'Battered husbands' - still a taboo subject in Poland

Bullsh1t.Who says that?What is the Stockholm syndrome?

Many females admitted that they initiated domestic violence, so did many males and in the end the figures suggested that slightly more females began a dispute by slapping, punching or just plain hitting.


The studies were done by hundreds of unrelated professionals who had no ax to grind.


The same for both males and females.


It is indisputable that women file formal charges in much higher numbers than men (in the U.S.). It doesn't take much common sense to figure out why. Men are laughed at when they complain, and the culture of "take it like a man" is still in force. Additionally, women have many organizations which tell them what to do and how to do it. Men rarely have support groups.


Most people do and that's because the general media has frequently publicized 'womens victimhood' while ignoring real concerns of men. Even on Fathers Day, there are stories demeaning men as abusers, deadbeat dads, etc. That doesn't happen on Mothers Day.


Are you suggesting that only women get the Stockholm Syndrome and not men? You seem to want to make some sort of excuse for women which is typical in western cultures. This also smacks of psycho-babble which many use in justifying abhorent female behavior.


Well duh! This isn't exactly a secret. Fact is, men stick with a marriage because they are afraid of losing their kids. Women usually don't have that fear. That's the main reason men don't initiate divorce as frequently as women do.

".......US law automatically favours mothers over fathers?"

A point of order here. Most laws are neutral but how they are enforced is another matter. Still, there are laws which favor women but this sort of discrimination is acceptable because western culture favors women.

VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) is an example of such a law. According to attorney Lisa Scott:

"The existence of male victims threatens gender feminists because it knocks the underpinnings out of their theory, that the "patriarchy" causes men to abuse women. The DV industry has succeeded in creating the "victimarchy." With VAWA in their corner, women win no matter what: victim or abuser, they can do no wrong."

Women and womens concerns are funded much more lavishly compared to mens and by a large margin. Ms Scott continues:

"VAWA funds battered women's shelters and their misandrist staff, always ready to welcome another customer for their anti-male, anti-father and anti-family agenda. Ask a victim advocate what causes domestic violence, and she will immediately blame our "patriarchal society," ensuring that only men get the blame."

....just an example (with a multitude of inherent complications)

G'day Zimmy,

I posted late last week quite a detailed response to your last posts but they have been wiped from the forum, and I honestly don't intend to reconsider and redo it. I don't know why my response was wiped but note with a sense of wry amusement that the well considered and insightful post of another member contained at #125 remains in all its glory - obviously mine was far more irrelevant and vacuous. Anyway,thanks for your input and catch you around champ.

Let me guess; you made excuses for women. You probably asked the 'what if' questions which nobody asks of men. At any rate, I'm sure that there wasn't a good retort to the Fiebert studies which speak for themselves.

I run into recalcitrant people who don't like what is put in front of them all the time. They have a problem with cognitive dissonance which upsets their belief system. It's difficult for people to change their minds about something they've always believed to be true but which is not. This seems to be the case with domestic violence as it pertains to both men and women.

It's difficult for so many people to be objective when so much cultural brainwashing clouds the real truth, and so much of this is due to "political correctness" which makes some people feel good although it masks the real truth.


Well, thank you and the same to you.

"There are two ways to slide easily through life; to believe everything or to doubt everything; both ways save us from thinking." ..........................Alfred Korzybski

Bad guess and no excuses - excusing the conduct of someone else is impossible. What in my posts caused you to guess that? Are you saying I’m biased against men Zimmy?

My post was more to do with questioning your rationale - you've made quite a few assumptions and suggestions which unless gleaned from or made in conjunction with personal experience have less probative value, in my opinion.


My 'retorts' to the Fiebert studies were already posted. The studies don't align with my experiences in practice, but that doesn't mean the studies are invalid. I rely on first hand experience over data gleaned from surveys. If my experiences change in future such that they align with the studies' findings then I will be persuaded. That is the difference between practice and theory or reading something as opposed to being part of it. Have you dealt with any domestic violence matters personally Zimmy? If so, do the Fibert studies accord with what you’ve experienced?

Let me guess – no the former, ergo N/A to the latter.


And therein lies the rub - belief of an objective truth presupposes that the truth is incontrovertible and unshakeable. The fact that your postulations and attached studies do not align with my experience merely serves to demonstrate that the topic we are discussing does not actually hold an objective truth to which either of us can be tested against in the sense of the rightness or wrongness of our beliefs, or in my case, understandings.


I would go further than that and say that it's impossible for people to be objective and go even further by saying that the only objective truth is that truth is subjective. All one can do is acknowledge this failing and endeavour to take it into account.


Ah, to enjoy just one day when I don't have to think about anything! Doubting however requires thought, so I'll just start believing everything.

"Personally, we are always ready to learn, although we do not always like being taught".

- Winston Churchill

"Minds are like parachutes - they only function when they are open".

- Thomas Dewar

Yes and yes. I'll only give you two examples out of several I can site. I was watching a couple on Rush Street in Chicago who had too much to drink. The young woman kept hitting her beau on the shoulder and he was telling her to "cut it out". Finally, he struck her on the shoulder and she immediately began dialing the police. I watched this play out and the cops were ready to take this young guy to jail based only on her charge. I stepped up and told the real scenario to the cops and even then it took about 15 more minutes before the police decided to leave the young man alone.

Another time, back in the 'old neighborhood' a woman beat up her husband who called the police. Despite having a bruised cheekbone and other signs of being battered, the police arrested him.

The above sequence of events happens more often than is realized by feminist apologists like you. That's why the vast Fiebert studies are believable. They register real incidents and not necessarily those officially reported which totally underestimate violence by women.


No doubt you believe this and indeed, lots of liberals believe this because then any argument they make seems true to them. Facts are not necessary. I've often said, 'with liberals, everything is relative'.

It surprises me how many advocates of Michel Foucault's faulty subjective philosophy there are. The idea that there is 'my truth', 'your truth', 'their truth' etc is ridiculous, yet this is how some people attempt to argue.

I'll give you a definitive truth or fact. Murder is wrong, now try to be "subjective" about that. (I'll cut off any attempt to equate self-defense, etc as part of some "subjective" definition).

Without being critical, it seems as though your reaction fits the study findings you linked in your #123. I fail to see however how you could link those types of behaviours you witnessed to blameworthiness on 'feminism' per se.


Why would you say this - are you trying to be provocative? I'm not really interested in your opinion of me, but if you wish to dissolve our discussion into this type of nonsense then I can oblige.


No doubt if I didn't believe it wouldn't have said it. I fail to see however how your opinion on liberals has anything to do with my point. Did you understand it?


Isn't it though? Except perhaps with indisputables such as the earth being flat, 1 plus 1 equals 2 and so on?

Perhaps it's different in the USA, but here in Oz we don't equate these types of arguments with a political doctrine.


I'm unfamiliar with this bloke and this philosophy. Sounds fascinating though - can you elaborate? How many advocates are there?


Is it really ridiculous? Doesn't the fact that your 'truth' being at odds with my 'truth' support the notion that there is no one indisputable truth but rather a whole set of 'truths' relative in strength, merit and credibility to every different person or set of persons. Or are you saying that the 'truths' you believe to be true must be true simply because you don't ascribe to relativity and because of that your truth is better and cannot be challenged simply because relativity is ridiculous?


Murder is wrong, in relative terms, and subjectively speaking. Or did you mean for me to try to be 'objective' cf 'subjective' and simply mixed up the wording? On second thought, you can't have meant me to 'be objective' because if you had, then you wouldn't have precluded me from arguing objective notions of mitigation or self-defence, the test of which is objective. Am I wrong here, or am I testing you?

Glad to know that you're not a feminist apologist.


Yes, you communicate like a liberal.


Oh? ...then you are a liberal.


No, truth is not malleable. It isn't putty that can reshaped to fit someone's beliefs. Just because you may believe something to be true doesn't mean it is factually true.


A lawyer tried to talk to me like that once but I escorted him out of my office. What gobblygook. There are facts and there is bullcrap. I'm a proponent of facts.


