Zulu wrote: » Apparently: Domestic violence is the physical, emotional, sexual or mental abuse of one person by another within close, intimate or family relationship.
psinno wrote: » There are going to be a million definitions. That is one of them.
ligerdub wrote: » I'd be more interested in the lack of calls for more women in waste management and the like.
Zulu wrote: » They are in a relationship of sorts, are they not? It is intimate and close, is it not??
Zulu wrote: » It's reasonably succinct isn't it? Do you disagree with it? If so, what's wrong with the definition?
__Alex__ wrote: » There are plenty of unglamorous jobs to go round for both genders. Women seem to be much more represented in cleaning. Does each 'thankless' task have to be staffed 50/50? Because some skew female. From his description, no it doesn't sound like they are. Sex doesn't equal intimacy otherwise numerous new relationships would be spawned every Saturday night. A hallmark of domestic violence is that the the victim has become beaten down mentally as much as physical by the abuse. It is usually insidious and long-term. Arguing that this is domestic violence is contrarian and you probably know it. If what is described happened, she sounds hideous. But it's not domestic violence based on what we have been told.
Lemming wrote: » I seem to recall that the US forces - I believe USMC - have accepted their first women in front-line roles (i.e. infantry, not support that happens to end up on the front-line). Plenty of US/UK female soldiers have found themselves at the sharp end, but almost all were not designated infantry roles. That distinction might be lost at the sharp-end of the stick mind you, but it does have an important bearing on recruitment, training & logistics, not to mention carries social & political baggage.
One eyed Jack wrote: » We don't have conscription in Ireland, I think you're safe.
One eyed Jack wrote: » So your solution to war is then to send more people to die, just in equal numbers to even up the gender quotas, as long as they're women?
__Alex__ wrote: » There are plenty of unglamorous jobs to go round for both genders. Women seem to be much more represented in cleaning. Does each 'thankless' task have to be staffed 50/50? Because some skew female.
Deleted User wrote: » Considering the nature of modern warfare, we're not going to have months to prepare and train troops. No country can anymore. There needs to be a standing army. That's just the way the world is although European countries have allowed themselves to lapse in this area... relying far too much on the US.
I wouldn't consider being a soldier or being conscripted a reward for being male. Yay! And yet, considering the numbers of women in the military, it must be a reward somehow.
Deleted User wrote: » My point is that there is a lot of talk about women being under-represented in politics, top management, academic areas, etc and it just strikes me as funny, that few are talking about how under-represented they are in the military.
Deleted User wrote: » We've also never been at war either (not including the civil war). Should a major war hit Europe, you really think Ireland will be able to remain neutral? You really think Russia or another major power will respect our neutrality if it means hitting Britain too? Just because we haven't been put in the situation before, doesn't mean it won't happen in our lifetimes. The outside world is changing rapidly, and nationalism is getting strong in many major countries.(Inside and outsde of Europe)
Deleted User wrote: » You just contradicted yourself in the your leading question. No. I, for one, am not demanding that women fight/die in equal numbers to men. I do, however, believe that if women want equality in other careers, then they should also be encouraged for the less appealing positions too.
Deleted User wrote: » Right now society and our culture seeks to protect women as being vulnerable and yet, also give them benefits beyond what a man has. That's punishment for men... not seeking equality.
Zulu wrote: » I note you avoided the second question. Because "you say so" isn't sufficient. Apparently: Domestic violence is the physical, emotional, sexual or mental abuse of one person by another within close, intimate or family relationship. They are in a relationship of sorts, are they not? It is intimate and close, is it not?? There is at least one example of physical abuse, is there not??? Perhaps you follow feminist dogma; perhaps men can't be the victims of domestic abuse, I don't know, but what I do know is that your very quick to ignore the possibility, and very eager to move past it. Why is that?
lazybones32 wrote: » Your attempt to get this incident covered as DV is like that yoke in the AH thread who said 'no' 3 times but later consented to sex but now wants her 'experience' to be classified and accepted as rape. Lowering the bar to include everything as dv won't help anyone; least of all the genuine cases.
red ears wrote: » I have to say folks i am utterly scunnered with woman's issues, everyday we hear or read something about woman's issues.. today it has been relentless.
FortySeven wrote: » I think it is international womans day. It's funny because an MP (Phillip Davies) here in the UK recently brought up the idea of an international mens day and was hounded out of the parliament by those 'poorly' represented women. Go figure. (He was then appointed to the 'Womens and Equality Commsision where his first question was why the gender disparity in the name of a commission of equality? He was then labelled an anti-feminist nazi, we await his response.)
FortySeven wrote: » You should take a walk to your local court, go to the court office and read the definitions of domestic violence that are provided there in a wall poster by womens aid. (I have) Raising your voice, phoning to ask when they will be home, name calling, putting them down, checking their phone. These are family court accepted norms of domestic abuse, family court is held in secret and the burden of proof is not required. An allegation is enough to cost a man his home, his children and a large part of his paycheck. Solicitors refer to it as the silver bullet. Quickest way to get what you want.Now. I was forcefully assaulted whilst being called names and if you want to say that was trivial then I must refer you back to those family court accepted womens aid definitions. Who is trivialising this exactly? In reply to others who seem to think I somehow demeaned myself by later having sex with her (or demeaned her by having my jollies, not really sure what you were trying to imply) It is socially acceptable for women to strike men. It happens every day on tv, in films and in real life. Women celebrate a man being put in his place if he does something wrong. You go girl! It's not so long ago they broadcast loose women laughing about a story where a woman cut off a mans penis. No sanctions. I took it on the chin, calmed her down and later she was all over me like a rash. Make of that what you will. I don't care for anymore dissection of my sex life. In short, I was (by definition) assaulted. It was within a relationship. It is domestic violence and if the roles had been reversed and I had struck a woman who came to my door after ignoring me for a few weeks, I would be wearing a couple of uncomfortable bracelets in no short order. End of. I didn't make a complaint. I'm not complaining that it happened. I am merely pointing out the double standard men are forced to live by when it comes to DV. It is only going to get worse too under the new legislation being enacted right now. I hope this clarifies things somewhat.
