Advertisement

by The Free Joy State » Tue Jan 19, 2021 3:02 am
by Trotterdam » Tue Jan 19, 2021 5:43 am
There are far more heterosexual than homosexual people, so I doubt abuse by gay partners is the primary source of violence. Also, if we considered that, then I'm sure at least there's at least one or two cases of lesbian domestic abuse out there, too.Frieden-und Freudenland wrote:The question here is, who is the perpetrator? Are male victims of domestic violence heterosexual men who are being abused by their female romantic/sexual partners? I wonder what that percentage would look like if we removed gay men abused by male partners, or men who are abused by male family members who are not intimate partners (e.g., men beaten by their abusive fathers) from the equation?
Presumably by this they mean "15% of all known cases of domestic partner violence", which, by their own admission, is probably less than the actual rate.Frieden-und Freudenland wrote:I found this paper from 2020 (so quite recent) and it says:
"Men represent as much as 15% of all cases of domestic partnerviolence. Male victims are also less likely to seek medical care so the incidence may be underreported. These victims may have a history of child abuse."
Not even men murdering other men out of jealousy for going after the same women?Frieden-und Freudenland wrote:"The way men are murdered almost always has “nothing to do with [intimate] relationships and power-based crime,” Moghadami says, which is why violence against women warrants a national action plan as opposed to an action plan that doesn’t distinguish between genders."
There's certainly room for more than one issue about domestic abuse. I pointed out all those scenarios specifically to emphasize that it's a varied topic.Terrabod wrote:I think an issue about men struggling to access support is therefore acceptable.
Makes sense. Women are perceived as (and statistically speaking, genuinely are, though not to as big a degree as perceived and there are exceptions) weaker than men, so while a man who wants to beat up a women can probably do so just fine with his fists (and may even feel that it would be "unmanly" to have to resort to using weapons to beat up a defenseless victim), a women who wants to beat up a man will use whatever implements will let her even out the strength gap.

by The Free Joy State » Tue Jan 19, 2021 7:24 am
by Trotterdam » Tue Jan 19, 2021 8:00 am
What counts as "coercive control?The Free Joy State wrote:A domestic violence issue I think has legs, based on recent legislation (in the UK for example) is one about the criminalisation of coercive control in a relationship.

by Terrabod » Tue Jan 19, 2021 8:01 am
Trotterdam wrote:What counts as "coercive control?The Free Joy State wrote:A domestic violence issue I think has legs, based on recent legislation (in the UK for example) is one about the criminalisation of coercive control in a relationship.
Beating people up is already illegal. So is threatening to beat people up. Is this law supposed to go beyond that?

by The Free Joy State » Tue Jan 19, 2021 8:13 am
Trotterdam wrote:What counts as "coercive control?The Free Joy State wrote:A domestic violence issue I think has legs, based on recent legislation (in the UK for example) is one about the criminalisation of coercive control in a relationship.
Beating people up is already illegal. So is threatening to beat people up. Is this law supposed to go beyond that?
Isolating a person from their friends and family
Depriving them of their basic needs
Monitoring their time
Monitoring a person via online communication tools or using spyware
Taking control over aspects of their everyday life, such as where they can go, who they can see, what to wear and when they can sleep
Depriving them access to support services, such as specialist support or medical services
Repeatedly putting them down such as telling them they are worthless
Enforcing rules and activity which humiliate, degrade or dehumanise the victim
Forcing the victim to take part in criminal activity such as shoplifting, neglect or abuse of children to encourage self-blame and prevent disclosure to authorities
Financial abuse including control of finances, such as only allowing a person a punitive allowance
Control ability to go to school or place of study
Taking wages, benefits or allowances
Threats to hurt or kill
Threats to harm a child
Threats to reveal or publish private information (e.g. threatening to 'out' someone)
Threats to hurt or physically harming a family pet
Assault
Criminal damage (such as destruction of household goods)
Preventing a person from having access to transport or from working
Preventing a person from being able to attend school, college or University
Family 'dishonour'
Reputational damage
Disclosure of sexual orientation
Disclosure of HIV status or other medical condition without consent
Limiting access to family, friends and finances

by Frieden-und Freudenland » Tue Jan 19, 2021 5:28 pm
Trotterdam wrote:Presumably by this they mean "15% of all known cases of domestic partner violence", which, by their own admission, is probably less than the actual rate.Frieden-und Freudenland wrote:I found this paper from 2020 (so quite recent) and it says:
"Men represent as much as 15% of all cases of domestic partnerviolence. Male victims are also less likely to seek medical care so the incidence may be underreported. These victims may have a history of child abuse."
Admittedly, I still find the 45% number suspicious, but even 15% is a significant amount and that's the low estimate.

by Terrabod » Tue Jan 19, 2021 8:03 pm
Frieden-und Freudenland wrote:I think the crucial point that explains 45% may be that according to Terrabod's source, this is based on the number of people who have experienced intimate partner violence "in their lifetime." Counting each person who experienced this at least once is different from counting each violent incident separately. If women endure violence more frequently and systematically, it is inevitable that they will predominantly be the victim if you count ALL cases. Reducing it down to "at least once" serves as an equalizing (!) force, of course.
Frieden-und Freudenland wrote:At any rate, we are all sharing data from Western countries where women are more emancipated, so I don't know how this constitutes a counterargument to my claims about the systematic terrorization of the female sex in more patriarchal societies.
Frieden-und Freudenland wrote:The digital counter above keeps track of femicides in Turkey. We are barely 3 weeks into 2021, and 11 women already became victims of domestic violence.
Frieden-und Freudenland wrote:I am not trying to say the suffering of the men who are victims of violence doesn't matter. But if I write an issue on femicides, I will not introduce a 3rd or 4th option that says "Oh, but how about the men who are beaten by their wives???" and tries to hijack the discussion. It might very well be its own issue. But I don't think this issue is the place to discuss it.

by The Free Joy State » Wed Jan 20, 2021 2:21 am
Frieden-und Freudenland wrote:Trotterdam wrote:Presumably by this they mean "15% of all known cases of domestic partner violence", which, by their own admission, is probably less than the actual rate.
Admittedly, I still find the 45% number suspicious, but even 15% is a significant amount and that's the low estimate.
I think the crucial point that explains 45% may be that according to Terrabod's source, this is based on the number of people who have experienced intimate partner violence "in their lifetime." Counting each person who experienced this at least once is different from counting each violent incident separately. If women endure violence more frequently and systematically, it is inevitable that they will predominantly be the victim if you count ALL cases. Reducing it down to "at least once" serves as an equalizing (!) force, of course.
At any rate, we are all sharing data from Western countries where women are more emancipated, so I don't know how this constitutes a counterargument to my claims about the systematic terrorization of the female sex in more patriarchal societies.
http://anitsayac.com/?year=2021
The digital counter above keeps track of femicides in Turkey. We are barely 3 weeks into 2021, and 11 women already became victims of domestic violence. Last year, a total of 405 women were killed by men (mostly by intimate partners).
I am not trying to say the suffering of the men who are victims of violence doesn't matter. But if I write an issue on femicides, I will not introduce a 3rd or 4th option that says "Oh, but how about the men who are beaten by their wives???" and tries to hijack the discussion. It might very well be its own issue. But I don't think this issue is the place to discuss it.
by Trotterdam » Wed Jan 20, 2021 8:06 am

by Terrabod » Wed Jan 20, 2021 8:47 am

by The Free Joy State » Wed Jan 20, 2021 8:54 am
Terrabod wrote:Is there an issue about Leader doing something to celebrate people reaching their one-hundredth birthday? I mean like how the Queen Elizabeth sends people a birthday card when they turn a hundred.
I've got something in the works, but might need help with the validity. At what average lifespan would this become part of the discussion?

by Dominos Pizza Restaurant » Wed Jan 20, 2021 8:59 am
Terrabod wrote:Is there an issue about Leader doing something to celebrate people reaching their one-hundredth birthday? I mean like how the Queen Elizabeth sends people a birthday card when they turn a hundred.
I've got something in the works, but might need help with the validity. At what average lifespan would this become part of the discussion?

by Terrabod » Wed Jan 20, 2021 9:27 am
The Free Joy State wrote:The validity I'd suggest would be "No Geronticide; Average Lifespan or greater" (just to rule out the nations that kill their citizens and the nations where everyone dies well below pension age -- like mine).
Dominos Pizza Restaurant wrote:As far as I could tell, there doesn't seem to be any duplicates to your idea.
As for validity, I'll go with what TFJS said.
by Trotterdam » Wed Jan 20, 2021 9:46 am
Honestly, I think so long as you don't have geronticide, some people would live to reach 100 regardless of average lifespan. As average lifespan goes down, these people would be rarer and rarer, but in a nation of millions of people, it'd still happen once in a while.Terrabod wrote:At what average lifespan would this become part of the discussion?

by Jutsa » Wed Jan 20, 2021 9:57 am

by Frieden-und Freudenland » Wed Jan 20, 2021 5:00 pm

by Jutsa » Wed Jan 20, 2021 5:04 pm

by The Free Joy State » Wed Jan 20, 2021 11:53 pm
Jutsa wrote:Hey, do we have any coin reversal issues... or even options, for that matter?
Cause I'm wondering if there's room for an issue with the title "Coinsiding Drama"

by Lelscrep » Thu Jan 21, 2021 3:54 am
Frieden-und Freudenland wrote:What would you think about an issue on hostile architecture?

by Jutsa » Thu Jan 21, 2021 9:44 am
We are still looking for a reversal issue with a non-stringent validity on the No Cents policy (the only issue we have now has a validity that makes it hard to receive).



by Frieden-und Freudenland » Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:05 am
Jutsa wrote:We are still looking for a reversal issue with a non-stringent validity on the No Cents policy (the only issue we have now has a validity that makes it hard to receive).
Good to know. Granted, I probably won't work on this, since a) writers' block basically and b) I mean, you know how many attempts I've made already.

by Dominos Pizza Restaurant » Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:17 am

by Jutsa » Thu Jan 21, 2021 11:12 am
Seriously, I will applaud the creativity of any person who finds a good argument for a coin reversal.

Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Falafelandia, Gootstania, Neonian Technocracy, Pabajk, Trump Almighty, Yjlom
Advertisement