Murder is plain wrong; no 'ifs' about it. Trying to spin it in some way only diminishes the person attempting to do so.


Self defense is not murder.


Yes you are wrong and no, your 'relative' style of discourse doesn't reach a level which tests me.


Just google or yahoo him. Universities, those bastions of liberalism use him to make the same kinds of arguments that you make. Nothing is real, everything is subjective and there are no truths. Many professors like this sort of dream world because then anything they say can be taken as truth. It's madness of course.

I'm still out in 'God's country' so my retorts, which are not ambiguous like yours, will be few until I get back.

Actually he communicates like an inteligent individual who is well versed on the subject in hand.

Zimmy I'd love to see you eat by a pack of savage dogs, I wouldn't usually advocate violence, but in your case (and Crow's) I'm happy to make an exception.

I thought you had more to bring to the table than these vacuous comments and I am, with respect, disappointed that someone who professes an interest in critical thinking would choose to deliver rote rather than analysis. It seems I was mistaken as to your capacity and intent.


So who, then, is the arbiter of 'truth' when a dispute as to the truth arises in metaphysical debates (as opposed to non contentious issues such as one plus one equalling two)? I'm looking for something other than "you're a liberal, I'm not, so I don't need to argue anything because being non-liberal means I'm always right" and would prefer you opting out of the discussion if that's all you can come up with mate.

Would it make you feel better if I said that to me, truth is subjective, however in finding the truth, my beliefs, no matter how strong, will be held subservient to facts which I subjectively believe to be objective and therefore plausible as being true in fact? If you pick that sentence apart you'll see I've posited some aspects of my 'truth' rationale outside of the liberal paradigm to which you ascribe me. What do your philosophical studies arm you with when faced with a person or situation that does not precisely match a political/philosophical mantra?


Why would you escort your lawyer out of your office when it seems that lawyer presented you with a prime opportunity to exercise your critical thought by having a face to face discussion involving, as it would seem, all the topics you show an interest and expertise in?

If you didn't understand the point I was making then ask for an explanation in more simplistic terms rather than discounting it as gobblygook. It seems that again you misconceive or don't apprehend what I was saying because I was speaking of 'truths' (not facts, which are foundations for truth to be determined upon) and trying to challenge your notions of same.


Again, I agree. There were no 'ifs' in what I was saying nor was I trying to spin it, and I thought that that was fairly clear to someone who seems to have capacity to discuss these types of issues. You asked me to look at it in subjective terms and I did. Relative to me, it is wrong. Subjectively speaking, it is wrong. I did what you asked and still you argue against my though processes as though you know what I think more than I do?!


How on earth did you come up with that comment in answer to the words you quoted me on? I challenged the basis to which you asked me to respond by presenting you with clear contra-indicators (it should have been objective cf subjective because self defence is objectively tested) to your premise being the correct one.

I know it's not murder, you know it, so why point out the obvious? Hang on though. You're trying to catch me out here aren't you. Are you trying to say that if 'self defence' is established objectively, it is a complete defence, and the act of murder cannot have been committed by virtue of it being a complete defence to the charge? Or are you saying that self defence, as a defence to such charge, is a factor in mitigation which does not contain a complete defence but serves to ameliorate the harshness of a penalty for murder in those circumstances?


I thought I was fairly correct, but if you say otherwise could you please pick my assumptions apart and tell me where I've erred so I can save myself the embarrrassment of being wrong again?


No thanks - I'd much prefer to hear your take on what he says - it is a forum after all.


No problem. I like the way you threw in the self serving 'my posts are better than yours because yours are ambiguous' at the end. Forgive me for self indulging, but it's been my epxerience that those types of comments usually mean the person making them feels like they're coming second.

You're such a nice feminist. Perhaps you have me confused with this man.

booksamillion.com/product/9780307464538


You're don't like what I say and you're not good at debating; so this is what you have left?
I do congratulate you on your admission to being violence prone.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::


An interesting comment from someone who in the same post states: "I thought you had more to bring to the table than these vacuous comments and I am, with respect, disappointed that someone who professes an interest in critical thinking would choose to deliver rote rather than analysis. It seems I was mistaken as to your capacity and intent."

.....and you accuse me (lol) of "self serving" commentary as you put it? How about this one: "It seems that again you misconceive or don't apprehend what I was saying..." Another case of that which you accuse me of and by the way, you probably meant 'comprehend' not "apprehend".

Hmm, let's try this "self-serving" comment of yours: "I thought that that was fairly clear to someone who seems to have capacity to discuss these types of issues."

...and there are a couple of others, all in just one post. Space does not avail me if I attempt to quote from some of your other posts which run in the same demeaning manner. ...but I'll use one more of your descending comments which ironically applies to you. "it's been my experience that those types of comments usually mean the person making them feels like they're coming second." Your experience has failed you in the 'look in the mirror' test.


I couldn't stand to listen to any more of his lawyer-eeze. I'm sure you can identify with that. Also, he didn't take my suggestion to leave.


It is the rare human who can overcome his/her conditioned beliefs and judge another person or scenario neutrally if not objectively. Common sense is the best weapon of survival and needs no mantra.


His influence has been immense in academia, even used as a base line of thought by professors who teach 'subjective truths' to their receptive mushy minded students.


There is a difference between self-defense which may entail killing someone and murder.
One is moral and the other is wrong.

Typical abuses by privileged women who corrupt the judicial system in this link;

Unfortunately most get away with their lies and schemes because western law discriminates against men. Women are encouraged to file false charges which ruin men's lives. Even though this man finally got justice, the mental pain and worry must have been hell for him.

Germany seems to be waking up to this; fathersandfamilies.org/?p=9317

From the link: "For the umpteenth time, 35 years of scrupulous research on DV shows that women and men commit domestic violence equally. When it comes to abuse and neglect of children, mothers - at least those in the U.S. - do twice as much as fathers."

Of course, sentencing is still not as severe for the privileged class (women); glennsacks.com/blog/?p=4774

From the link: "she attacked him with a hammer, hitting him on the head multiple times. He managed to escape. She was charged with felony aggravated assault. Evidence at the scene showed the crime to be premeditated. Her sentence? Thirty days in jail. Her defense? Battered woman syndrome.

This is one of several phony female-only defenses which are denied men.

Hopefully, Polish courts will not go the way of the feminized western judicial systems which continue to be discriminatory. What is ignored are the children who often grow up bitter and hateful against their mothers who in their self-serving schemes fail to see the long term effects on them.

I regret you took offence to some of my comments. I suspect however if you look objectively at the chain of posts passing between myself and yourself you'll see that you instigated these types of remarks. You could perhaps start by looking at


at your #126. If you play the game don't spit the dummy if you get played.


No, I meant what I said. If you review a dictionary you'll understand.


Whilst I accept your explanation I find that scenario difficult to believe. No need for further comments though.


Now that's a good point and hits the nail on the head, though I would again suggest that it's impossible to be objective in many scenarios and all one can do is acknowledge that 'failing', if it can be termed as such.


I'm not sure where morality comes into the act of self defence. I would have thought that considerations as to the morality or otherwise of the act occasioning self defence would be subservient to the immediate instinct to survive, thus defending oneself. It could be that if a defendant per se argued that they thought their act of self defence was moral, the prosecution could seize that revelation and say if you had time to consdier the pros and cons of the morality of that act, the act of self defence was effectively pre-meditated and not a spur of the moment fight or flight reaction, which is the real test of self defence isn't it? Moreover, wouldn't the question of morality, if it applied, be an objective test, on the balance of probabilities? If it were subjective to the defendant then anyone could say that they shouldn't be punished for doing something which they subjectively believed to be right, just or moral.

As to your #137, I comment as follows:

1. Legal cases rise or fall in the main on the evidence presented to the judiciary and the way in which the alleged facts contained in the evidence are applied to the law when trying to persuade the judge to prefer or favour one side's story over the other. No Western jusridiction that I'm aware of is subject to star chamber justice and if the judiciary are seen to have erred there's always the appeals process after the first instance decision.

2. I can't help but feel that if you took the time to actually sit in on legal proceedings you would broaden your understanding as to how the legal system works but more importantly how it effects the participants in it. Whilst statisitics, studies, blog comments and so on are interesting, they don't replace experiencing the law first hand.

3. If you feel that the 'law' fails men, look to your government who make the law. Anything else is preaching to the converted.

4. You seem to infer that the legal system fails men because it is feminised, biased and so. Could it be that men fail themselves because their evidence is bad?

Anyway, I think we've reached the end of this debate. That said, I think you're pretty wide of the mark and, with respect, wrong in saying the law is feminised, because it isn't, and there's no proof of that. I do however appreciate your points of view and they've certainly given me some food for thought and I hope mine have too. Catch you around chief.

Women exploit the general favour that society shows to them as child bearers because reproduction is considered important for society.Men are viewed as dispensable they don't posess lasting qualities regarding children care.If this societal favour finds its way through the law directly or the judge influenced by stereotypes indirectly is not important as it is implemented and women know that.

Really? You are "not sure" that protecting oneself is moral? Well, with liberals everything is indeed relative.

The above pseudo rationalizations are a good example of what's wrong with lawyers. They don't use common sense, just gibberish and argumentation for its own sake.


You assume I've never sat at legal proceedings? My experience with attorneys is vast and that is why I don't respect them (exceptions duly noted).


I've already given you the VAWA example which discriminates against men. Here are some other areas of law and culture which need to be equalized.

Equal father custody
Elimination of alimony
Elimination of discrimination against men in education
Ending debtor imprisonment of fathers/ex-husbands
Imprisonment of women who make false accusations
Equal sentencing for both men and women for the same crimes
Reforming domestic abuse laws to prevent their use as a tool in civil cases
Parity in health funding for men and women
Revocation of affirmative action for women
Removal of women's divorce incentives
Repeal of IMBRA
Repeal of rape shield laws

There's lots more .........

I say give a bloke a good slap now and again to let him know his place..also abuse his credit card to make him feel wanted..you have to have an even balance...wouldnt you agree?

no,no, no........:). You cannot reverse law and history, but good luck in being a dino.

Sorry, I thought we were talking about morality vis a vis legal implications cf ethics. If so (ethics), then I agree with you, as long as you mean morality as in 'right' and 'wrong', and assuming the act occasioning self defence is appropriate to the threat.

Is it still moral though to defend oneself with say a gun if another comes at you with say a clenched fist?

If we accept your credo that there exist certain 'truths' that are immutable and not subject to cultural/moral relativism, then isn't the answer to the question I pose automatically 'yes'?


Sour grapes Zimmy. Instead of challenging my assertions, you seek to belittle my contribution to the discussion. Why don't you show me precisely what is gibberish and argumentation and we can go from there. Simply saying it is without saying why is telling me that you either don't understand or have nothing in reply. I've done you the courtesy of answering nearly every one of your genuine arguments so why can't I have the same courtesy from you?


I should have clarified that by saying my assumption is that you haven't sat in on any Family Law or DV proceedings. I assume that because you haven't based any of your arguments on your experiences there and I think I'm on the money in saying that if you had those experiences you would have raised them by now. Conversely, if you had those experiences you haven't raised them in your argument because they probably align with what I'm arguing and we can't have that, can we ;)


Automatically and enshrined in legislation or subject to what is in the child's best interests?


Why? If a former spouse earns $500K a year and the other earns $40K, looks after the kids, can't get a better job because the skill set is lacking after spending so much time looking after the kids during the marriage (etc) shouldn't that spouse assist the other?


Where? If women are nowadays over-representing men in Uni in all the professional areas of study, men need to get off their bums and enrol.


If fathers/ex-husband's are in contempt of an order obliging them to pay child support or spousal maintenance and if the law permits it, why not? I'm not too keen on my tax dollars paying for someone else's non-paid obligations when the wife/mother claims extra government allowances because the ex ain't paying.


Just women eh? What about men who do the same? Aren't costs orders against the 'perjuring' party sufficient?


Agreed. Parity of sentencing (viz gender) mustn't be applicable to the USA if you're saying this though.


No - if a person is found to have committed DV and convicted of same, why can't that be used in say a Family Law matter, if DV is one of the considerations apposite to the case at hand? To do otherwise would be to invite another jurisdiction to reconsider and retry something that's already been done elsewhere. A waste of time, money and resources.


I'm unfamiliar with these so can't comment.

I agree with Zimmy on practically all his statements. Women are as violent as men, but our judicial and social systems are deeply biased in favor of women. I know many cases and many people who went through hell with women with no consequences for the latter. Men's fault is that they usually remain silent as it is embarrassing to admit being beaten by your wife. These men have an honor and would not hit a woman even if she is crazy, but even self-defense is undertaken as battering by some women and reported to police. Just a simple case: Guy is beaten by his wife defends himself by holding her arms. Since women are "princesses" they get easily bruised and this is presented by them as battery. This is wrong. Battery is when you are missing teeth or not able to see in one eye - this is battery. Bruises on bicepses or wrists is a sign that a woman is a guilty side. Police doesn't take it as an evidence of such.


Agree.


Yes, just women. Have you ever seen a psycho-man lying to be beaten by a wife?!


Automatically. But in the course of the process any one side can get 100% custody over a child if and only if either of its parents can cause danger to the safety of the child: drugs, gang's involvement, etc. But either father or mother should be allowed normal parental visitations no matter what are their past, present or future (usually supervised). From what I know women get preferential treatment of lawa as a custodial parent. This is wrong.

Keeping quiet out of embarrasment and keeping quiet out of fear for your life are two completely different scenarios.

And willing rather to die by being killed with a pan than to admit being beaten by wife on a regular basis is still another scenario.

Ukrainkas hit hard although ukr men are not the weakest ones.

I bet you have been slapped by every woman you got near to...

You would be surprised if you saw how many women let me touch them often intimate after half an hour of picking up.Women smell their seduction victim instantly.

Remember to take them out of the box and inflate them first making sure your fingernails aren't sharp.

So you oppose real equality? Well, that's your right.


Of course, that's the implicit premise.


There you go again. This is why lawyers charge for so many hours of work. It takes them 10 hours to get to a point that someone with common sense understands right away.


Does my long ago divorce count? Additionally, I've sat and listened to lots of court cases, particularly ones involving domestic violence committed by men and women.


Unlike some here, I don't rely on anecdotal evidence. People who do usually have a self-centered prejudiced opinion and don't know how to overview a situation.


It may be legally enshrined but as all men and most women know, that's not how the law is carried out since child custody almost always defaults to the woman, even when she is the 'bad guy'.


Between 1980 and now the educational establishment in the U.S. has done everything from affirmative action to additional special incentives for women. I may start a thread on this if I can tie it to Poland in some manner. You might want to purchase "The War Against Boys" by

Christina Hoff Sommers or "Professing Feminisim" by Daphne Patai. These women explain the feminized educational systems in the U.S. Ms Patai herself use to teach womens studies courses.


Because the U.S. outlawed Debtors Prison long ago; interesting that this is the exception.


There are too many examples of women being given less jail time than men for the same offenses. Just to give you one example; men who kill their spouses average 17 years in prison; women who kill their mates only average 7 years in prison. (please don't give me any 'female only' defenses which discriminate against men).


So you really are unaware that most of such filings by women are false and are used as "divorce incentives" to procure custody and monetary benefits?


Nevertheless, the bottom line is that they are keeping quiet. I see that you are still influenced by all the feminist rhetoric these past several decades.


Feminists fail to grasp that concept.


Sometimes they use their sense of sight especially when they see a fat wallet.

now think about this a little. If he'd rather die because he is ashamed to admit of being beaten by a woman, then by all means, let darwinizm prevail.

same goes for women. the problem solves itself.

exactly! But the difference here is, again, that not reporting a crime out of fear is excusable, out of shame is not. Goes for both men and women.

It might sound lik3e a taboo but there are beaten husbands and abused men. they need to be recgignized and helped.I feel sorry for them.

we should all kill ourselves to death, this is a natural part of life, why we repress the hate?