The selective quoting of Gelles' study that he calls misogynistic. Nice work.
menweb.org, nice sources.
Quote:
It is clear he is delineating the difference between battering and just plain violence. Battering is repeated, long term and about control. It is about much more than just violence.
His entire letter isn't about battering.
Gelles: We know that there are two to four million women battered in the United States each year. At least half these women fight back and defend themselves, and about 700 times last year, women killed their husbands or partners. In the majority of cases, the women act in response to physical or psychological provocation or threats. Most use violence as a defensive reaction to violence. Some women initiate violence because they know, or believe, that they are about to be attacked.
This is not about women battering men, this is about women's violence towards men, more specifically. Gelles categorically states that women "in the majority of cases" use violence as a defense.
Quote:
I already said, mentioned studies and linked to numbers that show what I think is violence. I would call these things domestic violence.
And from the attitude you have taken from the outset (and what I said that you originally refuted) you marginalize the dramatic difference in real impact between male/female abuse.
Quote:
However I can understand why you respond so strongly to posts that I put up here.
As I did before, you can go back to the very beginning of the argument to find out why it has evolved the way it has.
Here is what I said:
Men beat their spouse. For every physically abusive woman you have hundreds of physically abusive men. If you want stats look at domestic violence rates.
And here is your rebuttal:
Women are just as violent as men. They just express it differently. Women are just as sexual as men and just as likely to cheat. Your assertion that for every violent woman there are hundreds of violent men is pure bullcrap.
You rebutted something I didn't say. And I even pointed it out as I said "physically abusive" and you mention an ambiguous "violence" that includes stupid crap like nagging and smaller women hitting bigger men (which in many cases has NO DAMAGING EFFECTS).
I know you're not going to change the way you see it, you're set on this way of thinking, you'll happily continue to spout "women are just as violent!" while putting no context on it and helping to brainwash more self-pitying white men into thinking men aren't the gender 90+% more responsible for domestic abuse.
To get to the point where men and women are equally "violent" you have to draw the word's definition to a point where the impact of the violence is negligible or even non-existent. But you have fun with it. But if you twist enough you can claim a tie in semantics. Thinking like that is really going to help.
Not all women are out for blood on their husbands. As for me, I was the bread maker in our family and my husband (ex-husband) was the homemaker. When we divorced it was my choice to allow our then 3 year old daughter to reside with her father. Only because I didn't feel that she could deal with the separation from her dad at that time.
He didn't prove to me that he could provide for her the way I felt she needed to be provided for.
We are now going through court to have our Divorce Decree modified. I am asking "FULL" custody of our now 5 year old daughter.
I am having trouble understanding the meaning of Physical Custody though. The Judge stated to me that even though we have joint custody, he (my ex-husband) had Physical Custody of our daughter and that allowed him to make and all decisions when it came to her welfare. I was under the impression that we still would make joint decisions for her and that the Physical Custody was only because she resided with him.
If anyone could, PLEASE explain exactly what Physical Custody means. I will be going to court again and I'd like to have a better understanding.
Not all women are out for blood on their husbands. As for me, I was the bread maker in our family and my husband (ex-husband) was the homemaker. When we divorced it was my choice to allow our then 3 year old daughter to reside with her father. Only because I didn't feel that she could deal with the separation from her dad at that time.
He didn't prove to me that he could provide for her the way I felt she needed to be provided for.
We are now going through court to have our Divorce Decree modified. I am asking "FULL" custody of our now 5 year old daughter.
I am having trouble understanding the meaning of Physical Custody though. The Judge stated to me that even though we have joint custody, he (my ex-husband) had Physical Custody of our daughter and that allowed him to make and all decisions when it came to her welfare. I was under the impression that we still would make joint decisions for her and that the Physical Custody was only because she resided with him.
If anyone could, PLEASE explain exactly what Physical Custody means. I will be going to court again and I'd like to have a better understanding.
The court determines two aspects of custody legal and physical. Legal means your rights regarding the child. You can still make medical decisions regarding the child, you can petition the court for the child and also for yourself regarding the child.
Physical custody is physical possession of the child. Although there are some legal rights you have regarding the child, they can be overrode due to physical custody issues. For example although you have the legal right to enroll your child in a school (joint legal) the court would give the father preference for school selection if he has to drop off , pick up and have custody during the week. So although you both have a legal right to choose your child's school, the court would default to him due to physical custody.
Not to come across rudely, but I do hope you go in with a better reason for such a large custodial decision than you think she is not being provided for well enough. If the child is loved, cared for and not neglected then how much money one makes really doesn't determine how good or bad a parent is for a child. Likewise if he claims the income is lost due to custody responsibilities, he might be able to petition the court for more of your income in terms of child support.
First, it shows disparities between ALL of the Department of Justice surveys.
Second, it absolutely 100% shows I was right in my contention that since your survey is a CRIME survey, it must be considered a crime by those involved to be reported.
Third, all these surveys show different results, the National Family Violence Survey shows equal amounts of domestic violence among both genders. The National Violence Against Women Survey shows equal amounts of violence among both genders ANNUALLY, but has a different lifetime result. (women suffer 400% more)
Additionally the report mentions that the way the questions are screened and introduced among the surveys has had a SUBSTANCIAL effect on how often domestic violence is reported. Their conclusion, more research is needed.
Now let me say that regardless of what you want to twist to this it shows I have been consistant. I have fully claimed women are injured more and battered more however they are just as violent with regard to physical assault and I believe as more research is done, and the surveys become more refined we will see this more clearly.
For example this survey requires people being stalked to have a high level of fear regarding it before it is considered stalking. Since men are basically taught from birth to ignore and surpress fear they would likely underreport stalking. When you consider that the difference between men and women is 1.1 to 1.8 with stalking making up .3% of that, it could be substancial. Hopefully the next survey will break down stalking with the type of clarity they bring to physical assault. (guns versus slapping, etc.)
Likewise this report mentions that they report more rape than supported by any other numbers including your survey which it mentioned dramatically UNDER REPORTS RAPE. (Next thread title Groverat supports underreporting of rape ) However at least it does mention some rape not only of women but of men.
It doesn't mention it within intimate partner yet but future surveys, better definitions, better screening questions and statements that don't ask certain questions only of women or make assumptions about men could change this. For example the rape questions often ask about force or threat of harm. Additionally they define rape as having something inserted into your vagina or anus (often defined as a penis, a bit hard to get around that one don't you think) However as we have discussed in the Kobe thread, rape isn't always about force, it is about willingly giving consent. It would really interest if the next survey used a broadened approach with regard to rape or maybe used a less strong word that didn't denote a crime, but indicated sex occured without your willingness or consent, but without force. Or even sex occured and you weren't sure you wanted it to occur yet. In otherwords if rape is about consent, it should focus on that with regard to both genders and not on if a penis was put someplace.
Likewise when we even start considering men something besides sexual aggressors and consider more than his penis standing erect to be consent, (Could you imagine how insulting it would be to women to say, hey they were wet so it couldn't be rape?!?)then we might get honest reporting. However this would likely take an education campaign similar for men and of course, men can't have needs.
Future surveys, future discussions, but I would say that the trend long term is leading my way. I of course would prefer it lead NOWHERE and just have no violence.
First, it shows disparities between ALL of the Department of Justice surveys.
Where? Don't link to an 86-page document and expect your credibility to hold any water.
What kind of disparaties and what are they supposed to mean?
Of course, you can't be more specific because you're full of shit.
I don't know why you even bothered linking to that... I guess you were hoping I wouldn't actually read it. It's only gripe with the NCVS is that it UNDERREPORTED rape and stalking.
Quote:
Second, it absolutely 100% shows I was right in my contention that since your survey is a CRIME survey, it must be considered a crime by those involved to be reported.
