The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / Love  % width posts: 387

'Battered husbands' - still a taboo subject in Poland


Ozi Dan 26 | 569
14 Sep 2010 #151
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.

So what's your answer then? That response took 30 odd words, carried another insult, but didn't answer my question, when a 'yes' or 'no' would have sufficed. Ironic response, no?

Does my long ago divorce count?

Why ask me? Does it?

I've sat and listened to lots of court cases, particularly ones involving domestic violence committed by men and women.

And did your observations of same align with your arguments on this thread? Why didn't you raise this before, given that I initially said my comments were based solely on my experiences in practice? I would have thought that if your observations in court aligned with your arguments you would have mentioned that, rather than relying on your blogs, stats and videos. You must admit it is a bit curious, no?

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.

Yes you did. You relied on a couple of personal experiences where you say you witnessed some domestic violence incidents. I suppose if I wished to be technical, I could also say all the studies you've put forward are anecdotal too in that they cannot be tested as to their veracity or otherwise.

In passing, would it be anecdotal evidence to put forward (hypothetically, as it would be very difficult to do) copies of ALL judgments issued by whatever court in respect of domestic violence matters in the sense that if say 5000 judgements showed females were convicted of having committed DV and 5000 men were convicted of same your position would be vindicated?

It may be legally enshrined

That's interesting. I'd hate to be in the poor judge's shoes who has to make equal custody by virtue of a guillotine law when other evidence shows it wouldnt be in a child's best interest to do so because of say a parent is a drug addict, or abusive and so on. On second thoughts, if we adopt your model, no one would have to go to court because custody would be 50/50 automatically, no q's asked etc etc, thus no need to litigate even if litigation is needed to ensure a child's best interests are protected.

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'.

Where's the proof that this is the way the law works. Can I have a link please to the section or Article (I think thats the term in the USA) that prescribes this?

Between 1980 and now the educational establishment in the U.S. has done everything from affirmative action to additional special incentives for women.

Ok, so the education system has favoured women purely because they are women? Isn't that discrimination (ie treating someone less favourably purely because of their gender)?

I may start a thread on this if I can tie it to Poland in some manner.

Why agonise over this issue when you can go to the off topic lounge?

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

Could it be that the US government kept a special place in jail for defaulting payers because the US government wants to send a clear message that non payment of child support will not be tolerated and the govt is reluctant to pay for a child when the father or mother should be doing so.

Non payment of child support really irks me. Does it irk you?

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?

How do you know they are 'false'? Are you saying this because when you went to court and observed DV cases as you mentioned the judge struck them out for want of prosecution or found in favour of the respondent. Whilst I value your opinion, with these sorts of issues I'm not really interested in your opinion but I am interested in the facts and material in support.

I also note that you didn't actually respond to my assumptions. In any event, here's a link to the case of Kennon, which is authority used when arguing DV issues in Family Law property settlements:

austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FamCA/1997/27.html

It's an interesting case for two reasons: it talks about DV in Australia and gives insight as to how property settlement works here. If you're interested in how parenting matters work, let me know and I'll give you links to some cases and legislation, or you can have a squiz yourself on the austlii website.
aphrodisiac 11 | 2,443
14 Sep 2010 #152
So you oppose real equality? Well, that's your right.

laws you want eradicated are there to protect these women.

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
Elimination of discrimination against men in education
Revocation of affirmative action for women
Removal of women's divorce incentives
Repeal of IMBRA
Repeal of rape shield laws


all those laws I there for a reason. I am not sure about the following though:

Elimination of discrimination against men in education

I did not know there was one.

Repeal of rape shield laws

you must be joking.

Anyways, you are on personal vendetta therefore you lack objectivity.
f stop 25 | 2,513
14 Sep 2010 #153
Ozi_Dan:
Well done. You have exposed Zimmy's pseudo-intellectualizm beautifully. Unfortunately, me and I suspect many other posters routinely skip over Zimmy's posts now, so I almost missed it. Many swallowed his bait in the past, only to feel foolish afterwards to have wasted time and effort, and in many cases feel embarrassed to have been brought down to his level of discussion.
aphrodisiac 11 | 2,443
14 Sep 2010 #154
Zimmy is a bitter divorced man on a personal vendetta, who refuses to accept the reality.
convex 20 | 3,978
14 Sep 2010 #155
Elimination of discrimination against men in education
I did not know there was one.

