Home » Gender Issues » Men and Women » No to white ribbon’s

No to white ribbon’s

Lavatus Prodeo

Frankly I am heartily sick of all of the anti-male propaganda pertaining to the issue of domestic violence It is shallow and ignores the larger dynamics of interpersonal relationships. Violence with in relationships is a bad thing; to be denounced but to put all of the blame on men is wrong.
Women who goad, nag and belittle their partners must accept some responsibility for the consequences of their actions. I don’t condone men lashing out under such continued provocation but I can understand it. So lets be real here domestic violence is bad but it is about an unhealthy relationship dynamic rather than the vice and virtue inherent in each of the genders.

UPDATE
Mark Richardson has written an excelent post about why he will not be wearing a white ribbon.
About these ads

18 Comments

  1. Iain Hall says:

    My wife of 23 years is no shrinking violet so we may have “robust discussions” about domestic issues but we have never ever come to blows. Frankly that you should try to imply otherwise comes as no surprise; what else would I expect from you Scot?

  2. Glenn says:

    Iain,

    Never get into discussions with the ‘men’ and women of lavatory radio on feminist issues, they are worse than a nest full of man-hating black widow spiders.

    Misandry rulz at LP.

  3. Iain Hall says:

    Misandry rulz at LP. You can say that again Glen but it irks me that campaigns like “white Ribbon day” are not questioned for their underlying contradictions and the fact that they are intended to make every man feel guilty for the actions of a very small minority.

  4. Jessica Rabbit says:

    Iain, domestic violence is not just a result of an argument, a nag. Oftentimes the woman doesn’t have to do anything but be there. I know, I experienced it as a child from 8 to 18 with my mother being black and blue every week for ten years. The attitude was a home is a man’s castle and no one did anything, her sisters, their husbands, his sisters/brothers, neighbours, schools.

    Well it finished finally, one night, when I went to her on lying on the ground, and heard her last breath. She overdosed. Me, I was too scared if I went to dad, who was asleep, he’d get up and start bashing into her again. So instead of waking him I rang my aunt and uncle and told them mum was dead. He’d done that before, you know. Yeah, Iain, when she was asleep he’d come home from the pub and just whack into her asleep.

    Funny thing was, everyone liked my dad and didn’t believe it until they saw for themselves. He was a good provider, we went for nothing, sent to private schools, all the mod cons. Just couldn’t provide a happy home. The cause was alcohol, Iain. Well, he was a man, it was his right and all.

    Yes, everyone should feel guilty, and should be reminded how easy it is to turn a blind eye and do nothing. And how easy it is to do so again.

  5. Iain Hall says:

    Chrissie , yours is indeed a tragic tale and I would never advocate turning a blind eye. But I just can’t accept any guilt for the (admittedly) despicable actions of some people in the way that they treat their partners. And I suppose it is the “all men are tainted/suspect” aspect of these types of campaigns that I object to.I am a man too Chrissie and like most of the men I know I would never harm a woman or a child yet feminist dogma says that I am as bad as the chap who breaks his wife’s nose. It is the guilt determined by gender and I object to such stereo typing.

  6. Caz says:

    Unfortunately, Jessica’s story is not atypical, if only it was.

    You’re assumption of provocation is appalling and wrong headed. That’s the very same excuse men use for murdering their former partner, and sometimes the children too, when an uppity women decides to leave a bad relationship, for her own health and safety, and that of her children. Yes, men will even get lighter sentences for such outrageous “provocation”, because, after all, women are not entitled to act for their own welfare and the welfare of their children. So many people “understand” a man murdering a woman under those circumstances. Indeed, so understandable. And why on earth don’t these silly women accept the consequensce of their actions, ‘ey? They provoke, they pay.

    You’re assumption that the white ribbon day, with it’s desperate wish for the elimination of violence against women is only about domestic violence is strange. I have no idea where you got the idea that the only place women are subjected to violence is at home.

  7. Iain Hall says:

    Firstly welcome to my blog Caz Now I will look at your points one by one.

    Unfortunately, Jessica’s story is not atypical, if only it was.

    Chrissie’s tale is indeed a tragic one and I agree that here experience is not unique but that is the very nasty end of a spectrum of behaviour that starts with raised voices and ends with a fatal incident. I think that you are seeing all domestic violence in the same light that you would see violence that results in a fatality.

    You’re assumption of provocation is appalling and wrong headed. That’s the very same excuse men use for murdering their former partner, and sometimes the children too, when an uppity women decides to leave a bad relationship, for her own health and safety, and that of her children. Yes, men will even get lighter sentences for such outrageous “provocation”, because, after all, women are not entitled to act for their own welfare and the welfare of their children. So many people “understand” a man murdering a woman under those circumstances. Indeed, so understandable. And why on earth don’t these silly women accept the consequence of their actions, ‘ey? They provoke, they pay.

