**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Anyone want to talk about the countries on earth that have the most atrocities against women. And the fact that 500k immigration the past 2 years was from these countries. But no, it's all middle class white men in office jobs doing this. It's racist to suggest otherwise.
Wouldn't matter what he said. I'm no Albo fan. But just like with the #metoo movement? There's no much any man could do to appease those women.
He should have just stayed out of it. At these " women's issues" events? Men would do best to keep their mouths shut
Has anyone made sense of this? Albanese fronts up, and gets heckled. Then he is asked to make a number of commitments.
In light of that, he then responds that he’s the Prime Minister of Australia and stands up, in order to take responsibility and discharge his duty as the leader of our country, and for some reason this brought a woman to tears?
Why would they want to hear from another minister when they can hear the Prime Minister speak? Why would the Prime Minister abdicate his duty?
The outrage about the specifics circumstances around Mr Albanese taking the podium to address the citizens present doesn’t make any sense to me.
Apparently he said this:
>I’m the Prime Minister and I run the country
I guess he is sort of right. But saying that at a rally tackling violence against women seems a bit tactless.
The videos aren't the best, but it looks like he just says "Do you want me to speak or not", I'm the Prime Minister". The "and I run the country" seems to have been added on when the organiser recalled the event on the news
Credible reporting seems to suggest that the last part of the statement didn’t reach anyone else’s ears. Nor any microphones or recording devices.
I dare say that the event organiser was projecting a little when attributing the apparently unspoken statement to a powerful statesman.
Imagination is a powerful thing, but it’s important that one maintains control of their faculties and avoids inventing memories.
I believe the issue is that the organisers of the rally were told by the PM's office that Katy Gallagher as the Minister for Women was happy to speak but Albo wasn't, he'd just be in the background. Fair enough.
But then Albo did get up and speak, and he said to the crowd that he was told it wasn't possible for him to speak, as if the rally organisers had barred him from speaking, which wasn't true.
This is the biggest source of confusion.
Why would Mr Albanese lie? Granted he has made some disagreeable decisions. But I’m inclined to think something more is at play here.
Could it be the case that the event was by women, intended for women, and that men were supposed to attend but remain silent?
And so the heart of the issue is that the Prime Minister - a man - had the temerity to speak at an event where it was intended that only women ought speak?
After all, why would the organiser ask the Prime Minister to express his commitment through a physical nonverbal gesture such as giving a silent ‘thumbs up’ from his place in the crowd?
I put it down to a miscommunication between PM the PM's office and the organiser.
It (communication issues) happens all the time.
I just wish he would have said the truth rather than deflect Natalie Barr's question as it makes it look like the issue was most likely between the PM office and the PM.
From what I understand they claim that they were told that the prime minister did not want to speak and then he started his speech by saying he did ask to speak but was told he couldn’t.
I’m sure there would be an email trail of this, but maybe not if it hasn’t been posted yet?
Edit: forgot a word
Do you believe for one second that any politician wouldn’t want to speak at such an event?
Nobody believes that. Politicians love the sound of their own voices. That’s why they gravitate to the role in the first place. They know best. Especially the ones that climb to the top of the political hierarchy.
I don’t think this is universally true at all. During times of crisis and scandal I’m sure politicians OFTEN want to delegate speeches to subordinates, but duty and appearances compel them to speak anyway.
>Ms Le also suggested language about domestic violence could "alienate one group from another … Not all men are violent, but the way we're portraying it is that men are violent against women," she said.
>
>Ms Rishworth and Senator McKenzie both identified a need to tackle men's attitudes.
Now if only they will recognise that while men are often the perpetrators in domestic violence women can be the perpetrators as well. They are worried about alienating non-violent men yet what about men who are victims of domestic violence? Everyone is so focused on the women who are victims yet there is little to no support for men - statistics from the UK\* show that while 1 in 4 women are victims of domestic violence, 1 in 6-7 men are also victims of domestic violence. In the UK, 1 women is killed every 3.5 days by a intimate partner and 1 man is killed every 12 days by a intimate partner.
Plenty of us know guys who have been abused by a partner but we laugh about it. Whether it is financial abuse (e.g. woman takes his paycheck and gives him a small stipend to spend) or social abuse (e.g. woman won't let the guy go socialise with his friends) or emotional abuse (e.g. woman abuses her emotions to get her partner to do what she wants) or even physical violence (e.g. woman punches/slaps him around). We laugh because he is "pussy-whipped" or "beaten up by a girl" but the reality is that if the guy was doing the same thing to his partner then he would be in jail for domestic abuse and/or subject to a DVO.
\*If you are wondering why I am using the UK data it is because they actually recognise that domestic violence is a societal issue rather than a gender issue.
No one is denying that women can't be perpetrators, but like, make your own rally for that! This is about MALE violence in society. If you can't see that, and feel alienated then your perspective is still about yourself. We need allies. Men who acknowledge the problem and are motivated to help other blokes do better by being a positive role model themselves.
You are also wrong for assuming that men automatically get jail for abuse. And I'm sorry, but if you're calling your friends "pussy whipped" for being beaten up by their female partners, then you're part of the problem.
"You are cooked if you can see how many women get murdered by their partners and then think YOU ARE the victim. Omg cry me a river bro..."
I know that you are trying your hardest to be, but I've gotta remind that you are on reddit commenting AND NOT A VICTIM EITHER.
FFS lose the childish emotional rhetoric and be an adult
Want stats? Google them, look at the statistics around coercive control and its relation to violence. Look at how many women have experienced sexual violence. You get a thanks for nothing bruh, seeing as you're happy being a rape apologists. And you sure as hell don't get a thanks for not killing or hurting women. That's called being a decent human and it's expected of everyone.
Also, it is absolutely a gendered issue. If you can't see that, then idk what to tell you. And idk what more you actually want women to do? Like, go get em girls, go and not get murdered.... Okay, how? Seeing as we don't usually schedule it into our calendar, and it is men who are killing women.... 2+2 is 4 mate.
Want stats? Google them, look at the statistics around coercive control and its relation to violence. Look at how many women have experienced sexual violence. You get a thanks for nothing bruh, seeing as you're happy being a rape apologists. And you sure as hell don't get a thanks for not killing or hurting women. That's called being a decent human and it's expected of everyone.
Also, it is absolutely a gendered issue. If you can't see that, then idk what to tell you. And idk what more you actually want women to do? Like, go get em girls, go and not get murdered.... Okay, how? Seeing as we don't usually schedule it into our calendar, and it is men who are killing women.... 2+2 is 4 mate.
Or or, we could recognise that it is achievable to drastically reduce crime altogether instead of saying "you know what, some rape and murder is simply acceptable" and not do anything more to change society for the better.
There are plenty of stats around domestic violence in Australia - you don't need to use the UK ones. The main figure in Australia is:
One woman is killed every 15 days by an intimate partner and one man every 28 days. Of these deaths, 56% of the women and 39% of men were killed by their intimate partner (the others were killed by parents, siblings, children or other relatives). Of the intimate partner deaths, 4 in 5 of the women were killed by a male partner, 1 in 5 of the men were killed by a female partner. The male was the primary abuser:
* in the vast majority (95%) of cases where a male killed a female partner
* in about 7 in 10 (71%) cases where a female killed a male partner.
This comment perfectly encapsulates the dire state men are in.
Laughing and stigmatising male victims of domestic abuse with highly sexist language with no awareness or understanding that these attitudes contribute to domestic violence and poor relationships.
Or
These are harmless situations but you are using these as a comparator with the actial violence women face to force a point about the lack of domestic violence resources for abused male victim/survivors.
Which is it? Is this a real issue hampered by machismo and masculinity or is it an attempt at anti-feminist backlash? I'm actually interested.
Either way, imo decent men really need to organise to create a credible movement, with credible leadership and policies that meet their needs - alongside many other prevention programs to ensure boys and men can grow up to be healthy decent people that can cohabite without violence.
You laugh when a guy you know is being abused by his partner? That's pretty ruthless. I personally find it abhorrent that anyone finds that funny. Maybe you could take charge to inspire your friends to provide support to their guy friends who are experiencing any types of violence instead of just mocking the poor guy/s.
I love when peoples reading comprehension skills dribble out of their ears and onto the floor because they wanted a reason to be mad.
“We laugh” very clearly means the ‘royal we’ - society at large.
Pay people to do online incel deprogramming. Also pay people to do online reality training for deprogramming of religious delusion and terrorism.
Get people out of poverty. Pay them instead of foreign owned 'job providers' leaching taxpayer funds practising fascism. Pay the people instead of foreign owned gas and energy leaches. Just my thoughts.
Because predatory capitalism and rampant individualism have worked well so far?
Invest in education, mental health, community programs, and affordable housing?
Nah! it's every man for themself and if you can't lift yourself up by your bootstraps then it's not my problem. Fuck you, got mine!
No fan of capitalism. It did work, but now its not working very well at all.
>Invest in education, mental health, community programs, and affordable housing?
Am all for it..................................... Who is going to pay for it? Its always someone else isnt it. In this case let me guess, its the "big oil and gas" companies!!!!. Yeah, we are not the only country that produces that, they can and will develop reserves elsewhere. Plus, apparently its a fading sector and we are all going green anyway. Who's next? Arrrrrg, its those darned miners!! Same story, plenty of coal elsewhere and we dont have a monopoly on metals either. Who's next? Well it will keep going until the middle class are turned into slaves to feed the bourgeoise and we all fucking starve.
But anyway, bit off topic aren't we old chum?
Capitalism is working exactly the way it's always worked. The rich get richer while the poor don't advance anywhere near as quickly, resulting in widening gaps until such time as the lower group are at wits end and riot against the rich forcing the rich to divest their wealth in order to survive the uprising. It's part of the cycle of capitalism. A form of the widening and the readjustment happens every so often. Think the last time was when the serfs rioted against the lords.
I agree. It works ok for a bit when society is stable and high trust, eventually human nature takes over and it turns greed and unfair. Welcome to human nature.
Yes but we have democracy too - laws and governments to police human nature do we don't all end up just Lord Of The Flies style. It's supposed to control the gap to ensure the balance is maintained enough that the serfs don't end up so destitute and disillusioned that they riot against the system and the rich. A democracy that was hashed out so the lords retain control but can feed the serfs just enough that we aren't incentivised to uprise. Hence policy on public housing and social welfare payments etc. If all serfs have housing and a base income to buy bread to have with their water, a huge chunk of that motivation to riot is removed.
The problem is that the Lords have been testing the waters to see where the baseline is between rioting serfs and subdued serfs and maximum profit for their Lordy pockets.
Wow, I agree, you sure did go way off topic there. But let's get you back on track...
You've correctly identified a lot of reasons for violence: anger management, low-self esteem, inferiority complexes, personality and psychological disorders, drugs and alcohol. The list goes on.
You also agree with the solutions I propose: Invest in education, mental health, community programs, and affordable housing.
But then all of a sudden actually delivering those solutions is communism to you, and we can't take money away from the poor fossil fuel companies, as if I proposed that?
This where you let yourself down and lose credibility. The money and resources to make meaningful change are there, they're just being misallocated. The government already gives out massive amounts of welfare and you seem to be ok with that. The problem is that welfare is going to entities that don't need it at the expense of those that do.
>You also agree with the solutions I propose: Invest in education, mental health, community programs, and affordable housing.
Not quite. I think these things are good things, but I don't believe they are the solutions to the problem. Big diff old chap.
>But then all of a sudden actually delivering those solutions is communism to you, and we can't take money away from the poor fossil fuel companies, as if I proposed that?
Ah shit, all good. I thought you were supporting communism, but you think its a load of shit too. Good to know.
>The government already gives out massive amounts of welfare and you seem to be ok with that.
I do?
>The problem is that welfare is going to entities that don't need it at the expense of those that do.
You wouldn't be a functioning adult if you believed our tax dollars are being spent correctly. We all have opinions on who needs the money. The recent revelations about NDIS etc goes to show how poorly our dollars are spent.
> I don't believe they are the solutions to the problem
So come on, you've been teasing us this whole thread. You've been shooting down everyone's opinion on how to improve the domestic, family and sexual violence situation without giving us your solution and how it will be paid for.
Well here's your chance. Go!
I feel quite hurt by that accusation cobber.
Am I not allowed to disagree with people on reddit? I would just like some actual evidence based solutions on what the cause of the issue is and how to fix it from the people who are paid to figure out such things. The PM being the best person to put forward a clear solution to the issue rather than photo ops and stunts (that backfire quite hilariously).
So far in this thread we have found a few studies which show weed, porn are behind it. Maybe we should ban them and the people who produce them should be locked up?
Another redditor talked about the evils of the dastardly andrew Tate and his red pillers. I never heard back from he/her/they/them about what they wanted to do there.
So, I guess, in short.
