The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / Love  % width posts: 387

'Battered husbands' - still a taboo subject in Poland


ZIMMY 6 | 1,601
5 Oct 2010 #181
I have not even presented any arguments

That's the problem.

childish attempts

It's just how you communicate; yet I know you're much smarter than that.

I don't even want to read any more of his stuff.

Facts and truth are a painful mistress.

this is very sad thread

It's okay. Sometimes a llittle painful medicine cures a much larger ailment.
Bolle 1 | 147
5 Oct 2010 #182
I can't quite picture a woman physically abusing a man. I know for a fact that no woman would ever rise her hand against me. Men that are bullied by their women are beta males and have let their women get away with too much in their relationships. If it's not 50-50, then there are always problems.

Now emotional abuse i understand. Divorce is a good example of emotional abuse as the law always sides with the woman and as a result the woman gets the kids, house, car etc. whilst the man is forced to move into a sh!tty flat in a black neighborhood.

‘Battered husbands’ - still a taboo subject in Poland

I think this is the case everywhere.
pgtx 30 | 3,156
5 Oct 2010 #183
If it's not 50-50, then there are always problems.

if it's 50/50 there are problems... it's gotta be 100/100....

the law always sides with the woman

not always but often...

whilst the man is forced to move into a sh!tty flat in a black neighborhood.

there are also poor white neighborhoods, if you wanna put it that way...
Bolle 1 | 147
5 Oct 2010 #184
if it's 50/50 there are problems... it's gotta be 100/100....

huh? What?

I don't always understand your logic. I realise you're a woman (naturally confusing) and polish (complicated), but please try to make more sense.
pgtx 30 | 3,156
5 Oct 2010 #185
not my fault you don't get it... work on it then...
Bolle 1 | 147
5 Oct 2010 #186
You don't understand the concept. 50/50 is a common saying because work progress varies from 0%-100%. You can have 1 person doing 100% of the work or two people doing 50% each. Saying 100/100 is just plain stupid!

God you are such a typical polish woman. I pitty polish men.
pgtx 30 | 3,156
5 Oct 2010 #187
Saying 100/100 is just plain stupid!

50/50 is a common saying as you mentioned... but in a relationship you give a 100 or you fail...

God you are such a typical polish woman. I pitty polish men.

well, i didn't answer you first to argue with you... you don't like Polish women, so back off... you don't like it simply because you don't understand it...
Ironside 50 | 11,056
5 Oct 2010 #188
Men that are bullied by their women are beta males

Well, beta ,alfa its aint collage - maybe they have mental problems ?

I can't quite picture a woman physically abusing a man.

Well, as they say -look inbetween pictures !

I know for a fact that no woman would ever rise her hand against me.

How about an axe or a nife ?

their women get away with too much in their relationships.

Really? You 19 or something ?

If it's not 50-50, then there are always problems.

Whatever works, 50/50 looks good on paper!
Barr_2009 1 | 252
5 Oct 2010 #189
I think it's bad you know man, if anyone beats another person, but they should just get police onto them if they got hit
ZIMMY 6 | 1,601
6 Oct 2010 #190
I can't quite picture a woman physically abusing a man.

One half of all domestic violence is initiated by women. Women and men seem to have a difficult time accepting this unfortunate fact. That's due to our culture and how the media constantly presents abusive behavior.

I know for a fact that no woman would ever rise her hand against me

Don't be so sure. You must have missed my previous links which note that women will assault their male partners and one reason behind that is the fact that women know that they will usually get away with it. Those few men who actually call the police because they've been abused (they don't hit back) are frequently the ones taken to jail because some states have laws which demand that someone be taken into custody. Our culture does not like to blame women.

he law always sides with the woman and as a result the woman gets the kids, house, car etc.

That has become a primary reason why some women file false abuse charges. Lawyers even urge them to. In fact, it has become epidemic.

The following link should interest people who are confused about this. Equality isn't just women getting their fair share. Equality must include men who are often on the short end of many cultural aspects in society. Some people (usually feminists) fear real equality for men.
pgtx 30 | 3,156
6 Oct 2010 #191
Those few men who actually call the police because they've been abused (they don't hit back) are frequently the ones taken to jail because some states have laws which demand that someone be taken into custody.

that doesn't make sense, Zimmy...

how was the dancing? mama's happy?
monika87 - | 55
6 Oct 2010 #192
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.

