"Man Up" campaign by SafeIreland

T runner · 18-09-2014 1:07pm

Seriously? wrote: »

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.

My story? what story? I supplied a scholarly article to substantiate my claim that most male domestic violence against women is motivated by a patriarchal upbringing. If you have an issue with any of this, then refute it with substantiation. Particularly if you believe that patriarchy is a myth as mentioned in the article, then prove it.

Seriously? · 18-09-2014 1:13pm

T runner wrote: »

Particularly if you believe that patriarchy is a myth as mentioned in the article, then prove it.

The proof is the lack of evidence.

ancapailldorcha · 18-09-2014 1:14pm

T runner wrote: »

My story? what story? I supplied a scholarly article to substantiate my claim that most male domestic violence against women is motivated by a patriarchal upbringing. If you have an issue with any of this, then refute it with substantiation. Particularly if you believe that patriarchy is a myth as mentioned in the article, then prove it.

You provided a biased article which doesn't prove that the "patriarchy" is responsible for spousal abuse. I could assert with equal legitimacy that the popularity of the domestic cat as a pet is responsible for the increased usage of the internet. Correlation does not equal causation.

SaturnV · 18-09-2014 1:41pm

T runner wrote: »

My story? what story? I supplied a scholarly article to substantiate my claim that most male domestic violence against women is motivated by a patriarchal upbringing. If you have an issue with any of this, then refute it with substantiation. Particularly if you believe that patriarchy is a myth as mentioned in the article, then prove it.

Right, I tend to lurk around these discussions, but I have to jump in here. Have you read the article? Because, if you have, you will find that there is no analysis or documentation of the motivation for the abuse. You can't discover why A abused B by asking B about it. Language in important. Using the term "patriarchal terrorism" implies a knowledge of the motivation. This has no evidential support (as presented). Personally, I would be very wary of a "scholarly" article using loaded terms such as this, which are intended to communicate something beyond the evidence - it is intellectually dishonest.

Also, the article notes that there are two traditions in the study of abuse and violence in relationships. One is based on quantitative analysis and random sampling surveys, and finds little gender difference in violence and abuse (in general). The other is research from a feminist standpoint, which uses a fundamentally different strategy in collecting data, typically interviews with women self reporting abuse. Whatever about the relative merits of these approaches, if you ask a lot of female victims of abuse about their situations, you may draw many useful conclusions from these observations. However, you cannot go on to conclude that men are violent to women; this is a tautology.

In short, that article, whatever its merits, does not support the position you think it does. It substantiates precisely nothing you think it does.

T runner · 18-09-2014 2:10pm

Seriously? wrote: »

The proof is the lack of evidence.

Lack of evidence doesn't prove anything which is why all your arguments are groundless. If you want to state that "patriarchy" (or "sexism" or "racism" or "tyranny") is a myth. It is up to you to substantiate that strange opinion.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You provided a biased article which doesn't prove that the "patriarchy" is responsible for spousal abuse.

Pleased demonstrate why you think the article is biased. Do you have an issue with any of its referees? Which ones?

I could assert with equal legitimacy that the popularity of the domestic cat as a pet is responsible for the increased usage of the internet. Correlation does not equal causation.

Not without substantiation you couldn't. The article has referenced all its sources. If you have a problem with any of these, name it and state why prefereably with substantiation.

No you couldn't because you cant substantiate that.

ancapailldorcha · 18-09-2014 2:16pm

T runner wrote: »

Pleased demonstrate why you think the article is biased. Do you have an issue with any of its referees? Which ones?

I already have in my post above. Why do you consider it to be evidence? It's not even a study. At best, it's a biased opinion based on selected studies.

Seriously? · 18-09-2014 2:25pm

T runner wrote: »

Lack of evidence doesn't prove anything which is why all your arguments are groundless.

Sorry my mistake, I didn't realise we had to accept this purely based on faith. Clearly I take it all back, if you believe really really hard enough it must be true.

Or to quote James Randi, "you can't prove a negative"

ancapailldorcha · 18-09-2014 2:31pm

Seriously? wrote: »

Sorry my mistake, I didn't realise we had to accept this purely based on faith. Clearly I take it all back, if you believe really really hard enough it must be true.

Or to quote James Randi, "you can't prove a negative"

To be honest, I would have thought that if someone was going to perpetrate an act of domestic abuse, then they'd carry it out on anyone in the home, ie the wife, younger sibling, child, whomever. Whoever wrote that stinker linked above's just used it as an excuse to attack the "patriarchy".

py2006 · 18-09-2014 2:33pm

T runner wrote: »

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.

