The Forum > General Discussion > Domestic Violence Double Standard
Domestic Violence Double Standard
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Page 6
-
- All
The National Forum | Donate | Your Account | On Line Opinion | Forum | Blogs | Polling | About |
Syndicate RSS/XML |
|
About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy |
Usual Suspect "Obviously you couldn't display children as victims of women though, as women are mothers. Mothers will always put their children first, and if they don't, they really need help as any women who abuses her children is acting so out of character she must be under enormous stress or mental illness. Men on the other hand are violent by nature, and need punishment not help, and are often paedophiles not to be trusted around children anyway. "
Usual Suspect, Yvonne may make comments that we don't like at times but she has already acknowledged that both genders harm kids. Try dialog rather than opportunities for conflict. Yvonne has stuck around to discuss the issue (more than most do). She accepts it's not all men bad women good (again better than many). If we are to make progress on this issue it won't come by kicking anybody who comments but does not see the issues in exactly the same terms.
I'm not certain but I think there was some binge drinking adds targetting young women.
Yvonne, I'm one who has not placed much emphasis on the lack of adds portraying men being victims of men or on the child abuse stuff (although I have touched on that with the misuse of the idea of protecting women and children to support bias in residency). I'm not aware of any active discrimination against men resulting from misinformation about male violence outside the home. I've not been there but as far as I know male victims of violence outside the home do get taken seriously and are not assumed to be at fault.
The web sites I've seen dealing with child abuse and neglect deal with abuse by both genders, not ignore one side almost completely. I don't always agree with the analysis of the material but the raw stats appear to be genuine and accessable. I've not seen stuff on that front that puts children more at risk by ignoring substantial risk.
R0bert