You know, it's really pathetic that I have to re-post so many rebuttals to your bullshit arguments that you do not back.
As if that would be significant even if it where just a CRIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIME SURVEY!
Quote:
Third, all these surveys show different results, the National Family Violence Survey shows equal amounts of domestic violence among both genders.
Where? Source. Link. Your word is nothing one this issue. Link. Source.
Wait... that's the Gelles survey from 1985. The same Gelles who says men are the worst perpetrators by far and never says "equal amounts of domestic violence among both genders." and that the arguments you are trying to make are "misogynistic"!
Again, you can't be more specific because you're a liar.
Quote:
The National Violence Against Women Survey shows equal amounts of violence among both genders ANNUALLY, but has a different lifetime result. (women suffer 400% more)
Does it? Where?
Quote:
Additionally the report mentions that the way the questions are screened and introduced among the surveys has had a SUBSTANCIAL effect on how often domestic violence is reported. Their conclusion, more research is needed.
Ok... so?
Quote:
Now let me say that regardless of what you want to twist to this it shows I have been consistant. I have fully claimed women are injured more and battered more however they are just as violent with regard to physical assault and I believe as more research is done, and the surveys become more refined we will see this more clearly.
1) How can you be "just as violent" and not at least have a comparable rate of injury?
2) None of these sources say that women are "just as violent". Your golden boy calls your bullshit argument misogynistic and you link to an 86-page document that does nothing but lament the massive abuses heaped on women.
Quote:
For example this survey requires people being stalked to have a high level of fear regarding it before it is considered stalking. Since men are basically taught from birth to ignore and surpress fear they would likely underreport stalking. When you consider that the difference between men and women is 1.1 to 1.8 with stalking making up .3% of that, it could be substancial. Hopefully the next survey will break down stalking with the type of clarity they bring to physical assault. (guns versus slapping, etc.)
Do men have anything to fear from stalking women?
- Men kill their partners more than women.
- Men do exponentially more physical damage to their partners.
Quote:
Likewise when we even start considering men something besides sexual aggressors and consider more than his penis standing erect to be consent, (Could you imagine how insulting it would be to women to say, hey they were wet so it couldn't be rape?!?)then we might get honest reporting.
Rape is about power, men have the physical power. Women do not. You are full of shit.
Quote:
However this would likely take an education campaign similar for men and of course, men can't have needs.
Kleenex for you, poor oppressed white man!
You can't even keep a semblance of rational objectivity throughout an entire post. What a joke.
Quote:
Future surveys, future discussions, but I would say that the trend long term is leading my way.
Of course you would, you're a blind, stubborn liar.
Where? Don't link to an 86-page document and expect your credibility to hold any water.
What kind of disparaties and what are they supposed to mean?
Of course, you can't be more specific because you're full of shit.
I don't know why you even bothered linking to that... I guess you were hoping I wouldn't actually read it. It's only gripe with the NCVS is that it UNDERREPORTED rape and stalking.
Oh I'm sorry. I know expecting a student attending a university to be bright enough to use a table of contents is a bit much. I mean the fact that it mentions intimate partner partner violence begins on page 25, comparisons with other research begin on page 28 and disparities with other studies begins on page 30 is, I guess a bit too much for you to handle. A whole five pages, what is that graduate level work now?
What kind of disparities? Oh I don't know maybe the 1.1% rate for intimate violence for men versus 1.8 for women per year versus the 85%-15% that your study cited. Your ratio obviously works out to be about 6 to 1 whereas their ratio is not even 2 to 1 on a yearly basis from the study I mentioned.
It mentions disparities in all three reports for domestic violence regarding the rate of domestic violence with men and women. It mentions specifically that the methodology of your "pamphlet" don't call that thing a report, could cause underreporting. This isn't from a biased source. It is from the Department of Justice, it is literally from women if you look at the authors and acknowlegments and last it is a report on violence against women.
Talk about buring your head in sand.
It mentions point blank that the rates of assault/physical violence between men and women are equal. The differences are accounted for through rape and stalking. I discussed what I SPECIFICALLY felt were the flaws there. (rape not defined as consent)(stalking defined as how the victim feels fear)
As for the rebuttal of that, you better go rebutt the researchers because they suggest the reporting crime issue for the disparity as well.
As for your where, where, wheres... if you can't read 5 pages then you deserve the ignorance you promote.
Quote:
1) How can you be "just as violent" and not at least have a comparable rate of injury?
Because success is not intent. I could have the intent to hit you with a shovel, attempt it and not be successful because while I hit you, you didn't need stitches or seek medical care. I suppose if ten white men and ten black men attempted murder against other people and the white men killed 8 and critically injured 2, while the black men killed 5 and injured 5, then I guess the white men were "more" violent.
Get new argument, we have discussed this before.
Quote:
Do men have anything to fear from stalking women?
- Men kill their partners more than women.
- Men do exponentially more physical damage to their partners.
Of course men have something to fear from women. A woman can run down a man with a car or fire a gun just as well as a man can. There was reporting of stalking occuring against men. I just said that they should have defined it by the act and not added the fear factor. Men are taught culturally not to admit to fear. If you can explain how adding a variable above the actual crime doesn't taint the sample then I will be glad to listen Usually though you attempt to isolate for them, not add them.
Quote:
Rape is about power, men have the physical power. Women do not. You are full of shit
Rape is about consent. This study even goes far enough to attempt to show the relationship between rape and physical assault. While the relationship is strong force alone does not define rape. Likewise when you ask about disparities this shows them. I mentioned that rape was defined physically as only something a man could do. If a man beats and sleeps with her afterward (Can she really consent if she has been beaten so badly? I don't think so.) Two crimes have been committed. If the reverse happens, only one. If a man has been verbally abused, punched and then burned with a cigarette when she wants to make up can he really be said to be consenting without undue coersion? What would that crime be called?
- Men do exponentially more physical damage to their partners.
Rape is about power, men have the physical power. Women do not. You are full of shit.
Get out of the fantasyworld. Women _do_ kill their partner as often as men, they just use more poisons and more violent or just different methods.
I don't agree either with the "exponentially" more damage to the partners. Specify?
Rape is _not_ about power, it is a miserable try to feel to have it for a moment. And it is about as much "power" than alcoholist can "control" his life with drinking.
Here?s the first post (by me) that started the domestic violence tangent:
Men cheat. Men beat their spouse. For every physically abusive woman you have hundreds of physically abusive men. If you want stats look at domestic violence rates.
[...]
Richard Gelles: In the majority of cases, the women act in response to physical or psychological provocation or threats. Most use violence as a defensive reaction to violence. Some women initiate violence because they know, or believe, that they are about to be attacked.
[...]
Women are not as inclined to violence (as used in all of these studies, not including nagging, unfortunately).
[...]
Again, women do not initiate violence on a scale comparable with men. And the NCVS shows without question that women are not more likely to use weapons, and Gelles speaks for himself.
1) Women cheat too. If the thread was about custody of kids, more often the abusive part for kids is mum, as normally the mums tend to spend more time with their kids than dads. I include verbal violence in this, as it is harmful too.
2) Women use violence _only when_ they believe they are being attacked? Women use simple violence (hitting the man with their hands in public places etc) to initiate a bigger fight if they want to proove how good they are, or when they don't act in a senseful way. I've seen these, but never participated in any.
3) I have used both a pistol and a revolver and I would have no problem in handling one, whereas most males I know haven't ever used one, thus I'd be more able to use a gun. Not more likely as I don't feel the urge to use one though.
This thread has got boring. I don't see the point of trying to convince everybody that the men are cheating and violent and women are non-cheating and non-violent etc.