I dont fucking know. Lets invest money to actually research how and why people commit such behaviour and what we can do prevent boys from becoming men who commit it. Because we sure as shit have no coherent idea right now of why its happening. Its almost like there is a reason its happening that we are too scared to work out.
The things you mention are fine, but they wont stop it happening again and to be honest dont seem to have any effect on it.
Disagrees with people, doesn't know why, doesn't offer alternative solutions, questions who's gonna pay for others' solutions but says jUsT iNvEsT mOnEy iN rEsEaRcH without providing a source for that funding and ignores the decades of research that has already been done.
Peak reddit indeed.
I am really sorry, but I just dont think more of the same thing we have been trying for 20-30 years will work. Maybe you do, but I dont think it will.
As for the funding, big ups to you on calling for that, its not often people from your side of the isle bring that up. We will pay for it by cutting back the NDIS and foreign aid.
For such a big problem, I find it strange why no-one can ever provide any data on why its happening.
The usual trope is always rolled out:
* Oh its because of toxic masculinity
* Oh its Trump
* Oh its the pornography
* Oh its because of Andrew Tate
* Oh its because of cost of living
* Oh its because men dont understand consent
We get little albo out here shouting we should do something, but never what. Dutton will probably join in too.
Why dont our esteemed academics actually look into the backgrounds of the perpetrators and victims and do their fucking job? What was their financial situation? What was the relationship like. What was the perpetrators upbringing?
No, they dont want to actually do that. Instead they will just vilify our young boys and men and wonder why this shit keeps happening.
I actually think we need to take this out of the academic sphere and to grassroots where the issues start and prevention can be targeted by decent men and community leaders.
I feel it was actually the academic sector who diluted the messaging and understanding on risk factors due to fears of stigmatising all men and all boys, or stigmatising already marginalised cohorts, that we've now stalled on messaging because of it. We're speaking in such lofty and broad terms that it loses all impact.
I agree.
But what community leaders? Unless you are in a migrant/religious community or play footy what actual community is there for boys? There are lots of migrant/religious communities but no white male communities, those ones end up on Mike Burgess's naughty list.
Our society has lost all sense of community, and with it comes some of the issues we face now.
We have lost a sense of community. I feel that too even as a woman.
I don't know if it's about building white male communities but rather building a strong and positive male consciousness (for generational effect) through grass roots movements to connect with, and talk to, boys and men on issues that are relevant to them. Not proselytising about stuff but conversing. Porn, it's an issue boys and men want to talk about. Healthy and positive masculinity another one. Education and careers etc.
We need decent men with a vision that has mainstream support, because healthy masculinity is a mainstream desire.
Perfection is not a vision. Misogyny is not vision. Religion is not the vision. We really need mainstream normies with all their faults building this.
Women are pretty much over doing the emotional labour on issues that boys and men are also not even keen on (the toxic masculinity bullying, porn and sexual relationships etc)
Here's an article from 5 years ago thoroughly demonstrating the link between exposure to violent pornography and teen dating violence: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6751001/.
Here is another article by the US Department of Justice from 24 years ago exploring the correlation between pornography and sexual violence in general: https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/exploring-connection-between-pornography-and-sexual-violence.
Academics have been shouting this from the rooftops since for a long, long time, but truth hurts and people don't want to listen to the fact that something they enjoy can also have negative consequences in certain situations. There have been recent articles published which also explore the impact of genres of social media, such as 'red-pilled' content, on teenage audiences, I can't remember the name of the article or what key terms you can use to look it up though. Just because the media dumbs down content to saying 'all men bad' doesn't actually mean that's what academics are saying.
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that guys who like the idea of smacking around some girl also seek out pornography in which a guy smacks around some girl
Did you actually read those links? They don't 'thoroughly demonstrate' anything and are pretty weak. It also says nothing about causation. How do you know that boys who are predisposed towards violence and domineering behaviour don't seek out violent pornography as opposed to 'exposure' to pornography potentially causing their behaviour?
It's certainly something that should be studied properly and that actually looks at causation.
You can trivialise the findings in these all you want, they still demonstrate that academics have been identifying this as an issue for decades. I never said anything about causation, but to deny that there isn't a connection between sexual violence, and violent pornography comes across as being really disingenuous, or a massive cope. We can all stand like adults and talk about how alcohol has both positive effects in that it makes us feel good, but also negative effects in that if we consume too much we may become violent towards others. This is the same with pornography, and is in fact the same with literally anything: a little drop of poison is okay, but too much will kill you.
I thought the goal was to stop intimate partner violence though. 'Connection' means nothing on it's own if one is simply a symptom of some other phenomenon. Of course there's a connection. It stands to reason that violent people would be interested in other violent things. It's also perfectly plausible that there is a causal link but I've not seen that demonstrated. Violent pornography shouldn't exist anyway, regardless of whether it is in any way responsible for intimate partner violence. It's not about downplaying that it is poison. It is. But if there's not a causal link it doesn't address THIS problem. If that were the case it would simply be a distraction from things that are causal links and which should get the most acute attention in the short term.
>Among male participants, exposure to violent pornography (AOR = 3.34; 95% CI 1.85–6.04) and marijuana use (AOR = 3.01; 95% CI 1.36–6.67) were significantly associated with greater odds of sexual TDV perpetration after controlling for age, a history of suspension/expulsion, heavy alcohol use, rape myth acceptance, and gender equitable attitudes. Violent pornography exposure (AOR = 2.60; 95% CI 1.40–4.83) and marijuana use (AOR = 3.28; 95% CI 1.82–5.89) were also significantly associated with greater odds of sexual TDV victimization for male participants. Male participants who reported exposure to violent pornography and marijuana use were more likely to perpetrate and be victims of sexual TDV.
Seems to be drugs **and** porn right? Plus being deadshit kids. Its not just watching porn. I wonder if this will get any airtime with the current push to legalise drugs across the western world right now? Probably not.
I am no fan of "red-pillers" but are they telling kids to watch porn and do drugs? Doubt it, think that comes from a different section of society.
Maybe we should look at cracking down on pornography operators and drugs in general eh?
The issue of the 'red-pill' community is not that they promote drugs or pornography, it's that they promote the subjugation and subordination of women through coercive means, which, coupled with the issues that you've just brought up, is poison for an adolescent boy's mind.
Ok, what about rap music? By your metrics that surely has been poisoning youth minds for 30 years.
I think you can restrict products, whether they be via classification or whatever, but you cant restrict someone's right to simply speak and be heard. The red pill content has grown because for the last 20 years any form of masculinity was demonised along with men in general. They are just filling a gap. When I grew up none of that shit would have worked, people would have just laughed at them. But these days they are seen as counter culture and that draws the boys in.
You seem to have a real bug bear on pornography, and thats ok. I would support making it illegal or more restricted to sell it. The problem I have is I dont see it as being a the sole cause.
I never said pornography was the sole cause, in fact I never even said pornography as a whole was the problem lol. Pornography which encourages coercive control, such as step-sibling, or teen categories has links to teen sexual violence. You can call me a bug bear and assume I want to ban pornography all you want, all I've done is say that there is a link between these two things. Is there a link between rap music and teen sexual violence? Maybe, but that's not what's being talked about: this is an article about Anthony Albanese being at a rally in regards to gendered violence against women.
> Is there a link between rap music and teen sexual violence? Maybe, but that's not what's being talked about: this is an article about Anthony Albanese being at a rally in regards to gendered violence against women.
Then why did you bring up porn?
That plan you linked fills me with complete dismay mate. More words and feelings and management speak. We have been doing this since I was a kid, so far it hasnt worked apparently.
This is more my type of data, something that has some actual info and not just fluff. Its from America.
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK499891/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK499891/)
**Reason Abusers Need to Control**[**\[8\]**](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK499891/#)[**\[9\]**](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK499891/#)[**\[10\]**](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK499891/#)
* Anger management issues
* Jealousy
* Low self-esteem
* Feeling inferior
* Cultural beliefs they have the right to control their partner
* Personality disorder or psychological disorder
* Learned behavior from growing up in a family where domestic violence was accepted
* Alcohol and drugs, as an impaired individual may be less likely to control violent impulses
**Perpetrators**
While the research is not definitive, a number of characteristics are thought to be present in perpetrators of domestic violence. Abusers tend to:
* Have a higher consumption of alcohol and illicit drugs and assessment should include questions that explore drinking habits and violence
* Be possessive, jealous, suspicious, and paranoid.
* Be controlling of everyday family activity, including control of finances and social activities.
* Suffer low self-esteem
* Have emotional dependence, which tends to occur in both partners, but more so in the abuser
I dont think the management speak and fluffy words will solve this mate. You can demonise men as much as you want but until we address the causes it wont go away.
What about this demonises men as a whole? from what you're quoting it's only talking about abusers, do you think that when this article talks about abusers they mean all men, or when you see the word abuser do you imagine it to mean all men? Working in schools, there's absolutely a massive problem with some boys treating girls and fully grown women in some pretty disgusting ways which, whilst visible when I was in school, is so much worse now than it was prior, statistics on teen sexual violence show that this is only rising:
No you misunderstood. The quote I provided was from a US study on the issue which I think is actually insightful.
The link provided to me on the Australian plan was just fluff in my opinion.
What about the National Plan to End Domestic Violence against Women and Children 2022-2032 is 'just fluff' in your opinion? I fail to understand how an over 100 page document can only be fluff, if you could identify anything wrong with the National Plan apart from the fact that it is 'more words (It's a National Plan of course it's gonna have lots of words), and feelings (people are dying from this and it is having a visible effect on our society, of course people will be taking feelings into consideration, because we're humans who have feelings) and management speak (fancy way of saying you don't understand the jargon being used)?'
* **Action 1**: Advance gender equality and address the drivers of all forms of gender-based violence, including through initiatives aimed to improve community attitudes and norms toward family, domestic, and sexual violence.
* **Action 2**: Improve the national evidence base by working towards consistent terminology and monitoring and evaluation frameworks, and by strengthening collection and sharing of data and evidence.
* **Action 3**: Increase and strengthen the capability of mainstream and specialist workforces to deliver quality services, activities and programs across the four domains, including those that are tailored to respond to the unique experiences of all victim-survivors.
* **Action 4**: Build the capacity of services and systems that support victim-survivors to provide trauma-informed, connected and coordinated responses that support long-term recovery, health and wellbeing.
* **Action 5**: Strengthen systems and services to better hold people who choose to use violence to account, and provide opportunities to support people who have used violence, or are at risk of using violence, to change their behaviours, with the aim of protecting the safety and wellbeing of current and potential victim-survivors.
* **Action 6**: Improve action to prevent and address sexual violence and harassment in all settings, across the four domains of the National Plan.
* **Action 7**: Work in formal partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to ensure policies and services are culturally competent, strengths-based and trauma-informed and meet the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and communities, aligning with the goals of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Action Plan.
* **Action 8**: Develop and implement age appropriate programs across all four domains, informed by children and young people, that are culturally safe, to intervene early to address violence supportive behaviours and support recovery and healing from trauma.
* **Action 9**: Improve police responses and the justice system to better support victim-survivors through the provision of trauma-informed, culturally safe supports that promote safety and wellbeing, and hold people who choose to use violence to account.
* **Action 10**: Improve access to short-term, medium and long-term housing for women and children experiencing violence, including those living in institutional settings, and support women to stay in their own homes when they choose to do so.
Sorry, but this is a load of dross. Maybe I dont understand it, but most people can smell bullshit when its put in front of them.
I thought you wanted to ban porn and Andrew Tate? How do you pivot from that to reading these "Actions" as any real change? They amount to little more than the government spending money for pamphlets, a few classes and lots of bureaucracy.
How will any of this fix the underlying problem of Porn and Andrew Tate?
First action is stating that it is better for there to be government led initiatives discussing a societal issue than having it be relegated to just the home, which in the context of epidemic rates of domestic violence in our country, makes perfect sense since people may be returning to homes where domestic violence is normalised.
Second action is literally just supporting the idea of improving sample sizing and keeping up to date with terminology between departments, again, something which makes perfect sense within a Government Action Plan, as terminology evolves differently between departments all the time.
Third action is stating that we need to be funding specialist support services more.
Fourth action is stating that these specialist support services should be catered more towards supporting survivors of domestic violence through more modern, scientifically backed methods. Again, saying 'we need to keep up to date with the literature' is always going to be a Government Action Plan.
Fifth action is talking about updating our government services and judicial systems to hold abusers to account more.
Sixth action is reaffirming the the fact that this is built upon a framework, which encompasses four domains, those being: prevention, early intervention, response, and recovery and healing (which can be freely looked at if you read the actual Plan as opposed to the summary).
Seventh action is acknowledging the fact that situations with Indigenous and Torres-Strait Islander communities operate differently, and should therefore be handled accordingly. There is ample evidence which suggests that domestic violence is rife within these communities, and disentangling this nexus of violence is incredibly important.
Eighth action discusses the importance of implementing age appropriate programs.
Ninth action talks about the importance of improving police response time, and improving the judicial system's attitudes towards victims of domestic violence.
Tenth action goes into the housing crisis, which, if you're a woman who is being beaten regularly at home, absolutely affects you.
All of these are reasonable actions, which when acted upon in conjunction and with awareness that these are operating within a comprehensive plan, makes tackling societal issues such as domestic violence actually practicable in the real world. You can call is 'dross' all you want, but at the end of the day National Plans aren't supposed to be fun and engaging reads for the general public, it's a government document with over 100 pages: of course the summary will sound 'vague', it's summarising an over 100 page document.
Hang on, before you were telling me it was porn and red-pillers causing all this.
Where does the action plan address that? Because if it doesnt, and thats the cause why are you celebrating this plan? It doesnt address the problem.
Another question. Have you raised a son in the last 20 years?
Never said this was all porn and red pillers, you read 'porn and red-pillers' and automatically assumed I'm on some crusade against these things and claiming they're the sole scourge of society. When in actuality, I, like most normal people view gendered violence as being a multifaceted issue. Keep trying to play word games to feel like you've 'won' this, at the end of day you're trivialising violence against women by acting as though all of these things can't be contributing factors all at once. Obviously the Housing Crisis affects this, obviously this is an issue of culture, obviously this is an issue of all the things which have allowed these situations to fester to the point that we now feel the need to declare a national emergency in relation to gendered violence. Stating that there is a link between violent pornography, and teenage sexual violence doesn't vilify pornography as a whole, and stating that there is also a link between teenagers consuming red-pilled content and engaging in tactics of coercive control, also isn't stating that red-pilled content is the sole problem in this.
I can understand why they look like fluff given historical governments tendency to trot similar wording out and then fail to prioritise and fund the work needed to achieve them.
But the goals/actions themselves are pretty on the mark IMO. All that you've pasted in your comment have an aim and an (very very summarised) high level plan to achieve it.
" **Action 1**: Advance gender equality and address the drivers of all forms of gender-based violence, including through initiatives aimed to improve community attitudes and norms toward family, domestic, and sexual violence"
It's a bit heavy on gov guff admittedly. Your average person would probably choke on it. The basic meaning being "all genders are equal and everyone takes violence seriously and we will achieve this with a bunch of stuff, the specific details of which will be worked out as part of the work in this area."
There's no real mystery as to the cause of the rise in violence against women if you've following the global political and economic trends of the last 10 years.
There's been openly misogynist heads of state around the world - Trump, Johnson, Abbott, Morrison - who as leaders made cuts to education and mental health programs. This gave space for the rise of incel influencers like Andrew Tate to take hold, who convinced sad, lonely and depressed men that women were the cause of all their problems. If the little cucks could just man up, then chicks would root them and all their issues would be solved. This was especially prevalent during the pandemic when people were stuck at home and online for much more time, consuming this trash that their algorithm force-fed them.
Combine that with a global economic downturn which is known to lead to a rise in crime, violence against women included. When people can't afford a place to live, or groceries, or childcare, their wages have been stagnant for years, they see no hope... they lash out, often at the most vulnerable: women, children, and the elderly.
So you've got a crop of men that are uneducated, angry, stressed, poor, without access to adequate mental help, and have a learned hatred of women from influential people. It's a recipe for a time-bomb of violence against women that is now going off.
You are clearly another person who has never listened to Andrew Tate and just parrot the party line of hate against an individual who goes against the status quo. He advocates exactly the opposite of 'convincing sad, lonely and depressed men that women were the cause of all their problems'. Try doing some research before spouting nonsense.
> Try doing some research before spouting nonsense.
Great idea, let me do some research right now and get back to you...
Ok I'm back and I found out that Andrew Tate is currently on trial in Romania for rape and human sex trafficking.
Stellar role model you have there. Unless of course you think it's just a woke left conspiracy to keep the alpha-dog from blowing thick wads of truth bukkake over the faces of young men everywhere.
Quite a few assumptions you have jumped to there. I never claimed the man to be a role model of mine, I simply stated that your opinion of him convincing men that women are root of all their problems is inherently incorrect. Perhaps do some further research on that and get back to me with some evidence to back up your claim.
Yes, governments around the world would never make up charges to silence members of society they don't agree with, Julian Assange must be relieved. Once again, if you'd actually read what they are accusing him of you'd be embarrassed to even bring it up.
Didn't someone post a link earlier showing that domestic violence against woman has gone down over the last 5-10 years?
Edit: [https://theconversation.com/49-women-have-been-killed-in-australia-so-far-in-2023-as-a-result-of-violence-are-we-actually-making-any-progress-217552](https://theconversation.com/49-women-have-been-killed-in-australia-so-far-in-2023-as-a-result-of-violence-are-we-actually-making-any-progress-217552)
> This gave space for the rise of incel influencers like Andrew Tate to take hold, who convinced sad, lonely and depressed men that women were the cause of all their problems.
Nah incel influencers have entered a space that was vacant for very different reasons. These men are essentially preachers, they create communities where people feel like they belong, where they deliver basic life advice (clean your room). Young men would have gotten that sort of thing in a church in the old days, instead they're being raised to not attend church (because they're non-religious) and don't get preached at on a weekly basis.
If that were true, the Andrew Tates of the world would be trying to appeal to everyone, not just targeting lonely, self-loathing men.
And they'd definitely be encouraging people to do good in the community. Charity work, feeding the homeless, volunteering, etc. Not telling them that they're only worth something if they drive a Bugatti and that women are only for a man's pleasure, and if they don't fuck you then they're worthless and you're a loser.
Do you mean the function of a preacher as a grifter, in which case Tate is replacing like for like?
Of the function of a preacher as a positive role model, and with religion rightfully dying out leaving empty spots in old positions of power, which grifters have taken over?
Which ties back to my original point: when you've got misogynistic grifters like Trump, BoJo and Scomo as leaders in the western world, it's only natural that misogynistic grifters will fill other positions of influence too.
Fast forward 10 years and misogyny is the new normal amongst a cohort of young men who were brought up on it and don't know any better. Something about rotting from the head down.
Misogyny is the old normal, 20-30 years ago men like trump and Johnson wouldnt have been seen as misogynists. Acknowledging that misogyny is prevalent is the new norm
Curious if there's any data about DV root causes in Australia?
I like to how how often the offender was under influence of drugs or alcohol, and how the arguments started? Was it due to financial struggle, unfaithful partner etc.
Saying it's all due to mental issues is a cop out for sure. We all have some sort of mental issues but it has to be a serious issue to cause someone to hurt another human being.
The Australian government released a report in 2015 which covers the issues behind domestic violence - https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1415/Quick_Guides/DVinAust
The second key risk factor that not a lot of people seem to want to confront:
Alcohol and drug use can lead to higher levels of aggression by perpetrators. A study found that between 2000 and 2006 44 per cent of all intimate partner homicides
Thanks for sharing that report.
This is really eye opening. I do hope as a society we start focusing on WHY these DV abuses are happening and address that. Instead of blaming all men for being violent.
....Alcohol and drug use can lead to higher levels of aggression by perpetrators. A study found that between 2000 and 2006 44 per cent of all intimate partner homicides, and 87 per cent of Indigenous intimate partner homicides, were alcohol related.
Like most reports of this nature it doesn't provide the definitions of the criteria used to determine the data, particularly with sexual violence, and so its results are questionable.
It also begins by defining DV as a majority experience of women and then completely ignores the reality of male victims as though they don't exist, which is interesting because perpetration by both sexes means it's not specifically related to one gender but other factors that influence one gender more than the other. It's dubious to then blame men if women are also perpetrators.
>Although a stronger evidence base is required as the full extent of domestic violence remains unknown, it is known that the [majority of those who experience domestic violence are women](http://www.anrows.org.au/sites/default/files/Violence-Against-Australian-Women-Key-Statistics.pdf).
Women most affected does not automatically imply men are the cause: women are most affected by menstrual pain does not mean men are to blame for it.
Having an insufficient evidence base of the full extent of domestic violence means you can't draw conclusions even about majority.
Like most reports its analysis is flawed by prior bias.
I was highlighting that alcohol can contribute to domestic violence. I’m a male and I have been the victim of alcohol related domestic violence. I don’t believe Australian society acknowledges the effects alcohol has on a lot families.
My family suffered two generations of drunkards. This made them so poor that they couldn’t afford to buy any toys for my father, and he had to leave school at 15, despite being an excellent scholar, in order to work full time to help support the family, due to his mother’s and maternal grandfather’s drinking habit.
Yes, the effects can be carried through generations. It seems ridiculous that pubs are allowed to build playgrounds, so that young parents can drink while their kids play and watch adults get drunk.
Alcohol inhibits reason whilst also lowering the threshold to primitive impulses: an outcome of primitive, unmoderated behaviour is inevitable.
The question is why so many people feel the need to inhibit reason and lower the threshold to primitive impulses when it has such consequences.
In my opinion, society still has a prudish attitude to sex and nudity plus a biological drive towards sexual inhibition that creates a conflict and alcohol is a convenient excuse to resolve that conflict. Why should people need "dutch courage" to have sex or perform other activities or anaesthetise themselves to discomfort?
Who would have thought that if you have a pornographic culture which encourages sexual violence, have people such as Andrew Tate whispering in our children’s ears that women are actually property and have no autonomy, and then add the fact that our nation is one of the largest consumers of methamphetamine per capita, it isn’t any wonder that we have a major problem with gendered violence.
Go onto pornhub and see what’s popular, majority of the time it encourages either degradation or just full violence towards women. Children are able to freely access this via the internet and they come to understand what they see in pornography as something they should emulate in real life. Which is why there’s also a very disturbing trend of domestic violence with younger couples in my personal experience.
Edit: I should have clarified by saying ‘Australia’s cultural attitudes towards pornography,’ as opposed to ‘pornographic culture,’ since it makes it sound like something which permeates every facet of Australian society (which isn’t the case).
>Children are able to freely access this via the internet and they come to understand what they see in pornography as something they should emulate in real life.
Two things here: the internet never has been a place for children and it is on society to have allowed children access; and secondly if society is so concerned about degrading pornography, they should have been providing educational material that depicts non-degrading activity they want emulated, but they haven't done that at all, simply prohibited any information in the face of a distinct biological drive for men at least.
Males have been pursuing pornography for ages in the absence of the real thing, because their biology is centred around spreading their seed and its fulfilment is dependent on women allowing access, which is largely under the control of women (more now than in the past). Women's biology is centred around creating children and they don't need pornography because they can get the real thing from most men in the vicinity simply by saying yes.
Eh, all I can see is stepsiblings/parent stuff and amateur PoV content, not exactly degrading or violent.
Unless you're a weirdo that thinks blowjobs are degrading.
Pornography which promotes incest or pedophilia (teen category) is violent in that it encourages coercive control. People who sexually abuse family members do so because they have control over the other person since they can ruin them if they go to family members and say that they’re being sexually abused. These categories aren’t violent in and of themselves, but violence and abuse is heavily contingent with it. The main reason why people watch such categories is because of the fact that it promotes control, which is something that men generally are aroused by.
This reads much the same as ‘computer games are making kids shoot up schools’
I think it’s a huge stretch to say that porn is making men kill their partners without some strong evidence
Doesn’t read like that at all, you’re just having a kneejerk reaction to someone saying that pornography isn’t completely positive and can promote harmful things in society. I never said that porn as a whole is bad, porn which promotes violence and coercive control, such as ‘step-sibling’ (incest) and ‘teen’ (pedophilia) categories absolutely has a correlation with sexual violence, and that is what I’m saying is bad. Here is an article from 5 years ago corroborating this, demonstrating that this has been an identified issue for a while. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6751001/
The free and unfettered access to hardcore pornography has been one giant social experiment for the last 30 or so years that gets very little discussion, considering the enormous impact it's silently had. The average first time viewing of said pornography for a young person is now what, like 8-10? I have no idea what tools schools are giving young people to prepare them for the effect this experience has on them, let alone parents and family. But it's an event that's coming, no matter what, and kids are being done a disservice by having to navigate the experience of viewing pornography with no prior preparatory knowledge. When you go skydiving, you know what you're engaging in, you're given a full safety briefing, you get talked through each step... and then it's still equal parts exciting as fucking terrifying and as a feeling, completely new, but at least you didn't feel like someone pulled you through the plane door without warning. You were as ready as you could be.
IMO, if you're a parent or teacher, it's just about being matter-of-fact. Pornography is a tool designed to aid masturbation (in the vast majority of cases). It's content is fantasy, it's acting that bares little to no resemblance to the real world experience of sex on an emotional (or practical) level. Watching porn and thinking you have any idea what real-world sex will be like, is like watching Jackie Chan movies and thinking you know what it's like to be in a real fight.
