nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

"Man Up" campaign by SafeIreland

Galwayguy35

Not too keen on the wording of this, or the idea that if men saw a woman in trouble that we need to be reminded to help her.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

ancapailldorcha

T runner wrote: »

Of course 40% are. Sure if you defend yourself even once against a beating by a man youre in that 40%! Ludicrous!

You keep accusing me of prejudice when you're so blinkered it's nearly unbelievable. No woman ever has perpetrated domestic abuse? IS that what you truly believe?

flyingsnail

T runner wrote: »

Of course 40% are. Sure if you defend yourself even once against a beating by a man youre in that 40%! Ludicrous!

Here are some statistics for you from the National Crime Council of Ireland

The survey suggests that in the region of 213,000 women and 88,000 men in Ireland have been severely abused by a partner at some point in their lives

.

that is a a ratio of 2.42 to 1 or 41.3%

http://www.crimecouncil.gov.ie/downloads/Abuse_Report_NCC.pdf

T runner

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Thousands?

The biggest issue for victims of male abuse is that they tend not to seek help. It has been discussed at length in this thread and others.

Some proportion of people who are desperate will seek help. Self preservation will eventually overcome pride. However the amount of men who seek refuge (0) suggests that no man is ever put in a situation of absolute desperateness.
The lack of female domestic serious assaults or homicides of males (except in self defence) would seem to bear this out.
Look we all now that those figures (40% of females are the sole attackers in domestic abuse compared to 24% of males) are ludicrous.

Is it any wonder that any domestic violence against men is given the seriousness it deserves , when anybody believeing it just spends theiur time attacking womens organisations and believing any bogus numbers thrown out here.
These people cant be taken seriously posting figures like that.

ancapailldorcha

T runner wrote: »

Some proportion of people who are desperate will seek help. Self preservation will eventually overcome pride. However the amount of men who seek refuge (0) suggests that no man is ever put in a situation of absolute desperateness.

Out of curiousity, would you spout the same drivel about rape victims? I mean, there's no way they could be so traumatised that they'd be reluctant to contact the authorities.

flyingsnail

T runner wrote: »

Some proportion of people who are desperate will seek help. Self preservation will eventually overcome pride. However the amount of men who seek refuge (0) suggests that no man is ever put in a situation of absolute desperateness.

Or when they seek them they are not there???

http://www.thejournal.ie/refuge-male-domestic-abuse-1548071-Jul2014/

“[They] will ring and assume that there are the same services for men and women, they ask ‘where do I go?’, ‘but there’s one for women, there should be one for men’. They just think there should be same services for men as there are for woman.”

Also

Of those who were living with an abusive partner and moved out, nine out of ten stayed with family or friends, and only 7 per cent stayed at either a homeless hostel, a refuge or on the street.

K-9

T runner wrote: »

The laws on domestic violence here do not support the victim. In London Police can charge a perpetrator with domestic violence. In Ireland, the person themselves must do this: leading to the dangerous situation of having to live with the violent abuser you are accusing. Many women drop charges against spouses as a result.

Family courts can grant barring and safety orders.

T runner wrote: »

Of course 40% are. Sure if you defend yourself even once against a beating by a man youre in that 40%! Ludicrous!

The stats work both ways, it's mutual violence, though a man defending himself is of course taken far more seriously! A woman slapping a man might even be laughed at and the man told told to man up if he complains.

T runner

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Out of curiousity, would you spout the same drivel about rape victims? I mean, there's no way they could be so traumatised that they'd be reluctant to contact the authorities.

Calling my post isn't an argument. But then none of your posst seem to be in fairness.
A lot of rape victims don't contact the authorities, sure, but a proportion actually do.
Are male victims of domestic violence so traumatised that there aren't enough even to warrant the opening of 1 refuge? Clearly they are not. And the amounts of homicides and serious injury to males shows that those who stay are not in serious physical danger.
Women however are been turned away from full numerous refuges nationwide, hospitals, crime figures, show severe injury, rape etc is common in these cases. Yet posters here stand behind their claim that more women abuse than men?

You cant be taken seriously.

T runner

K-9 wrote: »

Family courts can grant barring and safety orders.

Very difficult to get enough proof for these. The police must make a mandatory arrest in London if they suspect domestic violence and they don't need the testimony of the victim. Victims can be and are "got at" here.

The stats work both ways, it's mutual violence, though a man defending himself is of course taken far more seriously! A woman slapping a man might even be laughed at and the man told told to man up if he complains.

You believe that someone defending themselves against a violent attack constitutes mutual violence constitutes domestic abuse? A man defending himself or a woman defending herself all are treated equally. They are popped into the mutual violence category.

That is not a measure of domestic violence: defending from a violent attack is NOT domestic violence. It is a deliberate doctoring of statistics. The fact that ye lads are trying to stand over it just demonstrates that your views are prejudice bases rather than evidence based and right not to be taken seriously.

SaturnV

T runner wrote: »

A racially motivated attack, for example, is quite easy to identify. There is usually racist language and threats used in the attack, the victim is left in little doubt as to the motive. The history of the attackers can be assessed for racist tendencies.

Okay, but do you believe racist violence and the violence between a man and his partner are that easily compared? For example, in most attacks attributed to racist motivations, is there a close, intimate relationship between the attacker and the victim? What about most cases where men are violent towards women? Do you think they are equivalent, therefore, in terms of understanding the motivations?

If what you are saying is correct, wouldn't we expect to see the same men going out and targeting women, purely because they are women?

T runner wrote: »

And if you want to find out why a racist attacks someone we should defer to the racist I guess right?

Yes. Why not? What's a better way? It might not be pleasant, or easy, and there would be a lot of confounders, but that's the thing about getting to the truth of the matter.

T runner wrote: »

If you want to know what were the motivations for consistant domestic violence you need to look at what behavior the perpetrator demanded of the woman, and what the outcome he wanted was. If the behaviour and outcome are consistent then you know the motives are not varied or random and you can identify the patriarchal motivation.

You will get that information by questioning the attackee. (You wont get that by asking the man. All you might get is a lot of blame going her way.)

Again, you're just demonstrating a priori assumptions - the man will blame the woman, the woman will understand completely the motivations of the man, but you haven't shown why you think this, other than the belief that it must be true. I was very seriously assaulted at random one night several years ago. I have no idea why it happened. Only the attacker actually has that knowledge.

T runner wrote: »

It tells us that you haven't read that particular article properly.
The articles he referenced when he acknowledged that ALL researches accept a patriarchal upbringing as a motive was the quantative analysis for all household violence and not on the analysis of shelters, hospitals, police records etc. Youre barking up the wrong tree there.

I have read the article properly, and I am have a few decades of experience in reading and carrying out research, and I can tell you categorically that that article does not support the points you are trying to make. It's very simple - just show me the direct evidence. Not opinions, not perceptions, evidence.

SaturnV

T runner wrote: »

If a modern woman doesn't fulfill the roles that he expects of them some guys will believe they are justified in forcing her to do so.

Isn't the same possible if the genders are reversed? Do you believe that women could exert control over men because they believe the men aren't fulfilling their roles?

K-9

T runner wrote: »

Very difficult to get enough proof for these.

They aren't very difficult, but obviously evidence is required. Just under half, that isn't very difficult.

http://www.thejournal.ie/change-in-law-sees-almost-13000-applications-for-safety-and-protection-orders-983489-Jul2013/

You believe that someone defending themselves against a violent attack constitutes mutual violence constitutes domestic abuse?

No.

A man defending himself or a woman defending herself all are treated equally. They are popped into the mutual violence category.

Because they suffered domestic violence. Knowing if a couple is in mutually abusive relationship is also important.

That is not a measure of domestic violence: defending from a violent attack is NOT domestic violence. It is a deliberate doctoring of statistics. The fact that ye lads are trying to stand over it just demonstrates that your views are prejudice bases rather than evidence based and right not to be taken seriously.

I'm not holding it up as fact, you seem very eager to totally dismiss it though.

ancapailldorcha

T runner wrote: »

Are male victims of domestic violence so traumatised that there aren't enough even to warrant the opening of 1 refuge? Clearly they are not. And the amounts of homicides and serious injury to males shows that those who stay are not in serious physical danger.

Well, considering that there's only one refuge I wouldn't blame them for thinking that they had nowhere to turn to. They feel as if they won't be taken seriously. It's barely even mentioned in the media barring a few arcs in soaps so there's almost no awareness of the laughable lack of facilities available. I only became aware of the Mankind and Amen charities through this forum. If it weren't for Boards.ie and I was the victim of domestic abuse then I'd have no idea what to do.

jackofalltrades

T runner wrote: »

I have shown you that men who carry out Patriarcal abuse have their roots in a patriarchal upbringing. Do you understand this?

I don't think you actually read my post. Come back to me when you can prove that modern western societies are are in anyway patriarchal.

No hole in my theory. EVERY researcher into domestic violence acknowledges that a patriarcal outlook rooted a patriarcal upbringing is a motive for male domestic violence against women.

Prove it.

T runner

SaturnV wrote: »

Okay, but do you believe racist violence and the violence between a man and his partner are that easily compared? For example, in most attacks attributed to racist motivations, is there a close, intimate relationship between the attacker and the victim? What about most cases where men are violent towards women? Do you think they are equivalent, therefore, in terms of understanding the motivations?

Because the methods of achieving the objectives and the objectives, ..... are repeated and have a patriarchal outcome in common then the motive is clearly patriarchal.
Different relationships, different people, but common threats, methods and patriarchal outcomes. If the man uses violence, intimidation to control the woman and to obtain consistant patriarchal ends, then the motivation is clearly patriarchal. That is what he says, that is what he does, and that is what he makes her do.

If what you are saying is correct, wouldn't we expect to see the same men going out and targeting women, purely because they are women?

But they are not HIS women. In his outlook his wife is his property. Her role as wife is subordinate to his role as husband. He uses violence and threats to control her, and to make sure she fulfills this role.

He does not believe he owns every woman, but he certainly believes his woman should act like how he has been conditioned to believe a wife acts.

He may exhibit other mysoginist behavior, make or laugh at sexist jokes with other men, make comments to women, be passive aggressive with them etc....or he may disguise that until he is free to rule over his own kingdom at home with the iron fist.

An important part of these guys conditioning outside their home happens in the company of other men...in male culture. That's why I don't tolerate any sexist or mysoginist comments in my company. I'm not going to stay silent and accept a culture that verifies these guys world views...makes them feel that all men think like they do.

Yes. Why not? What's a better way? It might not be pleasant, or easy, and there would be a lot of confounders, but that's the thing about getting to the truth of the matter.

The better way is for the victim to recount what threats were made, what he said, and what the repeated patterns and outcomes were.

At best the attacker will blame her for the violence which will be in character but wont define his motivation as a recounting of threats, intimidation, demands and outcomes will. If the demands of the attacker and outcomes are repeatedly mysoginist then they are his motives.

Again, you're just demonstrating a priori assumptions - the man will blame the woman, the woman will understand completely the motivations of the man, but you haven't shown why you think this, other than the belief that it must be true. I was very seriously assaulted at random one night several years ago. I have no idea why it happened. Only the attacker actually has that knowledge.

In that case yes. And you may never get that knowledge because he might choose to lie.

Now, if you were female and married to your attacker and he repeated told you what he wanted you to do and used different methods including violence to achieve it, then a picture gets built. All the things you are supposed to do put you in the position of the patriarchal wife's role.
The attacker already imparts his motivation when he threatens his wife, tells her what he wants her to do and tells her why he wants her to do it.
"youre my wife, you're supposed to have my dinner ready for me when I get home". When episodes like these are repeated many, many times, over months and years it is clear. He has a view of her role as his wife and he uses controlling methods that can include violence to force her into that role.

If it talks like a duck, walks like a duck, and acts like a duck, its a duck. The duck's input wont be necessary for the identification regardless of whether he lies and claims to be a swan or admits to being a duck.

I have read the article properly, and I am have a few decades of experience in reading and carrying out research, and I can tell you categorically that that article does not support the points you are trying to make.

That's just your opinion again. If you disagree with the referenced statement in the article that all the researchers of the two strains agree that patriarchal outlooks are a motive for male domestic violence against women then you should be able to easily back it up.

constance tench

T runner wrote: »

That's not a link to an accord study. Please provide one.

Those figures are bogus. A woman defending herself from violent attack does not constitute abuse on her part no matter what Accord maintains.

Strange that there are thousands of shelters for women. But the only one opened for men shut down. Nobody needed it......

I notice your not dismissing the other studies...

This chapter reported on the prevalence of domestic violence as revealed in thirteen major studies.These studies were selected because they meet the two key criteria necessary for yielding reliable information on the prevalence of domestic violence:

(1) the studies include both
men and women and their experiences of domestic violence, either as victims, perpetrators or both; and
(2) the studies are based on representative samples of the population and adhere to random sampling procedures.

Prevalence rates are typically measured with reference to relationships in both the last year and over a life-time. The results of the studies show that, over the last year, women are either more likely than men to inflict physical violence (as shown by 8 out of 12 studies) or equally likely (as
shown by 3 of the 12 studies); only one study showed a different pattern to this.

http://health.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/mdv2.pdf

See tables: Chapter 3.

[ED]

Both men and women cite
frustration as their main reason for being violent, although men (64%)
are more likely than women (53%) to give this as a reason. Controlling their partner is also an
important reason for domestic violence, with men (36%) somewhat more likely than women(30%) to give this as a reason.

Similar proportions of men (34%) and women (30%) also give
retaliation as a reason for domestic violence. These reasons are not mutually exclusive and it is
possible that specific acts of violence may be prompted by all three reasons.

Finally, men are much more likely than women (35% compared to 13%) to cite the “influence of alcohol” as a reason for being violent. This pattern of findings shows that men and women engage in violence for broadly similar reasons–frustration, control and retaliation-with men more likely than
women to cite all of these reasons. Men’s violence, according to these findings, seems to be no
more “instrumental” than women’s just as women’s is no more “expressive” than men’s.

T runner

jackofalltrades wrote: »

I don't think you actually read my post. Come back to me when you can prove that modern western societies are are in anyway patriarchal.

Who's in power, who holds the wealth, who owns the land, who captains industry, who has most political representation, Is sexism prevalent in male culture, Are women objectified in male culture, what is the prevalence of rape/domestic violence/child abuse in a culture, who controls the media, what proportion of females are primary carers, what are child care facilities like...etc, etc, etc.

All these are symptoms of a patriarchal society. Many of the Irish patrircal laws were changed by Europeans (not by Irishmen). But the society is till patriarchal. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, acts like a duck....its a duck. Even if it calls itself a swan.

Prove it.

I've referenced it at least 5 times now. Prove it? whos the judge.... you? all I have to do here is make my argument stronger than yours.....I think I'm winning hands down there in fairness.

ancapailldorcha

T runner wrote: »

An important part of these guys conditioning outside their home happens in the company of other men...in male culture. That's why I don't tolerate any sexist or mysoginist comments in my company. I'm not going to stay silent and accept a culture that verifies these guys world views...makes them feel that all men think like they do.

But spouting misandrist nonsense is grand, yeah?

T runner wrote: »

I've referenced it at least 5 times now. Prove it? whos the judge.... you? all I have to do here is make my argument stronger than yours.....I think I'm winning hands down there in fairness.

You've referenced nothing but twaddle which proves nothing.

T runner

constance tench wrote: »

I notice your not dismissing the other studies...

http://health.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/mdv2.pdf

See tables: Chapter 3.

[ED]

Yes interesting. A woman defending herself physically is given the same weight in physical violence as a man hammering her 100 times a year. And the author has cherry picked 13 reports that "suit" this agenda.

Link to a report that displays actual domestic violence without counting victims who defend themselves even once from attack as abusers themselves.

How can your position be taken seriously?



ancapailldorcha

T runner wrote: »

Yes interesting. A woman defending herself physically is given the same weight in physical violence as a man hammering her 100 times a year. And the author has cherry picked 13 reports that "suit" this agenda.

Link to a report that displays actual domestic violence without counting victims who defend themselves even once from attack as abusers themselves.

How can your position be taken seriously?



Well, there's evidence and government figures for a start compared to the nonsense we've been getting from you for the last few pages of this thread.

constance tench

T runner wrote: »

Yes interesting. A woman defending herself physically is given the same weight in physical violence as a man hammering her 100 times a year. And the author has cherry picked 13 reports that "suit" this agenda.

Link to a report that displays actual domestic violence without counting victims who defend themselves even once from attack as abusers themselves.

How can your position be taken seriously?



...you haven't read the report (for The Department of Health and Children)

constance tench

T runner wrote: »

Yes interesting. A woman defending herself physically is given the same weight in physical violence as a man hammering her 100 times a year. And the author has cherry picked 13 reports that "suit" this agenda.

Link to a report that displays actual domestic violence without counting victims who defend themselves even once from attack as abusers themselves.

How can your position be taken seriously?



I just have...!

See tables Chapter 3

T runner

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

But spouting misandrist nonsense is grand, yeah?

If you are accusing me of misandry you had better back it up or withdraw it.

You've referenced nothing but twaddle which proves nothing.

Well said! Why is it again you and your arguments lack credibility?

Wibbs

T runner wrote: »

Strange that there are thousands of shelters for women. But the only one opened for men shut down. Nobody needed it......

Oh my...

T runner wrote: »

There is no argument among any credible researcher that patriarchal upbringings are not a motive for Mmale domestic violence against women. none.

In highly patriarchal countries (orthodox Isalm nations for example) its not difficult to imagine the man abusing or being violent towards a woman to exert control or when she steps out of line.

A large amount of Irish males were brought up when Ireland had a very Catholic patriarchal family structure and a very patriarcal society. Do you disagree?

You dont drop your ingrained upbringing because the EU forces Ireland to be less nasty to its female population and Ireland ticks a box. If a modern woman doesn't fulfill the roles that he expects of them some guys will believe they are justified in forcing her to do so. Its easily identifyable: what language, threats does he use, and what objectives does this achieve. If the objective is to put her into a patriarchal erole in the household then that is patriarcally motivated abuse.

To say that this doesn't exist in Ireland or anywhere in the western word is plainly ridiculous.

Ah yes the good oul "patriarchy, patriarchy, patriarchy!!!"(AKA it's always men's fault and women are always victims) explanation, sorry sacred cow of feminist thinking. Up there with the paygap and rape culture/one in four and unequal health spending* and just as easily debated, if not dismissed entirely as an influence to the degree some feminists believe and promote. Though I have found no amount of evidence will convince such otherwise.

Even when such a thing is suggested on the back of actual studies it can be quietly "vanished". EG in 2007 no less an institution than Harvard Medical School published the results of a study involving 11,000 men and women by the American Journal of public health which showed that in 70% of cases of non reciprocal partner abuse women were the perpetrator. In the cases of reciprocal partner abuse where both were involved both genders agreed it was the woman most likely to throw the first blow.

Ok then it got interesting. Even with the caveats attached by Harvard the article was quietly pulled from their website. Here's a backup of it. Why does this not surprise me. US college gets the jitters over article that doesn't back up the "it's always men's fault and women are always victims" mantra.

Let's try breaking down this "patriarchy" stuff for a moment.

Who's in power,

An elite. Mostly men, but there are women among their numbers. This power elite are a vanishingly tiny percentage of men and always have been. The vast majority of men throughout history were outside this loop. Indeed the average man was a bullet stopper and serf for most of human history and more disposable with it. "Women and children first". People forget that when women got the vote it wasn't so long after the point where the average man got the vote.

who holds the wealth,

As far as spending power goes, women. Estimates show that women will control two-thirds of the consumer wealth in the U.S over the next decade and [will] be the beneficiaries of the largest transference of wealth in US history. In the developed world women's income is rising, growing at 8.1% by comparison to 5.8% for men. That will rise further as many more women graduate third level than men(in Canada there are twice as many women graduates). Hell you only have to switch on the telly or open a magazine to see that the vast majority of advertising is aimed at women. Advertising is following the money.

who owns the land, who captains industry

Again you're discussing elites, not your average man or woman for that matter. In any event there are enough women CEO's coming along.

who has most political representation,

Who votes more, men or women? I'll give you a hint, it ain't men. So women are voting for their own political representation.

Is sexism prevalent in male culture, Are women objectified in male culture,

Yep, but just as often by women themselves. Who buys celeb magazines? Who buys fashion magazines? Who drives the fashion for photoshopping and stick thin models? Men? Nope.

what is the prevalence of rape/domestic violence/child abuse in a culture,

Well we are currently in the midst of some of that. However let's look at our own history of Magdalene laundries and orphanages and the like. Who ran them on a daily basis? Who were the footsoldiers?

who controls the media,

The media industry has one of the higher female percentages of any industry. The aforementioned magazines aimed at women with pics of celebs and cellulite are almost entirely run by women.

what proportion of females are primary carers, what are child care facilities like...etc, etc, etc.

Both are concerns for men and women. Given that men are extremely unlikely to ever get custody in a divorce, it's hardly surprising more women are primary carers and child care facilities affect both, unless you're being patriarchal in your own way.

All these are symptoms of a patriarchal society. Many of the Irish patrircal laws were changed by Europeans (not by Irishmen). But the society is till patriarchal. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, acts like a duck....its a duck. Even if it calls itself a swan.

I could go on about how if anything Ireland and the Irish are and have been a deeply matriarchal society with a thin veneer of patriarchy(that's a lot thinner today), but I fear it would be a waste of time as your worldview appears to written in stone hewn by the hammer and chisel of third wave feminist thinking.

*they used to add unequal educational access too, but that has become so obviously women biased at third level that it had to be dropped. I can see the health one going the same way.

stateofflux

At the End of the day this whole campaign imo sets a dangerous precedent of painting every male as a potential abuser. Implying that the potential desire to abuse is there and is being controlled by willpower. That is fundamentally wrong and sexist. The fact that this is being fuelled by many ignorant Feminist articles by supposedly non biased journalists in the Times and the indo is quite worrying.

T runner

Ok "lads".

Ill leave you with this. If 4 in 10 females commit domestic violence. How can it be that men are too traumatised to go to a refuge....and those who remain are not traumitised enough to warrant a visit to the hospital or the morgue?

Yet female victims of domestic violence fill the shelters, hospitlas and morgues..... very strange.

Remember if you hear a man making a sexist joke or mysoginist comment....tell him to STFU.
If you stay silent, laugh along or chip in yourself...youre part of the problem.

Which one will you be?

Wibbs

T runner wrote: »

The lack of female domestic serious assaults or homicides of males (except in self defence) would seem to bear this out.

Letter perfect example of the "it's always the man's fault and the woman is always the victim" thinking. A real howler of an example. Even if a woman(always the victim) seriously injures or even kills a man(always the aggressor), it's a case of self defence. Oh man you really couldn't make this up.

Wibbs

T runner wrote: »

Ok "lads".

Here we go. Patronising and a little childish a debating tactic but let's run with it.

Ill leave you with this. If 4 in 10 females commit domestic violence. How can it be that men are too traumatised to go to a refuge....and those who remain are not traumitised enough to warrant a visit to the hospital or the morgue?

You really have zero clue as to why this may be the case? How many shelters for men exist? How many lifelines? In common parlance the "battered woman" is a meme, but one doesn't even exist for the battered man. As for the morgue, male completed suicide rates are far higher for men than women. They're three times higher post divorce.

Remember if you hear a man making a sexist joke or mysoginist comment....tell him to STFU.
If you stay silent, laugh along or chip in yourself...youre part of the problem.

Which one will you be?

Ahh brilliant. More of the "men! stop other men from raping" nonsense and right on student underdeveloped thinking with it.

Though this sideline of completely changing tack also illustrates the usual third wave feminist scattergun approach to debate when they can't back up their arguments except by constant repetition of their original position, because it's just true!!!

Oh and the next time anyone says "ah sure that US college ivory tower feminism isn't part of the mainstream feminism over here" I'll point them to the last few pages of this thread.

ancapailldorcha

T runner wrote: »

Remember if you hear a man making a sexist joke or mysoginist comment....tell him to STFU.
If you stay silent, laugh along or chip in yourself...youre part of the problem.

Which one will you be?

Just to clarify, sexist jokes against men and misandry are still ok? Grand-o.

I'll make my own mind up, ta.

iptba

I haven't managed to keep up with this thread but just a piece of information on this:

T runner wrote: »

Ill leave you with this. If 4 in 10 females commit domestic violence. How can it be that men are too traumatised to go to a refuge....and those who remain are not traumitised enough to warrant a visit to the hospital or the morgue?

On average about seven women and two men are killed by their current or former partner every month in England and Wales.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-22610534

Taken from:
(UK) Office for National Statistics:
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/focus-on-violent-crime-and-sexual-offences--2012-13/rpt---chapter-2---homicide.html?format=print

Maguined

T runner wrote: »

Ok "lads".

Ill leave you with this. If 4 in 10 females commit domestic violence. How can it be that men are too traumatised to go to a refuge....and those who remain are not traumitised enough to warrant a visit to the hospital or the morgue?

Yet female victims of domestic violence fill the shelters, hospitlas and morgues..... very strange.

Remember if you hear a man making a sexist joke or mysoginist comment....tell him to STFU.
If you stay silent, laugh along or chip in yourself...youre part of the problem.

Which one will you be?

How do you reconcile your view that women fill thousands of shelters while men need none when Erin Pizzey the woman that practically invented womens shelters in the UK and America states that from all her experience she found domestic violence was most commonly reciprocal (not a woman defending herself from a aggressive man but two people who took turns initiating violence against each other) and even when it wasn't reciprocal it occured relatively evenly amongst both genders?

So this woman is clearly mistaken despite being the first person to organise dedicated services for domestic violence, and despite being on the front lines to expierience the people involved in domestic violence she is clearly wrong?