The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > ‘Why didn’t she just leave?’ and other good phrases to get men out of trouble > Comments

‘Why didn’t she just leave?’ and other good phrases to get men out of trouble : Comments

By Caroline Spencer, published 18/8/2009

Help wanted! Greg Inglis and the Melbourne Storm have asked me to raise a team of propagandists to see them through this 'difficult' time.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All
Good article.

I'd extend the passing the buck and excusing individual's bad behaviour past footballing associations though. It would be interesting to see how many organisations from across the board, ie religious, social, work related, don't indulge in similar excuse making if unpleasantness happens on their watch.

Something a bit tribal seems to happen and the complainant pretty often ends up the one being tarnished by the situation. Yet if you pinned members of most organisations who were excuse making down and put it to them in clinical terms they would be outraged at such things happening, as long as it was another organisation's individuals who were involved.

Perhaps a little cynical, but I suspect the pychologists who recommend the victims of workplace bullying just leave and find a new job in the face of excuse making, are right.
Posted by JL Deland, Tuesday, 18 August 2009 8:43:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Being a Mere Male Carline I have one observation. In My line of work everyone is ultimately responsible for his or her own safety, It is up to you to keep yourself safe. There will always be bad people in the world and it's silly to believe that women do get themselves into bad situation, now that doesn't absolve the violence but you do have to ask yourself could the victim have done something different.
Posted by Kenny, Tuesday, 18 August 2009 9:33:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi All,

RE: Workplace bullying.
Why should the victim be forced to leave?
This is not solving a problem that needs to be addressed more broadly with counselling and or (last resort) punishment of the perpetrator/s. It is just hiding the problem. A problem that may also affect any newcomers.
A business having a reputation for allowing it to happen might find it difficult to recruit employees, so it is in the business interest to stop it.
School place bullying, with a reluctance of schools to take action is a similar example to workplace bullying.
Examine the reasons for the bullying culture. You might be surprised.
1. Schools (private or public) may not want to offend parents of the bullies, as they may be financial or other contributors to the school
2. It may stop enrolments to have the school admit it happens.
3. With businesses, a bully may also be a most valued/experienced worker, hence the reluctance of the company to replace him or her.
There may have close ties with management, e.g. family, etc.
3. Often, it is the most vulnerable and least able to get help, who are victims e.g. disabled, weak, and poor, etc.
4. It may reflect the poor leadership of school management or reluctance of teachers to complain, just in case it affects future career development or; teachers inability to cope with the problem.

The duty of care lies with the business, instrumentality, department to ensure that employees and staff are aware of the illegality of bullying. Employers are responsible for not taking action.
However, the culture is difficult to stop unless you understand the reasons behind it.
Bullying is often a reflection of the home environment and any role model set by a bullying parent can be expected to impact on the children, hence translating to the workplace or school.
Just counselling the perpetrator or the victims will not solve the problem when the real reasons exist outside.
This is where governments need to look further rather than just putting a law in place that is cosmetic in effect.

Regards
professori_au
Posted by professor-au, Tuesday, 18 August 2009 10:13:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Why did she not leave'? Surely a better question is why did she enter the relationship in the first place. They say love or lust is blind but so is the thought of being the partner of a footy or cricket star.
If any parent really wants what is best for their daughters they will teach them that character is really important. In some cultures including much of Australian culture women have little respect. They want to act and dress like tarts, speak with foul mouths and then be treated like ladies.

Many of our sporting heroes believe their own press. They actually believe they are gods and why not. They are worshiped and the girls are just one of many prizes. Thankfully their are some exceptions. Women should look closely at what culture they are entering into if they want to be respected. Some cultures show only as much respect for woman as to get what they want out of them. Many woman refuse to accept this reality.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 18 August 2009 10:37:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The responsible party in such cases is clearly the abuser, however to turn this into a social issue about aggressive and dominating males and naive and powerless females is very out of touch and demeaning to women.

Women actually have independent careers these days and can actually think for themselves thought the author doesn't seem to know this. For the author to suggest the woman often can't leave because it may affect her financial status and because her family might still think he is a good guy is hugely disparaging comment on the intelligence and independence of women. It suggests that they are willing to accept the abuse and they are blindly influenced by everyone else. Very 1950's and completely and thoroughly wrong.

These stories, as common as they are these days, are frequently associated with RL and AFL players and are usually about people who are paid to be violent for a living,the people who make money from them (both men and women!)and the women who are attracted to them. Will she return to him and will the Court just slap his wrist? Probably.

The comment about excuses for violence against women perpetrated by the ABC Four Corners program as being "a win-win strategy for all men, rich or poor" is bizarre, uncalled for and just plain nasty.
Posted by Atman, Tuesday, 18 August 2009 10:39:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kenny, who defines what is keeping yourself 'safe'? A young woman who falls in love with a superstar playing in a code that she loves, and who is in the paper cuddling babies, probably thinks she is going to be safe when she moves in with him. She should be.

Professori_au it would be nice to think that the victim of workplace bullying would not have to leave. But the reality is that if the victim is a small fish and receives absolutely no support from the organisation with which they are involved, and the organisation refuses to act, says it is not their problem, and indeed that organisation further promotes the perp and then other members join in on the perp's bad behaviour, pulling up stumps is the best way to handle it.

Some wars are not winnable. You can of course launch legal action for pyschological damage and loss if income from bullying but there is no guarentee of winning, and it is expensive, and the fight may be more damaging than the original bullying.

