|
|
| |||||||
| From | Message | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 bc ...Suppression of females is pretty well understood nowadays (albeit under-appreciated) especially from a historical perspective from what once was and especially in lesser developed countries. I don't think anyone here is talking about the 'problem' being solved by any means even here in the US. But it does need to be better understood by more folks than it is. |
||||||
|
battlefleet 01-Dec-12, 22:08 |
Deleted by battlefleet on 01-Dec-12, 22:08.
|
||||||
|
BC And trying to compare historical rape and pillage to modern domestic violence is just plain dishonest. The contexts are completely different. In bygone times women were a spoil of *war* - the rape and pillage that went on were the direct result of waging war, and it wasn't until about the time of the renaissance that this was considered wrong or bad behavior. Rape still occurs in war and is a terror tactic used in war. But rape itself is not a common domestic occurrence by any stretch - anyone who tell you otherwise probably has an agenda to sell you. Violence against women is not accepted. There is no systemic violence against women. Violence, in general, will always be a trait of humans, at least for the foreseeable future (it could eventually evolve out), and relationships being what they are with their potentials for conflicts will continue to see violence by one partner against the other - be they male or female. What is important is that it is not accepted behavior any longer. |
||||||
|
jdh ... |
||||||
|
I think the case is that all domestic violence is under-reported. <<Many, as in over 200 modern, peer-reviewed studies have shown a gender symmetry in domestic violence. So it is true that women perpetuate often at least as much violence against men as men do against women when the behavioral scientists go looking for it.>> To be fair a short search will tell you that there have been many that have shown asymmetry too. It's not a clear cut as you are making out. But even if that's true, do we not take into account the consequences of the action? Is it not worse, in general, for a man to assault a women, because the physical differences are likely to be in the male's favour? If my girlfriend hit me, there is no way I would hit her back, because I am bigger than her, and it would not be a contest as to who would come of worse. Now you might argue that assault is assault and it should not matter who the victim and the aggressor are, but I think it does, an otherwise normal 13 year old assaulting people is not as serious as the heavyweight boxing champion doing the same thing. Obviously the consequences in the latter case are potentially much more serious and should be treated as such in my view. That might be an exaggerated case but the power difference will be in the male's favour in the vast majority of cases. The phrase "with great power comes great responsibility" springs to mind. That said, I don't believe domestic violence is a huge male conspiracy, indeed in developed countries we have got to the stage where it is simply not tolerated. A hundred years ago it might have been considered acceptable, but not anymore. If I witnessed someone I know assaulting his wife/girlfriend he would find himself immediately reported to the police, and in this age I would think that would be the majority opinion of men and women alike. You'll never stop it completely, but I think the attitude towards it has already changed for the better. |
||||||
|
There have been studies show asymmetry as well. It all depends on your metric a d definitions. Also there is what does appear to be a clear feminist politic bias to the "science" of too many of those studies. My point was really to point out that domestic violence isn't just only a man beating a woman phenomenon. Men are not bad. Abusers, predators, etc are bad. Men as a category of human being are not the problem. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Happy New Year! |
||||||
| |||||||
