The hypocrisy of our attitude to domestic violence

Half Nelson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
21,430
I was watching Room to Improve last night, yeah I know, but it was a Sunday evening... Anyway, the couple featured seemed to be very happy together but at one point during a bit of banter, the small petite woman put her hands around her taller husband's neck in a mock strangle. Everyone laughed. If the tables were turned, and the man had put his hands around the neck of the woman, I can guarantee that Twitter would have been awash wih condemnations. It put me in mind of a man I knew years ago who was also much taller than his wife, but used to say she was "6 foot 6 with a poker in her hand".

Why is a woman throttling a man considered acceptable to broadcast, when the opposite is not?
I saw this and rang the guards.

They said they were busy but that it would be repeated next month and they'd be ready for her then.



Lighten up, ffs!
 


RodShaft

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2016
Messages
9,169
There are two relevant differences to take into account: in most relationships the man does not have much to fear from the woman in a fair fight and fewer women than men are violent.

I think there is a real double standard in our attitude to jokes about domestic violence and perhaps even to perpetrators but I think there is a rational explanation for it.
I am not sure that women are inherently less violent than men. I am sure that in a fair fight between the average male/female couple, the woman is the likely loser.
 

Notachipanoaktree

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 26, 2013
Messages
8,137
I saw this and rang the guards.

They said they were busy but that it would be repeated next month and they'd be ready for her then.

Lighten up, ffs!


Lighten up yourself FFS

Do you agree that there is an exponentially growing population of men?

1. Unemployed and unemployable.

2. In prison.

3. Living in a bed-sit.

4. Dead by their own hand.

Because, they didn't get the joke and somebody changed the rules when they weren't looking.
Somebody also forgot to tell the women. It's not funny anymore.
 

Half Nelson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
21,430
Lighten up yourself FFS

Do you agree that there is an exponentially growing population of men?

1. Unemployed and unemployable.

2. In prison.

3. Living in a bed-sit.

4. Dead by their own hand.

Because, they didn't get the joke and somebody changed the rules when they weren't looking.
Somebody also forgot to tell the women. It's not funny anymore.[/B]
Yawn!

When an innocent piece of fun is spun into an attack on western civilisation then the problem is yours.
Do you have a significant other? Do you ever have any fun?
 

Notachipanoaktree

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 26, 2013
Messages
8,137
Yawn!

When an innocent piece of fun is spun into an attack on western civilisation then the problem is yours.
Do you have a significant other? Do you ever have any fun?
I would suggest he (Reasunach) felt the need to exploit the simple fact to make a very valid point. I concur. Is that ok with you?

How does the below become an attack on western civilisation?


Do you agree that there is an exponentially growing population of men?

1. Unemployed and unemployable.

2. In prison.

3. Living in a bed-sit.

4. Dead by their own hand.

Because, they didn't get the joke and somebody changed the rules when they weren't looking.
Somebody also forgot to tell the women. It's not funny anymore.[/B]
 

RodShaft

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2016
Messages
9,169
Yawn!

When an innocent piece of fun is spun into an attack on western civilisation then the problem is yours.
Do you have a significant other? Do you ever have any fun?
It would appear that his significant other became significant in an entirely new, negative way.

Apparently, even though I don't know either of them, I'm to blame for that.
 

yobosayo

Well-known member
Joined
May 8, 2010
Messages
3,311
There are two relevant differences to take into account: in most relationships the man does not have much to fear from the woman in a fair fight and fewer women than men are violent.