There is nothing wrong with standing back realising that their bad behaviour is no reflection on yourself (though it's a pretty good guess that as part of the organisation's justification you will find yourself labelled mentally ill, drug addict or alcoholic) and removing yourself is the best way to handle it. That said if you are being stalked like I was (and maybe still at risk) at public events and can get a photo and identify them, then a trip to the police is in order. Each situation is different and the victim needs to find what is comfortable for them.
Posted by JL Deland, Tuesday, 18 August 2009 11:13:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wow! What a vicious little rant this is! One wonders exactly what punishment would satisfy Caroline? Love the bit where she says that no one in Australia is going to call Inglis a "torturer" anytime soon; this of course means that he IS a torturer and that we are all so in love with violence against women that we won't call a spade a spade.
This sort of half-smart rubbish is a sign of the intellectual deterioration of our universities.
Posted by bozzie, Tuesday, 18 August 2009 11:51:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear OLO,

If you wish to reduce the incidence of domestic violence, please stop running these type of articles.

Anyone who follows OLO knows what type of reaction this type of vicious criticism of men will create. I feel sorry for Sally Robinson. Most of us realise that positioning her as a victim is guaranteed to get people asking what she has done to solve her own problem. Insisting that she is blameless will only get people asking 'is this really true?'

Dear Caroline,

You have done immense harm to your cause. You have alienated the same men who you claim are able to stop domestic violence. You have shown your lack of understanding of domestic violence by painting it in simplistic terms. You have reinforced the stereotype of feminists as lacking empathy for men who find themselves in these difficult circumstances. Playing the helpless female who needs men to solve your problems will only bring condemnation from people who understand feminism much better than you do.
Posted by benk, Tuesday, 18 August 2009 12:10:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While I agree with Caroline that abusers should be punished and not allowed to get away with it, it is very often the women who not only facilitate the abuse but prevent punishment of it.

Greg's partner has made a statement claiming that it he was trying to save herself from self harm. The police are now powerless to act.

Given the attention, I cannot believe that she stayed with him simply because she feared leaving. She could have had him severely punished with no fear of retribution.

What is it? Do they invest too much in the relationship to admit defeat? Is Greg too good a catch who will simply replace them?

I don't have the answers, but women need to be able to take action themselves or this will never stop.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 18 August 2009 1:21:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree that this wasn't a very good article on this topic, but really -

benk: << If you wish to reduce the incidence of domestic violence, please stop running these type of articles.

Anyone who follows OLO knows what type of reaction this type of vicious criticism of men will create. >>

Do you really think that OLO's resident misogynist men, having been whipped into a lather by yet another feminist critique of Rugby League thuggery towards women, are going to go home and give the missus a good slapping?

Even I give them more credit than that.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 18 August 2009 1:36:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If this article paints a true picture of our current day society then I really need to get out more. I have never punched a woman, I don't know anyone who has, I don't know anyone who would find it acceptable, I don't know anyone who would want to know anyone who would do that. OK, we can probably qualify the aforementioned to exclude those women who do, just as men sometimes do, have it coming to them, that would be when they choose to use unneccessary violence, or instigate others to do so on their behalf, and even then there are many men (not me) who would consider it unacceptable because as they drone like chant "you never hit a woman". Add that my taxes are frequently used to fund campaigns which accuse me and my innocent like male peers of being violent and/or having attitude problems with regard to VAW (it's about time it was acronymised). The sports player mentioned has been charged, he's being dealt with by the law, he will probably face a stiff penaly, stiffer that if the victim was male, and I don't hear anyone making excuses for him. That's how it appears to me, or, perhaps I do just have to get out more because whatever this author is seeing I'm totally missing.
Posted by HarryC, Tuesday, 18 August 2009 2:13:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Memo to the federal Attorney General, you can get rid of all of that old fashioned court'n'laws'n'justice paraphernalia as soon as you like because Australia now has trial by the media with lynch mobs to carry out their sentences.

Oh and that rather quaint legal principle that any person charged with an offence is presumed to be innocent right up until s/he is convicted by a court, well that is long dead and buried too.

If you should need a legal precedent for trial by the media there are quite a few available, but the most celebrated case in some quarters is the 4Corners Johns/'Clare' affair where poor research and a whirlwind of emotional oratory resulted in victims on both sides and as Arthur Daly, from The Minder might have observed, you can't say fairer than that!
Posted by Cornflower, Tuesday, 18 August 2009 2:50:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not being much of a sports fan, I haven't followed this very closely, but I will say that from my understanding of it, Inglis' actions were utterly reprehensible, and I'd be hard pressed to think of anyone of my acquaintance who would say otherwise.

I can also observe that the troglodyte behaviour of some sportsmen, particularly NRL players, has been subject to a right shellacking in the popular media (what the Footy Show says, I neither know nor care), and a wave of disgust in the Op-Ed pages.

So for Caroline Norma to use these unreconstructed neanderthals as a club to bash every Australian with a Y chromosome seems a pretty long reach.
Posted by Clownfish, Tuesday, 18 August 2009 2:57:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Caroline if you are a psychologist, social worker or sociologist, you have just breach the code of ethics for any of these organisations.
Posted by JamesH, Tuesday, 18 August 2009 4:54:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a rant.

Is it just me or are the PHD student articles always the worst? Not an original thought in it.

I can rant like that and I don't need a PHD! I covered it all in my own thread anyway, and in much better style...

I was even more balanced.
Posted by Houellebecq, Tuesday, 18 August 2009 5:58:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gee guys,
I really don't think the author was having a go at all men.
I would hope that OLO is not the exclusive domain of male, anti-women contributors? I hope it is a more balanced forum?
For goodness sakes get over yourselves and show a bit of backbone by denouncing violence against anyone- male or female.
Posted by suzeonline, Tuesday, 18 August 2009 9:46:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suzie: I agree. I didn't see anywhere in the article that referred to all men; it addresses men who abuse and others who don't see a problem with abusive behaviour.