Husband and wife should never resort to violence (except the man deserves it lmao). But with words and decisive action one can also kill. Now a typical school saying: Violence is never the solution. lmao
Barr_2009 1 | 252
6 Oct 2010 #193
i reckon that's probably about right son
Seanus 15 | 19,706
6 Oct 2010 #194
Never heard of it, sorry. Taboo? It's never mentioned!
natasia 3 | 368
6 Oct 2010 #195
'battered' wifes get issued with a little book and every time the police are called.. a signature and date are entered

sounds like a good idea to me, although i guess she probably gets battered a bit more when the police have gone, as punishment for calling them ...

i didn't know the police in Poland actually consider wife-beating a crime.
Ironside 50 | 11,056
7 Oct 2010 #196
i didn't know the police in Poland actually consider wife-beating a crime.

only you don't beat hard enough!
Barr_2009 1 | 252
7 Oct 2010 #197
i didn't know the police in Poland actually consider wife-beating a crime.

wow this is incredible, can you tell me what you know on this please?
pgtx 30 | 3,156
7 Oct 2010 #198
a punishment for a wife-beater in Poland is hard beating to loss of consciousness by 12 pure blood Polish women...
Ironside 50 | 11,056
7 Oct 2010 #199
by 12 pure blood Polish women...

in their late 50ties
pgtx 30 | 3,156
7 Oct 2010 #200
with a mustache...
Barr_2009 1 | 252
7 Oct 2010 #202
why is not considered crime in Pole land?
pgtx 30 | 3,156
7 Oct 2010 #203
Polandia uses medieval forms of punishment... and women are superior to men, so... i think you can imagine the rest...
Barr_2009 1 | 252
7 Oct 2010 #204
jeez, i thought it would be different these days, i'm damn surprised at this, it sounds like eye for an eye, pole for a pole. I thought it was men superior to women there though
Ironside 50 | 11,056
7 Oct 2010 #205
and women are superior to men,

or so they say.......we let them get away with this folly cuz that make them happy,
pgtx 30 | 3,156
7 Oct 2010 #206
I thought it was men superior to women there though

women like men to think that way...

we let them get away with this folly cuz that make them happy,

almost ecstatic....
Ironside 50 | 11,056
7 Oct 2010 #207
almost ecstatic....

they tend to take it seriusly sometimes, but they work harder, and are better in bed,
ZIMMY 6 | 1,601
7 Oct 2010 #208
A woman loses her sex appeal when she becomes the opposing instead of the opposite sex.
Ozi Dan 26 | 569
7 Oct 2010 #209
Seems like my 'victory' is complete.

It’s disappointing that you treat the discourse on domestic violence as being a victory or loss equation. I never knew there were such considerations when discussing various degrees of human misery but obviously it seems important to you. Notwithstanding your casual statements about you ducking down to the beach to pose which littered this thread before my appearance, I actually took you seriously as having a genuine and passionate concern for the topic. The above quoted merely serves to tell me this is all an ego trip for you and the topic is nothing more than a vehicle for your posturing.

Your continuing diatribe of 'no responses to my...' is fine but you seem to have forgotten that I've done you the courtesy of responding to nearly all your genuine comments, so what you're saying is really untrue, isn't it.

Indeed, in reviewing our exchanges I see that quite a few of my more weighty contentions, particularly in respect of objectivity/subjectivity/relativism, have either been entirely ignored by you or glossed over. Accordingly, I can only assume my positions on those points are vindicated and can only conclude my ‘victory’ is complete in the absence of genuine responses. Feel free to revisit and respond if you wish to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory ;).

Anyways, here we go again, and as you seem intent in perpetuating this debate I'll oblige you...

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.

There’s no need to be more specific because I laid the parameters here:

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

then added:

“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'?”

Do you now see the folly of ascribing to notions of immutable truths and discounting relativism? In asking me to ‘be more specific’ you have effectively acknowledged that relativism is necessary to this type of discourse because being more specific entails relative considerations. In trying to answer the question I posed you have, by implication, said that the morality of the act of self defence is relative to the perceived threat “depending on the particular circumstances”.

You can’t have it both ways, your answer is therefore “Yes”, and unfortunately you are wrong.

...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.

No, it’s not an information gap, because if it was, I would have had to have not read the studies you posted. I did, then I challenged some of the foundations to which those studies were based and you largely ignored my challenges.

In any event, I've always been candid in saying my comments are based on my experience in practice. Ergo, you can assume they are not based on studies, blogs, youtube and so on. My experience does not align with your studies, though I have indicated that if your studies sometime in the future align with my experience my position will probably change accordingly. I've now had the benefit of making my comments in the context of real world experience but also after considering your material, which, again, is contrary to my experience. You, on the other hand, have no genuine experience in the matters being discussed. Who then is better placed to make a more persuasive argument?

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

The fact that you answered in the above fashion (which has nothing to do with my contention) merely demonstrates that when cornered with one of the many contentions I have made challenging your credibilty you choose to deflect rather than concede. It doesn't work with me.

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.

Once again, your answer is irrelevant to the ambit of my comment. I said they could be considered anecdotal because they cannot be tested. Rather than challenging that by commenting on how they could be tested, you simply said they cannot be anecdotal because of their volume. You couldn't answer the statement because you either don't understand what anecdotal means in the context to which I placed it or understood it but didn't have a genuine response. Again, smoke and mirror tactics don't work on me.

And yes, I do enjoy playing with words and definitions. The main theme of our discussion has been focussed on just that. If you can't play the game then I suggest you look to another interest other than 'critical thinking' because I've presented you with prime opportunity time and again to indulge your hobby.

As to kicking me out of your 'office', can I assume that's toilet cubicle no. 2 at the beach where you do your posing?

Now you are losing it;

No, I'm not. I asked if it should be subject to the child’s best interests or legally enshrined (equal custody). You said legally enshrined which to me means that no matter what, equal custody would apply because that’s the guillotine law. Guillotine Law, or guillotine orders, here means a law that automatically applies with no other consideration as to whether or not it should apply. A parallel could be our drink driving laws here which say that if you blow over 0.05 you will lose your licence, no argument, no exception (unless of course you go to trial and win on saying that the breath tester was faulty and so on).

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

No, it doesn't. The Family Law Act does not automatically vest by default full custody to the mother – indeed, there is absolutely no reference to gender bias viz parenting in Pt 7 of the Act.

The ‘legislative pathway’ is clear and was set out in the case of Goode & Goode. Briefly, there is a presumption of equal shared parental responsibility that applies subject to there being say domestic violence, child abuse and so on, or if it is not in the child’s best interests for the presumption to apply (see s60CC for the best interests considerations). If it does apply, then it may be appropriate for equal custody arrangements to prevail and if not, a child may spend substantial and significant time with one parent whilst living with the other. In extreme examples, interim orders may mandate that a parent can spend time only when supervised by another person. This can happen to both mothers and fathers.

I repeat – the Family Law Act does not automatically vest custody in the mother. It is gender neutral. Can you comprehend that?

I further repeat – unless you provide me with concrete proof that your family/DV laws are biased I don’t believe you. You can so easily vindicate your position by providing a link to the relevant sections of the law. You won’t though because you’ve probably never actually seen them.

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

Sorry, but I'm not, yet again. It has nothing to do with 'quotas', and you know that. You advocate for automatic equal custody no matter what. I added that if we adopt that modle no-one would go to court over custody because a judge would not have to make the decision because the legislation has already made it. Do you understand that implication?

The judicial system is cruel to men and often ignores their loss of employment.

Link please showing judgments from the ‘judicial system’ whereby loss of employment was ignored – actually, don’t bother – you haven’t bothered to provide any links to any law or judgment I’ve requested. I reckon that’s because you’re making this up as you go along.

Again, does non payment of child support irk you?

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.

You really don’t understand the concept of child support, do you. Child support is paying another parent your share of the costs of raising a child. It has nothing to do with whether or not the custodial parent is denying ‘visitation rights’ (do parents in the US really have that right?) but all to do with supporting your child.

I think the old maxim of cutting off your nose to spite your face is apposite here.

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.

They’re not put in jail because if a father reckons they are being denied time with their child then, wait for it, perhaps they should apply to the court to have that time?

If on the other hand there is an order that a child is to spend time with their father and the mother has breached it then, wait for it, perhaps the father should apply to the court for remedy for such breach.

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.

Is it the case that in the USA child support is automatically determined by a court unless the parents otherwise agree as to an amount? You'll have to clarify how it works in the USA please. Given your expertise on CS, please also set out the formula for calculating child support in the USA – I don’t think you’re able to though because yet again you’re making this up as you go along.

In any event, I find it difficult to believe child support payments would be made to the tune of $20,000 per month. Is this just another story Zimmy?

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?

Good attempt at obfuscation. I'm not contradicting myself. You said most applications for a DVO are false. That is an opinion, unless you provide genuine material in support. I said that whilst I value your opinion I wanted facts and material in support so that I could decide if that opinion was based on fact or if it was fiction. Instead of giving me that, you said I was contradicting myself – good one.

C’mon Zimmy – give me a real run for my money with proper responses rather than smoke and mirror, and genuine sources backing up your myriad opinions – dare you.
Patrycja19 63 | 2,699
7 Oct 2010 #210
I find it difficult to believe child support payments would be made to the tune of $20,000 per month. Is this just another story Zimmy?

yes it is, because if it were that much, then the guy would have to be donal trump and
if it is donald, I think hes paying alot more . lol

I think the range is more like 400.00 to 800.00 depending on the amount of children
and what the father makes if mom is awarded custody if dad is, then its prob according
to her income, because they can take child support, but still need to be reasonable
with living expenses. and it can increase with increases in pay /raises etc.
cost of living. but if custody is given to both parents then neither pays child support but
choose to take the child for two weeks each month and agree to pay their own .

C’mon Zimmy – give me a real run for my money with proper responses rather than smoke and mirror, and genuine sources backing up your myriad opinions – dare you.

ozi dan, wow, you challenge the zimfeminist lol


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.