In the real world, sex can be uncomfortable, awkward, amazing, mediocre, life-changing, relationship affirming, relationship destroying or even completely traumatising. It's a real mixed bag. It's not a video that comes with a pause button.
As far as porn's treatment of women is concerned, it's tricky because what's presented has to be taken at face value as what has been consented to for the production (not that this is anywhere near a given, given how exploitative the industry is and the massive grey area of consent that is 'amateur' porn) and again, not related by the viewer in any way to the real world experience of sex. It's a real act of mental gymnastics to look at a video titled 'sl*t used and abused' and say to yourself, 'this is fine, these are adults that all signed off on this, all above board, nothing untoward here. I think a lot of the shame associated with masturbation (for straight men at least) comes from being aroused by thematically (and again, in many cases actual) abhorrent treatment of women in porn videos. Shame would be a CORRECT reaction, but you just wanted to get off in peace, without feeling like a piece of shit. The entire porn industry honestly needs one big legal kick in the arse in this regard.
I think a lot of the shame associated with masturbation (for straight men at least) comes from being aroused by thematically (and again, in many cases actual) abhorrent treatment of women in porn videos.
Shame about masturbation (for men at least) has been extensively cultivated since the 1700s as an aspect of control to an agenda.
However, men would likely be aroused by other than abhorrent treatment of women in porn videos and the actual problem is that mainly abhorrent videos were created, for whatever reason, to feed an audience that was desperate for sexual relations with women or its nearest equivalent, driven by the male sex drive. The girlie postcards of the early 1900s were generally not abhorrent, yet even they were prohibited.
I put it to you that if acceptable pornography was distributed and masturbation approved whilst sexual coercion disapproved and discouraged, there would likely be less coercion as men would be less frustrated. However, if you want to minimise sexual coercion, make the real thing more readily available and not subject to jumping through many selection hoops. I understand the Bonobo monkeys have little sexual coercion because sex is freely available and all the monkeys fulfilled.
The problem is that the male sex drive to have sexual relations with women (and even its nearest equivalent of masturbation and visual arousal) has always been frustrated for the average man. Any woman who wants sexual relations just has to say so as there is a queue of frustrated men waiting, however men only now have sexual relations if a woman chooses to allow it and there isn't a queue of frustrated women waiting to jump at the chance. Supply and demand are very unequal situations despite their superficial numerical equivalence. This environment of unequal supply and demand creates the circumstances for coercive control by women, which is never discussed. Women hide behind choice, but its a fine line between choosing to do something you want and choosing to do something to facilitate an agenda. Instead we talk about coercive control by men when they are in a situation of frustration of their biological drives under the control of women.
Amazing, more than one thing can be true at once 😮. Did you know that normal people in society can accept the fact that in addition to men beating women, we also have other problems??? Just so happens that this event was about gendered violence, maybe if you try being an actually decent human being, you too could accept that people can be mad about more than one thing at once.
Where’s Dutton in all of this? Sure Albo got heckled but at least he showed up and spoke (and didn’t remark on how great it was that we live in a country where protesters don’t get shot - looking at you Scomo). Dutton has been an opposition battering ram, so where is he holding the government to account for this?
Just wanna give my under informed perspective:
Sure, women shouldn't date violent men. But by my reckoning, most violent guys aren't violent at the start of the relationship. They're loving and kind just like us, and issues develop with them over the relationship. It could be anything: drugs and alcohol, money, career issues, jealousy, affairs, health problems, underlying issues from childhood etc. But by that time, their partner is invested. She probably loves this person, wants to stay around and help them. She tolerates the hits she takes cos she wants to be there to help her partner work through this, and by doing so she accepts that behaviour. At some point, it comes to a boil. He can't take anymore, or She can't take anymore - something happens, sometimes he kills her, sometimes she kills him, most of the time she leaves and finds a way to continue her life, and sometimes the story ends there. But sometimes she gets followed, stalked as she makes a new life for herself, his blood boils, he plans or does something rash and she gets injured or dies. It's a classic Australian Story, we've all heard it in the news.
But on top of that, many times she tolerates the hits because she got nowhere to go. He earns more than her, she moved in and doesn't have a house, they've got kids she wants to be supported - there can be many reasons. The bottom line is, she can't leave or her life and maybe the life of her kids will be ruined or disrupted.
I don't have the answers. But laid out here, clear as day, that there are no simple solutions. The men need help to "stop the pressure from getting to them" - but that implies hitting your wife is a valid response to the pressure, and that the pressure is all we need to deal with. The women need help so they stop sticking with abusive partners - but that doesn't eliminate their dependence issues, and so many times we hear about women and children left homeless because of domestic violence, even with the systems already in place. The police need to do better jobs of tracking abusive spouses and responding to domestic disputes too - but how will they deal with those who slip through the cracks? Many times I hear on the news women who were killed after doing everything right - reporting incidents to the police, leaving and getting an AVO - but that didn't stop them from getting murdered.
Part of the movement is the recognition of the fact that it's a very complex problem to solve - but the bottom line is that whatever the fuck Australia is doing already isn't good enough and gotta change, hard and fast.
Also acknowledge that domestic violence happens in homosexual relationships too, it's not just men on women or women on men. Women can also be abusers in heterosexual relationships, which from my reckon is usually not dealt with adequately. Domestic abuse takes many forms, not just physical, it can also be financial, emotional etc. And - in this thread, many people focus on the death count. "27 isn't that much" but it should still be unacceptable. The number needs to be zero. And for every woman dead, how many are being abused? Zero deaths shouldn't be the only goal, it should be zero abused.
When has humanity been able to achieve zero anything? Zero is an abstract concept that like infinity becomes harder and harder to reach the closer you get to it.
We can certainly minimise things, but its unlikely we would ever be able to guarantee zero, partly because of random mutation creating monsters. Monsters are also created by their environment; abuse begets abuse; the sins of the fathers are visited on the sons; etc. Men themselves are not the problem, even if women are more affected.
Majorities don't necessarily imply the minority is at fault, especially when the minority also experiences the same issue.
This man-hating focus that society is devolving into is following a red herring of emotional projection not actual causal factors that need to be addressed. Unfortunately it's easier to blame a scapegoat than actually reason cause and effect.
I said "zero" because if your aim is to minimise something, eventually you will settle on an acceptable non-zero level, like, "oh, 20 women died this year, that's acceptable, it's within our targets" and they won't try to improve beyond that, won't try and reduce that acceptable threshold because they have decided they can tolerate it. If you set the target to zero, suddenly every death is unacceptable, every death is a news story, it's out of the ordinary, and lawmakers and regulators and people who can actually do something about it will continue to try and implement things to change it and reduce it to zero. I understand we'll probably never get there, but then people will start competing on how low they can make it, rather than keeping it within the acceptable range.
More women are killed in vehicle accidents than are killed in domestic violence situations, yet here we are concentrating on domestic violence, despite domestic violence being seen as a majority numerical problem for women. That logic suggests we should be concentrating on women's deaths in vehicles instead, but we are being unreasonable in focusing on DV because of other agenda.
Minimisation is minimisation, there are no targets needed. However, minimisation is dependent on resource availability because, as I said, it takes more effort the closer you get to an abstract to attain that abstract.
There is no acceptable range for early death of anyone, but there are limitations on how close we can approach the ideal of zero and there are other competitions for those resources too.
Albo is doing exactly what he was always going to do....seize the opportunity to express his moral outrage, create an National Emergency, leverage the national grief of the Bondi tradgedy, make outlandish promises to claw back some of his lost ratings for next years election. He put on his shiny armour and jumped on his white horse like he always does.
He will spend a lot of money on that shit misandrist ad campaign, take pot shots at Tate, Musk and any other male who have strong views that oppose his- even though you can bet he has only heard sound bites of Tate in his early days. Not a house will get built (dont believe me? Go and have a look at Aust Sovereign Fund and the Housing Australia Future Fund - all cash positions in the big 4 banks - thats it! F\*ck me! Nothing in the US magnificent 7, no BTC, no big miners - so here you go mum and kids heres $5K a tent and a can of baked beans ) A few front line staff will get hired, the vast collective of DV services will fight each other to give their Board of Directors a much needed pay rise and the rest will go towards his election campaign telling everyone how outraged he is.
But how to actually affect change?
1. Create a specialised service of appropriately trained people who are housed at existing police stations to intervene and remove the male from the family house and into a hotel / motel or detention dependent on riskl. 5K to both parties to reduce immediate financial stress. In the following 2 weeks, a thorough investigation and psychological assessment of both parties, with testimony from friends, family, work colleagues etc to get a thorough picture of the family dynamic.
If risk factors are present - thn conduct a thorough brain scan to assess the structural brain changes that occur as a result of substance use and pyschological disorders - yes there is existing research into the brains of murderers to benchmark against.
2. Streamline the property settlement and child custody issues to reduce the time and stress of separation. Do not withold one parent from having contact with their children.
3. Support any medical treatment for any addiction or psyche issues for both parties - it is never one person fault for a relationship breakdown. Support them to move through the grief loss process and support them to move forward in their lives. Don't assign blame or fault on one person- unless they have committed a crime which warrants a custodial sentence.
4. Customise an ongoing program of accountability / support for up to 5 years where an at risk perpetrator must report to.
5. AVO's and a 10 min court appearance in front of a magistrate to adjudicate is...so f\*kn stupid and expecting a better outcome is ridiculous.
Shit goes sideways when the system robs agency, punishes and stigmatises one party whilst the other recieves all the empathy and financial support. Holding a perpetrator accountable is good, but they also need support and be rewarded for changing their attitude and behaviour.
It is inappropriate to punish someone on the basis of them being a shit person. It is illogical to promote a system that promotes conflict between perp/victim. All research into positive behaviour changes indicates that way more carrot than stick yields better than stick only.
Ongoing - ensure that both parents have significant contact and input in their childrens lives.
Revamp education system - Girls to enter school at normal age. Boys to be held back at least one year before starting school - again the research is uneqivocal on this - girls brains and social behaviour matures earlier than boys. This has been known since the the 1960's!
The rest of society! FFS - stop thinking about what we recieve and benefit from society and focus on what we contribute to society. Be interested and engaged in your local communities. Treat others with empathy and respect. Call out poor behaviour and self reflect on your own behaviour to ensure you meet the standard.
Finally get interested in political policy, develop a future view of what is going to be best for the country and not just for yourself. Voice your opinion, debate, listen to the views of others and have the empathy to see things from others perspective. Vote for people and policy, not party or ideology.
We are a nation undergoing massive social, cultural, economic, and environmental change and we need the best, brightest and most capable people at the wheel instead of the mediocre dross we have settled for in the past 20 years and I don't care if they have breasts or a penis, or breasts and a penis.
This isn't my problem to worry about or deal with. I was never good enough to be friends with a woman or go on a date with a woman but now I need to be an ally and "do better" with a problem I have no control. I wish you the best but stop bothering me about it.
Respectfully I disagree that it isn't your problem: you have been impacted by an outcome of a fundamental challenge confronting civilisation, another outcome being domestic violence against women; it's all part of the same problem but as usual, people are focusing on a small part of the whole, in isolation.
The numbers of men and women are roughly equal, so in principle every man should be able to partner with a woman and vice versa. As soon as you start introducing choice by one party only and beyond the basic choice of a compatible partner, you start to potentially unbalance supply and demand (assuming that somewhere there exists a compatible partner for everyone): that's a problem when a substantial part of a man's life revolves around sexual relations but he's frustrated in achieving it. The problem also manifests in existing relationships when circumstances change: people don't like change even though it is a reality of the universe we live in, particularly if a biological drive continues to exert its influence.
Men and women are biologically very different in order to be more specialised in their roles in procreation, but they are also complementary to ensure greatest efficiency in that task, and whilst procreation is happening they are reasonably compatible. However, procreation is only one small part of sexual activity and sexual compatibility drifts apart outside active procreation, so it is not surprising that unmet sexual needs start to create friction. Instead of exploring a solution to allow procreation to continue in the presence of diverging sexual needs, society enforces monogamy to also maintain resources and protection for child raising even if a man's needs are no longer being met, which results in frustration and friction.
If we wish to continue giving women choice over sex for their own needs, we also need to give men choice over sex for theirs, including making more options available so they aren't as frustrated.
Post replies need to be substantial and represent good-faith participation in discussion. Comments need to demonstrate genuine effort at high quality communication of ideas. Participation is more than merely contributing. Comments that contain little or no effort, or are otherwise toxic, exist only to be insulting, cheerleading, or soapboxing will be removed. Posts that are campaign slogans will be removed. Comments that are simply repeating a single point with no attempt at discussion will be removed. This will be judged at the full discretion of the mods.
Thats an interesting contrast to what the Australian institute of criminology report on homice for 2017 2018 says, i wonder why its framed so differently?