As to all the finger wagging that talking about DV makes the problem worse - wtf? exactly HOW does that make the problem worse? Worse for whom? The only people I see benefiting from silence about DV are abusers who can no longer hurt people while everyone pretends it isn't happening.

I think it was put quite cleverly - referring to all the ways that we see violence towards women minimized and hushed. For example, I recently saw an article headed, "Greg Inglis is doing it tough." (Cue: violins). Others refer to how his career is on the line and how much is at stake footy-industry and career wise. Tch tch poor Greg Inglis.

If you aren't a man who abuses women and you disagree with violence against women then you wouldn't find this article threatening or insulting.

If people say that some women are fools for staying with these sorts of fellows, I don't take it personally (sometimes I agree). If someone points out that women can be cruel and do awful things, I don't regard them as talking about me or about all women because I don't identify personally with anyone who behaves like that.

As for all the expressed remorse etc that we're reading about recently... well, it's a matter of wait and see. An abuser expressing terrible remorse is not the least unusual; it placates the victim - the couple reconcile and the tension begins to build again until there's a repeat incident
Posted by Pynchme, Tuesday, 18 August 2009 10:34:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JamesH: How does writing an article like this breach a code of ethics in those professions?

Can you point to the bits that have been breached?
Posted by Pynchme, Tuesday, 18 August 2009 10:37:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So here we go again, all 'judge and jury'.

What ever happened to 'inocent until proven guilty'?

I do agree with one poster though, why get involved with a sports star?

We all know the chances of group sex with the so called 'groupies' is high. Is this the type of role model these girls want as a father for their child.

Fame and the lure of money often wins over common sence.
Posted by rehctub, Wednesday, 19 August 2009 5:44:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well ,Pynchme- you said what I wanted to say ! I wish to suggest -that because men ,as a whole,simply do not live the experience of being female- in ANY situation-or any age- ; that some tend to get upset and take some realities, personally. Just as a female cannot fully comprehend the experience of being male.Either that- or- some of those who react so strongly- are so inured to the entitlement and abuse in our societies- that they are complicit in this social scourge of violence.
Even nuns get raped- abused. One cannot argue that their clothing or lifestyle means they "asked for it".A fine opinion piece, that only speaks of reality and bashes no person- but rather the acts of violence that are omnipresent.
Posted by Cold North Wind, Wednesday, 19 August 2009 7:40:16 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suze,

"women in Australian society are, at best, seen as fodder for Sam Newman’s jokes, and generally occupy very lowly social positions as men’s cheergirls, dishwashers, sexual servicers, and paper filers."

Seems to me to be a fairly blanket condemnation of male Australia.

And I thought that by using phrases such as "reprehensible" and "tidal wave of disgust", I was pretty unequivocally denouncing violence against women.
Posted by Clownfish, Wednesday, 19 August 2009 9:26:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ,

'Do you really think that OLO's resident misogynist men, having been whipped into a lather by yet another feminist critique of Rugby League thuggery towards women, are going to go home and give the missus a good slapping?

Even I give them more credit than that.'

That surprises me!

James,

'Caroline if you are a psychologist, social worker or sociologist, you have just breach the code of ethics for any of these organisations.'

WTF. Get your hand off it.

Suze,

'For goodness sakes get over yourselves and show a bit of backbone by denouncing violence against anyone- male or female.'

I hate this 'denounce' crap. I don't think Muslims should have to 'denounce' terrorism, and I don't think all men (or women) have to 'denounce' violence. In fact, I 'denounce' you.

pynchme,

'If you aren't a man who abuses women and you disagree with violence against women then you wouldn't find this article threatening or insulting'

I find it insulting to my intelligence. It's not an 'article', it's a rant. Anyway, nice use of the whole 'if you've got nothing to hide' type argument.

Also, you can 'assume' she's standing by her man, and the anti-feminists can 'assume' the PR spin put out recently is factual. If what they assume makes them pro-violence or anti-female, then what you assume makes you anti-male and pro lynching someone who was trying to help a troubled partner. You have to be careful with assumptions.
Posted by Houellebecq, Wednesday, 19 August 2009 10:01:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How can an accused person get a fair hearing in court when they have already been pilloried by social commentators and found guilty by a kangaroo court of the media? On OLO a respondent has linked the Inglis case to the rape of nuns(?!) while another, also certain of his guilt, rages that so far he has not suffered any loss at all even though he has been prejudged, ridiculed and humiliated in the media and has been stood down from his work. No mention of the collateral damage that is being caused to others either.

Surely the presumption of innocence is an important enough legal principle to be defended and that should be regardless of the person involved.

Phil Gould has quite reasonably asked for the media to act with more restraint and it is time that the Law Society also came forward to defend the rights of all accused persons against trial by the media. Reaffirming the rights of the accused and victims and giving both a fair go until they have had their day in court ensures that trials are fair and are seen to be fair.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/lhqnews/lets-hear-what-inglis-says-before-we-rush-in-to-judge/2009/08/15/1249756481140.html
Posted by Cornflower, Wednesday, 19 August 2009 10:49:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
‘the widely believed fallacy that women are in an equal social position to men, so can up and leave them without any fear of social ostracism, loss of financial status, condemnation from families for wasting an opportunity with a “good guy”, or any personal feelings of failure for having lost another chance at happiness.’

Any woman or any man that remains in, or even begins a relationship for any of these reasons has no one else to blame but themselves. Whilst you can sympathise with their predicament you cannot absolve them of responsibility for their choices. None of those things are worthy values for an independent, mature adult. If violence toward women is to stop then it is the victims who need to examine why they remain in relationships. A woman does not all of a sudden wake up and realise she is living with a violent man. Violence is an extreme form of aggression – it follows a pattern of behaviour that manifests itself long before anyone gets hit. It is the failure of women to respond to aggression of any type that is the real problem. They need to take action as soon as any form of aggression manifests itself. Too often all the warning signs are ignored usually to protect the misguided values that the author has listed.

