Return PolishForums LIVE
  PolishForums Archive :
Archives - 2005-2009 / Life  % width 180

800 thousand Polish women are victims of domestic abuse yearly


Wahldo  
28 Mar 2009 /  #151
if the man was drunk and doesnt remember i say it never happened lol

Great, expect the diatribe from the PF Sisterhood after that one.
southern 75 | 7,096  
28 Mar 2009 /  #152
from the PF Sisterhood

Who do you imply?
Wahldo  
28 Mar 2009 /  #153
Sorry, my mind is drawing a blank.
OP miranda  
29 Mar 2009 /  #154
As far as feminist crowd is concentrated, I think that they are insane and most likely not very attractive women.

hmmm. interesting, I haven't noticed. LOL. There are a lot of non-attractive women who are not feminists, so I am not sure what you are trying to say here.

But such tactic is nothing unusual, this is typical for many group of interests to provide some "shocking news" (no matter whether accurate or not).

you might be onto something here, but every news is a 'shocking news" to some degree since it is a nature of news in general.

They do it, because this is good way to attract media attention.

good observation on your part.

Nearly all media outlets will decide to put 'shocking' over 'really important' news in their front pages. This is intellectual quality of their readers or viewers that push them in this direction.

that is news for you. Korwin - Mikke have used media to get attention as well, as Palikot did and other politicians. I think that this is a smart way to get an attention, so why would feminists be different????

I have no idea how you came out with such conclusion after this reading...

this is not the first time that you have no idea about something. I am not able to help you with reading comprehension because it is a skill that some people lack. Those 2 article I posted are very clear in explanations of the reported state of the domestic violence in Poland.

Even silly Woman's Party was supposed to dislike associations with this group. :)

It is a weak argument on your part because you are not providing anything concrete, just a statement.
Randal 1 | 577  
29 Mar 2009 /  #155
Alcohol abuse can’t be blamed for spousal abuse. That's an excuse. Alcohol only amplifies an already assh0le personality.
MrBubbles 10 | 614  
29 Mar 2009 /  #156
Alcohol abuse can't be blamed for spousal abuse.

But it is still very common -

"In over two-thirds of the divorce cases in Poland, women file the suit. The court finds the woman at fault only 3 percent of the time. The most common divorce causes are alcoholism,extramarital relationships, a spouse showing no interest in the family, physical cruelty, and new situations that emerged in recent years, such as drug addiction and confession of homosexuality. (excerpts from Warsaw Voice)"

polishsite.us/lifestyle-and-entertainment/family-and-children/107-divorce-rates-in-poland-and-other-european-countries-eu-report.html
lesser 4 | 1,311  
1 Apr 2009 /  #157
but every news is a 'shocking news" to some degree since it is a nature of news in general.

You are wrong.

that is news for you. Korwin - Mikke have used media to get attention as well, as Palikot did and other politicians. I think that this is a smart way to get an attention, so why would feminists be different????

Korwin and Palikot use controversial form to inform public opinion about their views. They don't make up surveys.

lesser:
Even silly Woman's Party was supposed to dislike associations with this group. :)

It is a weak argument on your part because you are not providing anything concrete, just a statement.

OK, this statement from their website.

What is interesting and sad: the population interprets one and the second foolishness as "feminists" performance and held liable radical women, from which the PK dissociated as it could, that is from us .... I guess we are paying the penalty for the lack of clout, and women from PK now convince us what the feminists label means.

feminoteka.pl/news.php?readmore=2106
OP miranda  
1 Apr 2009 /  #158
You are wrong.

until you prove me wrong, I am right. LOL.

Korwin and Palikot use controversial form to inform public opinion about their views.

at least you have admitted that. They look for attention because nobody in their right mind would listen to them otherwise. Or, maybe they actually have something to say, but since they took the wrong way to advertise themselves, nobody is taking them seriously. Are you saying that Feminoteka made the numbers up?

What is wrong with surveys?????

Co ciekawe i smutne: ludność jedne i drugie głupstwo odbiera jako występy "feministek" i pociąga do odpowiedzialności "radykałki", od których się PK odcinała jak mogła, czyli nas.... Pewnie płacimy karę za brak siły przebicia, a kobiety z PK się teraz przekonają, co oznacza łatka feministki.

well, maybe Feminoteka has a different agenda that PK, after all Feminoteka is not a party. I see is as: poleminka, that is all.
lesser 4 | 1,311  
1 Apr 2009 /  #159
until you prove me wrong, I am right. LOL.

In this case this is obvious. Anyway, even if I would be unable to proof you right then this doesn't mean that you are right. This would mean just that I'm unable to proof you right. Pure logic :)

at least you have admitted that.

I always write about things like they are.

They look for attention because nobody in their right mind would listen to them otherwise.

They are often right, especially Korwin. This is true that nobody would listen but this is fate of intellectual elites.

Or, maybe they actually have something to say, but since they took the wrong way to advertise themselves, nobody is taking them seriously.

This is not their fault that media portrait them as they do. Once you are negatively labelled, really nothing can help you. Anyway Korwin earn big bucks on being controversial, while being monarchist he doesn't care about opinion of majority so much. I'm sure that neither Palikot is a democrat like nearly all politicians. He just have so much cash that he can afford being eccentric.

What is wrong with surveys?????

Perhaps this is good tool for committed scientists but in hands of political parties or different group of interests, this is just cheap propaganda.

Are you saying that Feminoteka made the numbers up?

Yes, their reliability is very low.

well, maybe Feminoteka has a different agenda that PK, after all Feminoteka is not a party. I see is as: poleminka, that is all.

I think that agenda is the same just tactic a little bit different.
OP miranda  
2 Apr 2009 /  #160
In this case this is obvious. Anyway, even if I would be unable to proof you right then this doesn't mean that you are right. This would mean just that I'm unable to proof you right. Pure logic :)

nicely done. I am beginning to like you:).

They are often right, especially Korwin. This is true that nobody would listen but this is fate of intellectual elites.

out of respect for your great support for him I will not comment any further.

This is not their fault that media portrait them as they do. Once you are negatively labelled, really nothing can help you. Anyway Korwin earn big bucks on being controversial, while being monarchist he doesn't care about opinion of majority so much. I'm sure that neither Palikot is a democrat like nearly all politicians. He just have so much cash that he can afford being eccentric.

true, at Korwin stands for what he believes, as for Palikot - well, we all know who he is.

Perhaps this is good tool for committed scientists but in hands of political parties or different group of interests, this is just cheap propaganda.

possible, that is why I have contacted Feminiteka twice already and haven go any response. I am calling them tomorrow. Enough is enough.

I think that agenda is the same just tactic a little bit different.

I have to take your word for it, since I am not in Poland.
ZIMMY 6 | 1,602  
4 Apr 2009 /  #161
Miranda
"are you suggesting that only feminists provide unrealistic data? Why would they do it?"
-------------------------------

In the U.S. money is the prime incentive. If numbers of 'victims' are high than more money for the organization in question is solicited. Women are considered "battered" even if they are not hit. Yelling at someone counts as being brutalized. [Of course by that standard almost every married man is "battered" as well.

An example of "unrealistic data":
I attended a forum where women's groups and shelter advocates for women were giving their speeches and soliciting funding from attending companies. One of the speakers stated that 29 spouses were killed by their marriage partners in the past year in Illinois. No one challenged that point and one day after that conference I looked up the data and found out that indeed 29 spouses were killed by their mates. The problem is that 11 of those killed were men who were murdered by their wives. That information was not stated by the female speaker who implied by omission that 29 women were killed. Not stating the full truth is lying, and that's what feminist advocates do.

I've been traveling and still am 'on the road' but I know you've missed my correcting data.:)
Randal 1 | 577  
4 Apr 2009 /  #162
Not stating the full truth is lying

It sure is. But an ever common tactic of Leftie groups and activists.

If someone must lie in order to advance their agenda, it is well time to rexamine that agenda as well as the motives of its perveyors.
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
4 Apr 2009 /  #163
Not stating the full truth is not lying at all. It is just withholding one part, that's hardly lying. If that were the case, newspapers would never have a true story.
Randal 1 | 577  
4 Apr 2009 /  #164
Not stating the full truth is not lying at all. It is just withholding one part, that's hardly lying.

Intentional distortion is the same as lying. You've never heard of lies by omission?
And yes, Lib newspapers lie all the time. Over here, anyway.
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
4 Apr 2009 /  #165
Well, distortion is not the same as withholding, now is it?
Hueg - | 320  
4 Apr 2009 /  #166
Not stating the full truth is not lying at all.

A lie by omission, is still a lie apparently.
Otherwise, why does Mrs Hueg always quake with anger when she asks 'what are you doing?' and I reply 'nothing', while hiding the remote under the sofa in a flourish of crumbs?

Person the Lifeboats. :)
Randal 1 | 577  
4 Apr 2009 /  #167
Well, distortion is not the same as withholding, now is it?

It sure is. Very same thing. When the withholding is intended to distort.
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
4 Apr 2009 /  #168
Distortion is active, withholding is passive. One is the conscious changing of sth to bend the truth and the other is merely to keep information from people without acting.

Are you still in elementary school, Randal? ;)
Randal 1 | 577  
4 Apr 2009 /  #169
With the same intended result. Same thing.
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
4 Apr 2009 /  #170
There are many ways of getting an intended result. It doesn't make them the same. Seriously Randal, you've lost this one.

Putting a story out there, without distortion, but withholding some info is not lying. Whatever happened to the public doing their own follow up?
ZIMMY 6 | 1,602  
4 Apr 2009 /  #171
Putting a story out there, without distortion, but withholding some info is not lying.

A distinction without merit. Let's look at the following scenario (one of many that can be postulated).

Mrs. Kowalczyk's Yorkshire pudding is placed in her window sill. Her neighbor boys, Stashu and Jeeves walk past Mrs. Kowalczyk's window and Jeeves steals it. Later, Mrs. Kowalczyk sees Stashu who looks suspicious and asks him if he took the pudding. Stashu says "no" and goes his gloomy way with his head down.

Technically, he didn't lie but by omitting the full facts he left the (lying) impression with Mrs. Kowalczyk that he had no knowledge, let alone anything to do with this theft.

A distinction without merit.

Can't respond until (at least) tomorrow.
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
4 Apr 2009 /  #172
Sorry ZIMMY, that was a lame example. For a start, Stashu didn't lie as he said NO, he told the truth. You haven't even proved that he was art and part, aiding and abetting. He just happened to be with Jeeves. Maybe he didn't want to clipe/dob on his bro. There were occasions when I had to withhold info from my mum. It wasn't lying, just being tactful and sensible.

Even if I have knowledge of sth, it doesn't mean that I should put it out there. Ever heard of selective dissemination?

Look, you often don't reveal your lies unless you are a devout Catholic who confesses. Look at Bush, imagine an admission of guilt on his part. Best to say nothing sometimes.
Randal 1 | 577  
4 Apr 2009 /  #173
It doesn't make them the same. Seriously Randal, you've lost this one.

No, you have lost here, Seanus. Intentional deceit however it is delivered is the same as lying.
MrBubbles 10 | 614  
4 Apr 2009 /  #174
Mrs. Kowalczyk's Yorkshire pudding is placed in her window sill.

OK why did she put the pudding on the window sill when she knew there were two starving boys next door? Pretty rubbish story if you ask me.
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
4 Apr 2009 /  #175
It depends who has the duty of disclosure. Merely withholding data is something that lawyers do until a timely moment when they can use it. If a public official has a reporting duty to the public and remains silent, then he may be held to account. However, this is a different matter and is called (non)disclosure in the public interest.

In the above case, materiality is a key consideration (feminists). If a man says to his wife that he is going to see his friend at his flat (and does, briefly) but sneaks off to the bar then he is lying by omission. I see your point, Randal, but you paint things too black and white sometimes.

Withholding info should be taken on a case-by-case basis, with an assessment of materiality and disclosure, rather than blankly called lying.

However, I see where you are coming from. Just don't make me read your thoughts too much and see them as blanket principles.
Randal 1 | 577  
4 Apr 2009 /  #176
It depends who has the duty of disclosure.

The speaker has the duty of disclosure; of not deceiving (lying to) their audience.
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
4 Apr 2009 /  #177
As I said, it depends on the task. Think of national secrecy where they can't divulge. It's sometimes a fine line. There are other examples.
Guest  
4 Apr 2009 /  #178
I looked up the data and found out that indeed 29 spouses were killed by their mates. The problem is that 11 of those killed were men who were murdered by their wives.

One thing you may not be aware of, is that sometimes abused women believe that the only way to escape a brutal mate is for one of them to die. Abusive mates often threaten the wife/partner with "If you try to find I will hunt you down until I find you and kill you".

Did you leave out that information as a way to make your point about not stating the full truth? *raises brow*
OP miranda  
27 Apr 2009 /  #179
well, a little update. I have received a reply from Feminoteka and they forwarded me a report, which the article was based on, which is very interesting indeed.

For those who are interested I can provide a copy.
Pani_Polska - | 89  
28 Apr 2009 /  #180
Sure, women abuse men too. My great-grandma smacked her husband on the head with an iron pan for coming home drunk again and being verbally and physically abusive; I'm definitely not one to say he didnt deserve it though! I think thats more in line with self-defense... :\

Archives - 2005-2009 / Life / 800 thousand Polish women are victims of domestic abuse yearlyArchived