What kind of disparities? Oh I don't know maybe the 1.1% rate for intimate violence for men versus 1.8 for women per year versus the 85%-15% that your study cited. Your ratio obviously works out to be about 6 to 1 whereas their ratio is not even 2 to 1 on a yearly basis from the study I mentioned.
Are they talking about the same types of violence? If not, of course that number will be different.
One of these days you'll learn how to forumate an argument, I will be so proud:
X says Y about Z.
A says B about Z.
The difference between B and Y is C.
I want you to try and make this argument with this case. You seem confident, so please draw it out so we can have a real discussion on it. Show me where the NCVS says that, over the last 12 months, 85% of women were victimized versus 15% of men.
I would be so proud!
And right above that in the table (page 26 I'm assuming).
Lifetime victimizations:
Women - 25.5% (25,677,735)
Men - 7.9% (7,327,092)
Poor you. And both are statistically significant. Looks like this is another source you've brought up you'll have to start work trying to discredit.
Mean beat more. Men stalk more. Men rape more. Men kill more.
Quote:
It mentions point blank that the rates of assault/physical violence between men and women are equal. The differences are accounted for through rape and stalking.
Page 26:
Using a definition of physical assault that includes a range of behaviors, from slapping and hitting to using a gun (?Survey Screening Questions? in chapter 2), the survey found that the most frequently reported intimate partner violence by far was physical assault: 22.1 percent of surveyed women and 7.4 percent of surveyed men said they were physically assaulted by an intimate partner at some time in their lifetime (exhibit 9). Thus, 1 out of every 5 U.S. women has been physically assaulted by an intimate partner, compared with 1 out of every 14 U.S. men. The survey also found that 1.3 percent of surveyed women, compared with 0.9 percent of surveyed men, were physically assaulted by a current or former intimate partner in the previous 12 months. About 1.3 million women and 835,000 men are physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States (exhibit 9).
Hmmmmmm!
As for the rebuttal of that, you better go rebutt the researchers because they suggest the reporting crime issue for the disparity as well.
As for your where, where, wheres... if you can't read 5 pages then you deserve the ignorance you promote.
Quote:
Because success is not intent. I could have the intent to hit you with a shovel, attempt it and not be successful because while I hit you, you didn't need stitches or seek medical care.
By using the shovel you attempt to make it seem like the weapons men and women use are equal. Intellectually dishonest metaphor.
Intent changes with likely outcome. Basic logic that seems to escape you.
My fiancee physically assaulted me today.
We were playing racquetball and I smashed a nice shot a little too close to her head (in her opinion) and she turned around and punched me on the shoulder. I'd say she used about 70% of her strength on it.
She is 5'2" 110lbs. I am 6'2" 230lbs.
Let's reverse it (and ignore my superior racquet control ). I'm in front of her and a ball goes whizzing right past my ear and I turn around and punch her in the arm with ~70% of my strength. Hmmm.
But I wouldn't do that, because I know from experience that even what I consider a tap can send her stumbling back a bit when we are playing around. Her hitting me at just about any strength has little/no effect.
What is the result of this? I never hit her, she hits me all the time. Pushing me seems to be her favorite thing because she knows it doesn't do anything.
Intent changes with likely outcome. Men are more abusive and violent than women in relationships.
Quote:
I suppose if ten white men and ten black men attempted murder against other people and the white men killed 8 and critically injured 2, while the black men killed 5 and injured 5, then I guess the white men were "more" violent.
Are the physically less able to do these crimes like women are physically less able than men?
Quote:
Get new argument, we have discussed this before.
Read: "I can't argue against it, but damned if I quit trying to get around it!"
Quote:
Of course men have something to fear from women. A woman can run down a man with a car or fire a gun just as well as a man can.
Women are less capable with guns and don't have the same ownership/use rates at all. Cars? Sure, why not.
Nothing you have posted indicates that women are more (or even as) likely to use weapons.
Quote:
There was reporting of stalking occuring against men. I just said that they should have defined it by the act and not added the fear factor. Men are taught culturally not to admit to fear.
Isn't the whole point of stalking being illegal/wrong fear?
Quote:
If you can explain how adding a variable above the actual crime doesn't taint the sample then I will be glad to listen Usually though you attempt to isolate for them, not add them.
fear::stalking what "a variable"::"the actual crime"?
What the hell does stalking matter if you're not scared?
Quote:
If a man beats and sleeps with her afterward (Can she really consent if she has been beaten so badly? I don't think so.) Two crimes have been committed. If the reverse happens, only one. If a man has been verbally abused, punched and then burned with a cigarette when she wants to make up can he really be said to be consenting without undue coersion? What would that crime be called?
Rape, absolutely, but how often does that happen?
---
Giaguara:
You're going to have to bring facts, sorry, but this conversation is past the point of generalities.
There is differents forms of violence. Shouting at someone is a violence. If i shout to someone at work, because i am a boss, it will be a violence, perhaps a legitimate one, but still a violence.
But does it compare with a physical violence ? if i smash the same people, it will be a more hard violence, and it will lead me to troubles and i will merit them.
If this physical violence leads to sever injuries, it will be even worse and have penal issues, it would be a crime.
And if i kill the people or i rape her, i will be a ****en criminal.
We should make a level of violence inspired by the way judo rates a contest :
- coka for verbal violences
- yuko for minor physical violence, a yuko always win against any number of coka
- Wasari for major violence, a wasari wins always against any number of coka or yukos, two wasari ended the combat
- Ippon for rape and murder : the story end here.
It's not a perfect analogy but it shows that different levels of violence cannot be compared.
Violence araise often during contest between a man and a women. Let's imagine that the woman is angry about the man :
- her : you shouldn't have done this ...
- him : i don't care bitch
- her : i am not a bitch, that's why you are not any more with me, you only love bitchs
- him : smash her face
- her : smash in return
- him : a good hook in her face ala Tyson : KO in the first round.
Morality when you are physically weaker you should not enter in a violence contest, even if it's only verbal at first. If someone thraw a rock at a tank, it's normal that the tank reply with some good 30 mm bullets : you reply to violence with violence, who started the first ?
We should not compare Apple and Oranges. A smash is not at the same level of violence than a stunning fist. Women generally can't hurt much men (there is some exceptions, but not so many), men can do. If a kid hit you with his little fist, will you reply with your ? : i hope none.
I want you to try and make this argument with this case. You seem confident, so please draw it out so we can have a real discussion on it. Show me where the NCVS says that, over the last 12 months, 85% of women were victimized versus 15% of men.
I would be so proud!
And right above that in the table (page 26 I'm assuming).
Lifetime victimizations:
Women - 25.5% (25,677,735)
Men - 7.9% (7,327,092)
Poor you. And both are statistically significant. Looks like this is another source you've brought up you'll have to start work trying to discredit.
Mean beat more. Men stalk more. Men rape more. Men kill more.
Why would I discredit it when I acknowledged it in the very first post I made about this study?
Remember this.. I posted it...
Third, all these surveys show different results, the National Family Violence Survey shows equal amounts of domestic violence among both genders. The National Violence Against Women Survey shows equal amounts of violence among both genders ANNUALLY, but has a different lifetime result. (women suffer 400% more)
Lastly I didn't say that 85% of all women versus 15% of all men. Gosh I repeat your own stuff back to you and suddenly you can't understand it?!? Of all intimate partner violence, 85% occured to women and 15% occured to men. Understand that, becaue you typed it. It creates this thing we call a...ratio.... got it? Except the ratio it creates does not match the ratio the study I posted creates. Remember the infamous men 700% more violent? We only mentioned it on here several dozen times. You supported it with saying that in that nice little pamphlet 85% of all intimate partner violence occurs to women. Not to 85% of ALL women, but to women versus men.
This is getting a little ridiculous when you don't remember your own numbers.
