jump from the word 'violence' to 'domestic abuse'.
Domestic abuse is about using tools (one of which can be violence) to exert control over another person. Again unfortunately the proof is in the pudding in these scenarios with hospitalisations, deaths, use of DV refuges etc.

demfad · 10-11-2016 06:00PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Because O women are always victims, men are always to blame. It's as rigid a fundamentalist dogma as any Bible Belt crawthumper could muster and has just the same resistance to debate. Arguing with a religious third wave feminist is akin to arguing evolution with a creationist. No amount of evidence will ever suffice.

Evidence where a woman who defends herself against a man is defined as an abuser is hardly likely to suffice in fairness.
But please, supply the hard evidence of hospitalisations, deaths, use of refuges etc for female violence against males at your convenience.

o1s1n · 10-11-2016 06:02PM

demfad wrote: »

Gender based violence always has the perpetrator characteristic of male entitlement.

Can you explain the reasoning behind this statement in your own words without the use of a link?

demfad wrote: »

A factor might be that many more women would undeniably be single parents than men? Even giving that. What of the motive? Euthanasia? Substance abuse? Have you any evidence to show that the fillicide was the terminal act in a pattern of domestic violence as it is for men who annihilate their family? You need to give us more.

You really are unbelievable. Here we go again. Apparently a woman simply cannot do anything negative, she's surely always victim of a male. Even if it involves infanticide.

demfad · 10-11-2016 06:06PM

Wibbs wrote: »

.

What if a man is "defending himself against an abuser as committing Intimate partner violence you will get your skewed statistics"? You see this proves your dogma, because in your rigid gender worldview you can't even consider that this may occur, because that goes against your faith that women are always victims, men are always to blame.

I'll just reply to this for now. Domestic abuse/violence is a pattern of violence/abuse in order to exert control over another individual. Neither, a woman defending herself or a man defending himself should qualify.
If you include this dodgy criteria you will get your strange ratio of 60/40.
If you don't count it you will get 90/10.
If you look at hospitalisations, murders, refuge attendance etc you get a lot less.

demfad · 10-11-2016 06:16PM

o1s1n wrote: »

Can you explain the reasoning behind this statement in your own words without the use of a link?

I have explained this in my own words at least once on this thread today.
Could you do us the courtesy of following it?

Or why not just google 'gender based violence' and make your opinion less lazy and more informed?

You really are unbelievable. Here we go again. Apparently a woman simply cannot do anything negative, she's surely always victim of a male. Even if it involves infanticide.

The discussion is revolving around the presence of male entitlement/family ownership as a characteristic around gender based violence. The posters linking his fillicide stats was an attempt to refute this. Without a motive he cant.

demfad · 10-11-2016 06:18PM

o1s1n wrote: »

I guess my mate who recently came out as having been extremely physically and mentally abused by his last female partner must have goaded her in some way with his male privilege and/or entitlement. How dare he, the monster.

That's a little childish isn't it?

Wibbs · 10-11-2016 06:28PM

o1s1n wrote: »

You really are unbelievable. Here we go again. Apparently a woman simply cannot do anything negative, she's surely always victim of a male. Even if it involves infanticide.

I told you O, in this insane dogma women quite simply are always victims and men are always to blame. That's it. End of. Full stop. Period for our American readers. Even gay women are victims not of other gay women, but some nebulous influence of the patriarchy, in other words men. It reminds me of that lame "joke"; if a tree falls in a forest and there is no woman to hear it, is the man still wrong? That could be a part of their catechism.

Debating with a feminist acolyte in the Most Holy Church of the Perpetual Victim on his/her/zer/ve points is like herding cats; frustrating to do and read and ultimately pointless. Like the creationist they have rigid baseline points and will not be turned no matter what evidence is put in front of them. They're too attached to playing the victim card and getting off on their collective angst.

Ulysses Gaze · 10-11-2016 06:40PM

Debating with a feminist acolyte in the Most Holy Church of the Perpetual Victim on his/her/zer/ve points is like herding cats;

70 pages, nothing but cats.

http://i.imgur.com/9bSyKAv.jpg

Widdershins · 10-11-2016 06:43PM

Wibbs wrote: »

I told you O, in this insane dogma women quite simply are always victims and men are always to blame. That's it. End of. Full stop. Period for our American readers. Even gay women are victims not of other gay women, but some nebulous influence of the patriarchy, in other words men. It reminds me of that lame "joke"; if a tree falls in a forest and there is no woman to hear it, is the man still wrong? That could be a part of their catechism.

Debating with a feminist acolyte in the Most Holy Church of the Perpetual Victim on his/her/zer/ve points is like herding cats; frustrating to do and read and ultimately pointless. Like the creationist they have rigid baseline points and will not be turned no matter what evidence is put in front of them. They're too attached to playing the victim card and getting off on their collective angst.

*Clenches Jaw* *Montone* ''Internalized.Opression.Internalized.Opression.Internalized.Opression.Internalized.Opression.Internalized.Opression.Internalized.Opression.Internalized.Opression.

Olishi4 · 10-11-2016 06:48PM

demfad wrote: »

I'll just reply to this for now. Domestic abuse/violence is a pattern of violence/abuse in order to exert control over another individual.

Sorry, I haven't followed all of the thread but in fairness demfad, while there are many horrible cases of one sided abuses from either one gender to another, there would also be a lot of unhealthy relationships where two people are in a power struggle and both enter a complex pattern of physical, mental and emotional abuse in practically equal measures to the point of driving one another insane.

When it comes out or either party confide in someone, men and women can end up falling into roles usually with the woman being the "victim" and the man being the "aggressor" where they were both victims of one another. The fact they are both victims does not justify any of their actions but I'd say there are a lot of complex situations that are blamed automatically and solely on the man.

Louise O Neill on rape culture.

Comments