Am I reading this correctly?

Seriously? · 18-09-2014 2:40pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

To be honest, I would have thought that if someone was going to perpetrate an act of domestic abuse, then they'd carry it out on anyone in the home, ie the wife, younger sibling, child, whomever. Whoever wrote that stinker linked above's just used it as an excuse to attack the "patriarchy".

I'm not stating anything about domestic abuse, what I'm stating is that the idea of a "patriarchy" in a modern western society doesn't stand-up to scrutiny.

If it really is as endemic in Irish society as suggested, then why has the poster not provided some examples which illustrate it?

I’d suggest the reason is because society (here) doesn’t discriminate against women to advantage men.

T runner · 18-09-2014 2:51pm

SaturnV wrote: »

Have you read the article? Because, if you have, you will find that there is no analysis or documentation of the motivation for the abuse.

There is yes.

Using the term "patriarchal terrorism" implies a knowledge of the motivation. This has no evidential support (as presented). Personally, I would be very wary of a "scholarly" article using loaded terms such as this, which are intended to communicate something beyond the evidence - it is intellectually dishonest.

It is only your assertion that there is no evidence. None of the researchers, however, are in any doubt that patriarchy is a motivation in male domestic violence against females.

He states that all researchers do acknowledge the role of Patriarchy in wife abuse (Strauss, Gelles, Steinmetz p242-3 these are actually the main proponents of the quantative analysis, infact Steinmetz even coined the phrase "baterred husband".)

There is nothing loaded about the term. If the motivation is patriarchy, then it is accurate. It also puts the emphasis on the perpetuator who is after all responsible for the violence.

Also, the article notes that there are two traditions in the study of abuse and violence in relationships. One is based on quantitative analysis and random sampling surveys, and finds little gender difference in violence and abuse (in general).

That's misleading. It finds varied reasons not little difference, because it includes all violence. As stated it acknowledges that patriarchy is a motivation for mens violence against their wives which refutes what you are trying to imply.

The other is research from a feminist standpoint, which uses a fundamentally different strategy in collecting data, typically interviews with women self reporting abuse.

Incorrect on at least two fronts: the statistics come typically from crime reports, police records, hospital records etc.

The article also says that this research began with the narrower focusing on violence against women by spouses but acknowledges that many of these researchers have used quantative anaylsis that includes general violence. Martin (1981).

(The author maintains that the different methods actualy observe two different phenomena.)

In short, that article, whatever its merits, does not support the position you think it does. It substantiates precisely nothing you think it does.

Again, he states with reference, that all researchers do acknowledge the role of patriarchy in wife abuse. (Strauss, Gelles, Steinmetz p242-3)

ancapailldorcha · 18-09-2014 2:57pm

T runner wrote: »

There is yes.

It is only your assertion that there is no evidence. None of the researchers, however, are in any doubt that patriarchy is a motivation in male domestic violence against females.

He states that all researchers do acknowledge the role of Patriarchy in wife abuse (Strauss, Gelles, Steinmetz p242-3 these are actually the main proponents of the quantative analysis, infact Steinmetz even coined the phrase "baterred husband".)

There is nothing loaded about the term. If the motivation is patriarchy, then it is accurate. It also puts the emphasis on the perpetuator who is after all responsible for the violence.

That's misleading. It finds varied reasons not little difference, because it includes all violence. As stated it acknowledges that patriarchy is a motivation for mens violence against their wives which refutes what you are trying to imply.

Incorrect on at least two fronts: the statistics come typically from crime reports, police records, hospital records etc.

The article also says that this research began with the narrower focusing on violence against women by spouses but acknowledges that many of these researchers have used quantative anaylsis that includes general violence. Martin (1981).

(The author maintains that the different methods actualy observe two different phenomena.)

Again, he states with reference, that all researchers do acknowledge the role of patriarchy in wife abuse. (Strauss, Gelles, Steinmetz p242-3)

One researcher cannot speak for all researchers. The fact that this "study" contains such a ridiculous statement is just another reason why it's only fit for the bin. The statement that the patriarchy is responsible for the abuse of women is simply the author's opinion and is subjective.
Also, why are you using such old references? Is it because most people are aware that this notion of "patriarchy" is tosh?