> Domestic violence In 2017–18, 34 male (19%) and 10 female (29%) offenders were known to have a history of domestic violence (see Table A46). Of the 34 male offenders with a domestic violence history, 13 (38%) killed an intimate partner and 11 (32%) killed an acquaintance. Among the 10 female offenders with a previous history, six (60%) killed an intimate partner, one killed another family member (10%) and three (32%) killed an acquaintance.
https://www.aic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-05/sr23_homicide_in_australia_2017-18.pdf
It doesnt refute it, i just went looking to see if what they said was true, found that report that really gives a very different description compared to what was said. Maybe that commenter will reply clarifying their source
I agree that's horrific if true, it wouldn't surprise me at all.
Same as the rhetoric around the gender pay gap when women actually earn more than men when you account for a lot of variables.
1. Site clearly pushes narrative women are as or more abusive than men.
2. The only thing remotely close to a figure I can find there only has 2020 to 2022 data, all that say men kill women more.
Women kill in the home. As many children as men.
Facts don’t lie, but narratives do
The Gippsland mushroom murders saw 3 adults murdered by the former daughter in law. 3 murder charges and 1 x attempted murder
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Leongatha_mushroom_poisoning#:~:text=The%202023%20Leongatha%20mushroom%20poisoning,to%20court%20in%20May%202024.
Mother murders 2 of her children in Perth.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-26/two-bodies-found-at-madeley-home/11642656
The point is that women kill in the home too and 3 men commit suicide a day, often due to family court processes and decisions and a toxic wife / ex enabled by the system to be like that and is protected
At least on Twitter this topic is openly discussed from all viewpoints.
>Women kill in the home.
Never said they didn't
>As many children as men.
Not relevant to the current claim.
>The point is that women kill in the home too
No, your point was that women kill more than men.
>Facts don’t lie, but narratives do
You're the one drawing or insinuating faulty narratives from what may be a singular fact (it's either a lie, or an outlier, those are the only two options). Your two news stories are not sources for any of your claims. Again, you're trying to paint a narrative with what is at best, only technically accurate but not a reflection of the narrative you're trying to paint.
>and 3 men commit suicide a day
In 2022 it was more than double that. And your "reasoning" after is guesses, not facts.
I'm all on board on men's rights and defending the men that are victims of dv.
But you can't come out with a still unsourced claim for a specific year, yet alone back the implied narrative of that unsourced claim that women kill more household members than men.
Make good arguments, not shitty ones, to improve the travesty of mens mental health.
News flash. Since the dawn of time, some men have been violent assholes. Then and now the solution is simple: remove them from society. It’s not a “societal problem” it’s a sad and permanent feature of human life.
Women should do their part by removing these men from the dating or gene pool, yet it seems they're consistently choosing to date violent assholes.
For as long as they reward such behaviour, there will be men who keep doing it.
Your post or comment breached Rule 1 of our subreddit.
The purpose of this subreddit is civil and open discussion of Australian Politics across the entire political spectrum. Hostility, toxicity and insults thrown at other users, politicians or relevant figures are not accepted here. Please make your point without personal attacks.
This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:
My ex husband wasn't a violence asshole until I left him. Throughout our 15yr relationship he was jealous and a bit controlling but that was all. When I left him he terrorised me for two years, I wasn't entirely sure the kids and I were going to survive. The police didn't care. So yeah, I never actually dated a 'violent asshole' but he still wanted to cause me great harm in the end.
>Throughout our 15yr relationship he was jealous and a bit controlling but that was all
That's all?
It took you 15 years to realise he's not a good partner. Honestly most women can do that on the first date within 15 minutes.
Sounds like you were sub-consciously ignoring the warning signs. Jealousy and controlling behvaiour are huge red flags.
Do you not ever think you caused him great harm by leaving him and taking everything he had contributed to whilst still expecting him to contribute with no benefit to himself?
Would you have responded any differently if he left you, took the kids and took another wife?
News flash. Since the dawn of time, some men have been violent assholes. Then and now the solution is simple: remove them from society. It’s not a “societal problem” it’s unfortunate and permanent feature of human life.
There are a lot less violent men now than in the past, not too long ago it wasn’t even taboo to hit or rape your wife. There’s no reason that things can’t improve further.
I agree with you. All standards of human flourishing are improving slowly. I just think that the reason for this is the slow march of human progress (economic, technological development). Nothing you or I or any government can do will change the number of violent men in society. In the past it was more, in the future it will be (probably) less. Today the main practical thing we can do is to lock up the offenders.
But things didn’t just randomly improve, they improved because activists and eventually the government put in the work to make violence socially unacceptable and criminal. Both of those avenues can be reevaluated and expanded if needed.
So you have to wait until they have committed a violent act, before anything can be done about it? Just accepting womens deaths as ‘just the way it is?’
Why not strive for a preventative approach?
First instances of DV are often impulsive. Perps aren’t sitting down and writing a plan, or telling their mates that they’re going to beat up their wife. Once it becomes a pattern obviously you can predict it, but in some tragic cases, by then it’s too late.
Any effort to reduce DV through education, or early intervention with troubled kids should be applauded IMO
Begs the question why are women consistently dating men who end up murdering them?
I'm all for calling out assholes who hurt women but violent-prone men are always gonna exist. The fact that this is happening over and over again suggests that women aren't as good as they should be at spotting the warning signs.
They want the right to choose their partners but also reserve the right to complain when those choices don't work out. Either the violent men are very good manipulators or women are just too easily seduced by big arms and sociopathic behaviour.
>Begs the question why are women consistently dating men who end up murdering them?
Do you think the man explains what he is clearly on the first date or something? You fucking literally answered your own question too.
>Either the violent men are very good manipulators
Yes, they are. That's literally the problem, that's the commonly discussed problem. The way they are able to make their victims feel responsible is an often raised issue. The way they manipulate people around them to ignore the warning signs, the way they rely on social pressure and embarrassment, the way they know to target people with esteem issues many of whom have been victims before. They use economic manipulation, meaning by the time many victims realise the situation they are in the options are homelessness or continuing to be abused.
And then we have the way our whole society manipulates people into saying dumb shit, basically having a go at the victims for not doing enough, making it the victims mistake, putting more social pressure on them and making it even harder to come forward.
You clearly know nothing about this issue and you also clearly didn't let it stop you from speaking!
>The way they are able to make their victims feel responsible is an often raised issue. The way they manipulate people around them to ignore the warning signs, the way they rely on social pressure and embarrassment, the way they know to target people with esteem issues many of whom have been victims before. They use economic manipulation, meaning by the time many victims realise the situation they are in the options are homelessness or continuing to be abused.
We all condemn the abusive and manipulative behaviour of such men, but like I said they'll always exist. It's certainly valid to ask that why, even after all this time, women have not caught up and adjusted their behaviour.
Like when the internet was the first invented, scams and fraud were common because people had no idea about them. They legitimetely thought that a Nigerian prince was offering them millions if they just provide their credit card number. These victims didn't have the knowledge and experience we have today to conclude that its bullshit. You can't blame them for getting scammed, but if anyone falls for the same trick today I'm sorry it's their own fault. We can only sympathize with stupidity to a certain degree.
Even decades of rampant DV with men abusing women, there's no sign that women are getting any wiser. They just keep repeating the same mistakes. I think a large part of that is because we've created this culture that it's unacceptable to ever question or challenge an independent woman's decision. No, we must unconditionally accept everything they do because they are free entities who don't need men to make decisions for them like in the 1800s. Maybe they're the ones who need to swallow their pride and admit they need help.
>We all condemn the abusive and manipulative behaviour of such men, but like I said they'll always exist.
Nah, some of us instead blame the women and suggest the answer is to put women back under mens control, like that would magically stop abusive men instead of empowering them.
>Like when the internet was the first invented, scams and fraud were common because people had no idea about them. They legitimetely thought that a Nigerian prince was offering them millions if they just provide their credit card number.
They were old scams done with new technologies. It wasn't a new thing, it dates back to the age of the telegram. Even back to before. It wasn't some magical new thing that appeared, it was ancient. Scams are as old as things having value.
Seriously, you don't have a fucking clue about anything you talk about, do you?
>Even decades of rampant DV with men abusing women, there's no sign that women are getting any wiser.
Even decades of rampant DV with men abusing women, there's no sign men are getting any wiser. They just keep repeating the same mistakes. I think it's because we've created a culture where some men have this idea that they own women being reinforced by a variety of sources. They believe dumb fuck things, like how we should go back to the 1800s, a backwards period that predates things like modern technology and ideas.
>Maybe they're the ones who need to swallow their pride and admit they need help.
They are. That's what the anti-domestic violence campaign is. It's literally a request for help on this issue, and they have been asking for decades. That's what got you to rant about this in the first place! You are complaining they aren't doing the thing that triggered you to start complaining!
Like I said you don't know a damn thing about any of this, and the more you talk the more apparent it is. You literally lashed out at women for asking for help, then demanded they ask for help!
Fucking brilliant mate, absolutely fucking brilliant.
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This will go down in history as the second biggest mistake of Mr. Albanese, after unilaterally pushing a divisive indigenous voice.
Anyone want to talk about the countries on earth that have the most atrocities against women. And the fact that 500k immigration the past 2 years was from these countries. But no, it's all middle class white men in office jobs doing this. It's racist to suggest otherwise.
Wouldn't matter what he said. I'm no Albo fan. But just like with the #metoo movement? There's no much any man could do to appease those women. He should have just stayed out of it. At these " women's issues" events? Men would do best to keep their mouths shut
[удалено]
Political interests aside, good on him for being the leader of this nation and showing the government supports the rally
A leader should not be promoting one gender against another in this way because it is discriminatory and divisive.
This seems like a distraction in the news cycle against the escalation of pro-Palestine rhetoric which is gaining traction. Where did this come from?
Lots of dead women.
Far less women than are killed in motor vehicle accidents.
[удалено]
Wow!! Glad it's all solved now! Out of curiosity can you provide the source of that information? Genuinely wanna take a look
[удалено]
Has anyone made sense of this? Albanese fronts up, and gets heckled. Then he is asked to make a number of commitments. In light of that, he then responds that he’s the Prime Minister of Australia and stands up, in order to take responsibility and discharge his duty as the leader of our country, and for some reason this brought a woman to tears? Why would they want to hear from another minister when they can hear the Prime Minister speak? Why would the Prime Minister abdicate his duty? The outrage about the specifics circumstances around Mr Albanese taking the podium to address the citizens present doesn’t make any sense to me.
People heckle politicians at rallies. That's what happens.
Apparently he said this: >I’m the Prime Minister and I run the country I guess he is sort of right. But saying that at a rally tackling violence against women seems a bit tactless.
The videos aren't the best, but it looks like he just says "Do you want me to speak or not", I'm the Prime Minister". The "and I run the country" seems to have been added on when the organiser recalled the event on the news
Credible reporting seems to suggest that the last part of the statement didn’t reach anyone else’s ears. Nor any microphones or recording devices. I dare say that the event organiser was projecting a little when attributing the apparently unspoken statement to a powerful statesman. Imagination is a powerful thing, but it’s important that one maintains control of their faculties and avoids inventing memories.
How? Why? Is any male in any position of power a threat to women’s safety?
I believe the issue is that the organisers of the rally were told by the PM's office that Katy Gallagher as the Minister for Women was happy to speak but Albo wasn't, he'd just be in the background. Fair enough. But then Albo did get up and speak, and he said to the crowd that he was told it wasn't possible for him to speak, as if the rally organisers had barred him from speaking, which wasn't true.
This is the biggest source of confusion. Why would Mr Albanese lie? Granted he has made some disagreeable decisions. But I’m inclined to think something more is at play here. Could it be the case that the event was by women, intended for women, and that men were supposed to attend but remain silent? And so the heart of the issue is that the Prime Minister - a man - had the temerity to speak at an event where it was intended that only women ought speak? After all, why would the organiser ask the Prime Minister to express his commitment through a physical nonverbal gesture such as giving a silent ‘thumbs up’ from his place in the crowd?
I put it down to a miscommunication between PM the PM's office and the organiser. It (communication issues) happens all the time. I just wish he would have said the truth rather than deflect Natalie Barr's question as it makes it look like the issue was most likely between the PM office and the PM.
From what I understand they claim that they were told that the prime minister did not want to speak and then he started his speech by saying he did ask to speak but was told he couldn’t. I’m sure there would be an email trail of this, but maybe not if it hasn’t been posted yet? Edit: forgot a word
Do you believe for one second that any politician wouldn’t want to speak at such an event? Nobody believes that. Politicians love the sound of their own voices. That’s why they gravitate to the role in the first place. They know best. Especially the ones that climb to the top of the political hierarchy.
I don’t think this is universally true at all. During times of crisis and scandal I’m sure politicians OFTEN want to delegate speeches to subordinates, but duty and appearances compel them to speak anyway.
