men always treat women like princesses

[identity-X]

sure...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=iJfIZZqOnMM

[menaz]

You act like women don't beat male children or their husbands. Trust me a womans favorite line is I can hit you but you can't hit me because i'ma girl.

Oh how they play both sides of the fence.

Question?

Did you watch the superbowl or try on pink dresses sunday?

[UnbrokeN]

lmfao...owned. women bring this on by themselves..all you do is blame the man, but it takes two. its her fault that she got with such a fuckign prick. what you present here as a typical man treating his woman could also show how stupid women are when it comes to their choice of men. women are responsible for this..she coudl have fucking left him. leaving is more than justified is such a drastic case...after all.

[identity-X]

i'd like you to find one instance where i said women don't beat men. it's the exception, not the rule, but it happens.

I went grocery shopping when the superbowl came on because i knew i'd be able to get in and out with little hassle. NOBODY was out at that time.

Beause that has ANYTHING to do with ANYTHING...

[menaz]

Originally Posted by identity-X

i'd like you to find one instance where i said women don't beat men. it's the exception, not the rule, but it happens.

I went grocery shopping when the superbowl came on because i knew i'd be able to get in and out with little hassle. NOBODY was out at that time.

Beause that has ANYTHING to do with ANYTHING...

The problem is you didn't state it.

[teq the decider]

Unbroken is exactly right when he says it takes two. One to give a beating and one to take it. If she is rolling around with low down busters instead of sir studdly teq to the zilla then why does she expect any pity?

[Leila Night]

Every woman should be with Teq or suffer beatings?

[Ignorant]

Originally Posted by identity-X

i'd like you to find one instance where i said women don't beat men. it's the exception, not the rule, but it happens.

Women beating men happens so much that I don't think you can minimize it by calling it "the exception" any longer. And it often goes unreported, because what man with any attachment to gender roles and expectations, would admit to being beaten by his wife or girlfriend?

[identity-X]

Originally Posted by Ignorant

Women beating men happens so much that I don't think you can minimize it by calling it "the exception" any longer. And it often goes unreported, because what man with any attachment to gender roles and expectations, would admit to being beaten by his wife or girlfriend?

women abusing men IS the exception in most relationships. hell...men abusing women is the exception too as only 1/4 relationships involve such abuse.

but when the denominator is "relationships where one member is abused", the percentage of men being abused by women is still less than 50% (FAR less by any account) making it the "exeption" in the strictest sense.

and you're 110% right about underreported cases (though, of course, women underreport abuse by men for different reasons) of women abusing men. it's a prime example of how the perpetuation of traditional gender roles and expectations need to be examined to end suffering by so many men.

[identity-X]

Originally Posted by UnbrokeN

lmfao...owned. women bring this on by themselves..all you do is blame the man, but it takes two. its her fault that she got with such a fuckign prick. what you present here as a typical man treating his woman could also show how stupid women are when it comes to their choice of men. women are responsible for this..she coudl have fucking left him. leaving is more than justified is such a drastic case...after all.

um...because i'm sure you didn't watch this (much like I'm sure you didn't read anything in the anti-feminist thread I posted), the thing you have to take into consideration is that in this and MOST situations the abuser initially showed ZERO signs of being abusive during the early stages (hell, YEARS in some cases) of the marriage.

what happens is that she was broken down psychologically (and physically) over the years. those are hard chains to break from. Most women DO leave their husbands, but when you fear for your life or fear for the well-being of your children (the main reason the woman stated for staying was that she didnt' want to abandon her family), leaving doesn't typically jump out as the best option, at least initially.

People working in Nazi concentration camps "could have" simply opted not to throw the swith. People in the Milgram study "could have" simply opted to not shock what they assumed was a person on another side. We ALL have agency, no matter how much it's constrained, but that doesn't mean the constraints aren't going to affect our behavior and choices in a way that sometimes hurts us (even when the aim is to make sure OTHERS aren't hurt) in the long run.

[Ignorant]

Originally Posted by identity-X

women abusing men IS the exception in most relationships. hell...men abusing women is the exception too as only 1/4 relationships involve such abuse.

but when the denominator is "relationships where one member is abused", the percentage of men being abused by women is still less than 50% (FAR less by any account) making it the "exeption" in the strictest sense.

and you're 110% right about underreported cases (though, of course, women underreport abuse by men for different reasons) of women abusing men. it's a prime example of how the perpetuation of traditional gender roles and expectations need to be examined to end suffering by so many men.

Because of the fact of underreporting, I don't think the reported numbers are reliable in telling the true story of women beating men... and I would venture to say that that particular abuse goes more unreported than men beating women, who are much quicker to call the police when a guy even thinks of raising a hand.

The reason why 'men beating women' gets more attention is because men are physically stronger than women and have the capacity to inflict more damage. There is also much tradition there, which makes it easier for people to believe and embrace. The only time men will report abuse from women is if there are weapons involved and clear bodily injury.

Also, the reported numbers of men beating women tends to be inflated by false reports from vindictive women who use their gender and societal prejudice to their advantage. This is very real and happens a lot. Men don't necessarily have this incentive to lie because of the gender roles/expectations that already make them hesitant to report in the first place, although I wouldn't doubt that some attempt to... and they probably get laughed at by the prejudiced cop.

Seriously, I don't know for sure... I'm just going off of what I observe and hear. I just don't think we should all feel so safe to assume that 'men beating women' still leads 'women beating men' by astronomical margins. I think in this day and age, those margins might be a lot closer than you think... and that the long-held prejudices and stereotypes of the 'man beating up on the poor, innocent woman' have blinded us to the other side of the fence. Men are seen as the 'powerful oppressors,' not the 'helpless victims.' Even if he is abused, the common reception is... "so what! you're a man... deal with it." While a woman is immediately believed, protected, and rescued.

And let's not talk about mental and verbal abuse.

[identity-X]

personally, I doubt it...

especially since the nature of sexist oppression has changed. In the past, men who abused their wives did it to maintain control. Today, men who do it often do so because they feel they are LOSING control. They feel emasculated when the state of the economy makes it hard for them to fulfill the role of "breadwinner" and, as a result, overcompensate by taking the gender roles they CAN live up to to the extreme.

This is what a steadfast reliance on "traditional" gender roles results in.



Social scientists churn out domestic violence researsh (men against women AND women agaisnt men) and I think most conclude that the gap is still pretty wide. I don't think it's changed much since the 80's,. If it come to me, I'll look or an article I read about female violence against women actually DECREASED in the late 90's, though much of that was attributed to the fact that the economy was doing so well.

[Ignorant]

^Again, those social scientists are going by documented REPORTS... I've already explained how that can be flawed and unreliable...

Just to give you an analogy, during the Jim Crow era, a lot of white-on-black violence went undocumented and unconvicted because of the institutional racism of that day... either the cops didn't report it or they joined in... and if it did went so far as an arrest, the perpertator(s) were usually acquitted by all white juries... or the black victims never reported it because they knew they wouldn't receive justice. So would you believe anybody who said that the white-on-black violence wasn't nearly as great as the black-on-white violence from the end of slavery say to about 1968? If you went by the reports instead of your own eyes, you might.

This is not to say that there is some institutional sexism against men in woman-on-man abuse, but that there exists a huge amount of underreporting. All you have to do is witness some cases firsthand or talk to some victims. Again, I still don't think it's as much as man-on-woman (probably because of the society-fueled prejudice and propaganda), but the gap is definitely widening... faster than you think.

[identity-X]

Originally Posted by Ignorant

^Again, those social scientists are going by documented REPORTS... I've already explained how that can be flawed and unreliable...

Just to give you an analogy, during the Jim Crow era, a lot of white-on-black violence went undocumented and unconvicted because of the institutional racism of that day... either the cops didn't report it or they joined in... and if it did went so far as an arrest, the perpertator(s) were usually acquitted by all white juries... or the black victims never reported it because they knew they wouldn't receive justice. So would you believe anybody who said that the white-on-black violence wasn't nearly as great as the black-on-white violence from the end of slavery say to about 1968? If you went by the reports instead of your own eyes, you might.

This is not to say that there is some institutional sexism against men in woman-on-man abuse, but that there exists a huge amount of underreporting. All you have to do is witness some cases firsthand or talk to some victims. Again, I still don't think it's as much as man-on-woman (probably because of the society-fueled prejudice and propaganda), but the gap is definitely widening... faster than you think.

there's been a huge push AWAY from quantitative analysis of things like domestic abuse and toward more qualitative analysis. we recognize the flaws of taking tic marks and statistics on a piece of paper at face value. THESE types of research are the ones showing little change in abuse rates over the course of the last 10-15 years.

anonymous surveys, focus groups, and the like are great tools in figuring out the "real" extent of domestic abuse. coupled with quantitative data, researchers can make some pretty good estimates (actual occurences of all social phenomena are, in fact, ALWAYS estimates) about the extent to which domestic abuse is occuring and who is committing it against whom.

none of these estimates show men agaisnt women abuse as being even close to "the rule"

[pantherdef]

It's unfortunate that society has exceptions to gender roles. But I don't think women beat on men with the same frequency as the reverse.

[iLL Rich]

i treat the women in my life like princesses and queens.