T runner · 18-09-2014 2:58pm

Seriously? wrote: »

Sorry my mistake, I didn't realise we had to accept this purely based on faith. Clearly I take it all back, if you believe really really hard enough it must be true.

Or to quote James Randi, "you can't prove a negative"

Accept what exactly? All the researchers referenced in the article are in accord that patriarchy not only exists but is a motivation for male domestic violence against women.

(Strauss, Gelles, Steinmetz p242-3) Note: Steinmetz even coined the phrase "battered husband".

T runner · 18-09-2014 3:00pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

One researcher cannot speak for all researchers. The fact that this "study" contains such a ridiculous statement is just another reason why it's only fit for the bin. The statement that the patriarchy is responsible for the abuse of women is simply the author's opinion and is subjective.
Also, why are you using such old references? Is it because most people are aware that this notion of "patriarchy" is tosh?

He's not speaking for them He has referenced them.

If "people are aware that the notion of patriarchy is tosh" then you should have no difficulty providing evidence to back up your remarkable claim.

If you cant then your own beliefs must be based on prejudice, if not evidence.

ancapailldorcha · 18-09-2014 3:09pm

T runner wrote: »

He's not speaking for them He has referenced them.

If "people are aware that the notion of patriarchy is tosh" then you should have no difficulty providing evidence to back up your remarkable claim.

If you cant then your own beliefs must be based on prejudice, if not evidence.

The evidence is all around us. Women have more opportunities than ever before. Heck, they've even brought in quotas to ensure these opportunities. I've seen more than a few "female only" positions. No employer nowadays would dare pay a woman less than a man for the same job. Women's prisons are vastly superior to those where men are incarcerated and women hold all the cards in relation to family law. There's still a ways to do but we're getting there.
You insist on citing heavily flawed opinion pieces as evidence while clinging fervently to this notion that all perpetrators of domestic violence are men. If anyone here is prejudiced, it is you.

jackofalltrades · 18-09-2014 3:09pm

T runner wrote: »

Accept what exactly? All the researchers referenced in the article are in accord that patriarchy not only exists....

And what are they using to back up this opinion?
Have they conducted research that shows that "the patriarchy" exists?
Do they reference other peoples research, that proves that it exists?

T runner · 18-09-2014 3:27pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The evidence is all around us. Women have more opportunities than ever before. Heck, they've even brought in quotas to ensure these opportunities. I've seen more than a few "female only" positions. No employer nowadays would dare pay a woman less than a man for the same job. Women's prisons are vastly superior to those where men are incarcerated and women hold all the cards in relation to family law. There's still a ways to do but we're getting there.
You insist on citing heavily flawed opinion pieces as evidence while clinging fervently to this notion that all perpetrators of domestic violence are men. If anyone here is prejudiced, it is you.

You cant substantiate any of the above nor can you substantiate that the article I referenced is flawed. There is no credible researcher in this field who does not agree that a patriarchal upbringing is a motive for male domestic violence against women. If you feel the article I referenced is flawed then you should easily be able to provide one to refute it.
You don't because you done substantiate your beliefs with evidence, only with prejudice.

ancapailldorcha · 18-09-2014 3:37pm

T runner wrote: »

You cant substantiate any of the above nor can you substantiate that the article I referenced is flawed. There is no credible researcher in this field who does not agree that a patriarchal upbringing is a motive for male domestic violence against women. If you feel the article I referenced is flawed then you should easily be able to provide one to refute it.
You don't because you done substantiate your beliefs with evidence, only with prejudice.

Most of what I've said is common knowledge. I don't see how it can be down to a patriarchal upbringing given that women hold the cards in family law in all but the most extreme of cases. I've no idea what a patriarchal upbringing would even involve to be honest. Spousal abuse and it's causes are more complicated than you're making out and I couldn't care less what biased researchers have to say on the subject.

Here's one piece. It mentions a patriarchal upbringing as a possible factor amongst many:

http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=47&articleid=228&sectionid=1495

T runner · 18-09-2014 3:53pm

jackofalltrades wrote: »

And what are they using to back up this opinion?
Have they conducted research that shows that "the patriarchy" exists?
Do they reference other peoples research, that proves that it exists?

