Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Is it seen as acceptable for women to hit men?

135

Comments

  • #102
    wallycharlo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 344 ✭✭wallycharlo


    Galwayguy35 wrote: »
    She grabbed my balls and squeezed them, so what in your opinion should I have done?

    I've actually had that happen to me as well once. Did she squeeze you enough to be in pain? In my case it was a soft type of squeeze let's say, and I snapped at her and told her in no uncertain terms not to do it again.

    If it had been hard enough to hurt me badly though, I think I may have clattered her instinctively.


  • #103
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 54,285 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    This post has been deleted.


  • #104
    Galwayguy35
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,780 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    wallycharlo wrote: »
    I've actually had that happen to me as well once. Did she squeeze you enough to be in pain? In my case it was a soft type of squeeze let's say, and I snapped at her and told her in no uncertain terms not to do it again.

    If it had been hard enough to hurt me badly though, I think I may have clattered her instinctively.

    It hurt a small bit all right but to be fair that wasn't her intention, it was part of some Hen Party dare thing to go up behind some stranger and grab his crotch.

    Personally I would have to feel that I was in real danger of getting hurt before hitting out at someone of either sex.


  • #105
    gctest50
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,605 ✭✭✭gctest50


    The Corinthian wrote: »

    Consider the following example:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKbM0KOPrSQ


    .

    Part of a campaign ~kids that witness violence

    http://www.familievold.dk/


  • #106
    iptba
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,898 ✭✭✭iptba


    Emme wrote: »
    Perhaps female aggression is misplaced rage - ie anger at the man who left the woman when she had his child or a man in authority who abused her.
    If one is going to suggest such things, similar points could be made about male aggression e.g. perhaps male aggression is misplaced anger, anger at a woman who left with his child/children (or had an abortion when he didn't want her to or whatever), or woman who got him into trouble for reporting him for something or some other analogous thing.


  • #107
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Emme wrote: »
    Perhaps female aggression is misplaced rage - ie anger at the man who left the woman when she had his child or a man in authority who abused her. There is no excuse for violence except in extreme cases, say where a woman is fighting off someone trying to attack her child and there is no other way of defending them.
    I'd be careful going down the road of understanding why, because it quickly becomes the road to justifying why.

    One of the things that we've seen in numerous domestic violence, including homicide, cases, whereby the woman is the perpetrator and the man the victim, is the "she was pushed to it" defence, thus conveniently turning the perpetrator into a victim - Lorena Bobbitt being a classic example. Please note the groups supporting her defence, BTW.
    Again, why are women becoming so aggressive?
    Nobody 'became' anything; they were always like this - female-on-male domestic violence was simply (as with male-on-female domestic violence) seen as part of life, or even humorous:

    acap3.jpg

    What happened is that there's been so much propaganda about male-on-female domestic violence with the reverse completely ignored, and this has left us believing that domestic violence is and always been only one-way.

    Women have always had a tendency twoards violence, just like men have; the idea that women can only be victims or violent in retaliation or because of male-on-female violence is a myth spun during the latter half of the twentieth century by feminism.


  • #108
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    I went to see the Purge, interesting premise but it is a silly film, anyway it did depict woman acting out in a very violent way and women took part in the purge just as much as men, although it did portray the women as following the men in violent behaviour as opposed to women leading the violent behaviour. If you want to see where a topic is culturally in our society look at how it is portrayed in the media.

    I would say it is beginning to be acknowledged that women can be as violent as men, but there is a still a subtle undertone that says woman only become violent to protect themselves or their family.


  • #109
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    mariaalice wrote: »
    I went to see the Purge, interesting premise but it is a silly film, anyway it did depict woman acting out in a very violent way and women took part in the purge just as much as men, although it did portray the women as following the men in violent behaviour as opposed to women leading the violent behaviour. If you want to see where a topic is culturally in our society look at how it is portrayed in the media.

    I would say it is beginning to be acknowledged that women can be as violent as men, but there is a still a subtle undertone that says woman only become violent to protect themselves or their family.

    If you are watching American films then you have to consider violence id a heroic glorified activity.

    We have always had violence even in our humour. The Honeymooners and The Three Stooges for example.

    We are all capable of violence to certain degrees whether we are the abused dog who eventually snaps at their owner or a controlling individual with impulse problems or sadists. Some more than others.

    I think as you see women gain more status you Will see them also get more violent. I say this because with more status comes more entitlement. It wont just be the occasional nut like Aries or Bobbit. More women will own guns too. Women are in combat now and gentility is seen less and less as a female trait.

    The reason women on films have to be the hapless victims is so that Hollywood can retain the masculine heroic model.

    Did you see "Chicago?" Musical theatre but all about violent women.

    But you also have to consider how much these things actually reflect reality and how much they are entertaining.

    I dont know many women going around with knives and yellow jump suits like Uma Thurman in "Kill Bill."


  • #110
    discus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,049 ✭✭✭discus


    enigmatical wrote: »
    It's definitely not taken as seriously.

    I saw a guy getting beaten up by his very physically capable girlfriend in London one day and everyone was just kinda giggling at him.

    The poor guy was being absolutely pounded. I called the police and to be fair they did respond, cuffed her and took her off. (I was watching from inside a cafe).

    That's horrible... I find it a bit worse in a way, because if the genders were reversed, people would intervene in seconds. I've been in 1 or 2 situations in my life where I was totally overwhelmed and completely helpless, and maybe that's why I, as a man, have a bias of empathy towards that man.


  • #111
    kat.mac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭kat.mac


    To answer the question in the OP - yes, unfortunately, I think it is often seen as acceptable for a woman to hit a man.

