Bio not provided
@AtlanticCanuck Oh, Martin, you actually liked Atlantic's comment?! Dude, why even answer me then, if my opinion is vile? WTF? I thought Atlantic was just some crazy radical ideologue who just happened to drop by, but man, I stand corrected. You're an enabler of them... Well, good thing I know who I'm dealing with now.
2 years, 1 month ago on White Ribbon Day – Calling for an End to Violence Against Women
@AtlanticCanuck So then... campaign to end discrimination of women (not "violence")? Just a thought. ... PS. If you think white people were victims of violence in greater numbers than black people, back when blacks were enslaved, I think you're wrong.
As for "vile"... Check out her comment, Martin. See if the message of your campaign has had its intented effect... Someone thinks violence against men is "a bar fight between a couple of drunks". Way to go! I suppose violence against children is "a few slaps for their own good".
This is exactly the reason why having campaings of the sort you're supporting is morally wrong: people like the commenter above make light of violence suffered by non-women because... something that happened two thousand years ago, or something that happened twenty years ago, or the amount of property they own. That's an insane idea which could be used to support almost any sort of violence against non-women, but my comment is "vile".
I wish I could say I enjoyed this discussion, but this last message has done it for me.
@martinspribble @Jaros I'm not sure I understand you correctly. It seems to me you are conflating several issues, butI'm afraid I'm unable to do them justice in a comment. I will point out what's obvious to me: if the true purpose of the campaign is to fight sexism and misogyny and their violent manifestations, why not reflect that by calling it what it is, namely a campaign against sexism, misogyny and their violent manifestations? By calling it something else, you do send the wrong message, which is that one gender's suffering is more important than the other. This is what I was talking about when I said that "it smacks of indifference". That could've very easily been avoided by stating the goals directly, instead of bridging them surreptitiously (as I'm guessing you're suggesting it's being done now) by means of an unclear theory.
I didn't get your last paragraph... Sorry, English is not my first language and maybe that's the reason. Anyway, I think you might have misunderstood me: I'm only talking about "exclusion" in terms of public message. If there are no public messages that condemn violence against men, why would people think violence against men is as unacceptable as violence against women, which is publicly condemned through campaigns like this one? They clearly don't think it now, given the male/female victim ratio (50% male victims of violence vs. 39% percent female)!!! It seems that you're saying that we should place our faith in some mysterious effect which will ensure that, once abusive misogynist men stop beating their partners, somehow other men will stop beating strangers and the abusive vomen stop beating their partners and so on... But why not send a direct public message to that effect? Here's an example: "I swear never to commit, excuse or remain silent about violence against child, woman or man. This is my oath." How about that?
I apologize for any mistakes I might have made. It's late in my neck of the woods and it's been some time since I've had the most recent opportunity to write in English to such an extent.
I have a question for you, Martin. You quote this: "One in three women in Australia has experienced physical violence since reaching the age of 15". According to the same study this finding is taken from, "Since the age of 15, there were an estimated 3,065,800 (39.9%) women who experienced violence compared with 3,744,900 (50.1%) men" (Australian Bureau of Statistics, Personal Safety Survey Australia 2005 (Reissue)). So, given those numbers that clearly show men being at greater risk from violence, the priority should be, in your opinion, to target violence (general, not just domestic, because that's the focus of this campaign) against women?! Why? It's clear from the study that men are more victimized by violence in general. Maybe if the campaign were "calling for an end to domestic violence against women", that would make more sense given the male/female ratio of domestic violence victims, but as it stands it actually seems callous towards the male victims of (all kinds of) violence. Even the male/female ratio of domestic violence victims isn't as clear cut. From the same study:
"The location of assaults varied between women and men during the 12 months prior to the survey:- Of the 195,300 women who experienced physical assault by a male perpetrator, 64% (125,100) of incidents occurred in a home- Of the 79,500 men who experienced physical assault by a female perpetrator, 77% (60,900) of incidents occurred in a home"
As you can see, there are plenty of men who experienced physical assault by a female perpetrator (about 40% of the number of women victims).
Anyway, even if men are at greater risk of being victimized by violence, I still don't think there should be a campaign to end violence against men. It just doesn't sound right, just like the campaign to end violence against women doesn't sound right. We really should have only campaigns to end violence against human being. Anything else smacks of indifference towards those not included in the campaign and runs the risk of minimizing their worth as human beings. That sort of thing should be repulsive from a humanistic point of view, I think.