Men are all woman beaters

Speaking as somebody who regularly beats the wife I can't see why the government feels the need to interfere - she doesn't mind at all.

Mind you we rarely play draughts as she is a dab hand and the ignominy of being a beaten husband isn't something I want.



>Will add something funny when I think of it.<

Benefit of the doubt; they know what mediates the effect of male partner attendence of health screening on violence against women, but can't measure it easily, and consider the problem serious enough that they are treating everyone the same.

Cynic; a piece of atheoretical research, where they had access to limited data and just regressed violence onto whatever measures came to hand. They've no idea what mediates the effect, but wanted to finish off with a recommendation.

BTW, when it is sunny, more people drown. Whenever the sun comes out everyone should wear a lifejacket, just in case.

They didn't go that far over here yet, but things are going out of hand too.

Some men are violent, but most are not, but it is slowly becoming 'common sense' that men are just violent by nature, period. The book Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus has done very much harm in this respect.

Oh and of course it is absolutely forbidden to talk about female (mostly verbal) violence. Those of us who are divorced know what I am talking about. And, as far as I can see, there's no tendency towards more tolerance and consensus - just hit as hard as you can ('men are violent anyway').

A few months ago, the Vatican issued a statement saying that "many women understood gender equity wrong. The goal is not to spark a war between genders." I believe this might well happen, and this is one of the very few statements where I think the Pope was right.

Relationships between men and women will never be easy, but the most lethal poison is the current polarization and extremism by both sexes alike.

Cheese

Good points Cheese.
Maybe someone should investigate why men are becoming more domestically violent - if indeed they are.
My wife likes to watch dreadful TV reality programmes, and although I know they pick the worst people in order to make compelling TV, wife swap, and the more recent Who's The Boss?, where parents are (shock horror ) required to actually look after their own kids for a few weeks. I saw half of this one this week, and the woman was just constantly complaining that looking after her kids was boring and that she couldn't do the things she wanted - she was restricted.
There seems to be a trend toward people living their lives for purely selfish reasons, and have no regard for the welfare of their kids or family if it gets in the way of their lives as individuals. (So why do they have kids?).
Maybe I'm biased, but it seems that women portrayed on these programmes sit on their fat arses and let the men come home from work to cook and do all the chores, whilst the women go off for lunches, go shopping and get fat.
Of course, the people on these programmes are not representitive, but suppose they provoke "yeah, you're a bit like that" comments? These programmes breed negativity, and maybe that causes arguments that lead to domestic violence.(?)
So, I wonder if tabloid TV has anything to do with all this?
I am increasingly worried that my views are being forced against my own will from what I consider to be a liberal standpoint. And I don't like that. Maybe that is what is happening. Maybe men are being forced away from being the considerate "new man" that everyone wanted a few years ago. Maybe women in general have now pissed on their chips.
So this pregnacy thing: Cause or effect?

I always object to the "Zero Tolerance for violence against women" campaigns, not because I believe that violence against women is in any way acceptable, but because I believe that they should also campaign against violence to men. A (Male) friend of mine was battered senseless by his (female) partner, he needed stitches from where the broken lenses of his glasses were embedded in his face.

I am really pleased that Rasher has brought this up for discussion on the forum. I have just sat through an appalling broadcast on Radio 2 (content not sound quality!) and it was all I could do to listen to the talking head do-gooder female charity spokesperson without kicking the radio across the office! I think this is an outrageous suggestion that should be kicked into touch immediately. The sooner we give this kind of thing a swift "two fingered salute" the sooner we can all get on with our lives unimpeded by this wrong-headed nonsense.

Mole Man (very angry mole!)

quote:

---

"Zero Tolerance for violence against women" Campaigns

---

What do they beat you up if don't stop?
I have zero tolerance to inanimate objects that move, they call me bad tempered!

What do they ask the partners? When did you stop beating your wife(SO, life partner etc etc)?

There's another question we must also ask ourselves : is this post-nine-eleven exaggeration of actions against male violence of any use for beaten women ? I doubt this whole circus would motivate a violent man to control himself every time he gets angry. Some women, for sure, might indeed find the courage to fill a complaint, but I fear that most of them are so terrorized by their husbands that their situation is not likely to improve.

On the other hand, there are of course many very intelligent women wrongly accusing their partners of violence or sexual abuse - a field-tested and fashionable technique to ensure child custody in case of divorce.

Now, of course, judges are aware of that phenomenon, and it will end up becoming increasingly difficult to prove such acts of violence - and for everyone, therefore also for those women who ACTUALLY have something to say.

Needless to say that those b*****s coming up with false evidence should be punished far harder than with the small fine they have to pay nowadays. Isn't it in part thanks to them that the situation has evolved that way in the UK ?

Cheese

quote:

---

Originally posted by The mole man:
it was all I could do to listen to the talking head do-gooder female charity spokesperson without kicking the radio across the office!

---

Careful. You mentioned 'do-gooder', so I'm surprised November 5th hasn't come early.

Then again, perhaps you'll get away with it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cheese:
On the other hand, there are of course many very intelligent women wrongly accusing their partners of violence or sexual abuse - a field-tested and fashionable technique to ensure child custody in case of divorce.

---

[rant]I am also aware that accusations of sexual harrasment are used in personal vendettas. In nearly every case, the womans' word is taken at face value and the consequences for the man can be dire.

I have even seen one evil cow stick the knife in by saying " I could accuse X of sexual harrasment. But I wont."

So with this, she has "let it be known " that she "suffered sexual harrasment" but did not want it actioned. Pure evil. The poisonous bastard should have been asked to put up or push off.[/rant]

Regards

Mike

Spending money I don't have on things I don't need.

I wonder if asked, amongst a raft of other questions "does your husband/partner beat you?", is the "average" beaten wife/partner really likely to answer yes?

Reminds me slightly of when I went to the states and was sat filling the form in on the plane, there was a question whose wording escapes me but basically asked "are you a terrrorist?".

Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by The mole man:
I am really pleased that Rasher has brought this up for discussion on the forum. I have just sat through an appalling broadcast on Radio 2 (content not sound quality!) and it was all I could do to listen to the talking head do-gooder female charity spokesperson without kicking the radio across the office! I think this is an outrageous suggestion that should be kicked into touch immediately. The sooner we give this kind of thing a swift "two fingered salute" the sooner we can all get on with our lives unimpeded by this wrong-headed nonsense.

Mole Man (very angry mole!)

---

Unfortunately everyone has missed the point completely.

Antenatal care has reached a pont in this country where maternal mortality has declined rapidly compared to 100 or even 50 years ago. Of those deaths that do occur violence plays an ever increasing role; 13% of maternal deaths in the last triennial report available from HMSO. That is where this is coming from.

To put things in context, as the speaker on Jeremy Vine did, we already expend time and effort trying to pick up Congenital Syphilis. This only affects a few pregnancies annually but it is devastating to those affected. Don't be alarmed or surprised if agencies move onwards trying to tackle these problems.

Maternity services in the UK already have some experience in identifying people at risk. These skills will be employed in the new initiatives.

For once this isn't the nanny state taking over allour lives, it is a genuine attempt to tackle a problem that is more insidious than most folk realise.

regards
Richard S

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard S:
13% of maternal deaths in the last triennial report available from HMSO.

---

Richard,

that's 13% of mothers dying in the last third of their pregnancy (or 13% of miscarriages)?

cheers, Martin

E-mail:- MartinPayne (at) Dial.Pipex.com. Put "Naim" in the title.

Good point Paul.

Mike - did that nasty person say that in a one to one context? Most do unfortunately. If more than one person is present it's an HR issue - but the really vindictive people tend to be more clever than that. Last couple of places I worked had zero tollerence to sexual harassment - in BOTH directions and were just as hard on peolpe who abused it - like in your example. I can only remember one person being escorted off the premises for abuse of this policy - set a good example to everyone else.

Cheers

Harry

I find it questionable that there is no integration of services in a case where a matter of concern to public health happens to overlap a matter of concern to the criminal justice system.

Machinery of State already exists that recognises domestic violence. It seems odd that the medico's are asking questions that bear on matters of interest to police - without involving the police.

My comment is qualified by my distance from the UK, BTW. I may be missing some vital facts.

Deane

quote:

---

My comment is qualified by my distance from the UK, BTW. I may be missing some vital facts.

---

Unlike another guy in another thread on another topic hailing from Florida, I don't think you are missing any vital facts.

The problem with getting medical staff to do the work of the police is as follows:

Medico: All done now Ms Brathwaite you can get dressed now.

Patient: Phew! I'm glad it's all over and done.

Medico: Do you have relations with a man or men?

Patient: Er, yes, what's that got to do with the price of eggs?

I've been with Harry for 6 months now.

Medico: Does he ever hit you or physically abuse you in anyway at all?

Patient: [bursting into tears] Yes he has hit me a couple of times when he's come back from the pub on a Friday night.

Medico: Do you want to press charges?

Patient: I love him.

Medico: I'm calling the cops right now.

Patient: I'll have you struck off if you do, you interfering old hag!

I thought doctors were supposed to hold what their patients tell them in strictest confidence!

Ms Braithwaite could of course decide instead to press charges against Harry - prompted by the medico's questioning as a way of ending the relationship (perhaps because she's got another admirer waiting in the wings) even though he never once so much as laid one finger on her in anger or in malice.

Regards,

Steve.

[This message was edited by Steven Toy on Fri 22 October 2004 at 4:44.]

What's the big deal?

Doctor asks a question. Woman says yes or no. The end. Unless the husband is in fact one of these gutless reptiles who does beat his wife, and she takes the opportunity to say so.

I imagine at this point, a pregnant woman's instincts would start to consider the safety of her unborn kid, over-riding any misplaced loyalty to her thug partner, and this would be an appropriate time for the state to intervene and provide some protection to both mother and child.

Try not to think in terms of me, me, me, all the time. If all men are suspects for 5mins then so what ? You'll survive, hopefully more women will to.

Sounds like "well if you're not guilty then you have nothing to fear' kind of reasoning.

The police (and I'm sure this is the same in the UK) cannot trawl for serious crime. They can't search from house to house on the off-chance they will find some stolen goods. Civil rights came about because the State abuses individual rights if they are allowed to by the law.

While it may be true that all men will survive 5mins of suspicion the 800 year evolution of your legal system has given you all rights and trawling for wife beaters seems to deny some of htese rights.

Deane

"I imagine at this point, a pregnant woman's instincts would start to consider the safety of her unborn kid, over-riding any misplaced loyalty to her thug partner, and this would be an appropriate time for the state to intervene and provide some protection to both mother and child."

Presumably and hopefully so, in nearly all cases...

Regards,

Steve.