Male Domestic Violence Advertisement

[Perigrina]

You must be forgetting that the pro-life movement is predominantly Catholic and Christian, and is largely rooted in exactly what is encompassed in that paragraph. In fact, you've produced a shining, a model example of exactly what I'm saying, with only a few dissimilarities. And it's a brilliant success.

We decide which causes are worth supporting by how many Catholics are involved? 

 

Abortion is evil because it takes innocent human life.  It would be our duty to stand against it, even if the pro-life movement were filled with atheists.

[Perigrina]

what is a tumbler

 

It's a social media thing.  It's a variation of blogging.

 

(Well, a tumbler is a kind of a drinking glass, but we were talking about Tumblr.)

Edited May 26, 2014 by Perigrina

[AugustineA]

You're doing the same thing you did with abortion, and you're making my point again.

 

That commandment in Matthew 25 comes from the Gospel. It is rooted in our reality as Christians. Acts 20: 35, Hebrews 13:16, 1John 3:17, Proverbs 19:17, the list goes on and on. All acts of charity and social justice must be rooted in the Gospel because Jesus is our point of reality from which our charity towards society stems. 

 

We decide which causes are worth supporting by how many Catholics are involved? 

 

Abortion is evil because it takes innocent human life.  It would be our duty to stand against it, even if the pro-life movement were filled with atheists.

 

No you have it backwards. Catholics are involved because it's evil.

 

Without the truth of revelation we have no objective idea of evil, hence why Christians are heavily represented in the pro-life movement. If atheists were involved by their own standards, it has no relation one way or other to what we're discussing, but it would be better than if they weren't involved. 

 

St. Augustine says in book V of City of God that those who are virtuous in this life without the inspiration of the gospel receive good rewards in this life, but that is all. Those who are virtuous in this life for the City of God receive eternal life. Hence Matthew 6. If you want to use the Gospel to prove unconditional social justice, I think you will find its starting point is the gospel. 

Edited May 26, 2014 by AugustineA

[Perigrina]

Without the truth of revelation we have no objective idea of evil, hence why Christians are heavily represented in the pro-life movement. If atheists were involved by their own standards, it has no relation one way or other to what we're discussing, but it would be better than if they weren't involved. 
 

So then, since domestic violence (regardless of the sex of the victim) is evil, Christians ought to be heavily represented in fighting it.  Yet your posts seem to be discouraging us from dealing with this issue.  I really do not understand what you are saying.  Is there something wrong with the video in the OP because it does not have the word "Jesus" in it?

 

[PhuturePriest]

Selah, why are all your responses so frustrated? Be a bit more patient with everyone.

 

Social justice isn't bad. Where did I say that? Read very closely my response. Social justice is becoming preoccupying. Do not respond with your emotions. Respond with your minds and hearts. 

 

The thrust of my argument is that these social justice awareness campaigns are orphan movements unless they are rooted in the gospel, hence why they are becoming increasingly tiresome. It follows from the argument that if we focus on all these fragmented issues at once, we will never solve the human condition. If we seek true conversion of hearts, we completely conquer it. Peregrina it's not a matter of teaching both the gospel and on abusive situations. The idea is to admonish and raise awareness of abuse through the Gospel (there's no reason one couldn't use these statistics), because the Gospel already includes commandments on these issues. 

 

JPII didn't say hey let's teach psychology and sociology and theology. He said we can understand psychology and sociology through theology. 

 

I understand what you're saying, and I agree with you. Everything we do should be rooted in Christianity, Catholicism specifically. But most people aren't Christian or Catholic (at least in practice and belief) and saying "Hey, you shouldn't hit your husband because it's sinful." won't work on most people. They would simply scoff. People who hit their spouse don't care what the Church or anyone else thinks about it, they just do it.

[Perigrina]

Just to clarify, I am not angry at anybody here.  This is just me being passionate about an issue.  I hope I am not scaring anyone.

 

 

[AugustineA]

haha no it's all good. I just know when I start saying things like "you have it backwards" I'm not acting very charitable and should probly chill out of this thread.. anyways, I see what you're sayin FP/Per. 

[Lilllabettt]

tumblr is a fantastical land of fandom, unicorns, and also a lot of very "young thinking" people full of thoughts and feelings and wanting to express their opinions with absolute certainty and in the most indignant and butthurt way possible. basically how FP was when he first joined phatmass. That is what tumblr is only louder and basically a giant echo chamber.

 

i am on tumblr to get insight into how different niche groups think. its like entering into a freaking hive mind. glorious and overwhelming at the same time. you have not peered into oblivion until you have followed a feminist debate on tumblr. 

 

re: kid who executed several people in California a couple days ago. 

Mens rights tumblr niche: not all men are monsters, btw  

Feminist tumblr niche: oh yeah, here's a handful of m &m's , only one is poison, won't you have some? no? but don't you know not all of them are poison!!!

Mens niche: he wasn't a woman hater he was nuts

Feminist niche: How dare you

 

do not attempt to reason with these people.

 

 

 

[Perigrina]

do not attempt to reason with these people.

 

But you can reason with me.  Honest.  :saint2:

 

(I am so glad to see you post Lillabett.  I thought I might have scared everyone away from the thread or possibly even the whole phorum.)

[Selah]

Same here. I just get way too passionate. I'm sorry if I came off mean. 

[Ice_nine]

I agree that adult fatalities from domestic violence are significantly more likely to be women, although there are still a lot of men killed. However, I doubt that this plays a major role in the huge disparity in how people tend to respond to domestic violence depending on the sex of the victim.  I think the attitude that women should be protected and men should tough it out is not really coming from any rational basis.  Women can and do seriously injure men and there is no good reason to assume that an abused man will not be seriously hurt or killed.

 

Often people (male and female) stay in abusive relationships because of the children.  This is possibly an even greater factor for men dealing with abusive women.  The odds are against a man getting custody of his children, so if he leaves, it means leaving his children with an abuser.  A lot of men are going to stay under those circumstances.

 

I think these statements contradict each other.

 

I'm responding to the video mostly. Because of biological differences in strength, I don't think or hope I would laugh at the guy, but I'd probably think he's allowing the woman (for whatever warped reasons) beat on him, whereas I might think the woman doesn't have the strength to defend herself.

 

Sure there will always be exceptions. Maybe the guy has some disability or the woman is freakishly strong, but in general I'm not surprised and/or disturbed by the video to be honest. That's why I'm not willing to believe it's at an epidemic level because the odds that a woman could do much physical damage to a man is, as you said, unlikely. I mean if I punched a guy in the arm as hard as I could he'd probably laugh at me.

 

It also cites 40% of domestic abuse victims are men. Does this figure encompass all varieties of abuse or just physical abus? (the video would suggest that but the stats aren't explicit). Also this figure is likely to include men who are victimized by other men (domestic abuse in the GLBT community doesn't get as much airtime either but iirc it's quite an issue).

[Perigrina]

I think these statements contradict each other.

 

I'm responding to the video mostly. Because of biological differences in strength, I don't think or hope I would laugh at the guy, but I'd probably think he's allowing the woman (for whatever warped reasons) beat on him, whereas I might think the woman doesn't have the strength to defend herself.

 

Sure there will always be exceptions. Maybe the guy has some disability or the woman is freakishly strong, but in general I'm not surprised and/or disturbed by the video to be honest. That's why I'm not willing to believe it's at an epidemic level because the odds that a woman could do much physical damage to a man is, as you said, unlikely. I mean if I punched a guy in the arm as hard as I could he'd probably laugh at me.

 

It also cites 40% of domestic abuse victims are men. Does this figure encompass all varieties of abuse or just physical abus? (the video would suggest that but the stats aren't explicit). Also this figure is likely to include men who are victimized by other men (domestic abuse in the GLBT community doesn't get as much airtime either but iirc it's quite an issue).

 

Women can fatally harm men by using weapons or poison, running them over with cars or killing them in their sleep. All these things happen. Domestic abuse of men can result in death.  In a simple unarmed fight the man has the advantage, but that is no reason to dismiss the danger of violence against men.  

 

I am not what stats the ad was basing its claims on but I have seen similar numbers for woman on man physical abuse. 

[Ice_nine]

Women can fatally harm men by using weapons or poison, running them over with cars or killing them in their sleep. All these things happen. Domestic abuse of men can result in death.  In a simple unarmed fight the man has the advantage, but that is no reason to dismiss the danger of violence against men.  

 

I know weapons can equalize strength differences but a simple unarmed fight is the situation shown in the video right? I guess you might think "hey that crazy b might go home and poison that dude," but someone could also think "why is he letting her whip up on him like that?" and I don't think that's a crazy or disturbing reaction to have and I can see how people think a man being emasculated in this way is funny because the world is a cold place and I think media trends often portray emasculation as an lolfest. Also people laugh when they're uncomfortable. Additionally, people may have thought "coming to his rescue" would only further embarrass him.

 

as for the stats you've claimed to see, I'd be compelled to believe them if I saw them. If 40% of abuse victims are from women-on-male violence then the video campaign makes sense. If this is not the case, then it's a little disingenuous, although it's still important that any abuse victims, male or female, can seek help and have resources allocated to them.

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but I can understand the aversion into turning every problem into a viral campaign. I'm also not a very good person tho so take things with a grain o' salt.

[Perigrina]

It's been a while since I read up on this, but as I recall, the most common form of domestic violence is mutual violence.  Often the couple themselves does not know who started it. The victim/abuser model is pretty inadequate for dealing with mutual violence.  Anyhow, there are different ways of interpreting mutual violence in the results, so that's one reason there are widely varied stats on domestic violence.  Another reason for the variation is the data source makes a big difference.  Police reports give really different numbers than self-reports.  So people can quibble about the numbers forever.  Understandably, in an ad like that, they are going to use as high a number as they can.  I wouldn't say that's dishonest.

 

I suppose I can understand people feeling "caused out".  There are so many people constantly trying to provoke us to indignation about so many things.  I personally feel strongly about justice for men because for many years I held and spread the feminist "woman victim/ man oppressor" worldview.  I was wrong and I am trying to make up for it.  For me, this issue is not the latest viral campaign.  It is something that  I have carried for years now.

 

[Perigrina]

Same here. I just get way too passionate. I'm sorry if I came off mean. 

 

I didn't notice anything wrong, but that doesn't prove much.  

 

Anyhow, I tend to have a pretty heavy debate style under any circumstances and even more so when I am passionate about the subject.   I really don't want to hurt or offend anyone, but sometimes I misjudge. If anyone notices me getting carried away, I appreciate getting told.