    However to me, it is no more or no less acceptable that a man hitting a woman. Most of the women I know would be well able to hold their own, physically, against most of the guys I know, so I'm not sure why there's a difference in the perception of male-on-female violence and female-on-male violence. Violence is violence.

    A specific case that I always think of when this issue comes up is the Tiger Woods incident. I found both the media treatment and the public reaction to the news that Elin Nordegren had gone after her husband with a golf club absolutely abhorrent. It was almost seen as comical. If a high-profile man chased his cheating wife with a golf club, he'd be (quite rightly) vilified.

    The Corinthian wrote: »
    What happened is that there's been so much propaganda about male-on-female domestic violence with the reverse completely ignored, and this has left us believing that domestic violence is and always been only one-way.

    I really have to take issue with this. Leaving aside extremist feminism which is laced with misandry, feminist groups and women's advocacy groups have a specific aim - to highlight female issues, of which we know domestic violence is one. I can't see why you would have a problem with them doing a good job on that. I have never once heard a women's advocacy group claiming that domestic violence is, or has ever been, a one-way problem.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    The notion that it is acceptable for women to hit men, but not vice versa, is based on the idea that woman cannot harm men by hitting them, they can only annoy them, where as a man can do serious damage to a woman. It is also based on the idea that physical damage to a man is something he should brush off, where as if a woman gets damaged that is more permanently scarring for her.

    It is similar to how you might say you are not justified in kicking a toddler across the room because he slapped you on the knee.

    Its nonsense of course, there are plenty of women who are more than capable of doing serious harm to a man, and plenty of men who if they did hit a woman would do so in a fashion that does not seriously hurt her.

    If a woman hit me I would have no problem hitting her back with the same intensity that she hit me.

    For example

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mkr3f_Hc_cI


  • #113
    Mollyd90
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 608 ✭✭✭Mollyd90


    If another man groped you in a night club what would do?


  • #114
    folan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,630 ✭✭✭folan


    its definitely seen as acceptable for for women to strike a man, under almost any presence.

    the sickening assumption that a man automatically deserves anything he gets is entirely wrong, and the type of sexism that hurts the fabric of equality.


  • #115
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    Mollyd90 wrote: »
    If another man groped you in a night club what would do?
    I wouldn't automatically hit him is what I would do.


  • #116
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    kat.mac wrote: »
    I really have to take issue with this. Leaving aside extremist feminism which is laced with misandry, feminist groups and women's advocacy groups have a specific aim - to highlight female issues, of which we know domestic violence is one. I can't see why you would have a problem with them doing a good job on that.
    I thought these were organizations that oppose domestic violence, not women's advocacy groups? If they're the latter, they certainly don't identify very often as such.

    Is Safe Ireland a women's advocacy group? According to their Web site it is "the only national organisation representing frontline domestic violence services in Ireland (including refuges)." It then goes on to only discuss only domestic violence against women and children.

    Or maybe the Rape Crisis Centre? Maybe they only mention domestic violence is mentioned in relation to women because of their focus on rape and rape is something that only women can be victims of - oh, wait, that's not true either...

    ...ironically the the Rape Crisis Centre does accept that men can be victims of various forms of abuse, but it doesn't appear to recognise domestic violence as one of them.

    Even a quick Google on the subject will throw up articles on sites that certainly don't claim to be women's advocacy groups that also only wish to discuss women (and occasionally children) as the sole victims.

    So these organizations have seemingly set themselves up to represent all who suffer domestic violence, not just women, effectively blocking any men's advocacy groups from doing the same.

    So if "extremist feminism, which is laced with misandry", is the cause of such sentiments, then I'm afraid the lunatics have taken over the asylum.
    I have never once heard a women's advocacy group claiming that domestic violence is, or has ever been, a one-way problem.
    A lie of omission or obfuscation is still a lie. Feel free to show us examples of such groups that give anything other than the most cursory mention of female-on-male violence. Many don't even mention men, beyond being perpetrators.

    And this I take issue with.


  • #117
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    I thought these were organizations that oppose domestic violence, not women's advocacy groups? If they're the latter, they certainly don't identify very often as such.

    Is Safe Ireland a women's advocacy group? According to their Web site it is "the only national organisation representing frontline domestic violence services in Ireland (including refuges)." It then goes on to only discuss only domestic violence against women and children.

    Or maybe the Rape Crisis Centre? Maybe they only mention domestic violence is mentioned in relation to women because of their focus on rape and rape is something that only women can be victims of - oh, wait, that's not true either...

    ...ironically the the Rape Crisis Centre does accept that men can be victims of various forms of abuse, but it doesn't appear to recognise domestic violence as one of them.

    Even a quick Google on the subject will throw up articles on sites that certainly don't claim to be women's advocacy groups that also only wish to discuss women (and occasionally children) as the sole victims.

    So these organizations have seemingly set themselves up to represent all who suffer domestic violence, not just women, effectively blocking any men's advocacy groups from doing the same.

    So if "extremist feminism, which is laced with misandry", is the cause of such sentiments, then I'm afraid the lunatics have taken over the asylum.

    A lie of omission or obfuscation is still a lie. Feel free to show us examples of such groups that give anything other than the most cursory mention of female-on-male violence. Many don't even mention men, beyond being perpetrators.

    And this I take issue with.

    It is ironically such groups that only focus on women victims (some times on purpose some times due to innocent ignorance), that only help to re-enforce the notion that gender is an important factor in crime and crime prevention.

    If you talk to a male victim of rape or domenstic abuse surprisingly saying he is a statistical anomaly is not comforting. The modern feminist movement really should know better, as they have made a strong push (correctly in my opinion) to focus on individual experience, in the sense that every victim is important not matter what demographic they fall into (this is largely to combat the lack of minorities in feminists groups).

    Of course the obvious issue is that this is totally nullified if you only apply it to women. Every victims experience is important ... if you are a woman.


  • #118
    iptba
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,898 ✭✭✭iptba


    kat.mac wrote: »
    To answer the question in the OP - yes, unfortunately, I think it is often seen as acceptable for a woman to hit a man.

    However to me, it is no more or no less acceptable that a man hitting a woman. Most of the women I know would be well able to hold their own, physically, against most of the guys I know, so I'm not sure why there's a difference in the perception of male-on-female violence and female-on-male violence. Violence is violence.

    A specific case that I always think of when this issue comes up is the Tiger Woods incident. I found both the media treatment and the public reaction to the news that Elin Nordegren had gone after her husband with a golf club absolutely abhorrent. It was almost seen as comical. If a high-profile man chased his cheating wife with a golf club, he'd be (quite rightly) vilified.
    Don't feel I can give the whole post a "thanks" but would have for the bit above. Thanks.


  • #119
    iptba
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,898 ✭✭✭iptba


    Zombrex wrote: »
    It is ironically such groups that only focus on women victims (some times on purpose some times due to innocent ignorance), that only help to re-enforce the notion that gender is an important factor in crime and crime prevention.
    Another related ironic thing, for want of a better word, is they have often used the phrase "end the silence on domestic violence" but have at best not helped male domestic violence victims with their one-sided campaigns and education programmes for professionals, and probably made things worse for some.


  • #120
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Zombrex wrote: »
    It is ironically such groups that only focus on women victims (some times on purpose some times due to innocent ignorance), that only help to re-enforce the notion that gender is an important factor in crime and crime prevention.
    Which, I suspect, may be part of the catalyst for recent calls to abolish custodial sentences for women - but that's another discussion.
    Of course the obvious issue is that this is totally nullified if you only apply it to women. Every victims experience is important ... if you are a woman.
    But only if you're not a lesbian. Another irony of portraying women only as victims and never as perpetrators of domestic violence is that it doesn't help lesbians, in relationships, who are victims of domestic violence.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    kat.mac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭kat.mac


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    I thought these were organizations that oppose domestic violence, not women's advocacy groups? If they're the latter, they certainly don't identify very often as such.

    Is Safe Ireland a women's advocacy group? According to their Web site it is "the only national organisation representing frontline domestic violence services in Ireland (including refuges)." It then goes on to only discuss only domestic violence against women and children.

    Or maybe the Rape Crisis Centre? Maybe they only mention domestic violence is mentioned in relation to women because of their focus on rape and rape is something that only women can be victims of - oh, wait, that's not true either...

    ...ironically the the Rape Crisis Centre does accept that men can be victims of various forms of abuse, but it doesn't appear to recognise domestic violence as one of them.

    Even a quick Google on the subject will throw up articles on sites that certainly don't claim to be women's advocacy groups that also only wish to discuss women (and occasionally children) as the sole victims.

    So these organizations have seemingly set themselves up to represent all who suffer domestic violence, not just women, effectively blocking any men's advocacy groups from doing the same.

    So if "extremist feminism, which is laced with misandry", is the cause of such sentiments, then I'm afraid the lunatics have taken over the asylum.

    A lie of omission or obfuscation is still a lie. Feel free to show us examples of such groups that give anything other than the most cursory mention of female-on-male violence. Many don't even mention men, beyond being perpetrators.

    And this I take issue with.

    Corinthian, I normally disagree with a lot of what you say, but you've given me serious food for thought here.


  • #122
    iptba
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,898 ✭✭✭iptba


    Just got an e-mail with this in it.
    "Are You Normal?"
    {A survey about Americans, their habits and actions.}

    Facts about Americans. Did you know that...

    [..]

    40% of all women have hurled footwear at a man
    I can't find the provenance for this statement but it seems to be around the internet a lot including as a "fun fact"


  • #123
    Dravokivich
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,360 CMod ✭✭✭✭Dravokivich


    I wouldn't waste my time with that kind of crap iptba. I was looking through that flip board app on my phone. It's got a subscription on it called "Mind Numbing Facts." I've yet to see one thing on it, that isn't a quotation or an obscure remark about a picture. Your e-mail above appears to be of the same ilk. Poorly published material.


  • #124
    wallycharlo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 344 ✭✭wallycharlo


    It's widely accepted that 57% of all generalised statistics are just made up :D


  • #125
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    Dravokivich wrote: »
    I wouldn't waste my time with that kind of crap iptba. I was looking through that flip board app on my phone. It's got a subscription on it called "Mind Numbing Facts." I've yet to see one thing on it, that isn't a quotation or an obscure remark about a picture. Your e-mail above appears to be of the same ilk. Poorly published material.

    I don't think they're referring to accuracy of the statistics given, but rather to the fact that violence against men is considered a 'fun fact' when the perpetrator is a woman.


  • #126
    Dravokivich
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,360 CMod ✭✭✭✭Dravokivich


    Which is why I said it appears to be poorly published material, more so than anything else.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    KTRIC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭KTRIC


    Newtons 3rd law of motion - "For every action is an equal and opposite reaction"

    If I get a slap / punch it'll be returned with the same force. If you can give it out you should be able to take it, no mater what sex you are.


  • #128
    kleefarr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,744 ✭✭✭kleefarr


    Neeson wrote: »
    Yes. But you can't go about battering each other either. There must be another way?

    Yes, pistols at dawn!!


  • #129
    julies boy
    Registered Users Posts: 39 ✭julies boy


    the other question is if a women rapes a man ??? is this posable


  • #130
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 54,285 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    This post has been deleted.


  • #131
    _Whimsical_
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,959 ✭✭✭_Whimsical_


    Mollyd90 wrote: »
    If another man groped you in a night club what would do?
    Rev Hellfire wrote: »
    I wouldn't automatically hit him is what I would do.


    I'm not addressing you specifically here Rev just taking up the point, would the men here not feel more intimidated if a man groped you than if a woman groped you? If the man in question was sizeably bigger than you? What if it has happened to you before,left you feeling violated or vulnerable and responsible for not having made more effort to stop it because you were embarrassed?What if you felt concerned that a "stop" wasn't sufficient to stop him and you weren't sure where his advances would end if you didn't make an unequivocal statement of non compliance you felt he'd understand like maybe hit him?
    You'd probably have to take into consideration that he'd likely be drunk and not too amenable to reason and that he's lost inhibition to the point that he thinks groping is ok.

    If you can't understand the level of threat,the sense of violation that can accompany an experience like that and how your response to that might be coloured by previous bad experiences you're really not relating to what it feels like to have that happen to a woman.

    I've never hit anyone in my life, there no situation in which I think"well if someone did X I'd hit that person" but I'd understand that if someone initiates something physical with someone that its quite likely they'd be met by the same if the person they did it to felt threatened..

    From reading this thread anyone would believe that men across the country were being laid out cold by women on a daily basis. If it happens to one it is too many certainly,but taking this particular issue of response to public groping to highlight an underlying societal misandry is unfair and unwarranted.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    CarlDunne1979
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 90 ✭✭CarlDunne1979


    Feminists tend to only want to take biological differences into account in cases where they gain privilege from doing so. They complain about "slut shaming" yet not the fact that violence against men is deemed more acceptable than violence against women, even though there is no difference in the amount of pain either gender feels when hit/assaulted.


  • #133
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    _Whimsical_ wrote: »
    I'm not addressing you specifically here Rev just taking up the point, would the men here not feel more intimidated if a man groped you than if a woman groped you?
    Is there a scale for being uncomfortable when it becomes actionable?
    Are you saying a small man groping a woman is more acceptable than a larger man doing the same.
    _Whimsical_ wrote: »
    What if you felt concerned that a "stop" wasn't sufficient to stop him and you weren't sure where his advances would end if you didn't make an unequivocal statement of non compliance you felt he'd understand like maybe hit him?
    Unless the man or woman was physically restraining me I could take the matter up with the people policing the venue or with the authorities.

    The key word in the quote you used is 'automatically'.

    I'm not saying I wouldn't defend myself, I'm saying its not the default position to start from.
    _Whimsical_ wrote: »
    From reading this thread anyone would believe that men across the country were being laid out cold by women on a daily basis. If it happens to one it is too many certainly,but taking this particular issue of response to public groping to highlight an underlying societal misandry is unfair and unwarranted.
    Seriously? We're just being hysterical men.


  • #134
    Esoteric_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,255 ✭✭✭✭Esoteric_


    CarlDunne1979 wrote: »
    Feminists tend to only want to take biological differences into account in cases where they gain privilege from doing so. They complain about "slut shaming" yet not the fact that violence against men is deemed more acceptable than violence against women, even though there is no difference in the amount of pain either gender feels when hit/assaulted.

    I wouldn't consider myself a feminist as such, but I'm very interested in women's rights, and am also a firm believer that 'slut shaming' should be abolished.

    Funnily enough, despite the generalisation you've just made about a huge group of women, we don't all think that way.

    I think the fact that violence against men is under-reported, both to the police and in the media, is disgusting. I hate that bar Amen, there are almost no outlets for men to speak about their feelings or seek help in a safe, welcoming environment. Sure, the RCC and other services are available to them, but when their sole focus appears to be on women and their rights, how can a man feel comfortable going there?

    So please, don't tar us all with the one brush. Violence against men is a problem that needs to be reported and spoken about much more, to break the taboo and stigma surrounding it.


  • #135
    Femme_Fatale
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,628 ✭✭✭Femme_Fatale


    Esoteric_ wrote: »
    So please, don't tar us all with the one brush.
    Good luck with that. :pac:

    Yes it is deemed less of an issue, to the point indeed of being acceptable in some cases, for a man to be slapped by a woman. A full-on beating, not as acceptable, but a slap - for sure. It's an all-too common depiction in television and film and it makes me wince, and bugs the hell out of me that it's just a standard plot gag.
    I don't know, as suggested, that it always causes the same effect as sexual assault (of anyone, male or female) and I'm not sure why that person claims such a thing to be fact, but a woman slapping a man is unacceptable, and far too many people don't seem to have a problem with it.

    In principle I'd only agree with hitting back in self defence - whatever the genders, but things aren't always as straightforward as that.


  • #136
    _Whimsical_
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,959 ✭✭✭_Whimsical_


    Rev Hellfire wrote: »
    Is there a scale for being uncomfortable when it becomes actionable?
    Are you saying a small man groping a woman is more acceptable than a larger man doing the same.

    Do I think there's an acceptable level of groping of men or women? No, not at all. I have no idea where you are coming from with that.

    Is there a scale of discomfort in these situations, yes. I'd say it's based on how much of a credible threat the groper stands to be to you. That'd take into account their behaviour and their physical strength and size in relation to your own. Also it probably takes in previous experience of similar situations that have made a person sensitive to those kind of unwanted overtures.

    Rev Hellfire wrote: »
    Unless the man or woman was physically restraining me I could take the matter up with the people policing the venue or with the authorities.

    The key word in the quote you used is 'automatically'.

    I'm not saying I wouldn't defend myself, I'm saying its not the default position to start from.

    I wasn't addressing your post specifically, as I explained I was just using it as a point to take up to enter the discussion. I think that the correct course of action would be to do as you say,that's what I would also do.Not just because I dislike violence in any form but because I'd be afraid to hit someone and get into a physical fight. However the point I was making was that people do not always react sensibly in the face of a threat. They often take ill advised measures they perceive as protective or they try and assert themselves as not to be messed with by lashing out. I'm not saying its a good idea, but I think it can be understandable in the face of provocation.
    We are talking about a nightclub too, not everyone is going to act rationally after drink is consumed.