FortySeven wrote: » You should take a walk to your local court, go to the court office and read the definitions of domestic violence that are provided there in a wall poster by womens aid. (I have) Raising your voice, phoning to ask when they will be home, name calling, putting them down, checking their phone. These are family court accepted norms of domestic abuse, family court is held in secret and the burden of proof is not required. An allegation is enough to cost a man his home, his children and a large part of his paycheck. Solicitors refer to it as the silver bullet. Quickest way to get what you want. Now. I was forcefully assaulted whilst being called names and if you want to say that was trivial then I must refer you back to those family court accepted womens aid definitions. Who is trivialising this exactly? In reply to others who seem to think I somehow demeaned myself by later having sex with her (or demeaned her by having my jollies, not really sure what you were trying to imply) It is socially acceptable for women to strike men. It happens every day on tv, in films and in real life. Women celebrate a man being put in his place if he does something wrong. You go girl! It's not so long ago they broadcast loose women laughing about a story where a woman cut off a mans penis. No sanctions. I took it on the chin, calmed her down and later she was all over me like a rash. Make of that what you will. I don't care for anymore dissection of my sex life. In short, I was (by definition) assaulted. It was within a relationship. It is domestic violence and if the roles had been reversed and I had struck a woman who came to my door after ignoring me for a few weeks, I would be wearing a couple of uncomfortable bracelets in no short order. End of. I didn't make a complaint. I'm not complaining that it happened. I am merely pointing out the double standard men are forced to live by when it comes to DV. It is only going to get worse too under the new legislation being enacted right now.I hope this clarifies things somewhat.
One eyed Jack wrote: » It doesn't clarify anything, you're still expecting people to swallow a load of nonsense as you want to claim you're the victim of sexism, and then tell people make of it what they will, you don't care for any more dissection of your sex life? Calling a woman giving you a slap after you've turned up on her doorstep, isn't domestic violence, by any stretch, and if you were actually put out by it, then yes, people are going to wonder why instead of reporting her for assault, you jumped into bed with her. How can you expect anyone to take that seriously?
red ears wrote: » Assaulting someone is assaulting someone regardless of what happens afterwards.
FortySeven wrote: » You miss the point entirely. I was assaulted. No ifs, no buts. What I choose to do about that is my prerogative, however much you believe it to be a nonsense. I'm not crying foul, I'm not looking for sympathy. I am merely pointing out double standards. If a woman went through that then it would not only be classed as domestic violence it would be prosecuted with malice. (Without her consent even) My dealing with the issue has no bearing on what occurred. Just as a woman who claims she walked into a door or fell down the stairs has any right to be ignored because she didn't report or later had sex with her attacker. No? My life, my choice. Same assault.
One eyed Jack wrote: » But you didn't claim you walked into a door or fell down the stairs, did you fall into her bed too? The rest of your posts hinges literally on having people use their imagination. So it's imaginary sexism, in your own head. It's not even actual sexism at all then, it's just your perception. Where is this woman btw and I'll go have a stern word with her?
lazybones32 wrote: » Ever see what some Jap businessmen pay to get done to them?
Deleted User wrote: » You really think that women would ask for gender balance or advantages starting from the bottom upwards?
FortySeven wrote: » Yep. Durty buggers. However, that's choice. Very different.
FortySeven wrote: » However, I was recently slapped by a woman for no reason other than I failed to communicate with her.You are saying this is socially acceptable and I agree. My point is that we need to change this acceptability that women can assault men. What say you?
One eyed Jack wrote: » Whoa!! Dial back there. If that's what you took from my posts then you took me up completely wrong. I never once said it was socially acceptable for a woman to hit a man, under any circumstances. There's no need to change anything, most people would say it's unacceptable for a woman to hit a man. However, the exchange between yourself and your lady friend is not a very good example of domestic violence in a relationship as you admit yourself there was no relationship, only friendship, and it's not an example I would consider useful in arguing a case of sexism in domestic violence cases against men.
FortySeven wrote: » Again, I'm going to push the role reversal angle. If a woman, who was having a relationship with a man, this relationship being one of a mutual agreement whereupon the companionship was of a sexual nature with no outcome........... Perfectly reasonable? A normal kind of thing. (I dare you to question a womans right to do as she pleases) This relationship then deteriorates to a point where she decides to rekindle it only to be met with physical assault. Verbal abuse of the highest order. She then posts on a discussion board what happened. Please don't make me re-reg to show what the response would be if my name was 'black-eyecup_cake.' There is a part of me who would love to take every post from a year ago in relationship issues and reverse the genders to see what responses would be forthcoming. Gender perception is ingrained and desperately bias towards women. Men are advised to 'man up'. Women are advised to play victim and take men for all they have. Cest la vie.
One eyed Jack wrote: » That seems to be all you're interested in, reversing the genders, and then you imagine it would play out differently. So you haven't experienced sexism (in this instance at least), and yet you want people to make of it what they will. I've made of your example what I'm going to make of it, and it wasn't sexism, and no amount of imagination will make it sexism you have personally experienced. What makes you think I have never questioned a woman's right to do as she pleases though? Is that your own gender perception that seems desperately ingrained and biased against women? For what it's worth btw, I was never told to 'man up', and I've never told anyone to man up either. Make of that what you will, because I think I've entertained this nonsense far enough.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9c6ef39403f5dc93bd4b9e77a11c1821.svg)