When you provide an incentive based on gender(title ix for instance), you're discriminating against the other gender.
aphrodisiac 11 | 2,443
14 Sep 2010 #156
what incentives are we talking about, since it varies by countries. If the system encourages parity in education, would that be discrimination too?
convex 20 | 3,978
14 Sep 2010 #157
what incentives are we talking about, since it varies by countries.

In the US, title ix essentially introduces a quota system for schools with large athletic departments.
aphrodisiac 11 | 2,443
14 Sep 2010 #158
is it that a shame that a country needs a specific law in order to provide an equal access to programs for both sexes?
convex 20 | 3,978
14 Sep 2010 #159
Yes it is. Apparently no women want to wrestle...but, even if the demand isn't there, the program still has to be supported, or, quotas must be enacted.

The fact is that more women than men are enrolling, and graduating from US universities (the gap is huge for minority men, 2:1 for blacks for instance).

Women now also make more money in the workplace, first time ever.

It's time to call it a day. Incentives obviously aren't needed anymore.
aphrodisiac 11 | 2,443
14 Sep 2010 #160
not yet:). The process is not over yet. I know a bit about feminism and I think that in general the strong feminist movement would not have happened in the US it there was NO reason for it:).
convex 20 | 3,978
14 Sep 2010 #161
What still needs to be done? At this point it just creates animosity. Companies that don't hire the best qualified people for the job will fail, as will colleges that admit idiots. The bottom line has pretty much taken care of any inequalities that were in the system. That's what it does.

There was a need a while back to bring the issue to light, that time has passed.
aphrodisiac 11 | 2,443
14 Sep 2010 #162
I will take your word for it, but reverting the laws as Zimmy proposes is not a way to go.

Animosities are part of the process. Women felt that way for a long time, so if men have a chance to experience it, it should create more mutual understanding, but nobody likes to loose incentives:)
convex 20 | 3,978
14 Sep 2010 #163
You punish those who have done no wrong. Punitive measures without wrongdoing don't really have the results that are expected...
aphrodisiac 11 | 2,443
14 Sep 2010 #164
the punishment is not intended. part of the process. I just made an observation.
ZIMMY 6 | 1,601
14 Sep 2010 #165
So what's your answer then?

Be more specific. Is the attacker with a knife big; is the person defending him/herself slight?
Your example could be yes or no depending on the particular circumstances. In general, however, if a threat to life is perceived then it is morally alright to defend oneself, even to the most extreme measure.

Why ask me? Does it?

You are the one who assumed that I had no direct experience; I merely gave you an answer.

my comments were based solely on my experiences in practice?

...and therein lies your information gap. While personal experiences are important; it is best to overview as much information as possible outside of your domain which may be jaundiced.

I would have thought that if your observations in court aligned with your arguments you would have mentioned that, rather than relying on your blogs, stats and videos.

The fact that you ignore statistics and other reference materials only limits you.

I could also say all the studies you've put forward are anecdotal too in that they cannot be tested as to their veracity or otherwise.

Several hundred studies involving hundreds of thousands of individual cases cannot be considered anecdotal. If you don't understand this then you are the type of attorney who likes to play with words and definitions. I'd probably kick you out of my office as well.

I'd hate to be in the poor judge's shoes who has to make equal custody by virtue of a guillotine law....

Now you are losing it; where in modern society is there a guillotine law? I cannot comment on something that does not exist. This does though and in Australia;

theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/shared-parenting-law-brings-little-change/story-e6frg6nf-1225826082938

The above link should also help answer the premise that women (de facto) receive default custodial judgments when children are the issue.

if we adopt your model, no one would have to go to court because custody would be 50/50 automatically

Wrong (yet) again. I oppose quotas in any form. I merely advocate real equalilty and justice no matter where it falls.

Non payment of child support really irks me. Does it irk you?

The judicial system is cruel to men and often ignores their loss of employment. If a man truly cannot pay then is it justice to send him to jail? If he has the means to pay then he should. The backside of this however, is rarely addressed. Women frequently prevent visitation rights; not necessarily all the time but now and then and yet demand child support. Women are not put in jail when they do this even though it can easily be argued that young children have a need of a male parental influence even more than money. Also, how the money is spent by women is also rarely put to a court case (do women who divorce wealthy men after only a few years of marriage really deserve $20,000 per month for child support? Does the kid eat that much?) etc, etc.

I'm not really interested in your opinion but I am interested in the facts and material in support.

You are contradicting yourself. You've already stated that you wanted my personal experiences and suggested that the Fiebert studies are merely anecdotal. So which is it?

A quick edit; dare to read the whole article and examples it provides.

he-spearhead.com/2010/09/14/when-is-it-ok-to-punch-your-wife/

Animosities are part of the process. Women felt that way for a long time, so if men have a chance to experience it, it should create more mutual understanding,

This is female logic fellas but I suspect you already know that. Evidently aphrodisiac agrees with this premise which parallels hers:

"Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience."
This shocking comment was made by none other than the Assistant Dean of Students at Vassar College. Colleges and universities are extremely left wing.

So it is okay for men to have their world and life turned upside down because according to feminist 'logic' (actually it's 'feelings'), men must be punished unfairly so they can learn. Scary stuff!

I know a bit about feminism

LOL, indeed you do.
-------------------

Now, I've been asked to list some laws (out of many) that discriminate against men and favor women. Here is a partial list;

1)The Selective Act, which forces men to register for the draft, or they will be fined and imprisoned.

2)The Violence Against Women Act, which only protects women from domestic violence and leaves men with no where to turn if they are stuck in an abusive relationship.

3)Executive Order 11126, which established a committee and council on the status of women. Please note that no corresponding committee or council on the status of men exists.

4)Executive Order 13506, which established a White House Council on Women and Girls. Please note thatno corresponding White House Council on Men and Boys exists.

5)The Executive branch has a Office on Women's Health, under the US Department of Health and Human Services. Please note that no corresponding Office on Men's Health exists.

6)The various Rape Shield Acts, which only protect the identities of female rape victims.

7)The Various Primary Aggressor Statutes, which force police to always arrest males in domestic disputes, even if they were the victims of domestic violence.

The above language was borrowed from another source but it is succinct and am listing it as is for brevity's sake. Happy to enumerate as needed.

Seems like my 'victory' is complete. No responses to laws that favor women. I've only listed a few above but there are many more. No real responses to the evidence presented that women initiate domestic violence as often as men but report it nine times more because the "take it like a man" philosophy still endures and keeps men quiet. No responses to the obvious bias against men when women have special 'womens' offices and departments but men have none.etc, etc.

So I'll leave this presentation to the objective participants who do not fear 'real equality' as opposed to the loaded bullcrap that is known as feminism.

youtube.com/watch?v=oMzcMATRGmE
Barney 15 | 1,476
4 Oct 2010 #166
Seems like my 'victory' is complete. No responses..................

And you are defiantly not looking for attention definitely standing on your own two feet.
pgtx 30 | 3,156
4 Oct 2010 #167
Seems like my 'victory' is complete. No responses to laws that favor women.

nobody here cares anymore, Zimmy... i hope you'll celebrate your "victory" with your mum... have fun!
ZIMMY 6 | 1,601
4 Oct 2010 #168
I've already explained to you that women's 'shaming language' only insults the woman who provides it. Pity, that's all you have instead of real discourse, but then, that's obvious isn't it?
pgtx 30 | 3,156
4 Oct 2010 #169
Pity,

and that's ok, Zimmy.... don't let your mum wait....
ZIMMY 6 | 1,601
4 Oct 2010 #170
As usual people like pgtx ignore the topic at hand and attempt to switch the subject matter into insults. The surprising thing is this;pgtx has no shame doing it yet it's here for all to see.

My elderly mother has nothing to do with this nor does yours which is why unlike your childishness, I leave innocent family members alone.

nobody here cares anymore, Zimmy.

Is that why there have been a couple of dozen men in these various forums who have supported my rational positions? That couldn't have gone unnoticed by you but then many obvious facts do.

I'll help you with more 'shaming language'.

exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/
pgtx 30 | 3,156
4 Oct 2010 #171
As usual people like pgtx ignore the topic at hand and attempt to switch the subject matter into insults. The surprising thing is this; pgtx has no shame doing it yet it's here for all to see.

i feel flattered you mention me so many times... thank you for your attention, but don't waste your precious time on here... there are other places where your words will be more valuable...

and please, don't let your mind to see anything shady in my advices... :)

Is that why there have been a couple of dozen men in these various forums who have supported my rational positions? That couldn't have gone unnoticed by you but then many obvious facts do.

it's been established a long time ago that this forum is a home for many whinny men...
(please notice, i did not say that all PF men are whiners, but many is....)

and now cheer up and move on...

:)
Barney 15 | 1,476
4 Oct 2010 #172
'shaming language'

How dare you attempt to take any high moral ground. You use so called "shaming language" as and when you see fit yet feign outrage when you are not in control of it.

In a similar way, you have dominated any discussion about mens rights by dragging them down to your own bitter finger pointing level.

