Hi Phanto,

Come off it, you know that it's a lot more complicated than that: You might say that marriage is between one package called a 'man' and another package called a 'woman', who will have different roles in that marriage, despite all efforts to somehow equalise its duties and pleasures between the two.

The woman will be the one to get pregnant, spend nine months lugging a growing belly around, giving birth, spending 20 hours each day looking after a baby, and into the future; while, on the whole the man will go off to work, flat-bellied, come home and have a meal on the table, before he retires to the TV, a day's work well done. Isn't that so ?

When we talk of DV, we're talking about inherently unequal social relationships in the best of marriages. It doesn't even have much to do with the fact that men tend to be bigger, heavier, louder and freer. Men have options that women don't have. isn't that so ?

So there is a power differential, or certainly the potential for one, built into every marriage. In that differential, women have obligations that men don't, and men have opportunities that women don't. So, for any equitable marriage, both partners need to work hard. In a sense, equilibrium, doing nothing extra, tips the balance of power in favour of men, and the burden of duties and obligations 'in favour' of women. Isn't that so ?

Surely we all know this. It's dodging the issue to go on about how big people are: DV is not just a function of body size, but of the problems in relationships inherent in any marriage.

Cheers,

Joe

RObert:

I can understand your anger because I think you have good reason to be angry but your anger seems to be with the justice system.

I do not understand why Killarney, Toni Lavis, EmperorJulian and Loudmouth are angry about men’s violence toward women. As I said anger is a response to injustice. How is violence toward women unjust towards them?

I suspect that they all have different reasons such as the need to identify with feminism, the resentment about violent fathers, the need to ‘protect’ the little lady etc. The responses are very personal. None of them have a dispassionate answer to the problem of what to do and emotional detachment is what is needed here. They are not reacting to the violence but to their own personal need to do something about their own particular problem.

There is very little concern here for the victims of domestic violence and a hell of a lot of anger and resentment towards more immediate relationships.

I think the justice system of which you speak is coloured by this personal response to domestic violence. Judges, advocates, women’s groups and even men’s groups are all reacting in anger and this wrongly determines their perception of justice. No one should be angry here except the victims who have a right to live in peace. Unfortunately a lot of people have agenda’s for or against members of their own family. Others want their father locked up and for the key to be thrown away. Others want their mother to be protected. Some want themselves locked up because they fear they might be a danger to women. Others have a need to belong to some group who ride on the back of domestic violence and it clouds their judgement. Without that belonging who are they?

With all this personal stuff happening we are never going to make good decisions until individuals learn to deal with their own anger.

phanto

'How is violence toward women unjust towards them?'

Excuse me?? WTF?

As the joke goes ... What do you say to a woman with two black eyes? Nothing. She's been told twice already.

'I do not understand why Killarney, Toni Lavis, EmperorJulian and Loudmouth are angry about men’s violence toward women.'

OK. Toni, EJ and Joe. Let's all meet up in a church hall and watch meditation videos, followed by a deep and meaningful discussion. You bring the wine. I'll bring the pizza.

//How is violence toward women unjust towards them?//

Christ on a bike...

Ask Keysar Trad, phanto.

Hey EmporerJulian,
"AC has just come up with an elaborate "blame the victim" on the assumption that bashing is a "men's thing" and that something has to be done to protect men from imprisonment."

You're taking what I said out of context so let me be clear, again.
Think of 'relationship' as being separate from 'acts of violence'.
I AM willing to 'blame the victim' for their part in the 'relationship'; depending on the exact circumstances of how that relationship broke down.
- I'm happy to blame both parties , verbally 'knock their heads together' if it avoids a tragedy.

I'm NOT willing to discount the idea that the 'victim' may have driven their partner over the edge.
But I'M certainly NOT willing to blame the victim for 'acts of violence' against them either.

If I were to hypothetically consider entertaining that idea, I would in effect be entertaining the idea that 2 wrongs can make a right; and that would not be a position that I'd support.

There's a fine line there.
If a man finds himself in such a position where he has been 'driven over the edge' by a woman, it's at this point he should either remove himself from the situation or seek outside help before things get out of hand.
It DOES NOT justify "She had it coming"; Two wrongs do not make a right.

[Cont.]

[Cont.]
What do you really think about when thinking about domestic violence?
Are you thinking only about the victims livelihood?
I don't personally know either party, what do I really care about them?
But I do care about society and I do care about fairness, and I don't really care to see either party physically harmed.

I'm thinking about 2 peoples lives here, I want both parties to live happy and fulfulling lives, and I want society to be better for it.

Think about the officer in the article who learned to avoid certain behavior;
The fact that she learned from the experience and changed her behavior was by no means an admission that what she'd gone through previously was her fault.

If there's no focus on 'prevention' then what's the point?
It just sucks taxpayers funds like a cash-sink to feed the DV Industrial complex.

'Laying blame' takes away from need to look at one's behaviour within the relationship with a real mind towards 'prevention'.

Someone earlier mentioned drugs being a factor.
Well maybe it's not 'drugs' it's 'relationship'.
I'm sure plenty of people take drugs and have relationships but don't resort to domestic violence?
Maybe instead of banning or regulating drugs, we should ban or regulate 'relationships'?
I mean if there's a potential of harm or even death right?

We don't allow people to drive on the road without a license...
They might harm themselves or others.
There's always pro's and con's to everything.

You need to test all these scenarios to foolproof a plan that will actually work.
All I've been doing is pointing out scenarios that show where you line of thinking will fail you and get you nowhere.
Point the finger or ignore me if you want; it really makes no difference to me.