    Caz I would NEVER offer such excuses for a man who kills his wife that is for him to argue before the beak (I wonder however, whether you are a supporter of the idea that a woman who is battered is justified in killing her husband?) But further down on the spectrum of seriousness (in domestic violence) it is often a matter of the combination of personalities that creates the toxic relationship and it is this level of the problem to which I primarily address my comments, NOT the more rare fatally extreme cases. I have seen such combinations amongst some of my acquaintances and it is far from pretty.

    You’re assumption that the white ribbon day, with it’s desperate wish for the elimination of violence against women is only about domestic violence is strange. I have no idea where you got the idea that the only place women are subjected to violence is at home.

    Caz I have focused on domestic violence because that is the focus of both the piece at LP and the campaign in the media. I am well aware that we can all be subject to violence anywhere any time. And where did YOU get the idea that I believed otherwise?

  8. Iain Hall says:

    Some people will no doubt be aware I have been commenting at LP on this topic and true to form my last comment has not appeared, I posted this and all of a sudden up comes a message that my comment will appear after “moderation”Ho Hum my comment was quite reasonable as you can see.

    FDB, you didn’t start the sidetracking, that was done by Iain, Max and Mark. They’ve done an excellent job hijacking the thread.Has anyone else noticed that they rarely comment here unless there’s a post about women’s activism? Then they seem to say the same things over and over.Troll. Troll. Troll. Tig tog

    You make a typical error of the ideologue; you believe that your position is like the words written on the stone tablet and given to you by the deity.As Mark Richardson correctly points out it is only a very small proportion of the men in this country who do perpetrate violence on women and I am sure that no one thinks that it is ok that they act as they do. What irks Max, Mark and yours truly (if I can be so bold as to speak for them) it is being tarred with the same brush because we are of the blokish persuasion. As another poster points out if we had been discussing followers of Muhammad (peace be upon him) then the attitude here would be different.Feminism with its innate gender antagonism has had its day we need to look at the issues of domestic violence with new eyes and realise that this is a problem of our humanity and not just a problem of masculinity. As for when I decide to comment here when the topic is interesting I will put in my 2 cents worth. And if the truth be known I have commented more often on climate issues than I have on women’s activism? But one thing that is clear is that when someone resorts(as you do here) to the ad hominem attack it usually means that they have lost the argument. :)

  9. Miss Politics says:

    Blaming the victim of domestic violence is like blaming the victim of sexual abuse.

    You know ‘its all her fault she was dressed like a slut / nagged like a bitch / wouldn’t shut up … so I raped her, beat her, abused her’.

    This is about men. It’s about men because the overwhelming amount of violence against women is undertaken by men.

    Domestic violence is the highest killer of women in Australia between the ages of 15 to 44! Men are to blame.

    There is no excuse for this and trying to make one quite frankly is pathetic.

    Please note that this post does not allude that I hate men in fact I love them very much. However calling a spade a spade in this case is justified.

    Oh and to be honest nagging is not a gender trait.

    May I suggest you contact one of the many men’s groups that offer counselling and support in this area. Clearly, I fear for your wifes safety .. especially if you consider her a ‘nagger’.

  10. Miss Politics says:

    There is never any excuse for domestic violence. Full stop.

    Just in case you missed it the first time … THERE IS NEVER ANY EXCUSE FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE …

  11. youngcraig says:

    You see Jessica and Caz, Iain is a big fan of Andrew Bolt who has been banging on about Victorian police being ‘Girlie’ in his recent column.

    Andrew and his church believe that violence is fine given provocation. See Iraq, and the ‘soft’, ‘feminist run’ police in Melbourne, who in protecting the G20 (which they did just fine) failed to bash to the ground enough of the lefties who shouted, screamed, and chucked a few plastic boxes at police.

    In their view you ‘girlie’ ‘feminists’ are weak, and those with power like our men, and the world policeman, the USA, have to stand up and punish those who threaten us.

    After all woman are just like ungrateful lefties who want to destroy western society. When they complain first shout abuse then, if they don’t see how wrong they are, bash the fuck out of them.

    Violence in all forms, even as a means of creating ‘peace’ is wrong.

    Wake up all you Bloke’s and Sheila’s who support aggression and violence at any level. Fighting fire with fire doesn’t work.

