Dear Antiseptic,

Thank You for being civil - I'm scared to open my mouth
around you because from past experience - it hasn't been
pleasant - and that's something that you will also have to
bear in mind in your future responses. No one likes to be
compared to the "sista-hood," (especially when one doesn't know
what on earth that means). Or "Grrrr" girls. You may not even
realise how offensive some of your remarks are - however,
enough said.

I'm very aware that people in different walks of life may
interpret the same phenomenon - in very different ways. Most of us
tend to see things from a viewpoint of subjectivity -
an interpretation based on personal values and experiences.
It is shaped by what our past experience has prepared us to see
and by what we consciously or unconsciously want to see.

It is for that reason that I tried to point out that when
arguing, we should try arguing in a logical manner. Unreasonable
generalisations will be conquered by sound reasoning every
time. That's why statements which blame men or women should
be prefaced by the word - "some."

As for how to change certain attitudes? That's not an easy
thing to do. However, I feel that education is the key.
The emphasis in the media, and elsewhere, should be that
violence is wrong. We should not focus only on one partcular
group - but violence against anyone.

Lexi:"That's why statements which blame men or women should
be prefaced by the word - "some." "

Only if we're saying "some people do this or that". If we're speaking in terms of populations it's reasonable to use the general term. It should be obvious that there is a broad variation, both in attitude and expression of it.

After all this time on various topics, does this really need to be stated again?

On the subject of education, how would you do it? It would require a very major shift in the ideological viewpoint of lots of the people in the education system, since male as perpetrator/female as victim is axiomatic for so many of the supposedly rigorous academics in the field and has become entrenched in the training given to anybody in teaching or social work.

How do we overturn that dogma in favour of a more nuanced and balanced one?

quote..""On the subject of education,..how would you do it?""

the first rul;e...is isolate the problem
[and its here we run into problems]
often it seems they love..
the assulter

or stay 'for the kids'...and other absurdities
believing their masters words..'no one else can love you like i do''

thing is..if someone is hurting you...go
dont look back...the first time IS the last time

[best to sell it to kids as a movie]
or via some i trunes dowload..or twitter thingy
or star power

""since male as perpetrator/female as victim
is axiomatic for so many of the supposedly rigorous academics""

this will llways be the case
and the yonger the feemale..the more we must rail against that

yes woman can be mean as they can be nice
but once they hit...its time to go
or get ready for the next assult

either
or

one hit can kill
[not one puff..but spin
is as much the problem..as a cause]

it the real injury
must be believable...but little pricesses..need us...[to save them from thems-elves]..wonder if drugs facter into the vector

""How do we overturn that dogma..in favour of a more nuanced and balanced one?""

take these people to court
report all assult..however in-con-sequential

there is no safe dose
with violence

the biggest phycopaths..began by hurting the wings off flies
beating up the dog...or squashing the cat...

the smallest signs

say..
run

get out..now
come back..with police..to get your stuff

dont take chances
you cant heal..some people
till they find reason..to want to heal thems-elves

Anti
I am not sure that any amount of education can stop prevailing attitudes. It is is much harder to change attitudes around social behaviours than to, say provide knowledge, such as in anti-smoking or the negative effects of obesity for example. Even then it is up to individuals to make a choice.

How do you stop people from inflicting violence? It has to start from birth, in the home and then reinforced in school. Most of the OLO participants have probably come from comfortable middle class homes in the main, and it is easy to sit back and apply armchair sociology to attitudes within different groups. Teaching respect for others is the key - how do we do this as society? As an atheist, I can concede that to some extent religion did this for us in days gone by (ignoring for the moment that like any organisation authoritative role, it can be corrupted). Not only religion but prevailing cultural norms influenced by other factors.

Some of your arguments are too generalised. Feminists have not been teaching girls to hit boys or 'not to take lip' as you put it. You make these statements as a 'given'.

These changes in social norms are only partly influenced by movements like feminism which you continually forget had it's premise in equal rights (wages etc) and the right to be able to leave a marriage where violence prevailed.

I do agree if the government is going to spend taxpayers money on DV then it should be all-encompassing.

RObert
Have a good break. I think we are talking at cross purposes and the article you linked to does support your stance. However, over the years I have had to disect many studies which fell short on facts and on methodology so I am a little suspect of studies overall until I can disect them a little further. I have not done this with your article (time does not permit) so I cannot make a fair judgement on it's validity despite it's credentials. I think overall we are in agreement on approaches.

Lexi it was not my intention to insult, and I do very often, say SOME and in my view in my posts.
Let me say very clearly, I am not a woman hater.
And do not ever want a return to the past my wife is my property thoughts.
Not so past for some.
One single lifetime, mine, has seen change no one could forecast in women and the relationship they have with men.
Touchy subject, every time but worth the serve I will get for it.
Expectations in 1945 was a rented home or ,with luck one small but comfortable owned cheaply.
Wed for life loyal, or never letting on, and yes mum stayed home dad worked.
Not all, not every socio economic group but mine.
The pill, gee did it change every thing.
Can we agree female sexual predators numbered far less pre pill?
Wages incomes and the box in every home we know as TV lifted expectations.
We,wanting to keep the wife happy bought much more, and we all aimed higher.
Migrants showed us home ownership and much more was in our reach.
That started change, never stopped.
Glory boxes went west the hunt for a husband ,for some was little different than looking for the right provider.
Now, deny it if you wish, some want much more, and think in terms of *we are worth it*
I see by just observing SOME divorced women, activly look for a weaker second husband.
One to control dominate and yes hit.
Saturday night in Sydney at least, tonight some teens to mid twenty's women will hit men spit on police maybe bash the boy Friend on the way home.
It is not invention but it is growing.
And those who do hit the weaker man? always end up on their own just as thuggish men do.

Lexi, whether I say "potayto" and you say "potahto" is irrelevant to the fact that they both describe a single concept.

Belly, what's missing in the message that's being transmitted by so much feminist-inspired media (and academic output for that matter) is the idea of acting respectably if you want to be repescted.

Without that basic idea, no relationship can prosper.