The man is responsible for his violence and there is no escaping that but the woman is responsible for her values and priorities and there is no escaping that either.

As to the claim that women are in danger even if they leave a relationship this may be true. They are not the only ones who live in fear of violence. We all live in fear of personal injury every time we get out of bed each day. There are laws and police to protect us from those things and we have to trust them. Ultimately, we cannot live our lives in fear. Who would live in a relationship where they will probably be injured rather than leave and risk the possibility that they may be injured?
Posted by phanto, Wednesday, 19 August 2009 11:19:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A very simplistic article.

women = poor, helpless creatures, unable to take responsibility for their destiny

men = brutes, barely able to control their violent urges.

Grade D

Comment: Illogical and incoherent. Are you a graduate of wymens studies by chance?
Posted by dane, Wednesday, 19 August 2009 12:16:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi All and particularly JL Deland,

Thank you for your comment.

However, my point in my comment was to point out that assault or bullying in any form is illegal, especially in the so-called workplace.
There are steps that victims can be take protect them, i.e charges with assault, etc.
Unless the first step is taken then we will expect a continuance of such behaviour.
It should be made quite clear such behaviour is not acceptable or condoned by society,
Where it involves workplace or schools then the management; even government departments can also be charged for failure of Duty of Care.
I agree that it is not the place for the media to pre-judge what happened. There may be more to the cause of the action, so leave that to the courts and appropriate action.
I do not condone violence in any form, whether against females or males.
Violence only proves you are stronger than the other party. It does not prove you are right or have the right to violence.
I regret to see how much sporting clubs contribute to save their "assets".
Adulation is not a reason to protect the perpetrator. Misbehaviour is not the role model I would want to be set for my children. Sadly we see such behaviour coming from parents at even young people's sporting venues.
I believe the sport and the clubs should keep out of it.
I grew up in an orphanage where violence was practiced as a right by many of those in authority against children who were most vulnerable as there was no-one to protect them, hence my dislike of bullying in any form.
regards
professori_au
Posted by professor-au, Wednesday, 19 August 2009 1:10:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I suspect professori_au that we would agree completely on the subject of bullying. It's a complex issue though, and knowing what is the right first step to take is not easy.

Like domestic violence, a bullying situation can creep up on you and it's only when you have stood back a bit, that you think the situation was really out of hand and nobody should have to put up with the stuff the bully wheeled out. Sadly then there is no chance to replay the situation.

If you could rewind time, many of us I suspect, with the value of hindsight, would attempt to kick rear end hard imediately as they encounter it, instead of using the concilatory approach that we tried. Bet lots of us fall into the same trap. We automatically expect the bully to realise that their behaviour is wrong on their own and be mortified at themselves for doing such things.

Bullies of course have a different agenda. They enjoy the power of making someone else's life hell. They enjoy the school boy or girl thrill of dragging other nasty gits in on it, and of being a clever pack leader. They also I suspect have a limited capacity for accepting personal responsibility. Occasionally you will see them sniffling on TV if a more high profile ones get caught, but they never seem to spontaneously have an attack of the guilts.

I'll stand by what I said about lack of response from organisations. Of course it's wrong, but for many organisations the easier option of keeping the bully in place and getting rid of the smaller fish will be taken. In the end it damages them internally as they lose staff, face possible damages and also possible exposure as a organisation who tolerates out of line behaviour.
Posted by JL Deland, Wednesday, 19 August 2009 2:46:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Most of these women get exactly what they deserve. They are attractive attention seeking women, who wear their footballer on their arm like a trophy, every bit as much as the footballer wears them.

Against this exciting, macho, rich footballer, Mr nice guy down the road, who will treat them like a lady, always protecting them, has about as much chance as a hyena.

The fact that it might cost the occasional black eye is small cheese.

It's only with age that they find there may be a better kind of bloke out there, but even then, these blokes are usually just too boring to get a look in.

Stop feeling sorry for these ladies. They live a much more exciting life than you, or I, & have to pay the price of admission from time to time.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 19 August 2009 8:18:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
when it comes out that that the action of Inglis was to stop self harm will everyone who has mouthed off apologise for their hysterical comments. remember it was the public hysteria over the "Dingo took my baby" case that sent an innocent women to jail and destroyed a family. when will we ever learn?
Posted by slasher, Thursday, 20 August 2009 9:21:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suzeonline and Pynchme obviously did not read the article.

Quote from Pynchme: "Suzie: I agree. I didn't see anywhere in the article that referred to all men"

Article: "The Four Corners strategy also gives succour to all the men bashing their wives in teleland: they can all imagine themselves to be rugged, adventurous “risk takers”, just like Inglis. It’s a win-win strategy for ALL MEN, rich or poor.
Posted by Atman, Thursday, 20 August 2009 6:53:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Altman: <"Suzeonline and Pynchme obviously did not read the article.

Quote from Pynchme: "Suzie: I agree. I didn't see anywhere in the article that referred to all men"

Article: "The Four Corners strategy also gives succour to all the men bashing their wives in teleland: they can all imagine themselves to be rugged, adventurous “risk takers”, just like Inglis. It’s a win-win strategy for ALL MEN, rich or poor.">

Altman you're right. I apologize. I did read it but I didn't see that. I read it as a continuation of the overall emphasis on sportsmen, sportsmen and men who sympathize with or share the same worldview as anyone who bashes women.

It isn't fair and detracts from an otherwise good little article.
Posted by Pynchme, Thursday, 20 August 2009 10:14:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pynchme:"I did read it but I didn't see that."

That's only to be expected - the message that "all men are bastards" is so deeply engrained and you're so used to seeing/hearing it in polemics produced by people like the author that you just don't actively note it any more - it's become psrt of the background.

IOW, the perception that "all men are bastards" has become "normalised", which is hardly a surprise given the massive spending on advertising campaigns over the past few decades, not to mention the efforts of the feminised press and the massive funding given to women's organisations to spread the word about "women good, men bad".

It's interesting that none of the grrrls want to acknowledge that his GF's second story may be correct. If he did intervene to stop her harming herself, isn't it likely that when the police first turned up she was distraught and unable to face up to what had happened, only telling the truth when she had calmed down and realised the implications for him of being thought to have been violent towards her?

Having had a woman friend turn up at my place at 1 in the morning threatening to kill herself with a knife because she'd had an argument with her boyfriend, Inglis's GF's second story sounds entirely plausible. If that woman friend turned up today, I'd call the police immediately and let them deal with it - I'd simply not take the risk that a nosy neighbour might call them for me when hearing the raised voices, since I'd be very likely the one carted off to the cells for the rest of the night.

In fact, I'd probably call them then lock her out, just to make sure. Let's face it, if she hurt herself in my home then said I did it or if she got hurt while I was taking the knife from her, what chance am I going to have of a fair hearing from the coppers? I'd say none at all.
Posted by Antiseptic, Friday, 21 August 2009 9:05:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Benk:

“Playing the helpless female who needs men to solve your problems will only bring condemnation from people”

This is a typical defensive response from a man who is threatened by feminism. Caroline was not asking men to solve women’s problems. And anyway, domestic violence isn’t just ‘women’s problem’—it doesn’t really do men a whole lot of good either. The elimination of violence by men against women would be a good thing for both sexes.

“If you wish to reduce the incidence of domestic violence, please stop running these type of articles”

I agree with Pynchme and Suzie that the people complaining about this article harbour deep reservations about the abolition of domestic violence – if this isn’t the case, you wouldn’t be so hostile. Caroline’s approach was to use biting humour—if she’d taken a different approach, the anti-feminists would have criticised her for being boring and serious.

Phanto:
“If violence toward women is to stop then it is the victims who need to examine why they remain in relationships.”

Um, no. If violence toward women is to stop, men have to stop doing the violence. Duh. Dogs sometimes deserve to be hit to be taught a lesson. An adult never deserves to be hit.

“As to the claim that women are in danger even if they leave a relationship this may be true. They are not the only ones who live in fear of violence. We all live in fear of personal injury every time we get out of bed each day.

Compared to women, men generally don’t have to fear as much. Women on the other hand are constantly told, “don’t go walking alone at night”, or “you’d better not get too drunk if you’re going to stay out late” etc. Women are stalked, raped and murdered, usually by men they know, at a FAR higher rate than men are. So don’t tell me that we ALL live in fear of personal injury—the inequality that exists between personal safety levels of men and women are a clear demonstration that we live in a very unequal society.
Posted by ema, Friday, 21 August 2009 3:13:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ema,

'I agree with Pynchme and Suzie that the people complaining about this article harbour deep reservations about the abolition of domestic violence – if this isn’t the case, you wouldn’t be so hostile.'

And we have another! Go stand in the line with pynchme!

In case you missed my earlier post to pynchme (she seems to have done), the 'if you've got nothing to hide' tactic as used by one Stephen Conroy to silence all debate about the internet censorship filters doesn't work.

Similarly, you and pynchme saying 'if you argue with anything in the article you're a closet women basher' doesn't work either. People are too smart for those kind of crap arguments. It's laughable man! Kindergarten stuff.

Antiseptic,

I think you should be kinder to pynchme, she admitted she was wrong about a point, not something you see every day on OLO.

But I'm starting to agree with what you said on another post...

'Other groups of activists use the same methodlogy, from indigenous people to sufferers of some illnesses to some religious groups. Zionist Jews have derived enormous authority from persecution in Europe that has allowed 60 years of atrocity to take place barely questioned in the Middle East.

Part of the central thesis of all these groups is that questions are beyond the pale. They have gone to extraordinary lengths to try to justify a culture in which every statement is part of a polemic and to question means one is misogynist or racist or anti-semitic or just plain hard-hearted about the plight of their particular group of victims.'
Posted by Houellebecq, Friday, 21 August 2009 3:56:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ema - the inequality that exists between personal safety levels of men and women are a clear demonstration that we live in a very unequal society.

Well we live in a society where men in general are physically bigger and stronger than women. If women were bigger and stronger than men then it would be men at a disadvantage. You cannot blame men for their physical advantage over women.

Just because this is the case does not necessarily mean that women’s hope lies only in controlling men’s behaviour. They have the same intellectual power as men and the same ability to solve problems. Maybe they just have not yet found a solution that is not dependent on the co-operation of men. There are many instances in history where smaller, weaker groups have outwitted their physically stronger opponents by using their brains. There are solutions – I just think that some women do not want to find them because they prefer their moral supremacy or their victim status.

‘If violence toward women is to stop, men have to stop doing the violence.’ This is another cry of helplessness. If you cannot stop being a victim unless you can change mens’ behaviour then you are already a victim. Maybe men will never change – does that mean the cause for women is lost? It does not say much for the ingenuity of women. Many women only see one solution to this problem because they are afraid of any other solutions. Many are in abusive relationships for all the wrong reasons and they are afraid that if they genuinely look for other solutions these reasons will be exposed for what they are. Perhaps if they embraced those solutions men would have to change but as it is now they do not have to because women give them the power.
Posted by phanto, Friday, 21 August 2009 3:58:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
EMA said:
"Compared to women,men generally don’t have to fear as much".

"So don’t tell me that we ALL live in fear of personal injury—the inequality that exists between personal safety levels of men and women are a clear demonstration that we live in a very unequal society."

Yes, but you made one HUGE error. Its MEN who are more likely to be the victims of assault across ALL AGE GROUPS. Its actually MEN who have most to fear.

http://www.aic.gov.au/en/statistics/violent%20crime/assault.aspx
Posted by Atman, Friday, 21 August 2009 3:59:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Atman:

Yes, but you made one HUGE error. Its MEN who are more likely to be the victims of assault across ALL AGE GROUPS. Its actually MEN who have most to fear.

http://www.aic.gov.au/en/statistics/violent%20crime/assault.aspx

Good to see references unlike a lot of blog posting. In the first paragraph it states:

The ABS defines assault as the direct infliction of force, injury or violence upon a person, including attempts or threats. It excludes sexual assault.

Note the last sentence. I suspect that the statistics would look a quite different after this is added in.
Posted by RexMundi, Friday, 21 August 2009 8:39:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Another couple of points re: the assault figures.

1. As pointed out, those figures exclude sexual assaults (of women and men I presume). How much higher they'd be if women exercised all the freedoms that they are socialized to forgo; but which males accept as their automatic right - like walking alone late at night; staggering home drunk from pubs (sometimes in the company of newly acquired friends); camping out in the open alone or in small groups; sleeping in cars; chatting to strangers; catching the last bus or train home alone; walking to their cars after work.

In all of those and other scenarios, there is a cost to anyone who does them - many men are mugged and robbed and raped, however when they are - few people blame the victim. It is widely understood that male citizens should be able to walk the streets in safety. Most men can't imagine (as previous posts show) what it is to be constantly looking over one's shoulder; to have to plan one's movements around daylight hours; being careful not to encourage conversations with people one doesn't know who might pose a threat, and always considering when and where it's safe to travel and so on. These are not occasional events for women - they are the fabric of every day life.

2. In contrast to the freedom of movement that males enjoy, women cling to the safety of their homes and yet the figures for assault are still comparable. Also, while men are more likely to be mugged or get into a punch up with a stranger; women are more likely to be assaulted by someone they know or to whom they're related. Big betrayal. Yet women still get blamed in most cases.

3. The biggest threat to the safety of women is men. The biggest threat to the safety of men is OTHER men.
Posted by Pynchme, Friday, 21 August 2009 11:20:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Houellebecq: No, I didn't miss your earlier post. There was nothing in it that was interesting enough to warrant a reply.

In your most recent one, however, I see where you are helping Antiseptic tune up his little violin - egging him on while he sobs again in his hanky about his victimhood.
Posted by Pynchme, Friday, 21 August 2009 11:36:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hoellebecq:"I think you should be kinder to pynchme"

I'm being very kind indeed, believe you me...

Pynchme:"he sobs again in his hanky about his victimhood."

LOL. Another strawman from the quintessential victim-rider designed to avoid any discussion of the fact that women are as responsible for their own behavious as men are for theirs. Of course, now it's been pointed out, I'll be accused of misogyny for suggesting that women aren't generally poor helpless, hapless victims and men aren't generally oppressively dominant patriachs. Not much in it for the victim-riders if their favoured vehicle turns out to have wobbly wheels...

Women's violence against men is rising at an enormous rate today,according to the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics, with male victims of female violence now making up over 30% of DV-related hospital presentations. I believe that there is a causal link between the constant advertising about violence against women that implies women have a "special" status. some women seem to have taken that message to mean "He isn't allowed to retaliate", with predictable consequences.

How many men will have to suffer violence at the hands of women before our politicians, ever-desperate to pander to "the woman's vote", start telling those violent women that throwing boiling water or a saucepanful of hot oil over their husband is not acceptable?

Phanto:"This is another cry of helplessness."

Exactly. "Grrls can do anything (except take responsibility for themselves)"
Posted by Antiseptic, Saturday, 22 August 2009 7:06:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ema and others

I can assure you that I am quite concerned about domestic violence. I would love to see an intelligent response to this issue that has a real chance or reducing its incidence. Currently, the most common idea about domestic violence is that any females must be the victim, any men must accept all of the blame and all of the responsibility for fixing the problem. This seems to be your thinking, Ema and that of Caroline, who wrote this article. This model is badly flawed.

The first problem is that it is very simplistic. Extensive research has proven that men and women are roughly as violent as each other and that women are more likely to initiate the violence. Therefore, any solution to this problem must involve both partcipants.

This leads me to the second problem with the victim/villan model. We are discouraged from considering what she could have done different, because it is blaming the victim. If we accepted that she could have handled the original argument better, then we are starting to see her as able to reduce the number of violence directed towards her. I believe that these women she be offered the same training in conflict resolution and anger management that men are offered.

Lastly, nothing stops conflicts from being resolved better than one party hopping onto their high horse. If both participants acknowledge their mistakes, then it creates an environment where issues can be resolved.

I hope Ema, that you can now see the difference between actually resolving issues and blindly following feminist orthodoxy.
Posted by benk, Saturday, 22 August 2009 10:35:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pynchme -The biggest threat to the safety of women is men. The biggest threat to the safety of men is OTHER men.

That might be true if the only threat came from physical violence. There are many other things that can threaten the safety of people and these can be delivered by women just as equally as men.

Violence is only one form of aggression – which is an attempt to inflict hurt upon someone else. If other methods were not equal or even better weapons people would not use them. You can recover from a punch in the mouth but you may not recover from years of systematic bullying and harassment. Men use violence against women because in most cases they have an advantage. A woman can have other advantages over men and can use those to inflict some of the cruelest pain. Men have vulnerabilities and although they have to take responsibility for them it does not stop many women taking advantage of them to inflict pain and even threaten their safety. Our safety is threatened when our basic needs are threatened. Many men have had their safety threatened by women who have power over them in the workplace or in institutions or even in the home. The biggest threat most males experience comes from their mothers and this is very often carried over into adulthood. Aggressive women can take advantage of that and perpetrate the power imbalance to their own ends.

Some women want to keep the discussion about domestic violence on the boil because it keeps attention focused away from the real issue which is aggression. Of course the ABS does not keep statistics on this and so it cannot be proven. Most of it is not discernable to scientific analysis. If women were honest they would admit they are capable of inflicting just as much damage as men. Some of them even gloat over the fact and seek destructive revenge for no other reason than a man does not want a relationship with them.
Posted by phanto, Saturday, 22 August 2009 10:58:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Further to my earlier post regarding female-initiaed DV, this little piece was in the SMH today http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/lifematters/smack-the-child-go-to-jail-parents-pressured-20090822-euef.html?page=-1

It contained this little quote: "School-aged children in Australia are twice as likely to be killed as their British peers, usually as a result of child abuse by their mother or her de facto partner, according to a study in the Medical Journal of Australia in January."

As I've pointed out on several occasions, the constant reiteration of "violence against women is never acceptable" is ignoring the fact that violence BY women is the major cause of violent death for children.

Not only that, but it absolves women of the responsibility for their own behaviours that may escalate situations beyond a shouting match. It effectively treats women as being so egregiously irresponsible as to be incapable of controlling themselves.

Seeking to make men entirely responsible for both their own behaviour and that of the women in their lives is counter-productive if the aim is to reduce violence.

Every boy learns at an early age that it is not wise to taunt those bigger and stronger than you as it is likely to end badly for you, even if he gets punished for it. OTOH, girls learn from an early age that they can get away with anything at all if they're in a group and if a boy reacts to their taunting, he'll be the one punished.

Some of them carry that lesson well into adulthood, especially with the constant reinforcement of advertising that is designed to make men more docile and women more aggressive. It says "violence against women is never acceptable" and "girls can do anything" but says nothing about "smart-mouthing a man because you think he's not allowed to retaliate is rude and ignorant" and will probably get you hurt...
Posted by Antiseptic, Sunday, 23 August 2009 9:07:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gawd pynchme you're such an angry woman. I was defending you and you decided to ava go. What's the problem, no comeback to my pointing out your year 6 debating tactics?

I think you may be right about antiseptic. I mean you'd know all about victims. You're definitely the person to go to whenever a judgement on victims is concerned.

'women cling to the safety of their homes'

Oh yes, I see them clinging. When I walk about the streets and bars at night, I never see any women.

'These are not occasional events for women - they are the fabric of every day life.'

I think they are the fabric of your everyday life, little miss victim. Most chicks I know aren't 'constantly looking over one's shoulder; to have to plan one's movements around daylight hours; being careful not to encourage conversations with people one doesn't know who might pose a threat,'

I did a quick survey of the women in the office. They all laughed one said you're a paranoid freak.

'Yet women still get blamed in most cases.'
Rubbish. Oh those violins are really warbling now!

'The biggest threat to the safety of men is OTHER men.'

Too right it is. That's why we avoid confrontation with those we know have the power to beat the crap out of us. And if we get in the face of a 6 foot 6 130 kg guy, and he flattens us, we accept responsibility for our own stupidity. If someone says 'hey that guy is much bigger than you, you shouldn't wind him up, we don't say STOP BLAMING THE VICTIM!' We say, yep, you're right, good advice. We don't bang on about how it's our right to taunt a gorilla.

I bet you're the kind of person who walks blindly out on pedestrian crossings, thinking if you get run over, you'll happily go to your grave knowing you were in the right. I'll continue to advise people to check for reckless drivers first.
Posted by Houellebecq, Monday, 24 August 2009 3:22:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scheppele and Bart:

<... Because the risk of rape is perceived as controllable, at least in part, many women develop "rules of rape avoidance," ...elaborate descriptions of the rules of rape avoidance and how they followed them before they were attacked:

"If I'm not expecting anyone, I won't answer the door if they ring the bell. My name is not listed in the teiephone book or by asking the operator. If I find myself Through Women's Eyes 65 walking the streets at night, I always have my key in my hand so I can get someone with it as a weapon. If I'm a little bit nervous about the sidewalks being too narrow, I will walk in the middle of the street. If I see anybody—I guess I would not be nervous about a woman—but if I saw a man, or men, coming either from behind or toward me, no matter how nice they seem to be, or slow or old or young, whatever, I just avoid it. I either cross the street, or . . . just go into a store. I always thought that to avoid this, I would never be alone on the street, by myself. Or, if I had to be, it would never be on a darkly lit or quiet side street. I would never get in cars with strangers. And then, 1 never did talk too much to a strange man, regardless of whether they were my age or older. You don't go into vestibules with men. You walk down the middle of the street at night. You take the minibus to get back to your apartment. You don't let strangers in. You ask for identification. I would watch what I would wear . . . in the summer . . . And I never walk around, you know, seductive . . . I don't make eye contact with men on the street." >

From the Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 39, No. 2, 1983, pp. 63-81
Posted by Pynchme, Monday, 24 August 2009 11:37:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Houellebecq - perhaps you could look reflect on some of the many studies done worldwide for many years now about ways in which men and women are socialized differently in regard to personal risk and safety. Also, the findings are consistent in perceptions of personal safety - between the sexes as well as between races and communities.

For example, one reasearcher found that white males are the least concerned about personal safety; men are more afraid of assault and robbery; women of sexual abuse. While most assaults of men happened in the streets; women and children were more likely to be assaulted in their own homes, by a loved one, family friend or acquaintance.