    Rev Hellfire wrote: »
    Seriously? We're just being hysterical men.

    I didn't say that either. It's not hysteria, in this specific case though my opinion was that people are looking at the issue through a lens/paradigm of misandry and seeing something that isn't there. It's more threatened person v's aggressor. Not women v's men.


  • #137
    iptba
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,898 ✭✭✭iptba


    _Whimsical_ wrote: »
    I wasn't addressing your post specifically, as I explained I was just using it as a point to take up to enter the discussion. I think that the correct course of action would be to do as you say,that's what I would also do.Not just because I dislike violence in any form but because I'd be afraid to hit someone and get into a physical fight. However the point I was making was that people do not always react sensibly in the face of a threat. They often take ill advised measures they perceive as protective or they try and assert themselves as not to be messed with by lashing out. I'm not saying its a good idea, but I think it can be understandable in the face of provocation.
    We are talking about a nightclub too, not everyone is going to act rationally after drink is consumed.
    The question is whether the sexes are treated equally. To take the most extrement situation: in the case of Caroline Brennan for example: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=64566921 , she stabbed her brother to death, without it being self-defence and just got a suspended case. Men can feel threatened by other men but if it's not immediate self-defense, they're likely to have to spend time in jail.

    It seems possible more leeway is given to women: a more forgiving attitude is taken for them "losing it"/"losing their head" than a man "losing it"/"losing their head".

    Just because an action might be partly excusable, doesn't mean it should automatically be fully excusable.


  • #138
    jaffacakesyum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,207 ✭✭✭jaffacakesyum


    iptba wrote: »
    The question is whether the sexes are treated equally. To take the most extrement situation: in the case of Caroline Brennan for example: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=64566921 , she stabbed her brother to death, without it being self-defence and just got a suspended case. Men can feel threatened by other men but if it's not immediate self-defense, they're likely to have to spend time in jail.

    It seems possible more leeway is given to women: a more forgiving attitude is taken for them "losing it"/"losing their head" than a man "losing it"/"losing their head".

    Just because an action might be partly excusable, doesn't mean it should automatically be fully excusable.

    But men get suspended sentences for atrocious crimes all the time in Ireland. It's Ireland's shítty courts in that case IMO. Male or female, you can (literally) get away with murder in this country.

    I do agree that violence against men is seen as more acceptable than violence against women or children though. But it isn't a women vs men issue so let's not make it that. It's a men's issue and is important IMO.

    However, I do think that both violence from men against other men and violence from women against men is more acceptable than male violence against women. So, as I said, it is not a women vs men thing. It is a "everyone" vs men thing I think. I think that's important to distinguish so these discussions don't turn into a anti-woman rant.


  • #139
    iptba
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,898 ✭✭✭iptba


    jaffacakesyum wrote: »
    But men get suspended sentences for atrocious crimes all the time in Ireland. It's Ireland's shítty courts in that case IMO. Male or female, you can (literally) get away with murder in this country.

    I do agree that violence against men is seen as more acceptable than violence against women or children though. But it isn't a women vs men issue so let's not make it that. It's a men's issue and is important IMO.

    However, I do think that both violence from men against other men and violence from women against men is more acceptable than male violence against women. So, as I said, it is not a women vs men thing. It is a "everyone" vs men thing I think. I think that's important to distinguish so these discussions don't turn into a anti-woman rant.
    What I said wasn't an anti-woman rant (not clear if you are saying that or not). Having the same standards for men and women isn't about being anti-woman. Indeed, I think the reason why there may be more tolerance for women lashing out is that women are seen as more emotional than men and hence can't control themselves, which could be said to be a type of way of being "anti-woman".


  • #140
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    jaffacakesyum wrote: »
    But men get suspended sentences for atrocious crimes all the time in Ireland. It's Ireland's shítty courts in that case IMO. Male or female, you can (literally) get away with murder in this country.
    Except that women are significantly more likely to get away with murder, or anything else, than men.

    Let's look at some figures from the UK, for example:
    • To begin with we see is that women who commit crimes are far less likely to be prosecuted or receive custodial sentences. Overall 49% of women will be cautioned rather than arrested, against 30% of men and in many cases this gap is significantly greater, such as robbery (9% vs 4%), sexual offences (47% vs 18%), violence (65% vs 42%) and theft (56% vs 30%).
    • Furthermore, once arrested, persons proceeded against for indictable offences per 1,000 estimated resident population, by sex, works out at 14.5 men versus only 2.3 women - which is a huge difference. The report concludes that "as a proportion of all those cautioned/warned and proceeded against, females were more likely than males to receive a caution, irrespective of age group. This was true across all offence types."
    • Where it comes to custodial sentences the trend continues, with 25% of men against 15% of women sentenced to immediate custody for indictable offences (p.35).
    This is before one considers de jure discrimination - whereby the law blatantly discriminates against men, in writing; such as laws that specifically cite shorter sentences for women than men, for the same crime. Or give women immunity from a crime.

    So you can't really claim that it's an issue that affects both men and women equally; in reality it affects men significantly more than women and to add insult onto injury the lower incarceration rate of women, which is aided by such biases, is even being used as an argument by feminism in favour of abolishing custodial sentences for women altogether - so if anyone is making it a men vs women issue, it's feminism.
    However, I do think that both violence from men against other men and violence from women against men is more acceptable than male violence against women. So, as I said, it is not a women vs men thing. It is a "everyone" vs men thing I think. I think that's important to distinguish so these discussions don't turn into a anti-woman rant.
    If you look to another thread on another forum (that may not be named here) at present, you precisely have a women vs men discussion taking place over the recent 'slut shaming' incident though.

    What the misandrist venting there seems to ignore, of course, is that such attitudes cut both ways; just as the attitude that a woman who enjoys sex should be 'shamed', the same attitude effectively 'shames' men who might not. The most obscene example of this is in cases where female teachers have had sex with under-age male students; over and over again the victims are referred to as 'lucky' to have gotten laid, and this in turn has resulted in lenient sentences for the predators in question.

    As for the 'slut shaming' incident? The message pushed is simple; men are at fault, women are victims and no doubt there will be demand for a law to punish men, which as usual fails to deal with the underlying issue, just as gender quotas fail to address the actual reason why women are so under represented in the higher levels of business and politics.

    So, if you're going to argue that it's not a men vs women thing, please do - but you're doing so on the wrong thread.


  • #141
    Henry9
    Registered Users Posts: 418 ✭✭Henry9


    Of course it's not a 'women vs man thing', once the discrepancy is highlighted.
    Like a lot of issues which 'should not be turned into a gender war', long after the feminist lobby have done just that for years.

    Another recent example from the UK.

    The male teacher who took a female student to France is the 'paedo teacher'

    http://metro.co.uk/2013/06/22/jeremy-forrest-trial-schoolgirl-still-loves-paedophile-teacher-3851604/

    Google search for his image and it's all pictures of him in handcuffs or looking all weird and creepy.

    A similar case was in June of this year when a female teacher was convicted of assaulting a male student.
    She received a suspended sentence and community work.
    But the breathtaking thing is how the media treated the case.

    The press called it 'an affair', which is an extraordinary use of terminology.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2359404/Revealed-The-dirty-text-messages-sent-teacher-24-pupil-16-week-affair-tattooed-body.html

    She sent 'dirty text messages', not 'sick' ones obviously.
    The judge said:

    ‘You were drawn to this boy in the emotional aftermath of your fiancé ending his relationship with you, but that does not excuse your conduct in any way.
    ‘Your actions were selfish and motivated by a need to boost your own damaged self-esteem by encouraging him to have a sexual interest in you.

    In other words, the poor woman was so emotional she can't be held accountable for her actions. The purpose of the 'affair' was to boost her self esteem, poor thing.
    I must have missed all of the hand wringing articles from the feminist lobby complaining about unfairness and gender stereotyping.

    This is the front page of the sun. Absolutely extraordinary.
    Worth remembering the next time there's a court case which shows that women are 'second class citizens'.

    insegnante_i.jpg
    &h=857&w=660&sz=56&tbnid=HEeWFLVqXNJi6M:&tbnh=90&tbnw=69&zoom=1&usg=__lDWl-u5sCuw-p0LSrmK8bx_hl8Y=&docid=z6E0MmPn8eRokM&sa=X&ei=sCIXUpT2DMKdtQb4jYGYBw&sqi=2&ved=0CEMQ9QEwBA&dur=3334



  • Advertisement
  • #142
    jaffacakesyum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,207 ✭✭✭jaffacakesyum


    iptba wrote: »
    What I said wasn't an anti-woman rant (not clear if you are saying that or not). Having the same standards for men and women isn't about being anti-woman. Indeed, I think the reason why there may be more tolerance for women lashing out is that women are seen as more emotional than men and hence can't control themselves, which could be said to be a type of way of being "anti-woman".

    Oh no, I'm absolutely not saying that. I'm just saying that a lot of these threads do turn into a "men vs women" thing.

    As for your bit in bold, I do think that women are seen as more emotional than men however I don't think that's the reason lashing out is seen as more acceptable from women, given the fact (or my opinion that) it is acceptable for men to lash out so long as it is against other men. I do agree with your last line.
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Except that women are significantly more likely to get away with murder, or anything else, than men.

    Let's look at some figures from the UK, for example

    That's very interesting. I can't argue with facts. Can I ask though (as I really don't want to read the whole document, and I imagine you have) are the results actually statistically significant or are you just calling them significant? Some of them certainly appear as if they would be statistically significant, while others, there is not such a huge difference. Also - do you have any figures for Ireland? As I said, I know little about the UK courts systems, but all I know is that every day you get a new case where someone in Ireland (male or female) commits an atrocious crime and gets a suspended sentence. To me I see no gender difference in Ireland, but I would like to see the facts.
    If you look to another thread on another forum (that may not be named here) at present, you precisely have a women vs men discussion taking place over the recent 'slut shaming' incident though.

    I'm not sure what thread your referring to (I know you're not allowed so it will be difficult to discuss the below issues with you.
    What the misandrist venting there seems to ignore, of course, is that such attitudes cut both ways; just as the attitude that a woman who enjoys sex should be 'shamed', the same attitude effectively 'shames' men who might not.

    What do you mean? I don't understand this sentence.
    The most obscene example of this is in cases where female teachers have had sex with under-age male students; over and over again the victims are referred to as 'lucky' to have gotten laid, and this in turn has resulted in lenient sentences for the predators in question.

    Absolutely. I think this is a horrible major difference between genders. However, once again as I have referred to my opinions on what is acceptable violence wise, I think once again you'll find the majority of people who find this behavior more acceptable than if the genders were reversed, are indeed male. As a general point (not related to this thread but gender issues in general) I think this is a major difference between mens issues and feminist issues. While most females will agree on basic issues of equality, a lot of males don't appear to, which is a huge drawback in the success of male issues.
    As for the 'slut shaming' incident? The message pushed is simple; men are at fault, women are victims and no doubt there will be demand for a law to punish men, which as usual fails to deal with the underlying issue, just as gender quotas fail to address the actual reason why women are so under represented in the higher levels of business and politics.

    Oh, I think I know the incident now. Well this isn't the thread for it so I won't linger on it too long but I suspect you and I have very differing opinions on this incident as I wholly believe that it is indeed slut shaming (no need for me to put it in inverted comments, it is what it is). I don't think men are to blame at all for it, as both men and women are involved in the slut shaming. However, the reason men get the blame in issues like this I fear, is that there are no or very few negative consequences for males. They are either seen as legends or forgotton wheras forever the woman will be remembered as the slut.

    Anyway, sorry for the long reply but the figures you gave for the UK are very interesting and definitely show a trend so as I said, I'm not one to argue with facts.


  • #143
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    jaffacakesyum wrote: »
    Can I ask though (as I really don't want to read the whole document, and I imagine you have) are the results actually statistically significant or are you just calling them significant? Some of them certainly appear as if they would be statistically significant, while others, there is not such a huge difference.
    The one's I've quoted would be quite statistically significant, not only because they display such huge gaps, but also because they're not samples - they're totals.
    Also - do you have any figures for Ireland? As I said, I know little about the UK courts systems, but all I know is that every day you get a new case where someone in Ireland (male or female) commits an atrocious crime and gets a suspended sentence. To me I see no gender difference in Ireland, but I would like to see the facts.
    I've no data for Ireland, but it would not be unreasonable that, as with many other things, our own figures would be simelar.
    I'm not sure what thread your referring to (I know you're not allowed so it will be difficult to discuss the below issues with you.
    It's forbidden here to refer to certain other fora on Boards. I'm sure you can figure it out yourself though.
    What do you mean? I don't understand this sentence.
    Both men and women are 'conditioned' from an early age; women to be 'pure' and men to be 'players'. Just as a woman who is seen to engage in promiscuity is labelled a slut, men who do not are often labelled as 'gay'.

    The incident at the concert at Slane Castle recently saw this conditioning in play; the woman labelled a slut, the man cheered on (from what I've read as I've not seen it myself). However, to presume that this conditioning always favours men is simplistic, as I pointed out with the example of male child abuse by women.
    However, once again as I have referred to my opinions on what is acceptable violence wise, I think once again you'll find the majority of people who find this behavior more acceptable than if the genders were reversed, are indeed male.
    I'm not sure I'd agree with you there. Women are more than capable of being as bigoted as any man.
    As a general point (not related to this thread but gender issues in general) I think this is a major difference between mens issues and feminist issues. While most females will agree on basic issues of equality, a lot of males don't appear to, which is a huge drawback in the success of male issues.
    Early days. Even women's equality and what it meant was not fully defined a century ago.
    However, the reason men get the blame in issues like this I fear, is that there are no or very few negative consequences for males. They are either seen as legends or forgotton wheras forever the woman will be remembered as the slut.
    And as I pointed out, it's not as simple as that. This appears to be part of the common misconception that there's no downside to patriarchy for men.

    If that were true, women would historically be fighting wars, not men.


  • #144
    jaffacakesyum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,207 ✭✭✭jaffacakesyum


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    I've no data for Ireland, but it would not be unreasonable that, as with many other things, our own figures would be simelar.

    Not unreasonable at all, no. I would just be interested, as, as I said already it seems we all get the short stick when it comes to being protected from criminals. Both male and female seem to get off lightly.
    Both men and women are 'conditioned' from an early age; women to be 'pure' and men to be 'players'. Just as a woman who is seen to engage in promiscuity is labelled a slut, men who do not are often labelled as 'gay'.

    I wouldn't necessarily agree with this once you get past 16 year old teenage boys. I know men who sleep with a lot of women and I know men who it's just not their scene. I have never seen any of my friends even jokingly refer to someone who doesn't score a lot as gay, or someone who isn't into the partying sex-filled lifestyle and likes to keep things more private. I know it's just my experience but I honestly believe that as a woman the "slut" thing will carry with you all of your life. Wheras being considered "gay" if you don't score someone tends to be the subject of teenage discos, not "real life".
    The incident at the concert at Slane Castle recently saw this conditioning in play; the woman labelled a slut, the man cheered on (from what I've read as I've not seen it myself). However, to presume that this conditioning always favours men is simplistic, as I pointed out with the example of male child abuse by women.

    Ah sorry, I didn't understand initially how you were linking the two incidents. So are you saying that the conditioning that men are always the "players" leads to male child abuse by women?
    I'm not sure I'd agree with you there. Women are more than capable of being as bigoted as any man.

    Absolutely. But in this case, you don't believe that men are the ones who would cheer on a 15 year old lad getting laid by his 30 year old teacher?
    And as I pointed out, it's not as simple as that. This appears to be part of the common misconception that there's no downside to patriarchy for men.

    If that were true, women would historically be fighting wars, not men.

    Oh no, I'm not saying there are no downsides to patriarchy for men. Just look at unequal rights to children. That is a very clear downside. That law was created because women were historically considered more caring and more fit to raise children than men, who were the breadwinners.

    I'm not saying that.

    What I'm saying is in that particular issue, there isn't much of a downside for a man who gets his picture taken receiving a sexual act from a woman. He is either a "legend" or will be forgotten about in future. Rarely will people even care or refer to the men involved, won't remember what they look like etc. Remember it was #slanegirl on twitter not #guywhogotablowieatslane


  • #145
    fits
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,709 ✭✭✭✭fits


    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/23/gender-stereotyping-unhelpful-counter-productive

    good article about misogyny, misandry, slut shaming etc.


  • #146
    GalwayGuy2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,269 ✭✭✭GalwayGuy2


    ^^^
    That's an okay article, but she does come from the point of view that the man took advantage of the woman.

    There isn't any evidence that her drink was spiked. So, I don't think it's great to demonize him for taking advantage of her, as, from all accounts, it seemed to be a perfectly consenting act.
    All misogynists are also misandrists. All misandrists are also misogynists.

    It's about time someone realized that. But I'm a bit cynical and think it will still be only on how people are misogynistic, but the misandrist will just be used to get the MRAs on board.


  • #147
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    jaffacakesyum wrote: »
    Not unreasonable at all, no. I would just be interested, as, as I said already it seems we all get the short stick when it comes to being protected from criminals. Both male and female seem to get off lightly.
    The point is that females seem to get off a lot more lightly than males; saying both do trivializes that.
    I wouldn't necessarily agree with this once you get past 16 year old teenage boys. I know men who sleep with a lot of women and I know men who it's just not their scene. I have never seen any of my friends even jokingly refer to someone who doesn't score a lot as gay, or someone who isn't into the partying sex-filled lifestyle and likes to keep things more private. I know it's just my experience but I honestly believe that as a woman the "slut" thing will carry with you all of your life. Wheras being considered "gay" if you don't score someone tends to be the subject of teenage discos, not "real life".
    Not everyone is open with their prejudices, and will speak them out loud. I've heard many comments, by both men and women, about seemingly celibate men of this nature, over the years.
    Ah sorry, I didn't understand initially how you were linking the two incidents. So are you saying that the conditioning that men are always the "players" leads to male child abuse by women?
    No. One direct consequence of this conditioning is how child abuse is treated. As Henry9 pointed out earlier where a male teacher has sexual relations with an under-age female student, he's condemned as a "paedo teacher" and ends up in prison, meanwhile switch the genders around and the abuse is trivialized as an "affair" and avoids any custodial sentence. In the US, the Debra Lafave case resulted in so many media comments that the victim was a 'lucky kid' that it inspired Southpark to satirize this attitude.

    This attitude continues beyond this; in Ireland women cannot legally commit rape (you need a penis apparently to do this, even in statutory rape), leading to situations where a man may be charged with rape if he has sex with a 14-year old, but a woman can only be charged with the lesser charge of indecent assault.

    Even in the Slane incident, there appears to be little sympathy (and even scorn) of the boy who was filmed, even though (to the best of my knowledge) he appears to be guilty of nothing more than the girl. Or, my favourite scenario, where two under-age kids can have sex and once 18, the boy can be charged, but she cannot - all good examples of where female violence against males is more acceptable than the reverse.

    This is the flip-side of 'slut shaming' and comes from the same patriarchal attitudes. Yet this is ignored, because it does not conform to the tired feminist narrative that only women can be victims.
    Absolutely. But in this case, you don't believe that men are the ones who would cheer on a 15 year old lad getting laid by his 30 year old teacher?
    Or women who see nothing wrong with it? Just because they're not cheering, that doesn't mean they don't share the same views.
    What I'm saying is in that particular issue, there isn't much of a downside for a man who gets his picture taken receiving a sexual act from a woman.
    Don't know about you, but I wouldn't particularly want to have a video of me engaging in a sexual act floating around on the Web, even if it was with Angelina Jolie.

    As for consequences, it awaits to be seen. Legally he could still be tried for sexual assault (she cannot) of a minor (even if he's one too). If so, I suspect he faces consequences that are worse.


  • #148
    _Whimsical_
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,959 ✭✭✭_Whimsical_


    The Corinthian wrote: »

    Not everyone is open with their prejudices, and will speak them out loud. I've heard many comments, by both men and women, about seemingly celibate men of this nature, over the years.

    Everyone has heard these juvenille assertions hurled at people.I think it happens more in certain social groups rather than broadly across society though.In my experience its definitely used more by men than women. That said I've heard immature girls use it to cast a different light on having been rejected. Equally though I've heard men call women dykes,lesbian, frigid in similar situations.Its gross,it's something that needs to be stamped out.

    In relation to women condoning sex by older women with underage boys:
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Or women who see nothing wrong with it? Just because they're not cheering, that doesn't mean they don't share the same views.

    I think women who see nothing wrong with it would be VERY far and few between. Saying just because we don't hear them endorse it doesn't mean they don't is unfair. We don't have figures to work with but I think there is ample anacdotal evidence to illustrate that women see teenage boys as kids,not sexually desirable and that behaviour and opinions to the contrary are aberrant. We don't see as many women as men chose partners in the 18-21 bracket if they themselves are older, it is no where near as common as the numbers of men who chose a girlfriend in this age range. Women aren't biologically driven to find physical signs of teenage youth attractive in the way men are.It's not something we equate subconsciously with fertility as men do. Consequently and further to renforce that lack of bias our society doesn't set a premium on male teenage youth as the pinnacle of beauty as it does with signs of female teen youth. I dont know any woman over 25 who would not be utterly appalled at the thought of sleeping with a 17 yr old, a lot of the men I know wouldn't have an issue as long as it was consensual and legal.
    I personally think that any adult,male or female, who is having sex with someone under 17 should face the full rigour of the law, particularly someone in a position of care like a teacher.I am sickened by media distinctions between abuse if the victim is a girl and "affair" if the victim is a boy. To think the "good for him" attitude that can exist is driven by female attitudes as much as male attitudes is just not true in my experience.


  • #149
    Galwayguy35
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,780 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    fits wrote: »
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/23/gender-stereotyping-unhelpful-counter-productive

    good article about misogyny, misandry, slut shaming etc.

    And what has that to do with the topic being discussed here?


  • #150
    iptba
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,898 ✭✭✭iptba


    Note there are two Galwayguys.


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    Aineoil
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,358 ✭✭✭Aineoil


    It's not ok for a man to hit a woman, or for a woman to hit a man


Advertisement