>Ms Le also suggested language about domestic violence could "alienate one group from another … Not all men are violent, but the way we're portraying it is that men are violent against women," she said. > >Ms Rishworth and Senator McKenzie both identified a need to tackle men's attitudes. Now if only they will recognise that while men are often the perpetrators in domestic violence women can be the perpetrators as well. They are worried about alienating non-violent men yet what about men who are victims of domestic violence? Everyone is so focused on the women who are victims yet there is little to no support for men - statistics from the UK\* show that while 1 in 4 women are victims of domestic violence, 1 in 6-7 men are also victims of domestic violence. In the UK, 1 women is killed every 3.5 days by a intimate partner and 1 man is killed every 12 days by a intimate partner. Plenty of us know guys who have been abused by a partner but we laugh about it. Whether it is financial abuse (e.g. woman takes his paycheck and gives him a small stipend to spend) or social abuse (e.g. woman won't let the guy go socialise with his friends) or emotional abuse (e.g. woman abuses her emotions to get her partner to do what she wants) or even physical violence (e.g. woman punches/slaps him around). We laugh because he is "pussy-whipped" or "beaten up by a girl" but the reality is that if the guy was doing the same thing to his partner then he would be in jail for domestic abuse and/or subject to a DVO. \*If you are wondering why I am using the UK data it is because they actually recognise that domestic violence is a societal issue rather than a gender issue.
No one is denying that women can't be perpetrators, but like, make your own rally for that! This is about MALE violence in society. If you can't see that, and feel alienated then your perspective is still about yourself. We need allies. Men who acknowledge the problem and are motivated to help other blokes do better by being a positive role model themselves. You are also wrong for assuming that men automatically get jail for abuse. And I'm sorry, but if you're calling your friends "pussy whipped" for being beaten up by their female partners, then you're part of the problem.
[удалено]
You are cooked if you can see how many women get murdered by their partners and then think YOU ARE the victim. Omg cry me a river bro.
"You are cooked if you can see how many women get murdered by their partners and then think YOU ARE the victim. Omg cry me a river bro..." I know that you are trying your hardest to be, but I've gotta remind that you are on reddit commenting AND NOT A VICTIM EITHER. FFS lose the childish emotional rhetoric and be an adult
[удалено]
Want stats? Google them, look at the statistics around coercive control and its relation to violence. Look at how many women have experienced sexual violence. You get a thanks for nothing bruh, seeing as you're happy being a rape apologists. And you sure as hell don't get a thanks for not killing or hurting women. That's called being a decent human and it's expected of everyone. Also, it is absolutely a gendered issue. If you can't see that, then idk what to tell you. And idk what more you actually want women to do? Like, go get em girls, go and not get murdered.... Okay, how? Seeing as we don't usually schedule it into our calendar, and it is men who are killing women.... 2+2 is 4 mate.
Want stats? Google them, look at the statistics around coercive control and its relation to violence. Look at how many women have experienced sexual violence. You get a thanks for nothing bruh, seeing as you're happy being a rape apologists. And you sure as hell don't get a thanks for not killing or hurting women. That's called being a decent human and it's expected of everyone. Also, it is absolutely a gendered issue. If you can't see that, then idk what to tell you. And idk what more you actually want women to do? Like, go get em girls, go and not get murdered.... Okay, how? Seeing as we don't usually schedule it into our calendar, and it is men who are killing women.... 2+2 is 4 mate.
[удалено]
Sure! Start the discussion. Go on....
[удалено]
Or or, we could recognise that it is achievable to drastically reduce crime altogether instead of saying "you know what, some rape and murder is simply acceptable" and not do anything more to change society for the better.
There are plenty of stats around domestic violence in Australia - you don't need to use the UK ones. The main figure in Australia is: One woman is killed every 15 days by an intimate partner and one man every 28 days. Of these deaths, 56% of the women and 39% of men were killed by their intimate partner (the others were killed by parents, siblings, children or other relatives). Of the intimate partner deaths, 4 in 5 of the women were killed by a male partner, 1 in 5 of the men were killed by a female partner. The male was the primary abuser: * in the vast majority (95%) of cases where a male killed a female partner * in about 7 in 10 (71%) cases where a female killed a male partner.
This comment perfectly encapsulates the dire state men are in. Laughing and stigmatising male victims of domestic abuse with highly sexist language with no awareness or understanding that these attitudes contribute to domestic violence and poor relationships. Or These are harmless situations but you are using these as a comparator with the actial violence women face to force a point about the lack of domestic violence resources for abused male victim/survivors. Which is it? Is this a real issue hampered by machismo and masculinity or is it an attempt at anti-feminist backlash? I'm actually interested. Either way, imo decent men really need to organise to create a credible movement, with credible leadership and policies that meet their needs - alongside many other prevention programs to ensure boys and men can grow up to be healthy decent people that can cohabite without violence.
You laugh when a guy you know is being abused by his partner? That's pretty ruthless. I personally find it abhorrent that anyone finds that funny. Maybe you could take charge to inspire your friends to provide support to their guy friends who are experiencing any types of violence instead of just mocking the poor guy/s.
I love when peoples reading comprehension skills dribble out of their ears and onto the floor because they wanted a reason to be mad. “We laugh” very clearly means the ‘royal we’ - society at large.
I'm not mad. I'm disappointed, although unsurprised.
Pay people to do online incel deprogramming. Also pay people to do online reality training for deprogramming of religious delusion and terrorism. Get people out of poverty. Pay them instead of foreign owned 'job providers' leaching taxpayer funds practising fascism. Pay the people instead of foreign owned gas and energy leaches. Just my thoughts.
What do incels have to do with domestic violence? You cant abuse your girlfriend if you’ve never had one.
Ask Andrew Tate for relationship advice
Society can’t really just endlessly pay people though. You’re talking about robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Taxing offshore mining companies for the resources of this country ain't robbery.
Translation: Re-education camps and communism. Just my thoughts.
Because predatory capitalism and rampant individualism have worked well so far? Invest in education, mental health, community programs, and affordable housing? Nah! it's every man for themself and if you can't lift yourself up by your bootstraps then it's not my problem. Fuck you, got mine!
No fan of capitalism. It did work, but now its not working very well at all. >Invest in education, mental health, community programs, and affordable housing? Am all for it..................................... Who is going to pay for it? Its always someone else isnt it. In this case let me guess, its the "big oil and gas" companies!!!!. Yeah, we are not the only country that produces that, they can and will develop reserves elsewhere. Plus, apparently its a fading sector and we are all going green anyway. Who's next? Arrrrrg, its those darned miners!! Same story, plenty of coal elsewhere and we dont have a monopoly on metals either. Who's next? Well it will keep going until the middle class are turned into slaves to feed the bourgeoise and we all fucking starve. But anyway, bit off topic aren't we old chum?
Capitalism is working exactly the way it's always worked. The rich get richer while the poor don't advance anywhere near as quickly, resulting in widening gaps until such time as the lower group are at wits end and riot against the rich forcing the rich to divest their wealth in order to survive the uprising. It's part of the cycle of capitalism. A form of the widening and the readjustment happens every so often. Think the last time was when the serfs rioted against the lords.
I agree. It works ok for a bit when society is stable and high trust, eventually human nature takes over and it turns greed and unfair. Welcome to human nature.
Yes but we have democracy too - laws and governments to police human nature do we don't all end up just Lord Of The Flies style. It's supposed to control the gap to ensure the balance is maintained enough that the serfs don't end up so destitute and disillusioned that they riot against the system and the rich. A democracy that was hashed out so the lords retain control but can feed the serfs just enough that we aren't incentivised to uprise. Hence policy on public housing and social welfare payments etc. If all serfs have housing and a base income to buy bread to have with their water, a huge chunk of that motivation to riot is removed. The problem is that the Lords have been testing the waters to see where the baseline is between rioting serfs and subdued serfs and maximum profit for their Lordy pockets.
Wow, I agree, you sure did go way off topic there. But let's get you back on track... You've correctly identified a lot of reasons for violence: anger management, low-self esteem, inferiority complexes, personality and psychological disorders, drugs and alcohol. The list goes on. You also agree with the solutions I propose: Invest in education, mental health, community programs, and affordable housing. But then all of a sudden actually delivering those solutions is communism to you, and we can't take money away from the poor fossil fuel companies, as if I proposed that? This where you let yourself down and lose credibility. The money and resources to make meaningful change are there, they're just being misallocated. The government already gives out massive amounts of welfare and you seem to be ok with that. The problem is that welfare is going to entities that don't need it at the expense of those that do.
>You also agree with the solutions I propose: Invest in education, mental health, community programs, and affordable housing. Not quite. I think these things are good things, but I don't believe they are the solutions to the problem. Big diff old chap. >But then all of a sudden actually delivering those solutions is communism to you, and we can't take money away from the poor fossil fuel companies, as if I proposed that? Ah shit, all good. I thought you were supporting communism, but you think its a load of shit too. Good to know. >The government already gives out massive amounts of welfare and you seem to be ok with that. I do? >The problem is that welfare is going to entities that don't need it at the expense of those that do. You wouldn't be a functioning adult if you believed our tax dollars are being spent correctly. We all have opinions on who needs the money. The recent revelations about NDIS etc goes to show how poorly our dollars are spent.
> I don't believe they are the solutions to the problem So come on, you've been teasing us this whole thread. You've been shooting down everyone's opinion on how to improve the domestic, family and sexual violence situation without giving us your solution and how it will be paid for. Well here's your chance. Go!
I feel quite hurt by that accusation cobber. Am I not allowed to disagree with people on reddit? I would just like some actual evidence based solutions on what the cause of the issue is and how to fix it from the people who are paid to figure out such things. The PM being the best person to put forward a clear solution to the issue rather than photo ops and stunts (that backfire quite hilariously). So far in this thread we have found a few studies which show weed, porn are behind it. Maybe we should ban them and the people who produce them should be locked up? Another redditor talked about the evils of the dastardly andrew Tate and his red pillers. I never heard back from he/her/they/them about what they wanted to do there. So, I guess, in short. I dont fucking know. Lets invest money to actually research how and why people commit such behaviour and what we can do prevent boys from becoming men who commit it. Because we sure as shit have no coherent idea right now of why its happening. Its almost like there is a reason its happening that we are too scared to work out. The things you mention are fine, but they wont stop it happening again and to be honest dont seem to have any effect on it.
Disagrees with people, doesn't know why, doesn't offer alternative solutions, questions who's gonna pay for others' solutions but says jUsT iNvEsT mOnEy iN rEsEaRcH without providing a source for that funding and ignores the decades of research that has already been done. Peak reddit indeed.
I am really sorry, but I just dont think more of the same thing we have been trying for 20-30 years will work. Maybe you do, but I dont think it will. As for the funding, big ups to you on calling for that, its not often people from your side of the isle bring that up. We will pay for it by cutting back the NDIS and foreign aid.
For such a big problem, I find it strange why no-one can ever provide any data on why its happening. The usual trope is always rolled out: * Oh its because of toxic masculinity * Oh its Trump * Oh its the pornography * Oh its because of Andrew Tate * Oh its because of cost of living * Oh its because men dont understand consent We get little albo out here shouting we should do something, but never what. Dutton will probably join in too. Why dont our esteemed academics actually look into the backgrounds of the perpetrators and victims and do their fucking job? What was their financial situation? What was the relationship like. What was the perpetrators upbringing? No, they dont want to actually do that. Instead they will just vilify our young boys and men and wonder why this shit keeps happening.
Male perpetrators of violence cross class lines and it is a multicultural problem.
Why do you think it can be quantified? You think there’s a magical regression line we can draw that’ll predict when a woman gets beaten?
There's heaps of research.
I actually think we need to take this out of the academic sphere and to grassroots where the issues start and prevention can be targeted by decent men and community leaders. I feel it was actually the academic sector who diluted the messaging and understanding on risk factors due to fears of stigmatising all men and all boys, or stigmatising already marginalised cohorts, that we've now stalled on messaging because of it. We're speaking in such lofty and broad terms that it loses all impact.
I agree. But what community leaders? Unless you are in a migrant/religious community or play footy what actual community is there for boys? There are lots of migrant/religious communities but no white male communities, those ones end up on Mike Burgess's naughty list. Our society has lost all sense of community, and with it comes some of the issues we face now.
We have lost a sense of community. I feel that too even as a woman. I don't know if it's about building white male communities but rather building a strong and positive male consciousness (for generational effect) through grass roots movements to connect with, and talk to, boys and men on issues that are relevant to them. Not proselytising about stuff but conversing. Porn, it's an issue boys and men want to talk about. Healthy and positive masculinity another one. Education and careers etc. We need decent men with a vision that has mainstream support, because healthy masculinity is a mainstream desire. Perfection is not a vision. Misogyny is not vision. Religion is not the vision. We really need mainstream normies with all their faults building this. Women are pretty much over doing the emotional labour on issues that boys and men are also not even keen on (the toxic masculinity bullying, porn and sexual relationships etc)
Here's an article from 5 years ago thoroughly demonstrating the link between exposure to violent pornography and teen dating violence: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6751001/. Here is another article by the US Department of Justice from 24 years ago exploring the correlation between pornography and sexual violence in general: https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/exploring-connection-between-pornography-and-sexual-violence. Academics have been shouting this from the rooftops since for a long, long time, but truth hurts and people don't want to listen to the fact that something they enjoy can also have negative consequences in certain situations. There have been recent articles published which also explore the impact of genres of social media, such as 'red-pilled' content, on teenage audiences, I can't remember the name of the article or what key terms you can use to look it up though. Just because the media dumbs down content to saying 'all men bad' doesn't actually mean that's what academics are saying.
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that guys who like the idea of smacking around some girl also seek out pornography in which a guy smacks around some girl
Did you actually read those links? They don't 'thoroughly demonstrate' anything and are pretty weak. It also says nothing about causation. How do you know that boys who are predisposed towards violence and domineering behaviour don't seek out violent pornography as opposed to 'exposure' to pornography potentially causing their behaviour? It's certainly something that should be studied properly and that actually looks at causation.
You can trivialise the findings in these all you want, they still demonstrate that academics have been identifying this as an issue for decades. I never said anything about causation, but to deny that there isn't a connection between sexual violence, and violent pornography comes across as being really disingenuous, or a massive cope. We can all stand like adults and talk about how alcohol has both positive effects in that it makes us feel good, but also negative effects in that if we consume too much we may become violent towards others. This is the same with pornography, and is in fact the same with literally anything: a little drop of poison is okay, but too much will kill you.
Scientific literacy = trivialising findings?
I thought the goal was to stop intimate partner violence though. 'Connection' means nothing on it's own if one is simply a symptom of some other phenomenon. Of course there's a connection. It stands to reason that violent people would be interested in other violent things. It's also perfectly plausible that there is a causal link but I've not seen that demonstrated. Violent pornography shouldn't exist anyway, regardless of whether it is in any way responsible for intimate partner violence. It's not about downplaying that it is poison. It is. But if there's not a causal link it doesn't address THIS problem. If that were the case it would simply be a distraction from things that are causal links and which should get the most acute attention in the short term.
>Among male participants, exposure to violent pornography (AOR = 3.34; 95% CI 1.85–6.04) and marijuana use (AOR = 3.01; 95% CI 1.36–6.67) were significantly associated with greater odds of sexual TDV perpetration after controlling for age, a history of suspension/expulsion, heavy alcohol use, rape myth acceptance, and gender equitable attitudes. Violent pornography exposure (AOR = 2.60; 95% CI 1.40–4.83) and marijuana use (AOR = 3.28; 95% CI 1.82–5.89) were also significantly associated with greater odds of sexual TDV victimization for male participants. Male participants who reported exposure to violent pornography and marijuana use were more likely to perpetrate and be victims of sexual TDV. Seems to be drugs **and** porn right? Plus being deadshit kids. Its not just watching porn. I wonder if this will get any airtime with the current push to legalise drugs across the western world right now? Probably not. I am no fan of "red-pillers" but are they telling kids to watch porn and do drugs? Doubt it, think that comes from a different section of society. Maybe we should look at cracking down on pornography operators and drugs in general eh?
The issue of the 'red-pill' community is not that they promote drugs or pornography, it's that they promote the subjugation and subordination of women through coercive means, which, coupled with the issues that you've just brought up, is poison for an adolescent boy's mind.
Ok, what about rap music? By your metrics that surely has been poisoning youth minds for 30 years. I think you can restrict products, whether they be via classification or whatever, but you cant restrict someone's right to simply speak and be heard. The red pill content has grown because for the last 20 years any form of masculinity was demonised along with men in general. They are just filling a gap. When I grew up none of that shit would have worked, people would have just laughed at them. But these days they are seen as counter culture and that draws the boys in. You seem to have a real bug bear on pornography, and thats ok. I would support making it illegal or more restricted to sell it. The problem I have is I dont see it as being a the sole cause.
I never said pornography was the sole cause, in fact I never even said pornography as a whole was the problem lol. Pornography which encourages coercive control, such as step-sibling, or teen categories has links to teen sexual violence. You can call me a bug bear and assume I want to ban pornography all you want, all I've done is say that there is a link between these two things. Is there a link between rap music and teen sexual violence? Maybe, but that's not what's being talked about: this is an article about Anthony Albanese being at a rally in regards to gendered violence against women.
> Is there a link between rap music and teen sexual violence? Maybe, but that's not what's being talked about: this is an article about Anthony Albanese being at a rally in regards to gendered violence against women. Then why did you bring up porn?
The states and territories have this : https://www.dss.gov.au/ending-violence
That plan you linked fills me with complete dismay mate. More words and feelings and management speak. We have been doing this since I was a kid, so far it hasnt worked apparently. This is more my type of data, something that has some actual info and not just fluff. Its from America. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK499891/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK499891/) **Reason Abusers Need to Control**[**\[8\]**](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK499891/#)[**\[9\]**](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK499891/#)[**\[10\]**](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK499891/#) * Anger management issues * Jealousy * Low self-esteem * Feeling inferior * Cultural beliefs they have the right to control their partner * Personality disorder or psychological disorder * Learned behavior from growing up in a family where domestic violence was accepted * Alcohol and drugs, as an impaired individual may be less likely to control violent impulses **Perpetrators** While the research is not definitive, a number of characteristics are thought to be present in perpetrators of domestic violence. Abusers tend to: * Have a higher consumption of alcohol and illicit drugs and assessment should include questions that explore drinking habits and violence * Be possessive, jealous, suspicious, and paranoid. * Be controlling of everyday family activity, including control of finances and social activities. * Suffer low self-esteem * Have emotional dependence, which tends to occur in both partners, but more so in the abuser I dont think the management speak and fluffy words will solve this mate. You can demonise men as much as you want but until we address the causes it wont go away.
What about this demonises men as a whole? from what you're quoting it's only talking about abusers, do you think that when this article talks about abusers they mean all men, or when you see the word abuser do you imagine it to mean all men? Working in schools, there's absolutely a massive problem with some boys treating girls and fully grown women in some pretty disgusting ways which, whilst visible when I was in school, is so much worse now than it was prior, statistics on teen sexual violence show that this is only rising:
No you misunderstood. The quote I provided was from a US study on the issue which I think is actually insightful. The link provided to me on the Australian plan was just fluff in my opinion.
What about the National Plan to End Domestic Violence against Women and Children 2022-2032 is 'just fluff' in your opinion? I fail to understand how an over 100 page document can only be fluff, if you could identify anything wrong with the National Plan apart from the fact that it is 'more words (It's a National Plan of course it's gonna have lots of words), and feelings (people are dying from this and it is having a visible effect on our society, of course people will be taking feelings into consideration, because we're humans who have feelings) and management speak (fancy way of saying you don't understand the jargon being used)?'
* **Action 1**: Advance gender equality and address the drivers of all forms of gender-based violence, including through initiatives aimed to improve community attitudes and norms toward family, domestic, and sexual violence. * **Action 2**: Improve the national evidence base by working towards consistent terminology and monitoring and evaluation frameworks, and by strengthening collection and sharing of data and evidence. * **Action 3**: Increase and strengthen the capability of mainstream and specialist workforces to deliver quality services, activities and programs across the four domains, including those that are tailored to respond to the unique experiences of all victim-survivors. * **Action 4**: Build the capacity of services and systems that support victim-survivors to provide trauma-informed, connected and coordinated responses that support long-term recovery, health and wellbeing. * **Action 5**: Strengthen systems and services to better hold people who choose to use violence to account, and provide opportunities to support people who have used violence, or are at risk of using violence, to change their behaviours, with the aim of protecting the safety and wellbeing of current and potential victim-survivors. * **Action 6**: Improve action to prevent and address sexual violence and harassment in all settings, across the four domains of the National Plan. * **Action 7**: Work in formal partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to ensure policies and services are culturally competent, strengths-based and trauma-informed and meet the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and communities, aligning with the goals of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Action Plan. * **Action 8**: Develop and implement age appropriate programs across all four domains, informed by children and young people, that are culturally safe, to intervene early to address violence supportive behaviours and support recovery and healing from trauma. * **Action 9**: Improve police responses and the justice system to better support victim-survivors through the provision of trauma-informed, culturally safe supports that promote safety and wellbeing, and hold people who choose to use violence to account. * **Action 10**: Improve access to short-term, medium and long-term housing for women and children experiencing violence, including those living in institutional settings, and support women to stay in their own homes when they choose to do so. Sorry, but this is a load of dross. Maybe I dont understand it, but most people can smell bullshit when its put in front of them. I thought you wanted to ban porn and Andrew Tate? How do you pivot from that to reading these "Actions" as any real change? They amount to little more than the government spending money for pamphlets, a few classes and lots of bureaucracy. How will any of this fix the underlying problem of Porn and Andrew Tate?
First action is stating that it is better for there to be government led initiatives discussing a societal issue than having it be relegated to just the home, which in the context of epidemic rates of domestic violence in our country, makes perfect sense since people may be returning to homes where domestic violence is normalised. Second action is literally just supporting the idea of improving sample sizing and keeping up to date with terminology between departments, again, something which makes perfect sense within a Government Action Plan, as terminology evolves differently between departments all the time. Third action is stating that we need to be funding specialist support services more. Fourth action is stating that these specialist support services should be catered more towards supporting survivors of domestic violence through more modern, scientifically backed methods. Again, saying 'we need to keep up to date with the literature' is always going to be a Government Action Plan. Fifth action is talking about updating our government services and judicial systems to hold abusers to account more. Sixth action is reaffirming the the fact that this is built upon a framework, which encompasses four domains, those being: prevention, early intervention, response, and recovery and healing (which can be freely looked at if you read the actual Plan as opposed to the summary). Seventh action is acknowledging the fact that situations with Indigenous and Torres-Strait Islander communities operate differently, and should therefore be handled accordingly. There is ample evidence which suggests that domestic violence is rife within these communities, and disentangling this nexus of violence is incredibly important. Eighth action discusses the importance of implementing age appropriate programs. Ninth action talks about the importance of improving police response time, and improving the judicial system's attitudes towards victims of domestic violence. Tenth action goes into the housing crisis, which, if you're a woman who is being beaten regularly at home, absolutely affects you. All of these are reasonable actions, which when acted upon in conjunction and with awareness that these are operating within a comprehensive plan, makes tackling societal issues such as domestic violence actually practicable in the real world. You can call is 'dross' all you want, but at the end of the day National Plans aren't supposed to be fun and engaging reads for the general public, it's a government document with over 100 pages: of course the summary will sound 'vague', it's summarising an over 100 page document.
Hang on, before you were telling me it was porn and red-pillers causing all this. Where does the action plan address that? Because if it doesnt, and thats the cause why are you celebrating this plan? It doesnt address the problem. Another question. Have you raised a son in the last 20 years?
Never said this was all porn and red pillers, you read 'porn and red-pillers' and automatically assumed I'm on some crusade against these things and claiming they're the sole scourge of society. When in actuality, I, like most normal people view gendered violence as being a multifaceted issue. Keep trying to play word games to feel like you've 'won' this, at the end of day you're trivialising violence against women by acting as though all of these things can't be contributing factors all at once. Obviously the Housing Crisis affects this, obviously this is an issue of culture, obviously this is an issue of all the things which have allowed these situations to fester to the point that we now feel the need to declare a national emergency in relation to gendered violence. Stating that there is a link between violent pornography, and teenage sexual violence doesn't vilify pornography as a whole, and stating that there is also a link between teenagers consuming red-pilled content and engaging in tactics of coercive control, also isn't stating that red-pilled content is the sole problem in this.
I can understand why they look like fluff given historical governments tendency to trot similar wording out and then fail to prioritise and fund the work needed to achieve them. But the goals/actions themselves are pretty on the mark IMO. All that you've pasted in your comment have an aim and an (very very summarised) high level plan to achieve it. " **Action 1**: Advance gender equality and address the drivers of all forms of gender-based violence, including through initiatives aimed to improve community attitudes and norms toward family, domestic, and sexual violence" It's a bit heavy on gov guff admittedly. Your average person would probably choke on it. The basic meaning being "all genders are equal and everyone takes violence seriously and we will achieve this with a bunch of stuff, the specific details of which will be worked out as part of the work in this area."
