Happy Bullet: says: “The cause of domestic violence is patriarchal oppression". I responded. “Of course it is (negative) when men use violence to oppress their women." You respond: “Oh this is ridiculous. You previously said it wasn't your theory, now you are stating it explicitly. You are wildly inconsistent to the point of being juvenile.” Happy Bullet you need to develop your corpus callosum. You then may see that you used the word patriarchal with the noun “oppression”. In the context of the use of this negative adjective-noun combination you are wrong. There can be good and bad patriarchs. Had you just said patriarchy I would have responded differently.

JamesH :

“Bill realised this was never going to end - he committed suicide by hanging himself just over two weeks ago."

this is the side of DV we don't hear about.

sleep well Ronnie Peters.”

What a shameful way to conduct yourself. You need to own your childish behaviour. I am sick of your excuses. That JameH immediately assumes( a) I am dysfunctional and( b) a woman (my mum) is responsible because of my resistance to his position is indicative of biased ,sexist thinking and a person so conditioned by propaganda that he can’t reason. Of course, JamesH sends me to blatantly sexist links while complaining about WRD.

JameH et al Maybe you should listen to the experiences of women who have suffered at the hands of the justice system too. White Ribbon Day is a great idea and the links you sent me to are mostly one-sided opinion. Seeing the naff attitude and limited vision it has instilled in your thinking you can be sure I’ll stick to sensible articles and my own many experiences and the accounts of many people who have been harmed. And it has never and never will be limited to just women. I don’t understand the logic that says” “If you support this - then you mustn’t support that.” Try stop thinking in black and white terms. Then maybe you will understand things a bit better

Domestic violence is due to patriarchal oppression?

So, when my mate was hit across the back of the head with a heavy metal object whilst watching TV (for the upteenth time), by his lovely, kind, caring, nuturing and gentle soul of a mentalist wife, that was er, patriarchy in action?

hen she stabbed him in the shoulder blade with a kitchen knife, that was patriarchal oppression?

Men are EXTREMELY likely to refrain from admitting experience of violence at the hand of a woman. Its not 'manly' to admit being beat up, especially not by the 'weaker sex.' Men reserve their greatest fear of shame and loss of face in this regard, in the face of women. Women dont like weak men (contrary to PC feel-good rhetoric). Women understand who has the strength implicitly, that human-beings are animals and in the real world if you push, you get shoved back. To this end, the greatest disdain for a weak man is carried by women.

Yes, l know men have to take responsibility... so do women.

l suspect that male victims of domestic violence are much higher than reported, due to the stigma. Especially now that the definition of domestic violence has been expanded to include psychological and emotional abuse. It make no dufference that such abuse is buried in passive-aggressive, subtle, indirect manipulation... it stands.

There is an idea that when people want to do something stupid (like making preducial laws), one should step up and give these people maximum support in their fool's mission and loudly proclaim who they are. This will hasten the inevitable demise and everyone will know who is responsible, which will put the fools outta business for a long time.

Careful what you wish for, you might get it.

I think women should be allowed their vilification of men for the few men who have abused. In as much as I think men ought to have a special day to vilify women for their child abuse. It's a recorded fact that women perpetuate the majority of child abuse. I mean if it's come down to a war of the sexes rather than the actual care and consideration of general society. We're playing feminist rules. Everybody pick your team and chose your weapons.
We'll have all this solved in no time. Oh yes the rules. The rule is that the womens team score 1 point for striking a man and the mens team loose a point every time they strike a woman. Each teams score starts at zero. Highest score wins. Go.

Retarded-woman-pretending-to-be-male wrote:

"You then may see that you used the word patriarchal with the noun “oppression”. In the context of the use of this negative adjective-noun combination you are wrong. There can be good and bad patriarchs. Had you just said patriarchy I would have responded differently."

All this proves is that you are enough of a weasel to attempt to backtrack on your inconsistencies based on a juvenile semantic argument that, because you're responding to older posts, you evidently just thought of. Stop lying. Keep up.

Fact is when you said these things the report was being referred to and the "cause of domestic violence" was being referred to.

You knew very well what we were talking about.

Here's a tip: If you are such a liar that you must try to abdicate responsibility for your position on a subject because you know you'd lose credibility, then maybe your position is wrong.

You said: The report is reasonable. The report says that female violence against men is in a context of patriarchal oppression. Therefore you think that is reasonable.

Then you tried to abdicate responsibility. Typical behaviour from someone who knows their position is wrong, but wants to take it anyway.

You then said: "violence by men is patriarchal oppression".

Apart from this being ridiculous, as it ignores even female victims of other causes of domestic violence who provably exist, I'd say that pretty much gels with my initial accusation.

Your posts remind me of this ridiculous article written by some man hating feminazi bulldyke who has rather foolishly, decided to be honest about what she believes when she writes about violence against women:

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/12/357875.html

Note that this more or less says the same thing you, the author and the other WRD hate peddlers say, just less glossed over.

We can see, not so subtle women's studies students like the above, you and the feminists running the DV industry all theorize domestic violence is caused by the same thing: Patriarchal Oppression. Something out of a radical feminist playbook.

Goodbye credibility.

Ronnie, posted this "Maybe that some men’s groups attract disgruntled divorcees looking for payback is the real problem."

I then posted a story from the DIDS website about a bloke who committed suicide. There is another bloke I know of who also committed suicide in similar circumstances.

"Mama’s boys?" is what Ronnie calls us.

Ronnie then moves from moderate correction (which could mean anything) to the highly emotive rethoric of beating.(Wednesday, 29)

"the male would grab the woman and forcefully kiss her on the mouth? This is symbolic of rape." saying forceful kissing is symbolic of rape is very sick.

“"The cause of domestic violence is patriarchal oppression"RP

Cotter,
"yet she was an excellent mother who happened to marry a man who was violent in drink."

Here we have the essence of the majority of DV, alcohol or drug abuse. Not patriarchy!

Now somehow I am suppose to be able to get rid of paedohiles in the RC church? Go figure. So what if it is a religous site (I myself am not particularly regilous) it contained an article for you to look at.

I am more than likely twice Ronnie's age.

I was going to suggest that if he could leave his biase's, prejudice and anger at the door, that he go along to a DIDS meeting and to AA and Alnon.(and before you toss a hissy fit I am not suggesting you have a drinking problem) just go and listen to these peoples stories.

Now I am going to be extremely blunt Ronnie.

You are a very nasty, provocative, angry and hostile person. You accuse us of seeing things in black and white, whilst it you who is the one only seeing things in black and white.

I did not say you were dysfunctional! I said something dysfunctional is happening here!

I have never abused a woman in my life, however I have been on the receiving end more times than I care to count.

http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2004/0407rolph.html

Happy, I think you are losing some of the value of your posts with the name calling. You have some good points to make but it's getting overshadowed by the other stuff.

I found the link you posted worth commenting on

"Even though some broken women may collaborate with patriarchal men to gain power (Condi Rice, Margaret Thatcher etc.) it doesn't change the fact that patriarchal men are in charge and allow selected token "henchwomen" into the boys club–if they identify with and behave like patriarchal men."

I'm trying to work out who the patriarchal men are who were in charge in Maggies time as PM of the UK, I thought the only one who outranked the PM was the crown and I'm fairly sure Queen Elizabeth is female. Maybe the Club of Rome or some patriarchal aliens were pulling the strings all along or maybe the UK did have have in it's top two layers of authority women for a period.

Somebody was not thinking about it when they used Maggie as an example of a broken woman with a patriarchal man in charge.

The author also opposes the gender neutral approach to DV with the only real comment being that it takes away from a focus on mens violence against women - the we were here first so you miss out approach.

The author talks about mens requirement for "emaciated super models and life threatening cosmetic surgery" - I was under the impression that the emaciated thing was because designers want the focus on the clothes rather than curves underneath. I've never been to a fashion show or bought a magazine that was mostly about super models and am having some trouble understanding how it is mens requirement.

So many of the things the author choose to blame men for seem to be mostly under the control of women (and a free choice by the women involved). We don't have any laws requiring "A" cups to get add in's do we?

R0bert