  12. Iain Hall says:

    Craigy Apologies in the delay to moderate your comment :o)Violence in all forms, even as a means of creating ‘peace’ is wrong.
    There is a delicious Irony that you should say this pertaining to the riots in Melbourne because what both Andrew and I would advocate is that the police actually do their job and arrest violent protesters who assault police and destroy property . The instruction to police to ignore such actions is at the very least wimpy. Any way I will take this as your condemnation of the protesters, which is a step forward for you.
    Wake up all you Bloke’s and Sheila’s who support aggression and violence at any level. Fighting fire with fire doesn’t work.
    Actually Craigy if you spend any time as a volunteer with the rural fire brigade you will discover that you are quite wrong ,most bush fires are fought with back burning (fighting fire with fire).Miss P Firstly welcome to my blog You are very good at mouthing the slogans and sadly you attribute to me things that I have not said and opinions that I do not hold. I am not offering “excuses” I abhor violence but you are young and I suspect that you have seen less of life than I have. As I say here in the comments thread Domestic violence is a human issue and despite your claims to the contrary women are often the perpetrators (in about 30% of reported cases)of domestic violence and I suspect that the true measure of female domestic violence is grossly under reported. I will forgive you the ad Hominem at the end of your comment (which is so typical of the feminista)I stand for an end to all domestic violence but I also resent being unfairly accused (as you do here) of being guilty of it because of my gender.

  13. youngcraig says:

    Iain,

    You seem to be using the ‘ad Hominem’ defence in just about every discussion over the past few weeks. Strange as you have used personal attacks yourself and encouraged David Tan to do so for most of your time as a blogger.

    Just got a dictionary did you?

    I have been a Volunteer fire fighter for about 12 years, regardless your answer to my proposition that you can’t fight fire with fire. Is this an attempt at humour?

    You must understand I am talking about human violence, not fire fighting, I know you’re not that silly.

    Why don’t you use your great wisdom to tell us how well the violence in Iraq is bringing the peace you and Andrew said it would bring.

    I have never supported violence at political protests, and agree that those that were violent to the police in Melbourne should be held accountable. The non-violent approach by the police (most of the time) was a fantastic development and made it much harder for the small group of aggressive activists to get away with their actions.

    Victorian police motto is to ‘Serve and Protect’ all citizens. Citizens have a right to peaceful protest. If both groups do their job then those who support violence will be exposed. I include those members of the G20 who are perpetuating violence in the world as amongst those that need to be exposed. With the media focusing on a few activists getting violent, the message gets lost.

    If the police attacked the protestors it would have just produced a massive shit fight. They did the right thing. You would hope with Police intelligence and all the cameras, they could get the violent people later. This way no one got badly hurt.

    I don’t know if you remember the Richmond school protests down here during Kennet’s time. The police used pressure point assaults on the protesters, a tactic that could have resulted in death (this is now banned). I don’t think police killing citizens who protest is really ‘serving or protecting’ now is it?

    BTW, I have been blocked from commenting at Bolt’s blog. He really is trying to remove any real discussion or criticism of his writing. What a chicken.

  14. Iain Hall says:

    Iain,You seem to be using the ‘ad Hominem’ defence in just about every discussion over the past few weeks. Strange as you have used personal attacks yourself and encouraged David Tan to do so for most of your time as a blogger.Just got a dictionary did you?
    Craigy I actually try very hard to stick to the issue when ever I engage in debate or in the posts I write at my blog. However it seems that when I receive slurs and insults in return (like Miss P’s abhorrent suggestion that I may be violent to my wife) You criticise me for denouncing that, for what it is an ad hominem, an attack upon my person rather than my argument. I have every right to point out that this is a rather poor way of mounting an argument and that those who use this tactic are clearly lacking in rhetorical skill.
    I have been a Volunteer fire fighter for about 12 years, regardless your answer to my proposition that you can’t fight fire with fire. Is this an attempt at humour? You must understand I am talking about human violence, not fire fighting, I know you’re not that silly.
    well when you use a particular metaphor you can’t expect me to ignore the possibilities it offers can you? And good for you that you have been part of such a worthy activity.
    Why don’t you use your great wisdom to tell us how well the violence in Iraq is bringing the peace you and Andrew said it would bring.
    that Craigy, is another debate for another time and I will resist your attempt at thread Hijack :o)
    I have never supported violence at political protests, and agree that those that were violent to the police in Melbourne should be held accountable. The non-violent approach by the police (most of the time) was a fantastic development and made it much harder for the small group of aggressive activists to get away with their actions.
    I accept that you are closer to the action than me but It seems to me that the police went far to soft on this occasion because the destruction of public property and the injuries sustained by police officers do not suggest a “success” to me
    Victorian police motto is to ‘Serve and Protect’ all citizens. Citizens have a right to peaceful protest. If both groups do their job then those who support violence will be exposed. I include those members of the G20 who are perpetuating violence in the world as amongst those that need to be exposed. With the media focusing on a few activists getting violent, the message gets lost.
    So are you saying that the evil that the protesters sought to expose is great enough to justify the tactics they used ?If the police attacked the protesters it would have just produced a massive shit fight. They did the right thing. You would hope with Police intelligence and all the cameras, they could get the violent people later. This way no one got badly hurt.
    Actually the only way that I could see what you are proposing actually working would be to make it an offence to cover your face in public and /or the police dousing the protesters with some sought of indelible dye from water cannons (or paint ball guns) ;) the trouble is that arresting them later makes it much harder to actually secure a conviction
    I don’t know if you remember the Richmond school protests down here during Kennet’s time. The police used pressure point assaults on the protesters, a tactic that could have resulted in death (this is now banned). I don’t think police killing citizens who protest is really ‘serving or protecting’ now is it?
    Sorry mate but that is just a bit too parochial for this banana bender to have any knowledge of the events you talk about. But I will concede that riots are perhaps the hardest sort of thing for any police force to deal with. If the police show too much restraint they loose and if they go in to hard they do likewise I just think that on this occasion the erred to far on the side of caution .
    BTW, I have been blocked from commenting at Bolt’s blog. He really is trying to remove any real discussion or criticism of his writing. What a chicken.
    Andrew runs his sand pit as he pleases maybe you committed the “crime “ of being humourless or boring ?

  15. youngcraig says:

    “I accept that you are closer to the action than me but It seems to me that the police went far to soft on this occasion because the destruction of public property and the injuries sustained by police officers do not suggest a “success” to me”

    The success was that the G20 meeting went off unhindered and the level of violence was kept to a low level. Because police resources are limited, if they had tried to arrest those who did the damage they would have risked been overrun and created the ‘shit fight’ I mentioned above.

    “But I will concede that riots are perhaps the hardest sort of thing for any police force to deal with.”

    This was not a riot; it was on the whole a peaceful protest with a few trouble makers. An over reaction by the police could have made it a riot. As it was they did a good job of ‘keeping the peace’.

    “Andrew runs his sand pit as he pleases maybe you committed the “crime of being humourless or boring?”

    Andrew has never stated that being humourless and boring is a reason to get banned from his blog. Otherwise he would ban himself. He would probably have to ban most from the right as well! :)

    (I could add an ad hominem right now but I won’t).

    BTW, you did say your wife was a nag and suggested this as a reason for violence by some men, putting two and two together and ‘miss politics’ concern for your wife seems fair enough.

    I don’t personally think you a wife basher though. That accusation shouldn’t be made lightly.

  16. Iain Hall says:

    The success was that the G20 meeting went off unhindered and the level of violence was kept to a low level. Because police resources are limited, if they had tried to arrest those who did the damage they would have risked been overrun and created the ‘shit fight’ I mentioned above. That is a fair enough assessment and both of us have to accept that it was a judgement call for the police on the ground. This was not a riot; it was on the whole a peaceful protest with a few trouble makers. An over reaction by the police could have made it a riot. As it was they did a good job of ‘keeping the peace’. I still think that they could have done more to arrest those few troublemakers on the day. BTW, you did say your wife was a nag and suggested this as a reason for violence by some men, putting two and two together and ‘miss politics’ concern for your wife seems fair enough.I don’t personally think you a wife basher though. That accusation shouldn’t be made lightly.I have never said that my wife is a nag she and I have been together for a very long time and there is no couple on the planet who have not argued when together for such a long time which is all I allude to with “robust discussions” in my earlier comment. As you say to suggest that anyone is a “wife basher” is a rather nasty slur and sadly one that Miss P and “the editor” were blithely happy to bandy about with out any justification what so ever

  17. Mark Richardson says:

    Miss P if you really love men as you claim to do, don’t be in such a rush to believe false statistics about male violence.

    A word to the wise: any feminist statistic should be taken with a grain of salt.

    You repeated a rather incredible statistic that I’ve heard a number of times, namely that domestic violence is the highest killer of women aged 15 to 45.

    I took the trouble to look up the ABS data on deaths of women in that age category. As you might expect, the feminist claim is a furphy.

    In fact, cancer is the biggest killer of women in that age group – by a very considerable distance.

    Cancer killed 673 women in that age group in 2004. The number of women killed by domestic violence must be less that 528 as this is the number of deaths by “external causes” once you subtract road deaths.

    If you further subtract deaths by suicide from the “external” group you get 290 deaths. I don’t know how many deaths out of these 290 can be attributed to domestic violence, but it is likely to be a small percentage as many of the 290 fatalities will be due to accidents.

    At any rate, the feminist claim cannot possibly be true, no matter how you look at the figures.

    But then, every single time I’ve checked out such claims, they have always proved to be false.

  18. Legal Eagle says:

    I started to write a comment on this post, but it got so big that I turned it into a post of my own.

    Any disagreement, counter-argument or comment welcome! (As always)

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 262 other followers

%d bloggers like this: