Louise O Neill on rape culture.

tritium · 11-11-2016 09:25AM

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.
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).

You see that nonsense might hold some water if it werent for the huge amount of research that women are actually more likely to initiate reciprocal violence

http://www.mintpressnews.com/woman-aggressor-unspoken-truth-domestic-violence/196746/

tritium · 11-11-2016 09:34AM

"A wrote:

A poster asked why a woman was referring to domestic violence against females, i.e. why was she not mentioning the difficulties and (different) complexities that men face.
.

Actually tyrant this came about because of an absurd claim, well rebutted in the real world that 90% of somestic violence was committed by men.

Not really that male violence was ignored just that outright nonsense was being put out there

demfad · 11-11-2016 10:16AM

tritium wrote: »

Are you really smoking this nonsense?

Every unbiased study has agreed with the figures ive quoted, maybe you should try to educate yourself instead of reading propoganda. Here this will give you a start on the situation in ireland

http://www.cosc.ie/en/COSC/Pages/WP09000005

This is the actual study.
Again this study includes incidents where a partner defends themselves, and counts this self defense as abuse. So for example, if a partner defends herself physically or calls a violent abuser a name at any point in their lives, she will be counted as an abuser in these statistics.
(The relevant section below is from your study.)

If you consider domestic violence to be a pattern of behaviour with one partner trying to exert control over another then the figures are consistantly 90% +.

This study examines if respondents find that particular
behaviours such as slapping or punching a partner
constitutedomestic abuse,andunderwhichcircumstances
they believe this to be the case.
» An overwhelming majority felt that all of the
behaviours enquired about in the survey were,
under all circumstances, forms of domestic abuse.
The shares for each respective form of abuse
in descending order were: forcing a partner to
have sexual intercourse (more than 97 per cent),
punching a partner (more than 97 per cent),
slapping a partner (87 per cent) and finally calling
a partner hurtful names (67 per cent).

darkdubh · 11-11-2016 11:02AM

I really wish Waterford Whispers would do a piece on her. Can you imagine the triggering?

jimgoose · 11-11-2016 11:04AM

darkdubh wrote: »

I really wish Waterford Whispers would do a piece on her. Can you imagine the triggering?

Triggering like an M61A1, bah!! :pac:

tritium · 11-11-2016 11:07AM

demfad wrote: »

This is the actual study.
Again this study includes incidents where a partner defends themselves, and counts this self defense as abuse. So for example, if a partner defends herself physically or calls a violent abuser a name at any point in their lives, she will be counted as an abuser in these statistics.
(The relevant section below is from your study.)

If you consider domestic violence to be a pattern of behaviour with one partner trying to exert control over another then the figures are consistantly 90% +.

Why are you conflating two of my responses to give a dishonest interpretation?

The cosc link is not the same as your second linkage. The cosc reference is to a ncc study that was the first major irish study that considered both male and female DV victims (anecdotally they received considerable pressure to not cover male victims). It conclusively demonstrated the high instance of female on male violence

A full copy of the research is linked here
https://www.esri.ie/news/domestic-abuse-of-women-and-men-in-ireland-report-on-the-national-study-of-domestic-abuse/

The second link is one of a number i could post detailing the research on who imitiates violence in reciprocal violence situations. Almost uniformly they find women slightly more likely to be the agressor.

Your position on DV is frankly farcical. It is however tellingly similar to the response from a senior figure in one national womens group a few years ago who when quizzed on the topic opined that all the male victims were gay men beating each other in relationships. Thats the level of dellusion around this stuff.

05eaftqbrs9jlh · 11-11-2016 11:10AM

darkdubh wrote:

I really wish Waterford Whispers would do a piece on her. Can you imagine the triggering?

I can't see that happening. Generally WWN roots for the underdog and women, in society, don't exactly need taking down any more pegs.

Widdershins · 11-11-2016 11:27AM

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

She'll just block you if you don't agree with her line.

I know she doesn't do discussion anyway. Blocking is one thing, but I pity the person who tries to engage with her and gets the full force of her viciousness without preamble or warning.
I'm not overly sensitive but there's something quite shocking about someone being bluntly told they are a piece of sh*t lke that other twitter user was. In fact it's very abusive, ironically!

snotboogie · 11-11-2016 11:40AM

Zain Fluffy Tourist wrote: »

darkdubh wrote:

I really wish Waterford Whispers would do a piece on her. Can you imagine the triggering?

I can't see that happening. Generally WWN roots for the underdog and women, in society, don't exactly need taking down any more pegs.

That's one way of putting it, another would be that WW carefully treads the line of modern political correctness. They have no problem "punching down" as long as the victim is from the right demographic

Widdershins · 11-11-2016 11:47AM

snotboogie wrote: »

That's one way of putting it, another would be that WW carefully treads the line of modern political correctness. They have no problem "punching down" as long as the victim is from the right demographic

Oddly enough I was just thinking that, although I was thinking of the Rubberbandits.

05eaftqbrs9jlh · 11-11-2016 11:54AM

snotboogie wrote:

That's one way of putting it, another would be that WW carefully treads the line of modern political correctness. They have no problem "punching down" as long as the victim is from the right demographic

That's basically just paraphrasing what I said. Certain liberals appear to find no issues with mocking those who are at an advantage by virtue of their preordained societal status. Possibly you're from one of the demographics who are seen as "fair game" (straight white male living in the developed world, yes?) so it's almost seem as a victimless crime to rail on you because society is set up for you to succeed.

Now I understand that this, in itself, is problematic because if men fail, there's a sense of "well obviously they're to blame, because there are no obvious obstacles to their success". Well that's an obstacle right there. Funny the other poster should mention Rubberbandits, because far from attacking the vulnerable, they're one of the most outspoken defenders of men and draw huge amounts of attention to the high rates of suicide among young men in Ireland.

05eaftqbrs9jlh · 11-11-2016 11:54AM

snotboogie wrote:

That's one way of putting it, another would be that WW carefully treads the line of modern political correctness. They have no problem "punching down" as long as the victim is from the right demographic

That's basically just paraphrasing what I said. Certain liberals appear to find no issues with mocking those who are at an advantage by virtue of their preordained societal status. Possibly you're from one of the demographics who are seen as "fair game" (straight white male living in the developed world, yes?) so it's almost seem as a victimless crime to rail on you because society is set up for you to succeed.

Now I understand that this, in itself, is problematic because if men fail, there's a sense of "well obviously they're to blame, because there are no obvious obstacles to their success". Well that's an obstacle right there. Funny the other poster should mention Rubberbandits, because far from attacking the vulnerable, they're one of the most outspoken defenders of men and draw huge amounts of attention to the high rates of suicide among young men in Ireland.

Widdershins · 11-11-2016 12:00PM

Zain Fluffy Tourist wrote: »

That's basically just paraphrasing what I said. Certain liberals appear to find no issues with mocking those who are at an advantage by virtue of their preordained societal status. Possibly you're from one of the demographics who are seen as "fair game" (straight white male living in the developed world, yes?) so it's almost seem as a victimless crime to rail on you because society is set up for you to succeed.

Now I understand that this, in itself, is problematic because if men fail, there's a sense of "well obviously they're to blame, because there are no obvious obstacles to their success". Well that's an obstacle right there. Funny the other poster should mention Rubberbandits, because far from attacking the vulnerable, they're one of the most outspoken defenders of men and draw huge amounts of attention to the high rates of suicide among young men in Ireland.

I just landed into the thread on the last comment before mine so maybe I've missed something. I wasn't saying they are guilty of man bashing. Just that for a group who product funny,risque songs they are surprisingly left leaning and sometimes I believe they can be politically correct in reality. I'm pretty sure they're not averse to having a dig at people who don't match that description too. It's been a while since I followed their Facebook page so I can't quote them.

pumpkin4life · 11-11-2016 12:06PM

snotboogie wrote: »

That's one way of putting it, another would be that WW carefully treads the line of modern political correctness. They have no problem "punching down" as long as the victim is from the right demographic

That's one of the things I like about something like South Park. They hate/will take the piss out of both sides.

Wibbs · 11-11-2016 12:12PM

tritium wrote: »

Your position on DV is frankly farcical. It is however tellingly similar to the response from a senior figure in one national womens group a few years ago who when quizzed on the topic opined that all the male victims were gay men beating each other in relationships. Thats the level of dellusion around this stuff.

Another example - god forbid we'd need any more - that the feminist mantra of "women are always victims, men are always to blame" strikes again. And no, it's not just extremist feminism, this is mainstream stuff.

Zulu · 11-11-2016 12:27PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Another example - god forbid we'd need any more - that the feminist mantra of "women are always victims, men are always to blame" strikes again. And no, it's not just extremist feminism, this is mainstream stuff.

The loons have taken over!

demfad · 11-11-2016 03:47PM

tritium wrote: »

Why are you conflating two of my responses to give a dishonest interpretation?

The cosc link is not the same as your second linkage. The cosc reference is to a ncc study that was the first major irish study that considered both male and female DV victims (anecdotally they received considerable pressure to not cover male victims). It conclusively demonstrated the high instance of female on male violence

The COSC link you gave references this page which states clearly (see bold below) that the data is taken from Watson and Parsons (2005) study, which is what I linked:

What IS farcical is that the Watson and Parsons (2005) study counts single incidents of slapping or 'hurtful' name calling as domestic abuse. This is plainly ridiculous. If you don't count single incidents of name calling/slapping as abuse you get a value around the 90/10. If you look at the real proof of the pudding: Intimate partner homicide, family annihilation, hospitalisation, attendance at DV refuges you get even higher than the 90%.

Considerable progress has also been made in the area of research over the past number of years. We now know a lot more about the gender prevalence of domestic violence than we did at that time. Watson and Parsons (2005) definitive piece of research on domestic violence carried out for the National Crime Council found that:

• 15% of women and 6% of men suffer severe domestic abuse
• 29% of women and 26% of men suffer domestic abuse when severe abuse and minor incidents are combined
• 13% of women and 13% of men suffer physical abuse or minor physical incidents and
• 29% of women (1 in 3) and only 5% of men (1 in 20) report to the Gardaí.

Edit: I would be very interested in you sharing a link to your revelation below. It looks like you are pulling bogus quotes as well as stats out of your backside.

tritium wrote: »

Your position on DV is frankly farcical. It is however tellingly similar to the response from a senior figure in one national womens group a few years ago who when quizzed on the topic opined that all the male victims were gay men beating each other in relationships. Thats the level of dellusion around this stuff.

givyjoe · 11-11-2016 04:11PM

demfad wrote: »

The COSC link you gave references this page which states clearly (see bold below) that the data is taken from Watson and Parsons (2005) study, which is what I linked:

What IS farcical is that the Watson and Parsons (2005) study counts single incidents of slapping or 'hurtful' name calling as domestic abuse. This is plainly ridiculous. If you don't count single incidents of name calling/slapping as abuse you get a value around the 90/10. If you look at the real proof of the pudding: Intimate partner homicide, family annihilation, hospitalisation, attendance at DV refuges you get even higher than the 90%.
.

Are you taking the actual p!ss? If you take out incidents of a single slap?! What about taking out incidents of a guy punching his partner 'just the once'. Abuse is abuse, whether it happens once or not.

As for hurtful name calling or the likes.. i would argue being told things like 'this child isn't yours.. so there' is just as despicable as physical violence.

Men are far, far less likely to go to hospital for domestic abuse and even if they do.. they are less likely to report it as domestic abuse.

Wibbs · 11-11-2016 04:18PM

demfad wrote: »

If you don't count single incidents of name calling/slapping as abuse you get a value around the 90/10.

You seem to have an issue with basic arithmetic.

• 15% of women and 6% of men suffer severe domestic abuse

Does that 6%, over 80 thousand men IIRC, hit themselves to the point of severe domestic abuse? Or is that "patriarchy" too? Now way are the victimised women doing it.

• 29% of women and 26% of men suffer domestic abuse when severe abuse and minor incidents are combined
• 13% of women and 13% of men suffer physical abuse or minor physical incidents and

Not far off equal, but since you have the FemmeFilter(™) set to 11 on the dial that stat doesn't count. Except no doubt if men are doing the "minor" slapping/name calling.

• 29% of women (1 in 3) and only 5% of men (1 in 20) report to the Gardaí.

And yet you have the diamond hard neck to claim refuges give anything like a real picture.

demfad · 11-11-2016 04:22PM

mzungu wrote: »

Untrue. It was you did not read my post. I was referring to the high instances of domestic violence in lesbian relationships and asking how exactly does this feed into the gender roles being the cause of it?

No, that was when I asked you if once off slapping or name calling was counted as domestic violence in your study which you still tellingly have not being able to answer. I take it that they are which means your study is not measuring what it claims it is measuring.

I recall that study, it focussed in on cases where the father was the perpetrator, and they left out cases where it was the mother (a study is coming soon on this). So, you can't draw any meaningful conclusion there. Also, that study and others come with a caveat, there is not a high sample rate to choose from , and all the people who could give a proper insight into it are not around to give the story. Not to mention they also took information from newspaper articles. So, it is just one study, with a not exactly watertight methodology (understandable given what is involved). Nevertheless, the evidence is very flimsy, and that is putting it kindly.

That's your opinion. The evidence was complied and analysed by the foremost expert in family annihilation in the UK.
When bogus studies count once off name calling as domestic abuse and then claim its almost equal between sexes it makes sense to look at Intimate partner homicide whose stats cant be manipulated or coerced to favour a particular sex.
Here's a study from the US that compiles US cases. One counted cases where the perpetrator and victims survived and were interviewed in depth. Males were perpetrators in 95%. Another was a twelve city study of 408 domestic familial murder-suicides in the US, 91.4% were committed by men, and prior domestic violence had occurred in 70% of them. Children were also killed in 19% of these cases. Unpleasant reading. But real murders, real bodies, and no massaging of figures possible.

tritium · 11-11-2016 04:24PM

demfad wrote: »

The COSC link you gave references this page which states clearly (see bold below) that the data is taken from Watson and Parsons (2005) study, which is what I linked:

What IS farcical is that the Watson and Parsons (2005) study counts single incidents of slapping or 'hurtful' name calling as domestic abuse. This is plainly ridiculous. If you don't count single incidents of name calling/slapping as abuse you get a value around the 90/10. If you look at the real proof of the pudding: Intimate partner homicide, family annihilation, hospitalisation, attendance at DV refuges you get even higher than the 90%.

Edit: I would be very interested in you sharing a link to your revelation below. It looks like you are pulling bogus quotes as well as stats out of your backside.

As you are i suspect well aware the report makes a distincrion between mild and severe DV. From the esri summary :

The study draws a distinction between severe abuse, defined as a pattern of physical, emotional or sexual behaviour between partners in an intimate relationship that causes, or risks causing, significant negative consequences for the person affected and isolated minor incidents that do not form a pattern of behaviour and do not have a severe impact. The two types of behaviour differ in their impact and in the profiles of those affected. The study focuses on severe abuse which is likely to call for an intervention from the Criminal Justice System and/or place demands on support services for victims.

The key findings were outlined by Dr. Watson:

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.

From the report itself:

What is Domestic Abuse?
Based on evidence from the international literature and evidence from the survey, it is clearly important to draw a distinction between those experiencing severe abuse (a pattern of behaviour with a significant negative impact) and those experiencing minor incidents that had little impact on them.

Severe domestic abuse is defined as a pattern of physical, emotional or sexual behaviour between partners in an intimate relationship that causes, or risks causing, significant negative consequences for the person affected.

It is a pattern of behaviour (not just a single act) in intimate relationships of the kind that would typically have a significant negative impact (physical injury, high levels of fear or distress) on the person affected.
The partners may be married, cohabiting or dating. The abuse may be physical (such as slapping, punching, kicking), verbal threats, sexual (such as actual or attempted forced sexual intercourse) or emotional (such as humiliation, depriving of money, preventing contact with family or friends, name- calling).
In general a single action would not constitute domestic abuse, unless it results in physical injury or high levels of fear or distress. A push or shove of sufficient severity to result in physical injury, for instance, would constitute domestic abuse if it resulted in the person being injured. However, such acts rarely occur in isolation – those experiencing severe abuse generally suffer a number of different types of behaviour from the abusive partner.

But of course you could hardly have missed all that given you seem to have done a thorough review of the document so i wonder why you never mentioned it.

o1s1n · 11-11-2016 04:34PM

demfad wrote: »

When bogus studies count once off name calling as domestic abuse and then claim its almost equal between sexes it makes sense to look at Intimate partner homicide whose stats cant be manipulated or coerced to favour a particular sex. .

You really are scrambling to remove women as much as you can from these statistics, aren't you?

Okay, so when I go home this evening, slap my wife in the face and call her something horrible*, I'll let her know that it's okay as demfad on boards.ie said it wasn't domestic abuse.

*may not actually happen

demfad · 11-11-2016 04:38PM

givyjoe wrote: »

Are you taking the actual p!ss? If you take out incidents of a single slap?! What about taking out incidents of a guy punching his partner 'just the once'. Abuse is abuse, whether it happens once or not.

As for hurtful name calling or the likes.. i would argue being told things like 'this child isn't yours.. so there' is just as despicable as physical violence.

Men are far, far less likely to go to hospital for domestic abuse and even if they do.. they are less likely to report it as domestic abuse.

They seem to be a lot lot lot less likely to die as a result of domestic violence too, unlike women and children

demfad · 11-11-2016 04:47PM

o1s1n wrote: »

You really are scrambling to remove women as much as you can from these statistics, aren't you?

Okay, so when I go home this evening, slap my wife in the face and call her something horrible*, I'll let her know that it's okay as demfad on boards.ie said it wasn't domestic abuse.

Here is a US gov. definition:

We define domestic violence as a pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner. Domestic violence can be physical, sexual, emotional, economic, or psychological actions or threats of actions that influence another person. This includes any behaviors that intimidate, manipulate, humiliate, isolate, frighten, terrorize, coerce, threaten, blame, hurt, injure, or wound someone

You would be guilty of assault in any case. If the assault was a 'a pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner' then you would be a perpetrator of domestic violence.

If your wife defended herself from your assault physically or verbally , she would be guilty of domestic abuse according to the 'studies' you are championing.

Wibbs · 11-11-2016 04:51PM

o1s1n wrote: »

You really are scrambling to remove women as much as you can from these statistics, aren't you?

Aye, well women are always victims you know…

givyjoe · 11-11-2016 04:54PM

demfad wrote: »

They seem to be a lot lot lot less likely to die as a result of domestic violence too, unlike women and children

And?

buried · 11-11-2016 04:54PM

Upside down waltzer machine in full effect

demfad · 11-11-2016 04:54PM

tritium wrote: »

As you are i suspect well aware the report makes a distincrion between mild and severe DV. From the esri summary :

But of course you could hardly have missed all that given you seem to have done a thorough review of the document so i wonder why you never mentioned it.

Again, a woman fighting off a perpetrator of domestic violence once or on several occasions would herself be deemed a perpetrator of domestic violence.

vladmydad · 11-11-2016 04:56PM

I think terms like rape culture are very disingenuous and dangerous

demfad · 11-11-2016 05:19PM

mzungu wrote: »

Irish society is OK about rape within marriage? Really? Any evidence aside from lack of convictions for a crime that is extremely difficult to prove? It is because rape is such a serious crime that the burden of proof is so high. I have asked this before in the thread and I will ask it again. Would those who wish to see higher convictions like the standards of proof to be dropped?

Just to address this. I would see the issue being more with investigation in the first instance.
There was a scathing report released about the Gardai in late 2014. The report was particularly scathing on attitudes, recording and investigation of domestic incidents. Here's an Irish Times report. You are not going to get convictions if you are not even recording assaults as crimes. The attitude of the gardai here reflects the wider cultural attitude towards domestic violence. A culture where domestic violence is more likely to occur and more likely to be tolerated. That goes soem way towards explaining why in almost 30 years of it being illegal to rape your spouse there has been only one successful conviction.

Domestic violence:

There was little oversight into how domestic violence calls were responded to. In 10,373 cases of recorded domestic violence calls studied by the inspectorate, a suspect was arrested and taken to a Garda station in 247, or 3 per cent, of cases. Many of these arrests were for outstanding warrants.
In some places only 63 per cent of calls resulted in the creation of a Pulse data record and in 43 per cent of cases calls were not categorised as crimes.
In many cases when people with injuries who had clearly been subjected to assaults were not willing to make a statement, the case was not recorded as a crime.
When victims had consumed alcohol they were often told by gardaí to take time to consider their next course of action. If they did not make a statement the attack on them was not recorded as a crime.
When tourists complained of being victims of crime those offences were often not recorded because gardaí believed the victim would take no follow-up actions.
When minor offences occurred they were often not recorded as crimes to avoid the commencement of a formal investigation.

Louise O Neill on rape culture.

Comments