I think there is a real double standard in our attitude to jokes about domestic violence and perhaps even to perpetrators but I think there is a rational explanation for it.
Gender differences in patterns of relationship violence were investigated in a representative sample of adult men (N = 356) and women (N = 351) from the province of Alberta. Respondents reported on their receipt and perpetration of violent acts in the year prior to the survey. Men and women, respectively, reported similar one-year prevalence rates of husband-to-wife violence (12.9% and 9.6%) and wife-to-husband violence (12.3% and 12.5%). However, differential gender patterns of reporting were identified. On average, men reported that they and their female partners were equally likely to engage in violent acts and to initiate violent conflicts. In contrast, women reported lower levels of victimization than perpetration of violence, and they reported less male-only and male-initiated violence than did men. The majority of respondents in violent relationships reported a pattern of violence that was bidirectional, minor, infrequent, and not physically injurious. The discussion focuses upon the meaning of gender differences in reports of relationship violence, and the existence of distinct patterns of violence within intimate relationships.
****
Extensive U.S. research, however, has indicated that much of the violence experienced by intimate partners is bidirectional. For example, in the 1985 NFVS, of the sub-sample of 825 respondents who disclosed violence, 49% reported that both spouses had engaged in violence, 23% reported male-only violence, and 28% reported female-only violence (Stets & Straus, 1990).
****
Regarding the initiation of violence, Bland and Orn (1986) found that of those individuals reporting violent relationships, 58% of men and 73% of women indicated that they had initiated violence by hitting or throwing things first, "regardless of who started the argument" (p. 131). Similarly, in the 1985 NFVS, more women (53%) than men (44%) admitted to having struck the first blow in violent confrontations (Stets & Straus, 1990). Unfortunately, little additional information about the circumstances surrounding these incidents was available to assess the context in more detail. For instance, measures of bidirectionality generally refer to the use of violence and not the level of violence. It is possible that in many bidirectionally violent relationships, men are the primary aggressors and women are responding physically in self-defense. However, findings showing female-only violence and female initiation of violence suggest that this is not always the case. Interestingly, in DeKeseredy and Schwartz's (1998) survey of young adults, 62.3% of women reporting perpetration of minor violence said it was never in self-defense and only 6.9% said it was always in self-defense. Similarly, of women reporting perpetration of severe violence, 56.5% said it was never in self-defense and 8.5% said that it was always in self-defense.
***
The data of respondents who experienced any violence were categorized by who had engaged in physical conflict: both partners, male only, or female only. Of those women who reported any violence in the past 12 months (received and/or inflicted), 52% reported violence from both partners, 35% reported female-only violence, and 13% reported male-only violence. Of the men who reported any violence in the past 12 months (received and/or inflicted), 62% reported that both partners were violent, 18% reported female-only violence, and 20% reported male-only violence. Thus, according to more than one-half of men and women in relationships with any violence, both partners had engaged in at least one violent act. Furthermore, women were significantly more likely than men to report female-only violence (z = 2.0, p < .05).

Bidirectionality was also assessed by comparing reports of perpetration and receipt of violence within gender to test for the likelihood of bi-directional violence. Sixty percent of women who reported perpetrating violence also reported receiving violence; conversely, 79% of women who reported receiving violence also reported perpetrating violence (c2(1, n = 354) = 150.8, p < .01). Similarly, 76% of men who reported perpetrating violence also reported receiving violence, and 77% of men who reported receiving violence also reported perpetrating violence (c2(1, n = 356) = 189.9, p < .01). Parallel analyses also indicated strong dependencies in reports of perpetration and receipt of minor and severe violence, for both women and men.
****
Based on Kennedy and Dutton's (1989) representative survey of Alberta, the proportions of men and women who reported perpetrating and receiving at least one act of violence within their intimate relationships in a 12-month period were roughly comparable. Specifically, rates of overall husband-to-wife violence were 12.9% and 9.6%, and rates of overall wife-to-husband violence were 12.3% and 12.5%, according to men's and women's respective reports. There were no significant gender differences in reported rates for each category of violence, indicating gender agreement. Furthermore, with only two exceptions, similar proportions of men and women tended to report engaging in specific acts of violence that were usually minor and infrequent. The comparable one-year prevalence rates of male and female violence are consistent with the findings of a number of non-Canadian studies (e.g., Straus & Gelles, 1986). In addition, the obtained rate of male violence is generally consistent with prior Canadian surveys that only included women's reports of male violence (e.g., Smith, 1985, 1987; Statistics Canada, 1993). Hence, the consistency of rates across men's and women's reports and across different studies supports the validity of the current findings.
****
Consistent with prior research (e.g., Morse, 1995; Stets & Straus, 1990), measures of the context of violence revealed that much of the violence experienced by these men and women was bidirectional. Sixty-two percent of men and 52% of women who reported violence indicated that it was perpetrated by both partners. As discussed previously, evidence of bidirectional violence does not inform us of the relative severity of male-to-female and female-to-male violence. However, some insight into this issue can be obtained by comparing the frequencies of perpetrated and received violent acts for individual indicating bidirectional violence. It could be, for instance, that women reporting bidirectional violence report higher levels of receipt than perpetration, suggesting that their perpetration may be self-defensive. We defined asymmetric violence as those cases in which a participant reported that one partner had inflicted at least five more acts of violence than the other partner in the past year. Based on this criterion, 15 of the 62 respondents reporting bidirectional violence were classified as experiencing asymmetric violence. Of the 7 men classified as asymmetric, 6 reported receiving more violence than they perpetrated and one reported the opposite pattern. Of the 8 women classified as asymmetric, 3 reported receiving more violence than they perpetrated and 5 reported the opposite pattern. These small numbers preclude any definitive interpretation. However, these data indicate that only a minority of respondents reported clearly asymmetric patterns of violence in their relationships. Moreover, we found no evidence that male-to-female violence was more frequent than female-to-male violence in bidirectional cases.

Surprisingly, both men and women tended to attribute the initiation of violence to themselves. Specifically, 49% of men and 67% of women reported that they had started the physical conflict. Since participants were given only forced choice response options, however, it is not clear how reports of initiation should be interpreted. Participants were not asked about their reasons for initiating physical violence or about the role of psychological aggression during the incident.

The overwhelming majority of respondents who experienced violence did not endorse any consequence items. Just 16% of women who reported receipt of violence endorsed one or more of the consequences assessed, and no men reported experiencing these consequences from their receipt of violence. This pattern of findings is similar to that from the 1985 NFVS: Of the participants reporting receipt of violence, 3% of the women, and only 0.4% of the men, required medical care for injuries sustained as a result of domestic violence (Stets & Straus, 1990).
****
Within-gender analyses of violence reports showed that men generally reported gender equality in the perpetration, receipt, initiation, and bidirectionality of abuse. In contrast, women tended to report that they were more likely to perpetrate violent acts than their male partners. Furthermore, a smaller proportion of women reported male-only violence (13%) compared to female-only violence (35%), and fewer women reported male initiation of violence (26%) than female initiation of violence (67%). At the very least, this data suggests that not all of women's violence within intimate relationships can be interpreted as self-defensive (cf., Straus, 1993).

And for the point of this thread, for those of you morons who chided the OP:

This is the first Canadian study to investigate gender differences in the rates, bidirectionality, initiation, and consequences of relationship violence in a representative sample. Consistent with research outside of Canada, men and women reported similar rates of violence perpetration and victimization. And, while more comprehensive study is needed, it appears that a substantial proportion of women's violence cannot be explained as acts of self-defense. Both genders reported that women do initiate violence and are sometimes the sole perpetrators of aggression in relationships. Also consistent with prior research, the violence reported by respondents generally differed from the prototypical batterer/victim pattern. The majority of respondents in violent relationships reported a pattern of violence that was bidirectional, minor, infrequent, and not physically injurious.

While the importance of eliminating violence against women is obvious, the need to stop women's violence against men may be less evident. Our society seems to harbour an implicit acceptance of women's violence as relatively harmless, even amusing. For example, the popular media frequently shows women hitting men with little consequence. Straus (1993) has outlined four reasons in support of the elimination of women's violence: 1) spousal assault is morally wrong, regardless of gender; 2) the acceptance of female violence may perpetuate traditional norms tolerating violence between intimate partners; 3) there is evidence that women's violence may increase the probability of spousal conflict escalating into severe wife battery; and 4) all forms of spousal violence model violence to children and may be predictive of children subsequently being perpetrators or victims of relationship violence themselves. We would add that although a low level of violence between men and women may not be physically injurious, it is associated with high marital and individual distress (e.g., Vivian & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 1994). Furthermore, the failure to acknowledge the possibility of women's violence, in the face of sound research evidence, jeopardizes the credibility of all theory and research directed toward ending violence against women. It also does an injustice to men who are victims of female violence and to women who need help in learning more constructive strategies to deal with the inevitable conflicts and frustrations that arise in intimate relationships.

See: https://www.fact.on.ca/Info/dom/kwong99.htm
 

Emily Davison

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Messages
30,667
Whether in the home or the workplace, men regularly suddenly find themselves in the middle of a vicious life-changing row long after the row actually began. The initial reaction is shock, followed by fear. Depending on the individual's natural reaction to fear whatever happens has been pre-programmed by fight or flight.

The cards are stacked because the woman has been preparing the ground for a long time and the choreography is set to move to her tune.

ref Thread. Science discovers liberals (and hence feminists) are "psychotic" and prone to authoritarianism.

R3, Merc, Viking.....BS, BS ,BS

Over and out.
I suspect your ex is a very lucky woman indeed.
 

Notachipanoaktree

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 26, 2013
Messages
8,137
I suspect your ex is a very lucky woman indeed.
Do you agree that simple pushing, simple shoving, simple slapping, simple abuse, and simple bullying is the almost exclusive preserve of women?

As evidenced by the simply appalling behaviour of the thugs since #40

 
Last edited:


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top