In short Zimmy your hypocrisy and arrogant posing have stopped many from posting in these threads....that is called a pyrrhic victory.

Congratulations you are the winner.
ZIMMY 6 | 1,601
4 Oct 2010 #173
In short Zimmy your hypocrisy and arrogant posing have stopped many from posting in these threads....

If true then perhaps that's because they have no answers to the evidence I've presented.

you have dominated any discussion about mens rights by dragging them down to your own bitter finger pointing level.

I've "dominated" because I've presented facts. As to bitterness, perhaps a review of what feminism has wrought would do you some good. You seem to be a white knight kind of guy. Unfortunately, that's the kind of slave mentality that misandrist women take advantage of.

Guys like you 'jump' when a woman asks you to. Well, to each their own.

You bring nothing to the table. How about answering some of the evidence presented in
my posts? It's called honest discourse. You might review my post #172 and address the special womens' departments, you know, the ones that men don't have. You might also take an honest look at my youtube link in post #173; just for objectivities sake.

-----------------
pgtx; "i feel flattered you mention me so many times"
You are the one who responded (first) to my posts; I merely verbally spanked you.
Barney 15 | 1,476
4 Oct 2010 #174
Zimmy
Hypocrisy in full flow, just a few posts later here you are with your "shaming language" again.
You have not "presented" anything, you have posted...another example of boorish ignorance.

honest discourse

Does not consist of posting skewed nonsense from dubious sources and ignoring everything that challenges your bitter pose.
lighthouse
4 Oct 2010 #175
all abuse must be stopped, whom ever is being abused = man woman child animal the planet. END THE ABUSE
ZIMMY 6 | 1,601
4 Oct 2010 #176
skewed nonsense from dubious sources and ignoring everything that challenges your bitter pose.

Frankly, long ago I used to think like you. Unlike you I opened my mind to all pertinent sources; evidently they are threatening to 'white knights' like you. I've given links and facts. You merely give your own skewed personal opinions - without presenting evidence. In short, you don't like what I present because it isn't something your world is accustomed to. Many have that problem.

all abuse must be stopped, whom ever is being abused = man woman child animal the planet. END THE ABUSE

I couldn't agree more and that's what it's all about. Unfortunately, the general information we all receive is skewed and has been presented that way for a long time now. People should do some research to get the full facts.
f stop 25 | 2,513
4 Oct 2010 #177
Barney, you must be new. ;)
It's a trap! No matter how good your arguments are, you can't win. Zimmy lives for this.
ZIMMY 6 | 1,601
4 Oct 2010 #178
It's a trap!

The truth will set you free. It only traps those who avoid it.

No matter how good your arguments are, you can't win.

Problem is, no arguments have been presented by you or him; only your childish attempt at shaming and his narrow beliefs about gender. I'll restate a few facts now; they deal with bias and discrimination.

1)The Selective Act, which forces men to register for the draft, or they will be fined and imprisoned.

2)The Violence Against Women Act, which only protects women from domestic violence and leaves men with no where to turn if they are stuck in an abusive relationship.

3)Executive Order 11126, which established a committee and council on the status of women. Please note that no corresponding committee or council on the status of men exists.

4)Executive Order 13506, which established a White House Council on Women and Girls. Please note that no corresponding White House Council on Men and Boys exists.

5)The Executive branch has a Office on Women's Health, under the US Department of Health and Human Services. Please note that no corresponding Office on Men's Health exists.

6)The various Rape Shield Acts, which only protect the identities of female rape victims while frequently exposing the names of innocent men.

7)The Various Primary Aggressor Statutes, which force police to always arrest males in domestic disputes, even if they were the victims of domestic violence.

Your specific comments are sought, not your insults. By the way, I can name at least 100 anti-male programs and/or procedures. Probably none which you want to comment on because they are facts.

Zimmy lives for this.

Well, I am a man for all seasons but I am going ballroom dancing tonight (yes, some of us still do that) so I won't be back here until tomorrow or the day after. If you can keep your emotions in check, perhaps I'll treat you like an adult.
f stop 25 | 2,513
4 Oct 2010 #179
LOL! See?
I have not even presented any arguments, but he knows they are childish attempts and narrow views.. and... I don't even want to read any more of his stuff.

Get it now, Barney?
Barney 15 | 1,476
4 Oct 2010 #180
I know very well how Zimmy posts, I know that his definition of "fact" is unique.
Basically he is economical with the truth and dazzled by shiny things usually found in crank sites.


Home / Love / 'Battered husbands' - still a taboo subject in Poland
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.