The Writers' Block

[Trotterdam]

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?

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.

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."

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.

"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."

Not even men murdering other men out of jealousy for going after the same women?

I think an issue about men struggling to access support is therefore acceptable.

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.

Research also suggests that highly abusive women more be likely to abuse with implements.

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.

Women can also get away with more violence in part because they're perceived as weaker and unable to do real harm, so a slap here or there isn't considered to be a big deal.

[The Free Joy State]

I think an issue about men struggling to access support is therefore acceptable.

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.

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.

It has a completely different niche to FuF's idea that sounds like it will focus on women murdered by their partners (a dark subject to try and keep NS-friendly) and Terrabod's difficulty in accessing support for abused men concept. Although laws have been passed against it, it's been found that the police are still missing cases of this kind of domestic abuse.

[Trotterdam]

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.

What counts as "coercive control?

Beating people up is already illegal. So is threatening to beat people up. Is this law supposed to go beyond that?

[Terrabod]

I think an issue about men struggling to access support is therefore acceptable.

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.

I didn't mean to suggest that my proposal would be the NS issue on domestic abuse, just that is would be an acceptable problem to write about among other domestic violence issues. Sorry for not making it clear!

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.

What counts as "coercive control?

Beating people up is already illegal. So is threatening to beat people up. Is this law supposed to go beyond that?

Coercive control includes abusive behaviours like controlling where your partner can and cannot go, who they can and cannot see, when they have access to their phone or the internet (to prevent them from seeking help) and even when they are allowed to eat. Abuse isn't limited to physical abuse - it can also include emotional abuse and psychological abuse, including attempts by an abuser to exert control over every aspect of their partner's life.

As The Free Joy State says, the above has only been recognised as abusive behaviour relatively recently, but it's much harder to spot a victim of coercive control than someone who is visibly injured by their partner so it's feared that these victims are slipping through the cracks.

[The Free Joy State]

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.

What counts as "coercive control?

Beating people up is already illegal. So is threatening to beat people up. Is this law supposed to go beyond that?

Coercive control is more focused on psychological abuse and manipulation, the abuse that leaves a person isolated and vulnerable. The CPS lists these behaviours as examples that could cumulatively contribute to a coercive control conviction (there's a note that the list is not exhaustive):

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

As you see, some examples are quite insidious, and that's why an issue on it could be so worthwhile.

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

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."

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.

[Terrabod]

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.

One instance of domestic abuse still makes an abuser an abuser and still makes a victim a victim. One instance of domestic abuse can have lifelong impacts including depression, anxiety and suicidal behaviour. And one instance of domestic abuse is one too many, even if the victim is a man.

I think the statistic stands, whatever assumptions are made about how often victims experience violence. For many reasons there is no reliable data on who experiences how much abuse and "how badly" - including older female victims not seeking support because they think domestic abuse support services are "not made for them" and male victims being directed by support hotlines to abuser reform programmes. In contrast, the big benefit of the CDC National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey is that it is random, nationwide and completely anonymous, which means that people are more likely to (1) report their experiences and (2) report their experiences honestly. There are still limitations, though, like the fact that some victims don't realise the abusive behaviours they have experienced are domestic abuse or feel that even anonymous reporting would be betraying their partner.

What is clear is that intimate partner violence is a complex problem and that we need to target every aspect of it if we want to make meaningful and lasting change. I think it is possible to make that kind of change, but to do that we need to acknowledge every group that experiences abuse, regardless of age, gender, sexual identity, religion and race, and understand their unique experiences and the barriers each group faces to receiving the support they need. Not only that, we need to radically improve the way we treat victims of domestic abuse - women should not be afraid that reporting their abuser will mean their children will be taken away; men should not be afraid that they will be treated as batterers by the police if they report their abuser.

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.

I don't think anyone, myself included, was making a counterargument to your original point. I'm sorry if it read that way.

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.

That is a horrifying statistic and I'm sure you'll agree with me when I say femicides in Turkey and around the world must come to an end.

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.

I wasn't advocating for you to introduce any such option or "hijack" any discussion. I was merely making the point that intimate partner violence against men is both widespread and does merit attention. As such, I pointed out that there is clearly room for an issue on that topic in addition to your proposal.

[The Free Joy State]

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.

Now you've clarified that your issue will be about femicide within the context of domestic violence, I agree.

I don't think anyone was trying to hijack your issue (and apologies if it came across that way). Originally it appeared that you were considering an issue on IPV as a wider topic, which I would think should be non-gender-specific. But, now you've clarified that you have a very specific issue in mind, I can see why the gender-specific focus would be necessary.

There is, after all, room for multiple issues on this topic.

[Trotterdam]

I think we're nearing the end of the amount of discussion that is meaningful on this topic without actually drafting the issue.

[Terrabod]

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?

[The Free Joy State]

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?

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]

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?

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.

[Terrabod]

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).

That's great, thanks. I forgot about nations that kill their elderly haha (haha?).

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.

Cheers!

[Trotterdam]

At what average lifespan would this become part of the discussion?

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.

Really the more pertinent point is the upper bound. If almost everybody lives to be over 100, then it isn't particularly congratulation-worthy anymore.

Currently only 96 nations in the world have an average lifespan over 100, and then still not very far above it. However it could be argued that even for somewhat lower average lifespans, while the number of people who live to be 100 is less than 50% (actually, that assumes that "average" means "median", which it might not), it might still be too large for @@LEADER@@ to personally congratulate all of them.

[Jutsa]

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"

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

What would you think about an issue on hostile architecture?

[Jutsa]

Ow. But also yes.

[The Free Joy State]

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"

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).

[Lelscrep]

What would you think about an issue on hostile architecture?

You should do this.

[Jutsa]

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.

Still, could be a fun title. By the by, is there any other policy reversal requested or have they all managed to be fulfilled at long last?
I noticed that the seemingly impossible zoo and adultery bans have reversals now (the latter a particularly good one if you ask me).

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

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.

I have personally found that it is very difficult to come up with a convincing reason to bring back the penny. I pitched an idea about a famous "wishing fountain" (into which people threw pennies) falling into disuse, but it wasn't realistic enough. Seriously, I will applaud the creativity of any person who finds a good argument for a coin reversal.

[Dominos Pizza Restaurant]

I'll take a look at tackling that issue.

[Jutsa]

Seriously, I will applaud the creativity of any person who finds a good argument for a coin reversal.

Well, Trot and I had this sort of discussion in my last reversal thread. Basically, because of inflation, it's not so much that you'd ever bring the penny back, so much as it'd just sort of happen on its own (i.e. the nickel would become the new penny, then the dime, etc.)

So... I mean, if anything, it's more like a policy that'd just reverse itself over the course of, idk, however much population is gained or something.

That said, if your nation's economy has imploded (which I know that sort of thing is hard to track, but lets say, in general, nations with a poor economy),
then odds are you've either had crippling hyperinflation or crippling deflation. The former would basically throw into question your currency as a whole while the latter would pretty much force you to create new pennies out of necessity.

Put simply, it's a very strange policy to even have, much less fixed, much less find a "realistic" reversal to it. It could, in theory, be done, but it sounds like it'd be more of a consequence or option of an existing issue about inflation or recession than its own, coin-specific issue, if none of the existing submitted drafts have thus far made it into the game.

[Terrabod]

Quick question - when submitting an issue, can we include bold or italics?

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

Quick question - when submitting an issue, can we include bold or italics?

I don't think I have seen any examples of bold font. But italics exists. Logically, bold font should also be possible, but I'd advise against it. UPPER CASE or italics are probably the best ways of emphasizing something, depending on its intensity (and the audacity of the speaker).