Hi Phanto,

Hmmmm ..... slight contradiction there:

"Why are there so many shows on TV which glamorise domestic relationships, which promote domestic relationships as the ultimate attainment for a woman. Why do they present a fairytale when the reality is that one third of them will be a victim of violence?"

and

"Why do women stay in relationships where the odds are the same. Why don't they leave while they have the chance? Even women who can easily leave choose to stay even though the odds remain the same whilst ever you are in such a relationship."

Which is it, media persuasion, or contrary but rational decision-making ? Maybe it's neither: nobody can know the future, so intelligent people enter relationships and stay in them in the hope that their partner will improve his ways, out of love - if not for the woman only, but for the kids as well. But for many women, the passing of time means more obligations to stay (kids, lack of alternatives) and fewer means to leave. And for many men, the passing of time brings yet more long-term, inescapable burdens.

Like anybody else, women may be hopeful AND rational. They're (I hope) not as easily conned by dopey TV shows - I would think that 'Married at First Sight' or 'Undressed' etc., etc., would have most women climbing the wall in frustration at the supposed dolly-bird stupidity of 'the average woman', or at least, young woman as portrayed on TV.

Why do I buy a ticket in the occasional big X-Lotto, like last Saturday's ? Yes, there's little chance but you never know. Looking into the future with a partner is a bit like that for many women. There's the chance that it will go belly-up, you've done your money, so to speak. But you can't know that beforehand, can you ?

Cheers,

Joe

Loudmouth:

I don’t see the contradiction. Media cannot persuade a rational person. Women get caught up in the glamorisation of domestic bliss and make an irrational decision based on that glamorisation. They do not assess the media reasonably.

You say that no one can know how their relationship will turn out but they do know that one in three relationships become violent. If you take on those odds then you have to also take on the responsibility for your actions. No one forces you to buy a Lotto ticket but you have to take responsibility for your action of parting with your own money.

If you take on the risk of entering a domestic relationship then you also have to take on the responsibility of owning your own decision. You cannot avoid that. Most women will not have a bar of that and immediately decry it as victim blaming. They are victims of domestic violence but they are not ’victims’ of their own choice to enter domestic relationships.

If more focus was directed at the reasons why they enter those situations then they might be much more cautious. Young women and girls in particular need to be challenged about their fantasy of domestic bliss and then perhaps they will have their eyes wide open. This challenge is certainly not coming from other women.

"Where are the reality shows, movies, drama and fiction aimed at men for the same reasons?"

phanto, from what I've seen "reality show" probably don't form part of an entertainment mix for many men. Overall though I do think the general portrayal of a successful straight man is married with kids. the message is targeted to push some different buttons to the ones pushed for women but in my view the message is still out there and fairly strong.

R0bert

RObert:

I think there have been historical reasons why women have been ‘encouraged’ to pursue domestic relationships more than men. In the past women needed to be provided for and the common way was to seek a domestic relationship with a man who could earn a living and take care of them. Men did not have this dependency and so the urgency was not there for them.

This should no longer be the case. Most women are now capable of meeting their own basic needs from the fruit of their own labour and so do not ‘have’ to be in a domestic relationship. Despite this they still seem pre-occupied with finding one so the question needs to be asked why? Men do not have this need because they are not financially dependent on women and never have been. Nothing has changed for them.

The urgency for women is not rational and yet they continue to idolise and fantasise domestic relationships and this is mirrored in the culture. What is going on there and if it is not rational then what is it? There is obviously pressure coming from other quarters and this leads them to behave irrationally in regard to their own safety.

I do not see the ‘successful’ man as being portrayed as married with kids. I see the portrayal as a man who is free of the urgency to get married and more likely to follow other ways of attaining ‘success’.

We tell the young girls they are 'little princesses'.
In doing that we are reinforcing the required need for a 'prince'.
They are all looking for their 'knight in shining armour', but the real truth is it's unlikely any of them will ever actually be princesses.

We impose the colour pink on them.
That tells them they have to get what they want by 'looking nice'.
That the most they can aspire to is getting what they want by being 'appealing to others'.

Just my 2 cents...

This DV epidemic is being strung out by amateur and professional lawyers and sundry social engineers as if it was an unsolvable problem.

It's not. DV happens because violent criminals commit it. That's common to all instances irrespective of what non-violent behaviour is supposed to have led up to it.

GPS gear is unnecessary - the perps should simply be in prison where there is no question about their whereabouts or of their gaining access to their victims. Say, 10 years first conviction of DV assault, no parole, and release thereafter only if and when the victim permits it.

Tap for DV criminals turned off and public attention focused back on the many issues not so dead easy to address at the expense of petty tyrants.