'Battered husbands' - still a taboo subject in Poland

You posted an opinion ignoring the vast majority of the media. Differing views of the same image (commonly known as the male vs female gaze) is necessary for a basic understanding of any visual medium this seems beyond your myopic view.

As demonstrated above your hobbyhorse is based upon a predetermined view which does a disservice to this issue.

Vast majority of media which you speak of, treat abused husbands subject as a taboo therefore their opinion isnt really worth much. That 'vast majority of media' is one of the main problems here.

The vast majority of the media (in the U.S.) is liberal and as past CBS correspondent Bernard Goldberg noted "We accept at face value whatever women's groups say. Why? because women have sold themselves to us as an oppressed group and any oppressed group gets a free ride in the press. It's no secret.


The tv ads, sitcoms, books and news reports are there for the "female gaze and the male gaze" to judge objectively. Your psychoanalytical babble gets into the world of the subjective which liberals love because objective truth is too raw, that is, too truthful.

With liberals everything is relative. There are no truths.

Speaking of the "male gaze", a professor in Toronto (some 8 years ago) was suspended for "Lookism". A female student complained that she was bothered by his alleged staring. The feminists wrote hundreds of letters supporting her and the school capitulated. This is the kind of "politically correct" power that feminists seek.


You sound like so many blowhard elitist professors that abound. Fact is, my strong opinions are based on fact. In short, I overview scenarios, you seem to be caught in them. For example, the next tv commercial that I will see that shows someone as a fool will show a male. That's not some "gaze" that can be reinterpreted except perhaps by proponents of Michel Foucault who would be proud of all the nonsense happening today.

I asked you to post "objective truth" several times and you failed (what you did post you hadn’t read) preferring instead to post opinion.

Calling me a liberal is not an argument but says rather more about your inability to rationally justify your stance.

Zimmy you dont know how to approach this subject in an unemotional way. For the last time I ask you again to provide solid evidence for what you claim.

This has become tedious.

I've given examples which people see and read daily. You did not comment on them in any specific manner. Since you like to float a large cloud which allows you to dismissively ignore several points at-a-time, it would seem that pinning you down to one example after another is the way to go with you. I'll help you out; Why is it "politically correct " to demean males in ads but "politically incorrect" to do so with females? What is it about a culture that discriminates in this odd manner? What is the "objective truth" here?


Wrong again. What you picked out I don't dispute but it was not the major issue. You danced around the fact that women initiate violence as often as men in domestic scenarios. Inherently, you do not want to know this fact.


No, but it's the truth. Others should be aware of where you're coming from. After all, it's your "liberal gaze" on this issue that is at odds with reality.


Lol, thanks for the chuckle. (You just made me drop my cigar ash on the keyboard.). If enjoyment is considered an emotion, and it is, then perhaps you are correct.


I claimed what the Fiebert studies have proved and gave you a link for them. I suggest that you read what the introduction states; "275 scholarly investigations: 214 empirical studies and 61 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners.The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 365,000.

Feel free to dissect the various studies, many of them done by liberal academic types and in most instances, not related to each other so how can all these analyses come to similar conclusions. No liberal spin please.


Spoken like a true effete snob. ... but that aspect of character shows in your writing as well.

Zimmy, you've got NOTHING.

However, it is fun to watch you digging your own hole.

Do gays batter as well?

Are you attempting a bit of male bashing with your "Shaming" language?


Yes.

Lol, easy to say, although stupid since my informative posts are here for all to read. I've given several examples let alone the Fiebert Studies. That's more than enough for now although there's plenty of additional evidence in reserve. I've asked Barney several questions which he and you are unable to answer. Until then, it is you who have given nothing.

One for the road: rense.com/general82/dom.htm


Of course and possibly in higher numbers than hetero couples.

From the link:

"Homosexual households are also more prone to domestic violence. For example: "The incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population," according to D. Island and P. Letellier in Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them (New York: Haworth Press, 1991). A study in the Journal of Social Service Research reported that "slightly more than half of the [lesbians surveyed] reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner." (G. Lie and S. Gentlewarrior, "Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications," No. 15, 1991.)"


Just with you but not with Aphrodisiac because she has no shame.

Aphro is one of the many fine posters here.

It is pathetic that you pose in such an obvious way, no self confident person needs to pose.

Still no answers to my questions, eh? People who don't answer questions put to them are the real posers. I laid it on the line, but your method of discourse is to attempt to change the subject (a typical but cowardly liberal ploy).


She has not contributed to this thread except to deride those who have. That may be the definition of a "fine poster" to you but then you have that subjective "liberal gaze" which stunts real growth.

Quick edit; the only posing I'll be doing today will be at North Avenue Beach (Chicago)

I will if you stop providing sources written by conspiracy theorist lol. I got nothing to work with.

Steady, get ready for links to "Under the stiletto......How Alpha Males can whine on a forum".

It's a well known fact that men in tv advertising are subject to being seen as dummies, stupid, etc. It is "politically incorrect" to show women in this manner. That's where the current culture is today. There have been very few exceptions to this as to make it a mute point. If you don't know this than you are not worth responding to - nevertheless I can give dozens (actually several hundred) examples of ads in the past few years showing men in a very negative light; very few exist for women; perhaps I'll do so tomorrow as I'm on my way to the beach.

In the meantime, another man's opinion; unfortunately true.

As to domestic violence opinion, I guess you disagree with hundreds of experts, the ones compiled by Fiebert. You must be right, while their "275 scholarly investigations: 214 empirical studies and 61 reviews" must be wrong.


Like Fiebert? Yea, several hundred unrelated studies by academic professionals, most of them with a liberal bent were compiled by Martin Fiebert who had no ax to grind but wanted the objective truth. Perhaps you can answer specifically how so many studies have come to the same conclusion? Your mangina friend couldn't.

Anything you disagree with is a "conspiracy" even by the many women authors who have seen the light. Of course, you wouldn't know the truth even if it introduced itself to you, sat on your face and said hello.

Battered husbands can be a taboo subject practically anywhere they may exist.

I used to arrange intake information for physically abused, battered women and their children. They were placed in protective living shelters, for protection against the female's spouse or boyfriend.

I recall a male client who was scared to death of his female spouse. He had scars on his face, from objects she had previously thrown at him.

You have still not posted the article!


This is a real problem widely reported in the press but just not talked about.

no, like Makow.


I have no mangina friends, I don't even know what it means.


not true, Makow is a conspiracy theorist and I don't consider people like him an unbiased source of information. Check his background before saying anything, unless you believe that he is suitable. For many posters he is not, including me.

Barney might be onto something when he called you on your pretense.

How can you know that none of your friends are manginas if you dont know what it means? Use your brain before posting please...

why such hostility? Do you have serious issues with women too. How is that my problem?

PF rules:
2. Posters should refrain from using abusive or derogatory language (unless it's necessary to explain the language's nuances). Posters who use abusive or derogatory language towards other users may be banned.

please don't do it again, or I will report you.

Oh, wait, I already did.

It seems that you not only have trouble with using your brain, but you are also hipocrite. On page 3 in this thread you called me an idiot.


So its you who is hostile and whos using deragotary language. I just gave you advice to think before you post. Whats abusive in that?


Do as you wish, just remember you accuse me of something you have done yourself and to a greater extent.

no, it was NOT me, but Amethyst. Go and read it again.


NO, I did not.


next time read carefully, I actually don't call people idiots, especially those who I have never spoken to, such as yourself.

(waiting for an apology and wonders who has a problem with their brain-hmmm)

Gay you have swollen our testes.I will report and I will report,everyone here is free to post his opinion,we were cool without you.

really, why do you keep posting under different names then, weren't you suspended a dozen of times for trolling? You think that if you call me gay I would be offended?

Everybody is tired of your stories about the imagined conquest of yours and please don't speak "we" unless you meant those couple of nicks you post under: southern and King - you are pathetic creature.

Now, hush up, will yah........

My bad, I take my accuses of hipocrisy back.

But still I dont think there was anything abusive or derogatory in my suggestion to you about using brain before posting. You made error, I pointed it and suggested to be more cautious in future.

And I dont know why you think I have


. Please elaborate.

you have no other choice.


It is practically impossible to switch of the brain before, during and after posting in my opinion.

Please deal with Amethyst, I have never talked to you in the past and I intend to keep it that way.

I highly recommend reading this article and then watching the video. The abuse and rape industries have an anti-male platform which should shock men and women of good will.

If some men here don't believe that they have an uphill fight in the area of equality than this link should sober them on that thought.

s-data.current.com/news/91283125_maine-false-rape-witch-hunt.htm

Listen carefully to the wife's comments in mid video. Listen to how "empowered" she is as a woman. It's a horror story. This is not an untypical scenario. Thousands of men are caught up in this type of manner annually because women know that they can get away with framing men.

I'd have to respectfully disagree. I've dealt with several dozen domestic violence matters and based on my experience, it is unfortunately men who are disproportionately represented as the alleged abuser. Here are some general comments I can make based solely on my experience in practice:

1. About 5% of aggrieved spouses are male. Initial arguments of "I'm a bloke and who's going to believe I was bashed by my wife" are fairly common though misconceived.

2. However, men are more likely than women to prosecute an alleged incident of domestic violence by making an application for a protection order. They too are more likely to go all the way with a case and are untroubled at the prospect of facing their ex in court and giving oral evidence against them.

3. Both men and women are fairly equal in awareness as to what is domestic violence and what can be done to apprehend it. Our legislation on domestic violence DOES NOT draw any distinction between men and women.

4. Feminist discourse, women's lib and so on plays no part whatsoever when at the coal face of domestic violence litigation. Arguing such academic concepts before a Magistrate would be dismissed as irrelevant.

5. Robust cross examination usually uncovers irrelevant, untrue or incredulous stories of domestic violence allegations. The witness box is a great leveller. Applications for a protection order based on such rejected/untrue premises can lead to costs orders being made against the claiming party.

6. Some women who have suffered DV also tend to suffer from an attachment manifestation to their spouse that is akin to "Stockholm Syndrome" whereby they will defend the actions of the allegedly abusive spouse and/or blame themselves for having domestic violence committed against themselves. This is why some women find it very hard to divulge and/or prosecute domestic violence or leave the relationship. Counselling is crucial for the woman to overcome this, though it can also be broken by direct intervention i.e. Child Protection Agency threatening to take the children because an abused spouse is incapable of protecting her children and so on. I haven't experienced this phenomenon with men, which is a crucial distinguishing point.

7. It could be that Feminist ideology recognises that women are more prone to silence or self blame and therefore adopts a militant form of academic advocacy to bring these issues to light on behalf of women, because of matters mentioned on point 6.


Care to back that up with some cold hard evidence, such as written judgments analogous to your claim? I'd like to think that the US judicial system is more proactive than that.

It depends on the state. Where I live, 99% of the time, the woman gets custody of the kids.

Ozi Dan, I recommend that you go back to my post #54 and log on to the Fiebert link which is the first one in that post. Take 15 minutes and read at random the various conclusions all those individual yet diverse studies have come to (just read the last sentences after each study). Explain how so many analyses' have come to the conclusion that women initiate at least as much domestic violence as men.

You might also want to link here; abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=2741047. I recommend reading the article and then watching the informative video.

Then get back to me.

The explanation is simple: in general terms, some of the studies reveal that the female survey participants purportedly disclosed to the surveyor that they initiated DV. Some of the studies conclude that a greater number of females than men made such admissions.

Here are some things that should be borne in mind though:

1. Credibility and bona fides of the participants. For example, are their any differences between the potential for exaggeration and/or downplay between males and females when making admissions in these contexts? Can we take away anything from Lejeune's comment regarding a proposition that women could be more likely to accept responsibility for committing DV, thus the disparity?

2. The actualquestions asked.

3. How many of the participants who admitted being abused actually took steps to apply for a protection order. If they didn't, then why not?

4. What about other forms of DV such as threats to commit it, financial deprivation, mental abuse and so on?

It was interesting to note one study which found that in men a higher education level achieved a commensurate reduction in physical abuse whereas the opposite was the case for women.

In any event, I found the studies surprising. They certainly don't mesh with my experiences in practice. Can you now explain how that is? Can it be reconciled with my Stockholm Syndrome analogy.


I'm unsurprised at the reaction but disappointed. Isn't this study however more apposite to public reaction to DV (committed in public) than to the debate on gender proclivity to commit same?


That's interesting though astounding. How do you come by that statistic? Is it the case that US law automatically favours mothers over fathers? Or could it be that in 99% of cases the Judge decides that on the evidence the child is best living with the mother? It would have to be the former wouldn't it?