A couple of researchers that you could have a quick browse at include:

P. Gustafson1: Gender Differences in Risk Perception,
and some of the studies on which that paper is based
- M. R. Burt and R. E. Estep, "Apprehension and Fear: Learning
a Sense of Sexual Vulnerability," Sex Roles 7, 511-522 (1981).
- M. Warr, "Fear of Rape Among Urban Women," Soc. Prob. 32,
238-250 (1985).
- R. L. LaGrange and K. F. Ferraro, "Assessing Age and Gender
Differences in Perceived Risk and Fear of Crime," Criminology
27, 697-718 (1989).
- M. R. Burt and R. E. Estep, "Apprehension and Fear: Learning
a Sense of Sexual Vulnerability," Sex Roles 7, 511-522 (1981).
- J. Flynn, P. Slovic, and C. K. Mertz, "Gender, Race and Perception
of Environmental Health Risks," Risk Anal. 14, 1101-1108
(1994).

You might also reflect on why 'Take Back the Night' rallies began, and why men are now joining those TBTN events. Some men have decided to distance themselves from thuggery and to assert their claim on safe communities.

Btw I didn't perceive Antiseptic's post as being any more or less offensive, illogical or uninformed than usual.

Btw, when you post something that one would not expect from a conservative male and it's something that I find intriguing, original, profound or humorous, I'll comment accordingly.

pynch
Posted by Pynchme, Monday, 24 August 2009 11:48:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
pynchme,

I don't wish to reflect on any study you come up with, as it's guaranteed to be hand picked to support your world view, and there would be bugger all chance you would read anything I suggested for the same reasons. Regardless, I'm sure those studies don't dramatise the fear of rape survivors and appropriate it to the experience of all women as you do.

'when you post something that one would not expect from a conservative male and it's something that I find intriguing, original, profound or humorous, I'll comment accordingly.'

Yep, and When you post something one would not expect from a whining career feminist with a chip on her shoulder and an innate hatred of all things male I'll reply. But by all means. reply, or don't reply, it's honestly not very important to me. If you don't reply, I'll take it that you agree.

'Some men have decided to distance themselves from thuggery'

And some muslims have decided to distance themselves from terrorism. I am under zero obligation to distance myself from the behaviour of other people who happen to be the same gender. I know that's hard for you to handle, but I don't feel any guilt for being born male. You've shown time and again by language like this that you hold all men accountable for the actions of a few.

BTW: I've never seen any evidence of humour from you, and certainly nothing original or profound. I suppose that's why you look to others to provide it
Posted by Houellebecq, Tuesday, 25 August 2009 11:16:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Looking back on my three years with a violent man 30 years ago, and three years with a less physically but more psychologically abusive man 15 years ago - even I don't understand why we do it. Two things I do understand: We don't leave because we tend to blame ourselves. Thus, we also don't seek help because we are ashamed of our failure.
Once our thoughts become distorted in this way, then other distortions follow. At its worst, I felt a complete failure, completely alone, hopeless and unloveable. And once reduced to this infantile state, then even an occasional hug from a monster seems preferable to no hug at all.
I don't know why we do it, but I do know it's incredibly easy!

People are individuals; they can't be boxed into 'men' and 'women'. And women, including me, can behave badly, if less violently, in these toxic relationships, too. I can look back on my first violent partner with great empathy - he, like I, was young and struggling without guidance to find a path through our differences. I look back on the second with contempt.

I don't see much to recommend this ill-informed article. It lacks insight and is insensitive to both men and women.
Posted by lucy, Tuesday, 25 August 2009 2:50:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pynchme, a plethora of 20 year old references to feminist social constructionist tracts doesn't make your case. Even if they were accurate in their day, that day is not today. Furthermore, a sensible society doesn't make laws that pander to the most fearful of its members - that way lies oppression and authoritarian suppression of individuality. Some call it the "nanny state".

Your mish-mash of Marxism and man-hating would create just such a society - some would argue that the Feminist-dominated Labor Party is already working on it.

Lucy:"I don't see much to recommend this ill-informed article. It lacks insight and is insensitive to both men and women."

I agree. Typical feminist polemic informed by prejudice.

Your own experiences mirror my own in some ways. I left one relationship after just over 5 years because she escalated her violence from slapping me "in jest" to throwing things like ashtrays and plates. The final straw was a cup that hit the edge of a door at head height as I opened it, with the fragments peppering my face and arm, albeit harmlessly. She was upaet because I was late home from work and hadn't called. Emotional retards come from both genders.

Congratulations on managing to maintain a balanced view, but prepare for the barrage of complaints that you're a traitor to your gender.
Posted by Antiseptic, Wednesday, 26 August 2009 6:48:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wrong Antiseptic, Lucy like everyone here brings different experiences to this forum and has a different view point. Nothing wrong with that, she would most likely get a great deal of sympathy for her experiences so your fanasty of a feminist hit squad attacking Lucy are going to have to be put on hold.

I suspect though that Lucy's empathy with her first violent partner would evaporate some if she found out that he had gone onto other violent relationships and harmed other women, and she would not think that youth would be any sort of excuse if her daughter ended up in a similar relationship with a young man. People can show some tolerance for stuff that happens to them personally that they wouldn't happening to someone else.

I personally didn't think the article was that inflamatory myself. I read it more as a dig about society accepting excuse making. Violence whether from male or female is unacceptable. I do think though that men who want to intimidate people have it above women though. Sadly though, I've had the experience too, of a woman who would have a tantrum of mega proportions if asked by a male co-worker to make coffee for a meeting, in one case particating in what was criminal stalking on me at the instigation of a hostile male. Next reclaim the night rally I hope she has some sense of shame and stays home.
Posted by JL Deland, Thursday, 27 August 2009 11:36:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy