"Man Up" campaign by SafeIreland

iptba · 25-08-2014 3:40am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSj4lvbS_3A

One interesting thing about this is that the woman would even think to sue, that somehow she would think she hadn't done wrong.

As we've discussed before, there seems to be different attitudes when men and women lose it e.g. when a famous golfer's wife allegedly lost it and started swinging a golf club around in the house and chased him out of the house, many people seem to see that as more justified than if the genders had been reversed and a man had started swinging a golf club and chased his wife out of their house.

ancapailldorcha · 25-08-2014 10:08am

iptba wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSj4lvbS_3A

One interesting thing about this is that the woman would even think to sue, that somehow she would think she hadn't done wrong.

As we've discussed before, there seems to be different attitudes when men and women lose it e.g. when a famous golfer's wife allegedly lost it and started swinging a golf club around in the house and chased him out of the house, many people seem to see that as more justified than if the genders had been reversed and a man had started swinging a golf club and chased his wife out of their house.

Fair play to that judge. Nice contrast to that judge on that Whoopi Goldberg video who said men can only defend themselves when their life is in danger.

Cool Mo D · 26-08-2014 12:54pm

iptba wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSj4lvbS_3A

One interesting thing about this is that the woman would even think to sue, that somehow she would think she hadn't done wrong.

As we've discussed before, there seems to be different attitudes when men and women lose it e.g. when a famous golfer's wife allegedly lost it and started swinging a golf club around in the house and chased him out of the house, many people seem to see that as more justified than if the genders had been reversed and a man had started swinging a golf club and chased his wife out of their house.

Ok, but that's just a TV show like Judge Judy. It's not a real court of law.

Pawwed Rig · 26-08-2014 10:21pm

Cool Mo D wrote: »

Ok, but that's just a TV show like Judge Judy. It's not a real court of law.

Judge Judy was similar to small claims court. The cases were real. Her judgement was final.

Wompa1 · 26-08-2014 10:42pm

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Judge Judy was similar to small claims court. The cases were real. Her judgement was final.

*SLOW CLAP* Somebody had to say it.

But yes, I believe it is actually a legit ruling..it's just that the production company pays the fine, I believe.....

Cool Mo D · 26-08-2014 10:51pm

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Judge Judy was similar to small claims court. The cases were real. Her judgement was final.

Judge Judy was a TV set. It was not a real court. The way it worked is that both parties in the cases she oversaw signed legal documents waiving their right to sue in an actual court in return for appearing on her show and getting an appearance fee. It's a form of binding arbitration.

Judge Judy could come to her verdict whatever way she liked, and she didn't have to follow any real legal principles or laws. Judge Judy was an actual judge in a real court once, but she is certainly not acting as a real judge ion her TV show. TV court shows have exactly nothing to do with how real courts operates or reach their decisions.

Wompa1 · 26-08-2014 10:52pm

Cool Mo D wrote: »

Judge Judy was a TV set. It was not a real court. The way it worked is that both parties in the cases she oversaw signed legal documents waiving their right to sue in an actual court in return for appearing on her show and getting an appearance fee. It's a form of binding arbitration.

Judge Judy could come to her verdict whatever way she liked, and she didn't have to follow any real legal principles or laws. Judge Judy was an actual judge in a real court once, but she is certainly not acting as a real judge ion her TV show. TV court shows have exactly nothing to do with how real courts operates or reach their decisions.

Your anti-Judge Judy agenda has been clear for some time!

iptba · 31-08-2014 1:34am

White girls bully and attack black dude
http://www.avoiceformen.com/women/white-girls-bully-and-attack-black-dude/

(2 minutes 27 seconds)

iptba · 31-08-2014 1:56am

One-third of domestic violence victims in active-duty military families are men

http://www.armytimes.com/article/20140827/NEWS/308270080/One-third-domestic-violence-victims-active-duty-military-families-men

Has an example of a male victim not being taken seriously.

I don't think the figures would necessarily be representative of the general population. I think military men would be more aggressive than the average guy (on average). Also, might be more likely to drink heavily.

iptba · 07-09-2014 1:57am

(2 minutes 11 seconds)
(She turned up at his place)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXlMtnaEkG8

iptba · 07-09-2014 3:25am

Kelly Brook admits she HIT two of her ex-boyfriends Jason Statham and Danny Cipriani

Sunday 31 Aug 2014 5:07 pm

http://metro.co.uk/2014/08/31/kelly-brook-admits-she-hit-two-of-her-ex-boyfriends-ahead-of-book-release-4851996/

The original version was different (didn't see it myself):

Article amended 02/09/14: We apologise for the tone previously taken in this article. At Metro.co.uk we take the issue of domestic violence very seriously and would like to direct readers to www.amen.ie, a website that offers help and support to male victims of domestic abuse.

Mr. RED · 07-09-2014 3:55am

I recently and accidentally was watching that muck with Philip Schofield; All Star Mr & Mrs; yes. That's the one. Anyway I think the husband got a question wrong or something similar and the wife; rather than say - "don't worry dear; we ALL sometimes get questions wrong; I love you!" thinks it would be more appropriate to say...

"I am going to slap you on the face when we get home" or something similar, if not worse.

Rather than recoil in horror; the audience erupts into roars of laughter and I'm like...

What the f***? Did she just say she is going to physically attack her husband when they get home for getting a question in a lighthearted, family quiz show; wrong. Did everybody in the audience think this was actually extremely funny?

Nobody should be hitting anybody!!! It's OK to get questions wrong sometimes.

flyingsnail · 07-09-2014 5:13pm

iptba wrote: »

The original version was different (didn't see it myself):

It appears that

Oh Kel, let’s just hope it’s all a little less violent from now on…

changed to

Brook is now engaged to former Gladiators star David McIntosh, who recently appeared in the current series of Celebrity Big Brother.

source: http://web.archive.org/web/20140831194017/http://metro.co.uk/2014/08/31/kelly-brook-admits-she-hit-two-of-her-ex-boyfriends-ahead-of-book-release-4851996/

LostinBlanch · 10-09-2014 12:12pm

Oops wrong thread.

The Purveyor of Truth · 10-09-2014 3:41pm

iptba wrote: »

The original version was different (didn't see it myself):

Did anyone see it? Wonder if it was only online or in the paper version also.

Be interested in seeing a scan of the original if anyone has it.

iptba · 15-09-2014 11:19pm

September 11 piece:

Why has Kelly Brook got away with punching two men?

Jason Statham and Danny Cipriani were assaulted but there’s no room for male victims in the discourse we have created around gender and violence

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/11/kelly-brook-punching-two-men-jason-statham-danny-cipriani-male-victims-violence

iptba · 15-09-2014 11:27pm

iptba wrote: »

September 11 piece:

First comment underneath:

One of my ex's has hit me on many occasions, once she was scratching my face with pretty sharp nails when I decided enough was enough, I restrained her and removed myself from the situation, she then went completely nuts at me so I rang the police as I had no idea what to do. When explaining the situation I was cuffed and given a caution for assault.

I've now learnt if attacked by a woman just run the hell away as any kind of defence could land you in trouble. Being a fully grown man a woman hitting me isn't much bother and I know I could if need be defend myself, but at what point is it acceptable to?

the PETA files · 16-09-2014 12:31am

If you can run away then it is not self defence.

ahnowbrowncow · 16-09-2014 12:40am

the PETA files wrote: »

If you can run away then it is not self defence.

Nonsense, good thing you aren't a legislator.

Lemming · 16-09-2014 1:00am

the PETA files wrote: »

If you can run away then it is not self defence.

It is considered not to be self defence once you have done enough that you could get yourself out of danger, yet choose to stand and fight. At that point, you have moved from self-defence into a fight.

Before you get to that point, you will note that the law is deliberately unspecific as to what it considers to be getting yourself out of danger; it could be to turn and run, it could be to plant your attacker and then get out of there and/outrun your attacker, it could be to run but have your attacker catch up in which case you have to floor them, etc. etc. etc.

Saying it's not self defence if you can run away is childlike simplicity that fails utterly in considering the complexity and sheer variety of possible scenarios one might be faced with.

the PETA files · 16-09-2014 11:13am

I was looking at it as if he knew he could have run away but decided to use some force instead.

Lemming · 16-09-2014 1:29pm

the PETA files wrote: »

I was looking at it as if he knew he could have run away but decided to use some force instead.

He could run, but again ... you're making overly simplistic assumptions. Unless his name is Bolt, I wouldn't be so quick to assume he can decisively just run away. How fast can he run? How fast can his attacker run? How long can he run for? What are the surroundings? Can he get to a lockable door? etc. etc. rinse repeat with possible variations.

T runner · 17-09-2014 4:21pm

Men's violence against women is related to her gender. The man perceives how the role of a woman and a man should be (usually a traditional patriarchal role) and tries to control her into that role.

Women who are violent against men generally has nothing to do with how they believe a man should act. The women have often psychological issues and/or are just extremely violent.

This difference explains the vast difference in numbers between men perpetrating domestic violence, abuse and rape...and women doing it.

Tom Meaghar who knows a thing or two about violent men puts it well here.

http://whiteribbonblog.com/2014/04/17/the-danger-of-the-monster-myth/

There was a shelter opened for men in Ireland. It closed. Not needed.
There are many hundreds for women.

The "man-up" idea is I guess geared to communicate with tehse men who believe putting the woman in her place, wearing the pants in the family etc is the manly thing to do. Its not, youre just a weak man taking male culture t its natural extreme.

I don't actually agree with the campaign. Think guys conditioned to hate women will do it unless forcibly stopped.

Better option is to try and change male culture..as Tom suggests.

Not easy. Women even get blamed for violence against women as exemplified by this thread.

Guys here seem more interested in perceived slights against them, than in protecting women, men and children who are victims of violent men. One in 4 Irish people have been abused, in the vast majority of cases, by an Irish man. WHY DONT YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS?

Lemming · 17-09-2014 4:44pm

T runner wrote: »

Men's violence against women is related to her gender. The man perceives how the role of a woman and a man should be (usually a traditional patriarchal role) and tries to control her into that role.

Women who are violent against men generally has nothing to do with how they believe a man should act. The women have often psychological issues and/or are just extremely violent.

This difference explains the vast difference in numbers between men perpetrating domestic violence, abuse and rape...and women doing it.

Tom Meaghar who knows a thing or two about violent men puts it well here.

http://whiteribbonblog.com/2014/04/17/the-danger-of-the-monster-myth/

There was a shelter opened for men in Ireland. It closed. Not needed.
There are many hundreds for women.

The "man-up" idea is I guess geared to communicate with tehse men who believe putting the woman in her place, wearing the pants in the family etc is the manly thing to do. Its not, youre just a weak man taking male culture t its natural extreme.

I don't actually agree with the campaign. Think guys conditioned to hate women will do it unless forcibly stopped.

Better option is to try and change male culture..as Tom suggests.

Not easy. Women even get blamed for violence against women as exemplified by this thread.

Guys here seem more interested in perceived slights against them, than in protecting women, men and children who are victims of violent men. One in 4 Irish people have been abused, in the vast majority of cases, by an Irish man. WHY DONT YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS?

Your entire argument is flawed in your first assumption; that men perpetrate violence against women because of their gender. Some do, others do not. And like Peta files above, you have tried to distill a very complex issue into an absolute.

Some people are psychologically unhinged; some people have overly sexist notions of "place", some are slaves to drugs of varying description that have altered their behavioral patterns to lash out at those closest to them (i.e. partners, children, etc.), some are scumbags who have been raised in a culture of violence, and some people are just sadists.

jackofalltrades · 17-09-2014 4:57pm

T runner wrote: »

Men's violence against women is related to her gender. The man perceives how the role of a woman and a man should be (usually a traditional patriarchal role) and tries to control her into that role.

Women who are violent against men generally has nothing to do with how they believe a man should act. The women have often psychological issues and/or are just extremely violent.

This difference explains the vast difference in numbers between men perpetrating domestic violence, abuse and rape...and women doing it.

Do you have anything to back up the above?

Women even get blamed for violence against women as exemplified by this thread.

Where?

T runner · 18-09-2014 10:54am

Lemming wrote: »

Your entire argument is flawed in your first assumption; that men perpetrate violence against women because of their gender. Some do, others do not. And like Peta files above, you have tried to distill a very complex issue into an absolute.

Some people are psychologically unhinged; some people have overly sexist notions of "place", some are slaves to drugs of varying description that have altered their behavioral patterns to lash out at those closest to them (i.e. partners, children, etc.), some are scumbags who have been raised in a culture of violence, and some people are just sadists.

None of these explanations explains the massive disparagy between men carrying out violence and women doing so.

I think this article (there are many out there) may clarify it for you. It illustrate two distinct types of domestic violence.

Patriarchal Terrorism and Common Couple Violence: Two Forms of Violence against Women Page 286.

Patriarcal terrorism which is rooted in a patriarchal upbringing is adopted almost entirely by men who feel with a vengeance a need to control "their" women by any means necessary. It escalates in different ways: if she resists, he escalates the violence until she is subdued. Even if she submits he may feel the need not only to control, but to display that control in which no amount of compliance will help her avoid a beating.

Common couple violence is an intermittent response to the need to control particular situations in everyday life, often by people with a violent upbringing.
This tends not to escalate.

It seems to me that the campaign described in this thread is an attempt to tell the guys who commit patriarchal terrorism against their families that men don't do such a thing. This is flawed. These sheep clearly believe that men are supposed to wear the trousers and that men DO in fact control their wives.

Better to persuade men of good will to stand up to patriarchal behavior. Staying silent when someone makes a joke about "hitting her a slap", or "id do her", or any demeaning behavior against women, girls children, is akin to silent acceptance. And some of the young guys listening will go on to beat, rape and abuse. The figures say so,
Because we tend to stay silent when the "men" are having their jokes.
If you want to bring the statistics down, if you feel in your gut that there might be some truth in this: then investigate it with an open mind.
Because if all it takes is to tell the sexists to STFU in order to cleanse male culture of this scourge: Then we need to start doing it.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Do you have anything to back up the above?

See above.

Lemming · 18-09-2014 11:06am

"Patriarcal terrorism"?

Right. I don't need to even read that article.

constance tench · 18-09-2014 11:16am

T runner wrote: »

None of these explanations explains the massive disparagy between men carrying out violence and women doing so.

I think this article (there are many out there) may clarify it for you. It illustrate two distinct types of domestic violence.

Patriarchal Terrorism and Common Couple Violence: Two Forms of Violence against Women Page 286.

Patriarcal terrorism which is rooted in a patriarchal upbringing is adopted almost entirely by men who feel with a vengeance a need to control "their" women by any means necessary. It escalates in different ways: if she resists, he escalates the violence until she is subdued. Even if she submits he may feel the need not only to control, but to display that control in which no amount of compliance will help her avoid a beating.

Common couple violence is an intermittent response to the need to control particular situations in everyday life, often by people with a violent upbringing.
This tends not to escalate.

It seems to me that the campaign described in this thread is an attempt to tell the guys who commit patriarchal terrorism against their families that men don't do such a thing. This is flawed. These sheep clearly believe that men are supposed to wear the trousers and that men DO in fact control their wives.

Better to persuade men of good will to stand up to patriarchal behavior. Staying silent when someone makes a joke about "hitting her a slap", or "id do her", or any demeaning behavior against women, girls children, is akin to silent acceptance. And some of the young guys listening will go on to beat, rape and abuse. The figures say so,
Because we tend to stay silent when the "men" are having their jokes.
If you want to bring the statistics down, if you feel in your gut that there might be some truth in this: then investigate it with an open mind.
Because if all it takes is to tell the sexists to STFU in order to cleanse male culture of this scourge: Then we need to start doing it.

See above.

What disparity?

Seriously? · 18-09-2014 11:44am

T runner wrote: »

None of these explanations explains the massive disparagy between men carrying out violence and women doing so.

This disparity between men and females who commit domestic violence, it wouldn't by chance be how society condemns the former and largely ignores the later ?

Also it's hard to take any position seriously which references the mythical 'Patriarchy'.

constance tench · 18-09-2014 11:47am

Lemming wrote: »

"Patriarcal terrorism"?

Right. I don't need to even read that article.

Key Words: Domestic Violence, Feminism, Gender, Violence, Wife Beating

...Outdated, unbalanced article (Pennsylvania State University circa 1995)

T runner · 18-09-2014 11:49am

Lemming wrote: »

"Patriarcal terrorism"?

Right. I don't need to even read that article.

But how can you refute it if you don't even read it?

constance tench wrote: »

What disparity?

( Read the link. Or is it convenient for you to ignore it also?)

(From page 285) US crime statistics 97% of assaults on adults in the family were assaults on wives. In Canada 17-1. These patterns similar in GB etc.

Can you explain these disaragies?

T runner · 18-09-2014 11:50am

constance tench wrote: »

...Outdated, unbalanced article (Pennsylvania State University circa 1995)

Unbalanced? Please elaborate.....or haven't you even read it?

Lemming · 18-09-2014 12:01pm

T runner wrote: »

But how can you refute it if you don't even read it?

Any article with something of substance does not need to resort to shock-jock titles.

The title is extremely telling in using extremely emotive and loaded words that are highly subjective and wildly open to interpretation. So, either the author(s) are prejudiced in their analysis, or deeply cynical and know they've got something that isn't worth much so have used such a title to draw readers in.

T runner · 18-09-2014 12:03pm

Seriously? wrote: »

This disparity between men and females who commit domestic violence, it wouldn't by chance be how society condemns the former and largely ignores the later ?

I've argued the reason for the disparity with substantiation. If you believe this not to be the case then please substantiate your position.

IMO Society rarely questions or seeks an explanation for this disparagy: any coverage on the media seems to be addended with "lets not forget men can be the victims of domestic violence too you know".

Also it's hard to take any position seriously which references the mythical 'Patriarchy'.

The reason my position can be taken seriously is that it is substantiated. The reason yours cant, is because its not. Please substantiate your hypotheses that "patriarchy" is mysthical, or withdraw it.

ancapailldorcha · 18-09-2014 12:03pm

T runner wrote: »

But how can you refute it if you don't even read it?

If it contains terms such as "patriarchal tyranny" then the chances are it's crap.

constance tench · 18-09-2014 12:04pm

T runner wrote: »

But how can you refute it if you don't even read it?

( Read the link. Or is it convenient for you to ignore it also?)

(From page 285) US crime statistics 97% of assaults on adults in the family were assaults on wives. In Canada 17-1. These patterns similar in GB etc.

Can you explain these disaragies?

...can't get to page 285...you think I'm going to pay or register to read it?

Your views(and that of the author) on domestic violence are wholly outdated and sexist.

I suggest you read some up to date gender neutral studies on domestic violence (of which there are many)

Can you explain to me what 'disparagies/disparagy' means?

jackofalltrades · 18-09-2014 12:05pm

T runner wrote: »

Unbalanced? Please elaborate.....or haven't you even read it?

Why would I go through the hassle of registering on a website just to read one article with "Patriarchal Terrorism" in the title.
It's obviously biased. The keywords, tone and content of the first page show this.

constance tench · 18-09-2014 12:06pm

T runner wrote: »

Unbalanced? Please elaborate.....or haven't you even read it?

See post 181

T runner · 18-09-2014 12:12pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

If it contains terms such as "patriarchal tyranny" then the chances are it's crap.

Unfortunately too many Irishmen make up their mind on these important issues with lazy non-thinking like this. How can you stand over the integrity of your position if it is based on rubbish logic as contained in your comment?

To paraphrase: I don't like what that article says, so Ill pick out a phrase from it and say im not reading it because I don't like that phrase.
Are you an adult or a child? Seriously have some self respect.

ancapailldorcha · 18-09-2014 12:14pm

T runner wrote: »

Unfortunately too many Irishmen make up their mind on these important issues with lazy non-thinking like this. How can you stand over the integrity of your position if it is based on rubbish logic as contained in your comment?

To paraphrase: I don't like what that article says, so Ill pick out a phrase from it and say im not reading it because I don't like that phrase.
Are you an adult or a child? Seriously have some self respect.

Quite easily as it happens. Chances are if someone uses such base, insulting terminology like this in a study which is meant to be objective, then it illustrates bias. I wouldn't expect someone who uses the word "n***er" to be able to reliably conduct studies relating to different ethnic and racial populations.
"Too many Irishmen"? Now who's making lazy generalisations?

Lemming · 18-09-2014 12:23pm

T runner wrote: »

Unfortunately too many Irishmen make up their mind on these important issues with lazy non-thinking like this. How can you stand over the integrity of your position if it is based on rubbish logic as contained in your comment?

To paraphrase: I don't like what that article says, so Ill pick out a phrase from it and say im not reading it because I don't like that phrase.
Are you an adult or a child? Seriously have some self respect.

Sorry, what was that about making sweeping generalisations?

Seriously? · 18-09-2014 12:24pm

T runner wrote: »

Please substantiate your hypotheses that "patriarchy" is mysthical, or withdraw it.

It’s for the same reason unicorns and fairies don't exist, it doesn't stand up to any sort of impartial scrutiny when applied to a modern western society.

T runner · 18-09-2014 12:26pm

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Why would I go through the hassle of registering on a website just to read one article with "Patriarchal Terrorism" in the title.
It's obviously biased. The keywords, tone and content of the first page show this.

Please elaborate with substantiation on how the tone content etc of the first page is "obviously" biased.

Because you cant substantiate your position, your revealing that it must be based on prejudice and not evidence.

T runner · 18-09-2014 12:28pm

Seriously? wrote: »

It’s for the same reason unicorns and fairies don't exist, it doesn't stand up to any sort of impartial scrutiny when applied to a modern western society.

Then no doubt you'll have access to "impartial" studies that demonstrate and substantiate your assertion that patriarchy does not exist in modern western societies. If you don't then your view remains just an unsubstantiated opinion, and with a lack of evidence to support it: probably based on some underlying prejudice of yours.

flyingsnail · 18-09-2014 12:28pm

T runner wrote: »

But how can you refute it if you don't even read it?

( Read the link. Or is it convenient for you to ignore it also?)

(From page 285) US crime statistics 97% of assaults on adults in the family were assaults on wives. In Canada 17-1. These patterns similar in GB etc.

Can you explain these disaragies?

Well how about some statistics from Ireland in 2005, from the nation crime council

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.

Thats a ratio of 2.42 to 1, hardly even close to 97% or 17-1
http://www.crimecouncil.gov.ie/downloads/Abuse_Report_NCC.pdf

T runner · 18-09-2014 12:34pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Quite easily as it happens. Chances are if someone uses such base, insulting terminology like this in a study which is meant to be objective, then it illustrates bias. I wouldn't expect someone who uses the word "n***er" to be able to reliably conduct studies relating to different ethnic and racial populations.
"Too many Irishmen"? Now who's making lazy generalisations?

Lemming wrote: »

Sorry, what was that about making sweeping generalisations?

Yes that was a generalization. But you hardly expected me to refute "its probably crap" with a scholarly article? I had assumed that many Irish males were like you and based their positions on prejudice and not any evidence.

If you had rejected the content of the article by substantiating your position, I would have followed suit. Up to you.

Seriously? · 18-09-2014 12:36pm

T runner wrote: »

Then no doubt you'll have access to "impartial" studies that demonstrate and substantiate your assertion that patriarchy does not exist in modern western societies.

But the burden of proof doesn't belong to me to disprove your story, but rather to you to prove it.

If I state there are fairies in my garden, its for me to prove they exist and not for others to disprove it.

Perhaps some examples of it in modern ireland.

constance tench · 18-09-2014 12:40pm

So you agree (T runner) the article you posted is outdated and the 'key words' display bias...well that's a start.

ancapailldorcha · 18-09-2014 12:47pm

T runner wrote: »

Yes that was a generalization. But you hardly expected me to refute "its probably crap" with a scholarly article? I had assumed that many Irish males were like you and based their positions on prejudice and not any evidence.

If you had rejected the content of the article by substantiating your position, I would have followed suit. Up to you.

I'm a full time researcher and I work based on evidence. However, my time is limited so when I see such drivel as I highlighted above then I can rationally choose to dismiss the article based on the fact that it's presumably biased.

jackofalltrades · 18-09-2014 12:49pm

T runner wrote: »

Please elaborate with substantiation on how the tone content etc of the first page is "obviously" biased.

Because you cant substantiate your position, your revealing that it must be based on prejudice and not evidence.

Keywords: domestic violence, feminism, gender, violence, wife beating

We are all too familiar with stories of women who are finally murdered by their husbands who have terrorized them for years

...while a significant number of families are terrorized by systematic male violence enacted in the service of patriarchal control.

The narrative on just the first page is men being violent and women being beaten/murdered.

T runner wrote:

Women even get blamed for violence against women as exemplified by this thread.

You still haven't pointed out the incidents of this in this thread.

"Man Up" campaign by SafeIreland

Comments