The point is that the two studies come to dramatically different ratios of intimate partner violence. Then there is a third study that comes to a ratio that is even. The report I cited tries to explain all the disparities. It mentions that how the questions are asked basically can lead to dramatic differences in results. It mentions that their report does consider crime statistics and your pamphlet estimated there were fewer rapes than had even been reported to the police. (It mentioned this because their report estimated more rapes than had been reported to the police) Finally it mentioned that more studies are need to come to more clear/true results.
I simply said that with ratio down to less than 2 to 1 in this study yearly and 400% lifetime, that I could see how a few question changes with regard to rape definitions and stalking and the ratios could move even closer.
As for men and more... these studies show women getting a larger percent of intimate partner violence but men suffer from more violence overall. So men are killed, assaulted, etc more.
Quote:
Hmmmmmm!
As for the rebuttal of that, you better go rebutt the researchers because they suggest the reporting crime issue for the disparity as well.
Why would I rebutt it when it supports what I said earlier? Hahahah you are hilarious.
Me: Men are underrepresented because they under report
You: You can't prove that look your DOJ report says men are assaulted less than women and that the difference could be because they underreport...
Me: (blinks in confused manner trying to see your point)
I have stated that this survey isn't perfect but it is closer. It also acknowledges factors I have claimed for multiple pages as being possible causes for errors in the studies. You seem to think this a bad thing when in reality it validates what I say. If an early rape report showed less raped but defined it with force, then a later rape report showed more rape, mentioned they had tried to account for some consent issues and eluded to the fact that in a future report they might get a full clear reporting on rape by defining it as a consent issue, you wouldn't see this as a bad trend. Neither do I with regard to violence.
Quote:
By using the shovel you attempt to make it seem like the weapons men and women use are equal. Intellectually dishonest metaphor.
Intent changes with likely outcome. Basic logic that seems to escape you.
My fiancee physically assaulted me today.
We were playing racquetball and I smashed a nice shot a little too close to her head (in her opinion) and she turned around and punched me on the shoulder. I'd say she used about 70% of her strength on it.
She is 5'2" 110lbs. I am 6'2" 230lbs.
Let's reverse it (and ignore my superior racquet control ). I'm in front of her and a ball goes whizzing right past my ear and I turn around and punch her in the arm with ~70% of my strength. Hmmm.
But I wouldn't do that, because I know from experience that even what I consider a tap can send her stumbling back a bit when we are playing around. Her hitting me at just about any strength has little/no effect.
What is the result of this? I never hit her, she hits me all the time. Pushing me seems to be her favorite thing because she knows it doesn't do anything.
Intent changes with likely outcome. Men are more abusive and violent than women in relationships.
I love it how when others use hypotheticals or anecdotal information you basically tear them a new one, but it must be okay for you.
You say she assaulted you when it is obvious what she is doing in jest. If it weren't I am sure she would use the full 100% of her capacity. Likewise as you said intent changes with outcome. If her outcome truly were to hurt you she would likely escalate her force with a bat, scissors, make a false claim about you to the police, another man who could render the proper violence against you, etc.
As to not using 70% of your strength against her, it is the same reason she doesn't use 100% of her strength against you. This is done in jest. You are demonstrating that both of you understand what you can do physically and limiting it . I'm sure you could hug her and hurt her but you limit your hugging strength. Does that mean you assaulted her by giving her a hug?
Besides you've already mentioned that what your fiancee lacks in physical strength she makes up for in intellectual capability. If she wanted to harm you, it wouldn't be by punching you. You know that and she's smarter than that. However since she is so smart just ask her and post the result. I'm sure it will take some thinking since I doubt it has crossed her mind. What would a 5'2" woman do to harm a man as large as you? A woman's cunning is a formidable weapon I assure you.
Quote:
Isn't the whole point of stalking being illegal/wrong fear?
Stalking can also be about destruction of property. If I followed you around and damaged your car at multiple locations, I have stalked you. I could even physically show myself and make intimidating comments to you. The act is stalking even if all you do is get pissed that I keyed your car and busted the winshield, and weren't afraid of me physically.
Quote:
Rape, absolutely, but how often does that happen?
It can happen quite a bit Grove. The average woman is 5'5" and the average man is 5'8". Most folks don't have a foot difference in height between them and their partner. Just because you do doesn't mean you should make this assumption all around.
Thanks for the posting tips, I hope my last few have been clearer.
Lastly I didn't say that 85% of all women versus 15% of all men. Gosh I repeat your own stuff back to you and suddenly you can't understand it?!? Of all intimate partner violence, 85% occured to women and 15% occured to men.
Again, show me what the NCVS used to get 85/15 and what the NFVS used to get ~50/~50.
It seems like you are comparing apples to oranges, please use some facts and details to show me otherwise.
Quote:
This is getting a little ridiculous when you don't remember your own numbers.
Says the man who ignores a rebuttal to his argument given by the man his whole argument is built on.
Quote:
It mentions that how the questions are asked basically can lead to dramatic differences in results.
And... so?
Quote:
I simply said that with ratio down to less than 2 to 1 in this study yearly and 400% lifetime, that I could see how a few question changes with regard to rape definitions and stalking and the ratios could move even closer.
Why would we change those? To fit what you want?
Quote:
As for men and more... these studies show women getting a larger percent of intimate partner violence but men suffer from more violence overall. So men are killed, assaulted, etc more.
Overall? You mean, outside domestic abuse?
I really don't think you want to start that argument, trumpt, I really think you want to stay away from that.
Quote:
I have stated that this survey isn't perfect but it is closer.
Which survey?
Quote:
If an early rape report showed less raped but defined it with force, then a later rape report showed more rape, mentioned they had tried to account for some consent issues and eluded to the fact that in a future report they might get a full clear reporting on rape by defining it as a consent issue, you wouldn't see this as a bad trend. Neither do I with regard to violence.
Of course you don't consider rape violence.
Semantic bickering.
Quote:
Likewise as you said intent changes with outcome. If her outcome truly were to hurt you she would likely escalate her force with a bat, scissors, make a false claim about you to the police, another man who could render the proper violence against you, etc.
But none of these surveys show that women are more likely to use weapons even with their inferior physical ability to hurt.
Quote:
What would a 5'2" woman do to harm a man as large as you? A woman's cunning is a formidable weapon I assure you.
Yes, they are quite evil.
Quote:
Stalking can also be about destruction of property.
Then it would be listed as such. It would be physical aggression and vandalism/destruction. Not "stalking".
Quote:
IIt can happen quite a bit Grove. The average woman is 5'5" and the average man is 5'8". Most folks don't have a foot difference in height between them and their partner. Just because you do doesn't mean you should make this assumption all around.
"It can happen quite a bit". Does it? Search the menweb.org archives and see if you can find something about women raping men.
There OBVIOUSLY has to be A LOT of point in your statement that "rape is about power".
You maybe have a bit misunderstood the "women love the men with power"- stereotype. Or maybe the texan women really do like "men that have power".
At least I cannot respect men that attempt to have THAT "power". They don't have it, and are only desperately trying to prove themselves that they have even a bit of it. As a compensation of thinking only with their d!ck or the complete lack of self control and respect. Well, I leave you now the power to continue this thread.
Comments
menweb.org link
The selective quoting of Gelles' study that he calls misogynistic. Nice work.
menweb.org, nice sources.
It is clear he is delineating the difference between battering and just plain violence. Battering is repeated, long term and about control. It is about much more than just violence.
His entire letter isn't about battering.
Gelles: We know that there are two to four million women battered in the United States each year. At least half these women fight back and defend themselves, and about 700 times last year, women killed their husbands or partners. In the majority of cases, the women act in response to physical or psychological provocation or threats. Most use violence as a defensive reaction to violence. Some women initiate violence because they know, or believe, that they are about to be attacked.
This is not about women battering men, this is about women's violence towards men, more specifically. Gelles categorically states that women "in the majority of cases" use violence as a defense.
I already said, mentioned studies and linked to numbers that show what I think is violence. I would call these things domestic violence.
And from the attitude you have taken from the outset (and what I said that you originally refuted) you marginalize the dramatic difference in real impact between male/female abuse.
However I can understand why you respond so strongly to posts that I put up here.
As I did before, you can go back to the very beginning of the argument to find out why it has evolved the way it has.
Here is what I said:
Men beat their spouse. For every physically abusive woman you have hundreds of physically abusive men. If you want stats look at domestic violence rates.
And here is your rebuttal:
Women are just as violent as men. They just express it differently. Women are just as sexual as men and just as likely to cheat. Your assertion that for every violent woman there are hundreds of violent men is pure bullcrap.
You rebutted something I didn't say. And I even pointed it out as I said "physically abusive" and you mention an ambiguous "violence" that includes stupid crap like nagging and smaller women hitting bigger men (which in many cases has NO DAMAGING EFFECTS).
I know you're not going to change the way you see it, you're set on this way of thinking, you'll happily continue to spout "women are just as violent!" while putting no context on it and helping to brainwash more self-pitying white men into thinking men aren't the gender 90+% more responsible for domestic abuse.
To get to the point where men and women are equally "violent" you have to draw the word's definition to a point where the impact of the violence is negligible or even non-existent. But you have fun with it. But if you twist enough you can claim a tie in semantics. Thinking like that is really going to help.
He didn't prove to me that he could provide for her the way I felt she needed to be provided for.
We are now going through court to have our Divorce Decree modified. I am asking "FULL" custody of our now 5 year old daughter.
I am having trouble understanding the meaning of Physical Custody though. The Judge stated to me that even though we have joint custody, he (my ex-husband) had Physical Custody of our daughter and that allowed him to make and all decisions when it came to her welfare. I was under the impression that we still would make joint decisions for her and that the Physical Custody was only because she resided with him.
If anyone could, PLEASE explain exactly what Physical Custody means. I will be going to court again and I'd like to have a better understanding.
Originally posted by Janice
If anyone could, PLEASE explain exactly what Physical Custody means. I will be going to court again and I'd like to have a better understanding.
this might help http://freeadvice.com/law/544us.htm
it really did help. I'm going to read this definition to the Judge.
Originally posted by Janice
Not all women are out for blood on their husbands. As for me, I was the bread maker in our family and my husband (ex-husband) was the homemaker. When we divorced it was my choice to allow our then 3 year old daughter to reside with her father. Only because I didn't feel that she could deal with the separation from her dad at that time.
He didn't prove to me that he could provide for her the way I felt she needed to be provided for.
We are now going through court to have our Divorce Decree modified. I am asking "FULL" custody of our now 5 year old daughter.
I am having trouble understanding the meaning of Physical Custody though. The Judge stated to me that even though we have joint custody, he (my ex-husband) had Physical Custody of our daughter and that allowed him to make and all decisions when it came to her welfare. I was under the impression that we still would make joint decisions for her and that the Physical Custody was only because she resided with him.
If anyone could, PLEASE explain exactly what Physical Custody means. I will be going to court again and I'd like to have a better understanding.
The court determines two aspects of custody legal and physical. Legal means your rights regarding the child. You can still make medical decisions regarding the child, you can petition the court for the child and also for yourself regarding the child.
Physical custody is physical possession of the child. Although there are some legal rights you have regarding the child, they can be overrode due to physical custody issues. For example although you have the legal right to enroll your child in a school (joint legal) the court would give the father preference for school selection if he has to drop off , pick up and have custody during the week. So although you both have a legal right to choose your child's school, the court would default to him due to physical custody.
Not to come across rudely, but I do hope you go in with a better reason for such a large custodial decision than you think she is not being provided for well enough. If the child is loved, cared for and not neglected then how much money one makes really doesn't determine how good or bad a parent is for a child. Likewise if he claims the income is lost due to custody responsibilities, he might be able to petition the court for more of your income in terms of child support.
Hope that helps...
Nick
National Violence Against Women Survey
First, it shows disparities between ALL of the Department of Justice surveys.
Second, it absolutely 100% shows I was right in my contention that since your survey is a CRIME survey, it must be considered a crime by those involved to be reported.
Third, all these surveys show different results, the National Family Violence Survey shows equal amounts of domestic violence among both genders. The National Violence Against Women Survey shows equal amounts of violence among both genders ANNUALLY, but has a different lifetime result. (women suffer 400% more)
Additionally the report mentions that the way the questions are screened and introduced among the surveys has had a SUBSTANCIAL effect on how often domestic violence is reported. Their conclusion, more research is needed.
Now let me say that regardless of what you want to twist to this it shows I have been consistant. I have fully claimed women are injured more and battered more however they are just as violent with regard to physical assault and I believe as more research is done, and the surveys become more refined we will see this more clearly.
For example this survey requires people being stalked to have a high level of fear regarding it before it is considered stalking. Since men are basically taught from birth to ignore and surpress fear they would likely underreport stalking. When you consider that the difference between men and women is 1.1 to 1.8 with stalking making up .3% of that, it could be substancial. Hopefully the next survey will break down stalking with the type of clarity they bring to physical assault. (guns versus slapping, etc.)
Likewise this report mentions that they report more rape than supported by any other numbers including your survey which it mentioned dramatically UNDER REPORTS RAPE. (Next thread title Groverat supports underreporting of rape
It doesn't mention it within intimate partner yet but future surveys, better definitions, better screening questions and statements that don't ask certain questions only of women or make assumptions about men could change this. For example the rape questions often ask about force or threat of harm. Additionally they define rape as having something inserted into your vagina or anus (often defined as a penis, a bit hard to get around that one don't you think) However as we have discussed in the Kobe thread, rape isn't always about force, it is about willingly giving consent. It would really interest if the next survey used a broadened approach with regard to rape or maybe used a less strong word that didn't denote a crime, but indicated sex occured without your willingness or consent, but without force. Or even sex occured and you weren't sure you wanted it to occur yet. In otherwords if rape is about consent, it should focus on that with regard to both genders and not on if a penis was put someplace.
Likewise when we even start considering men something besides sexual aggressors and consider more than his penis standing erect to be consent, (Could you imagine how insulting it would be to women to say, hey they were wet so it couldn't be rape?!?)then we might get honest reporting. However this would likely take an education campaign similar for men and of course, men can't have needs.
Future surveys, future discussions, but I would say that the trend long term is leading my way. I of course would prefer it lead NOWHERE and just have no violence.
Nick
According to this, your survey doesn't even directly ask about domestic violence with regard to husbands and boyfriends.
Nick
First, it shows disparities between ALL of the Department of Justice surveys.
Where? Don't link to an 86-page document and expect your credibility to hold any water.
What kind of disparaties and what are they supposed to mean?
Of course, you can't be more specific because you're full of shit.
I don't know why you even bothered linking to that... I guess you were hoping I wouldn't actually read it. It's only gripe with the NCVS is that it UNDERREPORTED rape and stalking.
Second, it absolutely 100% shows I was right in my contention that since your survey is a CRIME survey, it must be considered a crime by those involved to be reported.
You know, it's really pathetic that I have to re-post so many rebuttals to your bullshit arguments that you do not back.
NCVS question 41a
Other than any incidents already mentioned,) has anyone attacked or threatened you in any of these ways (Exclude telephone threats) ?
(a) With any weapon, for instance, a gun or
knife ?
(b) With anything like a baseball bat, frying pan,
scissors, or stick ?
(c) By something thrown, such as a rock or
bottle ?
(d) Include any grabbing, punching, or choking,
(e) Any rape, attempted rape or other type of
sexual attack ?
(f) Any face to face threats ?
OR
(g) Any attack or threat or use of force by anyone
at all? Please mention it even if you are not
certain it was a crime.
Again: Please mention it even if you are not certain it was a crime.
CRIME SURVEY! CRRRRRRRIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMMMMMEEEE EEEE SURVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEYYYYYYYYYYYY!
As if that would be significant even if it where just a CRIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIME SURVEY!
Third, all these surveys show different results, the National Family Violence Survey shows equal amounts of domestic violence among both genders.
Where? Source. Link. Your word is nothing one this issue. Link. Source.
Wait... that's the Gelles survey from 1985. The same Gelles who says men are the worst perpetrators by far and never says "equal amounts of domestic violence among both genders." and that the arguments you are trying to make are "misogynistic"!
Again, you can't be more specific because you're a liar.
The National Violence Against Women Survey shows equal amounts of violence among both genders ANNUALLY, but has a different lifetime result. (women suffer 400% more)
Does it? Where?
Additionally the report mentions that the way the questions are screened and introduced among the surveys has had a SUBSTANCIAL effect on how often domestic violence is reported. Their conclusion, more research is needed.
Ok... so?
Now let me say that regardless of what you want to twist to this it shows I have been consistant. I have fully claimed women are injured more and battered more however they are just as violent with regard to physical assault and I believe as more research is done, and the surveys become more refined we will see this more clearly.
1) How can you be "just as violent" and not at least have a comparable rate of injury?
2) None of these sources say that women are "just as violent". Your golden boy calls your bullshit argument misogynistic and you link to an 86-page document that does nothing but lament the massive abuses heaped on women.
For example this survey requires people being stalked to have a high level of fear regarding it before it is considered stalking. Since men are basically taught from birth to ignore and surpress fear they would likely underreport stalking. When you consider that the difference between men and women is 1.1 to 1.8 with stalking making up .3% of that, it could be substancial. Hopefully the next survey will break down stalking with the type of clarity they bring to physical assault. (guns versus slapping, etc.)
Do men have anything to fear from stalking women?
- Men kill their partners more than women.
- Men do exponentially more physical damage to their partners.
Likewise when we even start considering men something besides sexual aggressors and consider more than his penis standing erect to be consent, (Could you imagine how insulting it would be to women to say, hey they were wet so it couldn't be rape?!?)then we might get honest reporting.
Rape is about power, men have the physical power. Women do not. You are full of shit.
However this would likely take an education campaign similar for men and of course, men can't have needs.
Kleenex for you, poor oppressed white man!
You can't even keep a semblance of rational objectivity throughout an entire post. What a joke.
Future surveys, future discussions, but I would say that the trend long term is leading my way.
Of course you would, you're a blind, stubborn liar.
Originally posted by groverat
trumptman:
Where? Don't link to an 86-page document and expect your credibility to hold any water.
What kind of disparaties and what are they supposed to mean?
Of course, you can't be more specific because you're full of shit.
I don't know why you even bothered linking to that... I guess you were hoping I wouldn't actually read it. It's only gripe with the NCVS is that it UNDERREPORTED rape and stalking.
Oh I'm sorry. I know expecting a student attending a university to be bright enough to use a table of contents is a bit much. I mean the fact that it mentions intimate partner partner violence begins on page 25, comparisons with other research begin on page 28 and disparities with other studies begins on page 30 is, I guess a bit too much for you to handle. A whole five pages, what is that graduate level work now?
What kind of disparities? Oh I don't know maybe the 1.1% rate for intimate violence for men versus 1.8 for women per year versus the 85%-15% that your study cited. Your ratio obviously works out to be about 6 to 1 whereas their ratio is not even 2 to 1 on a yearly basis from the study I mentioned.
It mentions disparities in all three reports for domestic violence regarding the rate of domestic violence with men and women. It mentions specifically that the methodology of your "pamphlet" don't call that thing a report, could cause underreporting. This isn't from a biased source. It is from the Department of Justice, it is literally from women if you look at the authors and acknowlegments and last it is a report on violence against women.
Talk about buring your head in sand.
It mentions point blank that the rates of assault/physical violence between men and women are equal. The differences are accounted for through rape and stalking. I discussed what I SPECIFICALLY felt were the flaws there. (rape not defined as consent)(stalking defined as how the victim feels fear)
As for the rebuttal of that, you better go rebutt the researchers because they suggest the reporting crime issue for the disparity as well.
As for your where, where, wheres... if you can't read 5 pages then you deserve the ignorance you promote.
1) How can you be "just as violent" and not at least have a comparable rate of injury?
Because success is not intent. I could have the intent to hit you with a shovel, attempt it and not be successful because while I hit you, you didn't need stitches or seek medical care. I suppose if ten white men and ten black men attempted murder against other people and the white men killed 8 and critically injured 2, while the black men killed 5 and injured 5, then I guess the white men were "more" violent.
Get new argument, we have discussed this before.
Do men have anything to fear from stalking women?
- Men kill their partners more than women.
- Men do exponentially more physical damage to their partners.
Of course men have something to fear from women. A woman can run down a man with a car or fire a gun just as well as a man can. There was reporting of stalking occuring against men. I just said that they should have defined it by the act and not added the fear factor. Men are taught culturally not to admit to fear. If you can explain how adding a variable above the actual crime doesn't taint the sample then I will be glad to listen Usually though you attempt to isolate for them, not add them.
Rape is about power, men have the physical power. Women do not. You are full of shit
Rape is about consent. This study even goes far enough to attempt to show the relationship between rape and physical assault. While the relationship is strong force alone does not define rape. Likewise when you ask about disparities this shows them. I mentioned that rape was defined physically as only something a man could do. If a man beats and sleeps with her afterward (Can she really consent if she has been beaten so badly? I don't think so.) Two crimes have been committed. If the reverse happens, only one. If a man has been verbally abused, punched and then burned with a cigarette when she wants to make up can he really be said to be consenting without undue coersion? What would that crime be called?
Nick
Originally posted by groverat
- Men kill their partners more than women.
- Men do exponentially more physical damage to their partners.
Rape is about power, men have the physical power. Women do not. You are full of shit.
Get out of the fantasyworld. Women _do_ kill their partner as often as men, they just use more poisons and more violent or just different methods.
I don't agree either with the "exponentially" more damage to the partners. Specify?
Rape is _not_ about power, it is a miserable try to feel to have it for a moment. And it is about as much "power" than alcoholist can "control" his life with drinking.
Originally posted by groverat
Other than any incidents already mentioned,) has anyone attacked or threatened you in any of these ways (Exclude telephone threats) ?
(a) With any weapon, for instance, a gun or
knife ?
(b) With anything like a baseball bat, frying pan,
scissors, or stick ?
(c) By something thrown, such as a rock or
bottle ?
(d) Include any grabbing, punching, or choking,
(e) Any rape, attempted rape or other type of
sexual attack ?
(f) Any face to face threats ?
OR
(g) Any attack or threat or use of force by anyone
at all? Please mention it even if you are not
certain it was a crime.
Again: Please mention it even if you are not certain it was a crime.
I am violent. I have attacked sexually a male. Hah.
Originally posted by groverat
Here?s the first post (by me) that started the domestic violence tangent:
Men cheat. Men beat their spouse. For every physically abusive woman you have hundreds of physically abusive men. If you want stats look at domestic violence rates.
[...]
Richard Gelles: In the majority of cases, the women act in response to physical or psychological provocation or threats. Most use violence as a defensive reaction to violence. Some women initiate violence because they know, or believe, that they are about to be attacked.
[...]
Women are not as inclined to violence (as used in all of these studies, not including nagging, unfortunately).
[...]
Again, women do not initiate violence on a scale comparable with men. And the NCVS shows without question that women are not more likely to use weapons, and Gelles speaks for himself.
1) Women cheat too. If the thread was about custody of kids, more often the abusive part for kids is mum, as normally the mums tend to spend more time with their kids than dads. I include verbal violence in this, as it is harmful too.
2) Women use violence _only when_ they believe they are being attacked? Women use simple violence (hitting the man with their hands in public places etc) to initiate a bigger fight if they want to proove how good they are, or when they don't act in a senseful way. I've seen these, but never participated in any.
3) I have used both a pistol and a revolver and I would have no problem in handling one, whereas most males I know haven't ever used one, thus I'd be more able to use a gun. Not more likely as I don't feel the urge to use one though.
This thread has got boring. I don't see the point of trying to convince everybody that the men are cheating and violent and women are non-cheating and non-violent etc.
What kind of disparities? Oh I don't know maybe the 1.1% rate for intimate violence for men versus 1.8 for women per year versus the 85%-15% that your study cited. Your ratio obviously works out to be about 6 to 1 whereas their ratio is not even 2 to 1 on a yearly basis from the study I mentioned.
Are they talking about the same types of violence? If not, of course that number will be different.
One of these days you'll learn how to forumate an argument, I will be so proud:
X says Y about Z.
A says B about Z.
The difference between B and Y is C.
I want you to try and make this argument with this case. You seem confident, so please draw it out so we can have a real discussion on it. Show me where the NCVS says that, over the last 12 months, 85% of women were victimized versus 15% of men.
I would be so proud!
And right above that in the table (page 26 I'm assuming).
Lifetime victimizations:
Women - 25.5% (25,677,735)
Men - 7.9% (7,327,092)
Poor you. And both are statistically significant. Looks like this is another source you've brought up you'll have to start work trying to discredit.
Mean beat more. Men stalk more. Men rape more. Men kill more.
It mentions point blank that the rates of assault/physical violence between men and women are equal. The differences are accounted for through rape and stalking.
Page 26:
Using a definition of physical assault that includes a range of behaviors, from slapping and hitting to using a gun (?Survey Screening Questions? in chapter 2), the survey found that the most frequently reported intimate partner violence by far was physical assault: 22.1 percent of surveyed women and 7.4 percent of surveyed men said they were physically assaulted by an intimate partner at some time in their lifetime (exhibit 9). Thus, 1 out of every 5 U.S. women has been physically assaulted by an intimate partner, compared with 1 out of every 14 U.S. men. The survey also found that 1.3 percent of surveyed women, compared with 0.9 percent of surveyed men, were physically assaulted by a current or former intimate partner in the previous 12 months. About 1.3 million women and 835,000 men are physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States (exhibit 9).
Hmmmmmm!
As for the rebuttal of that, you better go rebutt the researchers because they suggest the reporting crime issue for the disparity as well.
As for your where, where, wheres... if you can't read 5 pages then you deserve the ignorance you promote.
Because success is not intent. I could have the intent to hit you with a shovel, attempt it and not be successful because while I hit you, you didn't need stitches or seek medical care.
By using the shovel you attempt to make it seem like the weapons men and women use are equal. Intellectually dishonest metaphor.
Intent changes with likely outcome. Basic logic that seems to escape you.
My fiancee physically assaulted me today.
We were playing racquetball and I smashed a nice shot a little too close to her head (in her opinion) and she turned around and punched me on the shoulder. I'd say she used about 70% of her strength on it.
She is 5'2" 110lbs. I am 6'2" 230lbs.
Let's reverse it (and ignore my superior racquet control
But I wouldn't do that, because I know from experience that even what I consider a tap can send her stumbling back a bit when we are playing around. Her hitting me at just about any strength has little/no effect.
What is the result of this? I never hit her, she hits me all the time. Pushing me seems to be her favorite thing because she knows it doesn't do anything.
Intent changes with likely outcome. Men are more abusive and violent than women in relationships.
I suppose if ten white men and ten black men attempted murder against other people and the white men killed 8 and critically injured 2, while the black men killed 5 and injured 5, then I guess the white men were "more" violent.
Are the physically less able to do these crimes like women are physically less able than men?
Get new argument, we have discussed this before.
Read: "I can't argue against it, but damned if I quit trying to get around it!"
Of course men have something to fear from women. A woman can run down a man with a car or fire a gun just as well as a man can.
Women are less capable with guns and don't have the same ownership/use rates at all. Cars? Sure, why not.
Nothing you have posted indicates that women are more (or even as) likely to use weapons.
There was reporting of stalking occuring against men. I just said that they should have defined it by the act and not added the fear factor. Men are taught culturally not to admit to fear.
Isn't the whole point of stalking being illegal/wrong fear?
If you can explain how adding a variable above the actual crime doesn't taint the sample then I will be glad to listen Usually though you attempt to isolate for them, not add them.
fear::stalking what "a variable"::"the actual crime"?
What the hell does stalking matter if you're not scared?
If a man beats and sleeps with her afterward (Can she really consent if she has been beaten so badly? I don't think so.) Two crimes have been committed. If the reverse happens, only one. If a man has been verbally abused, punched and then burned with a cigarette when she wants to make up can he really be said to be consenting without undue coersion? What would that crime be called?
Rape, absolutely, but how often does that happen?
---
Giaguara:
You're going to have to bring facts, sorry, but this conversation is past the point of generalities.
And in case I did want to respond, I read this:
Rape is _not_ about power
and realized there wasn't much point.
But does it compare with a physical violence ? if i smash the same people, it will be a more hard violence, and it will lead me to troubles and i will merit them.
If this physical violence leads to sever injuries, it will be even worse and have penal issues, it would be a crime.
And if i kill the people or i rape her, i will be a ****en criminal.
We should make a level of violence inspired by the way judo rates a contest :
- coka for verbal violences
- yuko for minor physical violence, a yuko always win against any number of coka
- Wasari for major violence, a wasari wins always against any number of coka or yukos, two wasari ended the combat
- Ippon for rape and murder : the story end here.
It's not a perfect analogy but it shows that different levels of violence cannot be compared.
Violence araise often during contest between a man and a women. Let's imagine that the woman is angry about the man :
- her : you shouldn't have done this ...
- him : i don't care bitch
- her : i am not a bitch, that's why you are not any more with me, you only love bitchs
- him : smash her face
- her : smash in return
- him : a good hook in her face ala Tyson : KO in the first round.
Morality when you are physically weaker you should not enter in a violence contest, even if it's only verbal at first. If someone thraw a rock at a tank, it's normal that the tank reply with some good 30 mm bullets : you reply to violence with violence, who started the first ?
We should not compare Apple and Oranges. A smash is not at the same level of violence than a stunning fist. Women generally can't hurt much men (there is some exceptions, but not so many), men can do. If a kid hit you with his little fist, will you reply with your ? : i hope none.
Originally posted by groverat
trumptman:
I want you to try and make this argument with this case. You seem confident, so please draw it out so we can have a real discussion on it. Show me where the NCVS says that, over the last 12 months, 85% of women were victimized versus 15% of men.
I would be so proud!
And right above that in the table (page 26 I'm assuming).
Lifetime victimizations:
Women - 25.5% (25,677,735)
Men - 7.9% (7,327,092)
Poor you. And both are statistically significant. Looks like this is another source you've brought up you'll have to start work trying to discredit.
Mean beat more. Men stalk more. Men rape more. Men kill more.
Why would I discredit it when I acknowledged it in the very first post I made about this study?
Remember this.. I posted it...
Third, all these surveys show different results, the National Family Violence Survey shows equal amounts of domestic violence among both genders. The National Violence Against Women Survey shows equal amounts of violence among both genders ANNUALLY, but has a different lifetime result. (women suffer 400% more)
Lastly I didn't say that 85% of all women versus 15% of all men. Gosh I repeat your own stuff back to you and suddenly you can't understand it?!? Of all intimate partner violence, 85% occured to women and 15% occured to men. Understand that, becaue you typed it. It creates this thing we call a...ratio.... got it? Except the ratio it creates does not match the ratio the study I posted creates. Remember the infamous men 700% more violent? We only mentioned it on here several dozen times. You supported it with saying that in that nice little pamphlet 85% of all intimate partner violence occurs to women. Not to 85% of ALL women, but to women versus men.
This is getting a little ridiculous when you don't remember your own numbers.
The point is that the two studies come to dramatically different ratios of intimate partner violence. Then there is a third study that comes to a ratio that is even. The report I cited tries to explain all the disparities. It mentions that how the questions are asked basically can lead to dramatic differences in results. It mentions that their report does consider crime statistics and your pamphlet estimated there were fewer rapes than had even been reported to the police. (It mentioned this because their report estimated more rapes than had been reported to the police) Finally it mentioned that more studies are need to come to more clear/true results.
I simply said that with ratio down to less than 2 to 1 in this study yearly and 400% lifetime, that I could see how a few question changes with regard to rape definitions and stalking and the ratios could move even closer.
As for men and more... these studies show women getting a larger percent of intimate partner violence but men suffer from more violence overall. So men are killed, assaulted, etc more.
Hmmmmmm!
As for the rebuttal of that, you better go rebutt the researchers because they suggest the reporting crime issue for the disparity as well.
Why would I rebutt it when it supports what I said earlier? Hahahah you are hilarious.
Me: Men are underrepresented because they under report
You: You can't prove that look your DOJ report says men are assaulted less than women and that the difference could be because they underreport...
Me: (blinks in confused manner trying to see your point)
I have stated that this survey isn't perfect but it is closer. It also acknowledges factors I have claimed for multiple pages as being possible causes for errors in the studies. You seem to think this a bad thing when in reality it validates what I say. If an early rape report showed less raped but defined it with force, then a later rape report showed more rape, mentioned they had tried to account for some consent issues and eluded to the fact that in a future report they might get a full clear reporting on rape by defining it as a consent issue, you wouldn't see this as a bad trend. Neither do I with regard to violence.
By using the shovel you attempt to make it seem like the weapons men and women use are equal. Intellectually dishonest metaphor.
Intent changes with likely outcome. Basic logic that seems to escape you.
My fiancee physically assaulted me today.
We were playing racquetball and I smashed a nice shot a little too close to her head (in her opinion) and she turned around and punched me on the shoulder. I'd say she used about 70% of her strength on it.
She is 5'2" 110lbs. I am 6'2" 230lbs.
Let's reverse it (and ignore my superior racquet control ). I'm in front of her and a ball goes whizzing right past my ear and I turn around and punch her in the arm with ~70% of my strength. Hmmm.
But I wouldn't do that, because I know from experience that even what I consider a tap can send her stumbling back a bit when we are playing around. Her hitting me at just about any strength has little/no effect.
What is the result of this? I never hit her, she hits me all the time. Pushing me seems to be her favorite thing because she knows it doesn't do anything.
Intent changes with likely outcome. Men are more abusive and violent than women in relationships.
I love it how when others use hypotheticals or anecdotal information you basically tear them a new one, but it must be okay for you.
You say she assaulted you when it is obvious what she is doing in jest. If it weren't I am sure she would use the full 100% of her capacity. Likewise as you said intent changes with outcome. If her outcome truly were to hurt you she would likely escalate her force with a bat, scissors, make a false claim about you to the police, another man who could render the proper violence against you, etc.
As to not using 70% of your strength against her, it is the same reason she doesn't use 100% of her strength against you. This is done in jest. You are demonstrating that both of you understand what you can do physically and limiting it . I'm sure you could hug her and hurt her but you limit your hugging strength. Does that mean you assaulted her by giving her a hug?
Besides you've already mentioned that what your fiancee lacks in physical strength she makes up for in intellectual capability. If she wanted to harm you, it wouldn't be by punching you. You know that and she's smarter than that. However since she is so smart just ask her and post the result. I'm sure it will take some thinking since I doubt it has crossed her mind. What would a 5'2" woman do to harm a man as large as you? A woman's cunning is a formidable weapon I assure you.
Isn't the whole point of stalking being illegal/wrong fear?
Stalking can also be about destruction of property. If I followed you around and damaged your car at multiple locations, I have stalked you. I could even physically show myself and make intimidating comments to you. The act is stalking even if all you do is get pissed that I keyed your car and busted the winshield, and weren't afraid of me physically.
Rape, absolutely, but how often does that happen?
It can happen quite a bit Grove. The average woman is 5'5" and the average man is 5'8". Most folks don't have a foot difference in height between them and their partner. Just because you do doesn't mean you should make this assumption all around.
Thanks for the posting tips, I hope my last few have been clearer.
Nick
Lastly I didn't say that 85% of all women versus 15% of all men. Gosh I repeat your own stuff back to you and suddenly you can't understand it?!? Of all intimate partner violence, 85% occured to women and 15% occured to men.
Again, show me what the NCVS used to get 85/15 and what the NFVS used to get ~50/~50.
It seems like you are comparing apples to oranges, please use some facts and details to show me otherwise.
This is getting a little ridiculous when you don't remember your own numbers.
Says the man who ignores a rebuttal to his argument given by the man his whole argument is built on.
It mentions that how the questions are asked basically can lead to dramatic differences in results.
And... so?
I simply said that with ratio down to less than 2 to 1 in this study yearly and 400% lifetime, that I could see how a few question changes with regard to rape definitions and stalking and the ratios could move even closer.
Why would we change those? To fit what you want?
As for men and more... these studies show women getting a larger percent of intimate partner violence but men suffer from more violence overall. So men are killed, assaulted, etc more.
Overall? You mean, outside domestic abuse?
I really don't think you want to start that argument, trumpt, I really think you want to stay away from that.
I have stated that this survey isn't perfect but it is closer.
Which survey?
If an early rape report showed less raped but defined it with force, then a later rape report showed more rape, mentioned they had tried to account for some consent issues and eluded to the fact that in a future report they might get a full clear reporting on rape by defining it as a consent issue, you wouldn't see this as a bad trend. Neither do I with regard to violence.
Of course you don't consider rape violence.
Semantic bickering.
Likewise as you said intent changes with outcome. If her outcome truly were to hurt you she would likely escalate her force with a bat, scissors, make a false claim about you to the police, another man who could render the proper violence against you, etc.
But none of these surveys show that women are more likely to use weapons even with their inferior physical ability to hurt.
What would a 5'2" woman do to harm a man as large as you? A woman's cunning is a formidable weapon I assure you.
Yes, they are quite evil.
Stalking can also be about destruction of property.
Then it would be listed as such. It would be physical aggression and vandalism/destruction. Not "stalking".
IIt can happen quite a bit Grove. The average woman is 5'5" and the average man is 5'8". Most folks don't have a foot difference in height between them and their partner. Just because you do doesn't mean you should make this assumption all around.
"It can happen quite a bit". Does it? Search the menweb.org archives and see if you can find something about women raping men.
Originally posted by groverat
And in case I did want to respond, I read this:
quote:
Rape is _not_ about power
and realized there wasn't much poin
There OBVIOUSLY has to be A LOT of point in your statement that "rape is about power".
You maybe have a bit misunderstood the "women love the men with power"- stereotype. Or maybe the texan women really do like "men that have power".
At least I cannot respect men that attempt to have THAT "power". They don't have it, and are only desperately trying to prove themselves that they have even a bit of it. As a compensation of thinking only with their d!ck or the complete lack of self control and respect. Well, I leave you now the power to continue this thread.