ALL creditible researchers into domestic violence agree that a patriarchal outlook/upbringing is a motive for domestic violence carried out by men against women.
If you want to argue that patricarchy or sexism or racism don't exist, eat your heart out. But substantiate it or else stop wasting our time.

ancapailldorcha · 18-09-2014 3:56pm

T runner wrote: »

ALL creditible researchers into domestic violence agree that a patriarchal outlook/upbringing is a motive for domestic violence carried out by men against women.
If you want to argue that patricarchy or sexism or racism don't exist, eat your heart out. But substantiate it or else stop wasting our time.

Credible researchers being those who's "research" backs up your point, yes?
I never said that sexism and racism don't exist. You keep mentioning prejudice but you've not mentioned anything regarding the high amount of instances of female on male domestic abuse. If you can't say anything new, I'll take a break.

py2006 · 18-09-2014 3:58pm

T runner wrote: »

Accept what exactly? All the researchers referenced in the article are in accord that patriarchy not only exists but is a motivation for male domestic violence against women.

May be some use that as an excuse, others are just mentally ill or just downright violent aggressive people. Some just snap and it is out of character.

What is your excuse for female violence on men?

T runner · 18-09-2014 4:02pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Most of what I've said is common knowledge. I don't see how it can be down to a patriarchal upbringing given that women hold the cards in family law in all but the most extreme of cases. I've no idea what a patriarchal upbringing would even involve to be honest. Spousal abuse and it's causes are more complicated than you're making out and I couldn't care less what biased researchers have to say on the subject.

Here's one piece. It mentions a patriarchal upbringing as a possible factor amongst many:

http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=47&articleid=228&sectionid=1495

How can you argue against something if you don't even know what it is? (see bold)

Absolutely ludicrous!

Women don't hold the cards in family law. Children do. The child tends to go to the primary carer which in patriarchal countries (like Ireland) is usually the Mother. A lot of fathers have a problem with that. I wouldn't. The law is just trying to do what's best for the child.

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.

Lemming · 18-09-2014 4:02pm

py2006 wrote: »

May be some use that as an excuse, others are just mentally ill or just downright violent aggressive people. Some just snap and it is out of character.

What is your excuse for female violence on men?

Don't forget female on female violence too. Or male on male.

I'd be fascinated to hear how all three fit into the patriarchy narrative.

T runner · 18-09-2014 4:04pm

py2006 wrote: »

May be some use that as an excuse, others are just mentally ill or just downright violent aggressive people. Some just snap and it is out of character.

What is your excuse for female violence on men?

That's been said already but not substantiated unsurprisingly.
You cant substantiate any of the rubbish you've just posted either. Ergo your beliefs are based on prejudice.

T runner · 18-09-2014 4:08pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Credible researchers being those who's "research" backs up your point, yes?
I never said that sexism and racism don't exist. You keep mentioning prejudice but you've not mentioned anything regarding the high amount of instances of female on male domestic abuse. If you can't say anything new, I'll take a break.

As I've already posted even the person (Steinmetz) who coined the phrase "battered men" admits that (Strauss, Gelles, Steinmetz p242-3)

HINT: Steinmetz is one of your "type" of researchers.

If you are not even reading the thread then please do take a break. Further proof that your positions are not informed, but based on an already existing prejudice.

py2006 · 18-09-2014 4:13pm

T runner wrote: »

That's been said already but not substantiated unsurprisingly.
You cant substantiate any of the rubbish you've just posted either. Ergo your beliefs are based on prejudice.

Excuse me? You are borderline offensive. What was rubbish in what I said?

jackofalltrades · 18-09-2014 4:15pm

T runner wrote:

ALL creditible researchers into domestic violence agree that a patriarchal outlook/upbringing is a motive for domestic violence carried out by men against women.
If you want to argue that patricarchy or sexism or racism don't exist, eat your heart out. But substantiate it or else stop wasting our time.

So you can't show me where they prove that the patriarchy exists.

T runner wrote:

. The child tends to go to the primary carer which in patriarchal countries (like Ireland) is usually the Mother. A lot of fathers have a problem with that. I wouldn't. The law is just trying to do what's best for the child.

Here Wikipedia's definition of Patriarchy:

Patriarchy is a social system in which males are the primary authority figures central to social organization, occupy roles of political leadership, moral authority and control of property, and where fathers hold authority over women and children.

Big whole there in your theory that we live in a patriarchy.
If we lived in a patriarchy the father would have full custody of the children.
Which is the way it used until a woman lobbied that women are better parents then men.
It's got nothing to do with what is best for the child.

Seriously? · 18-09-2014 4:18pm

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

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/problems_in_marriages_and_other_relationships/barring_safety_and_protection_orders.html

Under the Domestic Violence Act, 1996, Gardai (the Irish police force) have the power to arrest and prosecute a violent family member.

That seems to contradict that statement; clearly they do have the power. Perhaps you're suggesting they deliberately don’t do so?
Care to provide evidence to back up your statement or explain where I'm reading it wrong ?

ancapailldorcha · 18-09-2014 4:18pm

T runner wrote: »

That's been said already but not substantiated unsurprisingly.
You cant substantiate any of the rubbish you've just posted either. Ergo your beliefs are based on prejudice.

Ahhh... Everyone who disagrees with your nonsense is prejudiced. Makes sense.

T runner wrote: »

As I've already posted even the person (Steinmetz) who coined the phrase "battered men" admits that (Strauss, Gelles, Steinmetz p242-3)

HINT: Steinmetz is one of your "type" of researchers.

If you are not even reading the thread then please do take a break. Further proof that your positions are not informed, but based on an already existing prejudice.

Please stop abusing that word. Do you even know what it means?

As for women perpetrating domestic violence:

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence

SaturnV · 18-09-2014 4:19pm

SaturnV wrote: »

Have you read the article? Because, if you have, you will find that there is no analysis or documentation of the motivation for the abuse.

T runner wrote: »

There is yes.

Where? No, exactly, point out to me where. Just stating "yes there is" is not sufficient. There is supposition and assumption about motives, not evidence for. Assumptions are not always wrong or a problem. The problem is when people reading something like this (i.e. you) can't seem to tell the difference between assumptions and evidence based knowledge. The author presents no original research on the topic. There is no original research on the topic among the cited works in this article. Now, this isn't surprising - it is an incredibly hard thing to study in a reliable way, but the bottom line is that if you want to know why a man abused his partner, you have to ask the man. No study of battered wives shelters, hospital reports or divorce court proceedings will answer that question.

T runner wrote: »

Incorrect on at least two fronts: the statistics come typically from crime reports, police records, hospital records etc.

The majority of referenced studies are heavily weighted on studies conducted in what were known as "battered wives shelters".

Nevertheless, this is a fundamentally different sampling approach, which gives you a fundamentally different answer. Now, what does that tell us?

T runner wrote: »

It is only your assertion that there is no evidence. None of the researchers, however, are in any doubt that patriarchy is a motivation in male domestic violence against females.

I'm not sure you know what assertion means. It is not my assertion that there is no evidence presented in that document (or the referenced studies), it is a simple statement of fact.

T runner wrote: »

He states that all researchers do acknowledge the role of Patriarchy in wife abuse (Strauss, Gelles, Steinmetz p242-3 these are actually the main proponents of the quantative analysis, infact Steinmetz even coined the phrase "baterred husband".)

The referenced paper is a studies of patterns of domestic violence (specifically changes in patterns, significant when interpreting a study a quarter of a century old), not the motivations for the violence.

T runner wrote: »

There is nothing loaded about the term. If the motivation is patriarchy, then it is accurate. It also puts the emphasis on the perpetuator who is after all responsible for the violence.

If the motivation is patriarchy. If. Your thesis is that men are violent towards women because of patriarchy. Now, lets break that down. Some men are violent towards women. Easily verifiable fact. Next, those men are violent because of their views towards women. Much harder to verify. I'm not saying you're wrong, but you have shown no evidence for that being true, other than showing that you believe some others also believe that to be true (again, without evidence)

T runner wrote: »

That's misleading. It finds varied reasons not little difference, because it includes all violence. As stated it acknowledges that patriarchy is a motivation for mens violence against their wives which refutes what you are trying to imply.

No. No it doesn't

T runner · 18-09-2014 4:43pm

Lemming wrote: »

Don't forget female on female violence too. Or male on male.

I'd be fascinated to hear how all three fit into the patriarchy narrative.

No you wouldn't. Patriarchal abuse is rooted in a patriarchal upbringing perpetrated by men against women. Other forms of domestic abuse fall into the common couple type of violence, according to the article. The perpetrator may have had a violent upbringing and uses violence for individual situations and not for control over the other person.

Pawwed Rig · 18-09-2014 5:04pm

Mod note - Keep it civil lads

py2006 · 18-09-2014 5:51pm

OTT generalisations, negative tone against men and dismissing other posters comments as rubbish and/or prejudice because they don't fit in with your aggressive opinions......Well...need I say more! :rolleyes:

T runner · 19-09-2014 9:40am

jackofalltrades wrote: »

So you can't show me where they prove that the patriarchy exists.

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

Here Wikipedia's definition of Patriarchy:

Big whole there in your theory that we live in a patriarchy.
If we lived in a patriarchy the father would have full custody of the children.
Which is the way it used until a woman lobbied that women are better parents then men.
It's got nothing to do with what is best for the child.

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.

ancapailldorcha · 19-09-2014 9:58am

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?

No you haven't. You've put up a biased opinion piece and attempted to pass it off as evidence. If "patriarchal upbringings" were the cause of spousal abuse then nearly every household would have suffered from it.

T runner wrote: »

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.

You can't speak for every single researcher. What about the fact that 40% of domestic abusers are women?

constance tench · 19-09-2014 10:05am

Three Irish gender neutral surveys were carried out by:

The Marriage and Relationship Counselling Service (MRCS)
Accord
A study for the Department of Health and Children

The MRCS study found that domestic violence between couples tends to be mutual in a third of the cases (33%), female-perpetrated in four out ten couples (42%) and male-perpetrated in a quarter of couples (25%).

The Accord study found that where domestic Violence occurs, (46%) involved mutual violence; in (30%) of cases it was perpetrated by women only and in (24%) by men only.

The Department of Health study found, where domestic violence occurs, (50%) was mutual with the remainder divided equally between women-only and men-only perpetration.

These findings reflect the results of all independent two-sex studies carried out world-wide.

http://www.uspi.ie/DomesticAbuse.php

T runner · 19-09-2014 10:38am

SaturnV wrote: »

Where? No, exactly, point out to me where. Just stating "yes there is" is not sufficient.

I referenced at least 2 times in that post.

There is supposition and assumption about motives, not evidence for. Assumptions are not always wrong or a problem. The problem is when people reading something like this (i.e. you) can't seem to tell the difference between assumptions and evidence based knowledge

That is all just speculation on your part. You don't know much about this form of motivation clearly.

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.

A man consistently beating his wife due to a patriarchal world view is even easier. This is because it is not one isolated incident. It happens repeatedly over years.

The language used will often be mysoginist, intimidation threats and violence are used to control the spouse, to achieve other patriarchal outcomes to put her into subordinate roles
.
Patriarcal outcomes might be that he controls all the money, gives her an allowance, prevents her from getting a job.

Controlling what she does, who she sees and talks to, where she goes, when she's allowed outside. Jealousy is often used to justify the controlling violence and threats here.

Intimidating her, destroying her property, injuring pets.
Treats her like a servant, beats her for being sloppy in servitude.
Calling her names, making her feel bad about herself, blaming her for the abuse.

The trend is that he will use violence, intimidation, threats etc to control her, and he will use the control to force her into a patriarchal role.

These patterns are un-mistakeable. He is using violence to obtain a patriarchal outcome in a relationship.

but the bottom line is that if you want to know why a man abused his partner, you have to ask the man. No study of battered wives shelters, hospital reports or divorce court proceedings will answer that question.

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

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.)

The majority of referenced studies are heavily weighted on studies conducted in what were known as "battered wives shelters".

Nevertheless, this is a fundamentally different sampling approach, which gives you a fundamentally different answer. Now, what does that tell us?

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.

T runner · 19-09-2014 10:48am

constance tench wrote: »

http://www.uspi.ie/DomesticAbuse.php

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......

Pawwed Rig · 19-09-2014 11:01am

T runner wrote: »

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

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.

T runner · 19-09-2014 11:06am

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

No you haven't. You've put up a biased opinion piece and attempted to pass it off as evidence. If "patriarchal upbringings" were the cause of spousal abuse then nearly every household would have suffered from it.
You can't speak for every single researcher. What about the fact that 40% of domestic abusers are women?

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

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.

ancapailldorcha · 19-09-2014 11:11am

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 · 19-09-2014 11:12am

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 · 19-09-2014 11:14am

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 · 19-09-2014 11:16am

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 · 19-09-2014 11:25am

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 · 19-09-2014 11:41am

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 · 19-09-2014 11:59am

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 · 19-09-2014 12:05pm

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 · 19-09-2014 12:06pm

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 · 19-09-2014 12:10pm

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?

"Man Up" campaign by SafeIreland

Comments