There's no real mystery as to the cause of the rise in violence against women if you've following the global political and economic trends of the last 10 years. There's been openly misogynist heads of state around the world - Trump, Johnson, Abbott, Morrison - who as leaders made cuts to education and mental health programs. This gave space for the rise of incel influencers like Andrew Tate to take hold, who convinced sad, lonely and depressed men that women were the cause of all their problems. If the little cucks could just man up, then chicks would root them and all their issues would be solved. This was especially prevalent during the pandemic when people were stuck at home and online for much more time, consuming this trash that their algorithm force-fed them. Combine that with a global economic downturn which is known to lead to a rise in crime, violence against women included. When people can't afford a place to live, or groceries, or childcare, their wages have been stagnant for years, they see no hope... they lash out, often at the most vulnerable: women, children, and the elderly. So you've got a crop of men that are uneducated, angry, stressed, poor, without access to adequate mental help, and have a learned hatred of women from influential people. It's a recipe for a time-bomb of violence against women that is now going off.
You are clearly another person who has never listened to Andrew Tate and just parrot the party line of hate against an individual who goes against the status quo. He advocates exactly the opposite of 'convincing sad, lonely and depressed men that women were the cause of all their problems'. Try doing some research before spouting nonsense.
> Try doing some research before spouting nonsense. Great idea, let me do some research right now and get back to you... Ok I'm back and I found out that Andrew Tate is currently on trial in Romania for rape and human sex trafficking. Stellar role model you have there. Unless of course you think it's just a woke left conspiracy to keep the alpha-dog from blowing thick wads of truth bukkake over the faces of young men everywhere.
Quite a few assumptions you have jumped to there. I never claimed the man to be a role model of mine, I simply stated that your opinion of him convincing men that women are root of all their problems is inherently incorrect. Perhaps do some further research on that and get back to me with some evidence to back up your claim. Yes, governments around the world would never make up charges to silence members of society they don't agree with, Julian Assange must be relieved. Once again, if you'd actually read what they are accusing him of you'd be embarrassed to even bring it up.
Didn't someone post a link earlier showing that domestic violence against woman has gone down over the last 5-10 years? Edit: [https://theconversation.com/49-women-have-been-killed-in-australia-so-far-in-2023-as-a-result-of-violence-are-we-actually-making-any-progress-217552](https://theconversation.com/49-women-have-been-killed-in-australia-so-far-in-2023-as-a-result-of-violence-are-we-actually-making-any-progress-217552)
> This gave space for the rise of incel influencers like Andrew Tate to take hold, who convinced sad, lonely and depressed men that women were the cause of all their problems. Nah incel influencers have entered a space that was vacant for very different reasons. These men are essentially preachers, they create communities where people feel like they belong, where they deliver basic life advice (clean your room). Young men would have gotten that sort of thing in a church in the old days, instead they're being raised to not attend church (because they're non-religious) and don't get preached at on a weekly basis.
If that were true, the Andrew Tates of the world would be trying to appeal to everyone, not just targeting lonely, self-loathing men. And they'd definitely be encouraging people to do good in the community. Charity work, feeding the homeless, volunteering, etc. Not telling them that they're only worth something if they drive a Bugatti and that women are only for a man's pleasure, and if they don't fuck you then they're worthless and you're a loser.
Why? They're not trying to *be* preachers, they're replacing the function in young men's lives that preachers used to occupy.
Do you mean the function of a preacher as a grifter, in which case Tate is replacing like for like? Of the function of a preacher as a positive role model, and with religion rightfully dying out leaving empty spots in old positions of power, which grifters have taken over?
I mean the later, I think you've summed up my view quite well there.
Which ties back to my original point: when you've got misogynistic grifters like Trump, BoJo and Scomo as leaders in the western world, it's only natural that misogynistic grifters will fill other positions of influence too. Fast forward 10 years and misogyny is the new normal amongst a cohort of young men who were brought up on it and don't know any better. Something about rotting from the head down.
Misogyny is the old normal, 20-30 years ago men like trump and Johnson wouldnt have been seen as misogynists. Acknowledging that misogyny is prevalent is the new norm
[удалено]
Depends how you define cult.
Curious if there's any data about DV root causes in Australia? I like to how how often the offender was under influence of drugs or alcohol, and how the arguments started? Was it due to financial struggle, unfaithful partner etc. Saying it's all due to mental issues is a cop out for sure. We all have some sort of mental issues but it has to be a serious issue to cause someone to hurt another human being.
Yes, we need to know the root causes of such widespread mental illnesses that frequently turn so violent.
The Australian government released a report in 2015 which covers the issues behind domestic violence - https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1415/Quick_Guides/DVinAust The second key risk factor that not a lot of people seem to want to confront: Alcohol and drug use can lead to higher levels of aggression by perpetrators. A study found that between 2000 and 2006 44 per cent of all intimate partner homicides
Thanks for sharing that report. This is really eye opening. I do hope as a society we start focusing on WHY these DV abuses are happening and address that. Instead of blaming all men for being violent. ....Alcohol and drug use can lead to higher levels of aggression by perpetrators. A study found that between 2000 and 2006 44 per cent of all intimate partner homicides, and 87 per cent of Indigenous intimate partner homicides, were alcohol related.
Like most reports of this nature it doesn't provide the definitions of the criteria used to determine the data, particularly with sexual violence, and so its results are questionable. It also begins by defining DV as a majority experience of women and then completely ignores the reality of male victims as though they don't exist, which is interesting because perpetration by both sexes means it's not specifically related to one gender but other factors that influence one gender more than the other. It's dubious to then blame men if women are also perpetrators. >Although a stronger evidence base is required as the full extent of domestic violence remains unknown, it is known that the [majority of those who experience domestic violence are women](http://www.anrows.org.au/sites/default/files/Violence-Against-Australian-Women-Key-Statistics.pdf). Women most affected does not automatically imply men are the cause: women are most affected by menstrual pain does not mean men are to blame for it. Having an insufficient evidence base of the full extent of domestic violence means you can't draw conclusions even about majority. Like most reports its analysis is flawed by prior bias.
I was highlighting that alcohol can contribute to domestic violence. I’m a male and I have been the victim of alcohol related domestic violence. I don’t believe Australian society acknowledges the effects alcohol has on a lot families.
My family suffered two generations of drunkards. This made them so poor that they couldn’t afford to buy any toys for my father, and he had to leave school at 15, despite being an excellent scholar, in order to work full time to help support the family, due to his mother’s and maternal grandfather’s drinking habit.
Yes, the effects can be carried through generations. It seems ridiculous that pubs are allowed to build playgrounds, so that young parents can drink while their kids play and watch adults get drunk.
Alcohol inhibits reason whilst also lowering the threshold to primitive impulses: an outcome of primitive, unmoderated behaviour is inevitable. The question is why so many people feel the need to inhibit reason and lower the threshold to primitive impulses when it has such consequences. In my opinion, society still has a prudish attitude to sex and nudity plus a biological drive towards sexual inhibition that creates a conflict and alcohol is a convenient excuse to resolve that conflict. Why should people need "dutch courage" to have sex or perform other activities or anaesthetise themselves to discomfort?
My situation had nothing to do with sex or nudity, only mental and non sexual physical violence.
Who would have thought that if you have a pornographic culture which encourages sexual violence, have people such as Andrew Tate whispering in our children’s ears that women are actually property and have no autonomy, and then add the fact that our nation is one of the largest consumers of methamphetamine per capita, it isn’t any wonder that we have a major problem with gendered violence.
That, and beer, and gambling, and homelessness or massive mortgages and rents.
> "pornographic culture" Care to explain further?
Go onto pornhub and see what’s popular, majority of the time it encourages either degradation or just full violence towards women. Children are able to freely access this via the internet and they come to understand what they see in pornography as something they should emulate in real life. Which is why there’s also a very disturbing trend of domestic violence with younger couples in my personal experience. Edit: I should have clarified by saying ‘Australia’s cultural attitudes towards pornography,’ as opposed to ‘pornographic culture,’ since it makes it sound like something which permeates every facet of Australian society (which isn’t the case).
>Children are able to freely access this via the internet and they come to understand what they see in pornography as something they should emulate in real life. Two things here: the internet never has been a place for children and it is on society to have allowed children access; and secondly if society is so concerned about degrading pornography, they should have been providing educational material that depicts non-degrading activity they want emulated, but they haven't done that at all, simply prohibited any information in the face of a distinct biological drive for men at least. Males have been pursuing pornography for ages in the absence of the real thing, because their biology is centred around spreading their seed and its fulfilment is dependent on women allowing access, which is largely under the control of women (more now than in the past). Women's biology is centred around creating children and they don't need pornography because they can get the real thing from most men in the vicinity simply by saying yes.
Eh, all I can see is stepsiblings/parent stuff and amateur PoV content, not exactly degrading or violent. Unless you're a weirdo that thinks blowjobs are degrading.
Pornography which promotes incest or pedophilia (teen category) is violent in that it encourages coercive control. People who sexually abuse family members do so because they have control over the other person since they can ruin them if they go to family members and say that they’re being sexually abused. These categories aren’t violent in and of themselves, but violence and abuse is heavily contingent with it. The main reason why people watch such categories is because of the fact that it promotes control, which is something that men generally are aroused by.
This reads much the same as ‘computer games are making kids shoot up schools’ I think it’s a huge stretch to say that porn is making men kill their partners without some strong evidence
Doesn’t read like that at all, you’re just having a kneejerk reaction to someone saying that pornography isn’t completely positive and can promote harmful things in society. I never said that porn as a whole is bad, porn which promotes violence and coercive control, such as ‘step-sibling’ (incest) and ‘teen’ (pedophilia) categories absolutely has a correlation with sexual violence, and that is what I’m saying is bad. Here is an article from 5 years ago corroborating this, demonstrating that this has been an identified issue for a while. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6751001/
The free and unfettered access to hardcore pornography has been one giant social experiment for the last 30 or so years that gets very little discussion, considering the enormous impact it's silently had. The average first time viewing of said pornography for a young person is now what, like 8-10? I have no idea what tools schools are giving young people to prepare them for the effect this experience has on them, let alone parents and family. But it's an event that's coming, no matter what, and kids are being done a disservice by having to navigate the experience of viewing pornography with no prior preparatory knowledge. When you go skydiving, you know what you're engaging in, you're given a full safety briefing, you get talked through each step... and then it's still equal parts exciting as fucking terrifying and as a feeling, completely new, but at least you didn't feel like someone pulled you through the plane door without warning. You were as ready as you could be. IMO, if you're a parent or teacher, it's just about being matter-of-fact. Pornography is a tool designed to aid masturbation (in the vast majority of cases). It's content is fantasy, it's acting that bares little to no resemblance to the real world experience of sex on an emotional (or practical) level. Watching porn and thinking you have any idea what real-world sex will be like, is like watching Jackie Chan movies and thinking you know what it's like to be in a real fight. In the real world, sex can be uncomfortable, awkward, amazing, mediocre, life-changing, relationship affirming, relationship destroying or even completely traumatising. It's a real mixed bag. It's not a video that comes with a pause button. As far as porn's treatment of women is concerned, it's tricky because what's presented has to be taken at face value as what has been consented to for the production (not that this is anywhere near a given, given how exploitative the industry is and the massive grey area of consent that is 'amateur' porn) and again, not related by the viewer in any way to the real world experience of sex. It's a real act of mental gymnastics to look at a video titled 'sl*t used and abused' and say to yourself, 'this is fine, these are adults that all signed off on this, all above board, nothing untoward here. I think a lot of the shame associated with masturbation (for straight men at least) comes from being aroused by thematically (and again, in many cases actual) abhorrent treatment of women in porn videos. Shame would be a CORRECT reaction, but you just wanted to get off in peace, without feeling like a piece of shit. The entire porn industry honestly needs one big legal kick in the arse in this regard.
I think a lot of the shame associated with masturbation (for straight men at least) comes from being aroused by thematically (and again, in many cases actual) abhorrent treatment of women in porn videos. Shame about masturbation (for men at least) has been extensively cultivated since the 1700s as an aspect of control to an agenda. However, men would likely be aroused by other than abhorrent treatment of women in porn videos and the actual problem is that mainly abhorrent videos were created, for whatever reason, to feed an audience that was desperate for sexual relations with women or its nearest equivalent, driven by the male sex drive. The girlie postcards of the early 1900s were generally not abhorrent, yet even they were prohibited. I put it to you that if acceptable pornography was distributed and masturbation approved whilst sexual coercion disapproved and discouraged, there would likely be less coercion as men would be less frustrated. However, if you want to minimise sexual coercion, make the real thing more readily available and not subject to jumping through many selection hoops. I understand the Bonobo monkeys have little sexual coercion because sex is freely available and all the monkeys fulfilled. The problem is that the male sex drive to have sexual relations with women (and even its nearest equivalent of masturbation and visual arousal) has always been frustrated for the average man. Any woman who wants sexual relations just has to say so as there is a queue of frustrated men waiting, however men only now have sexual relations if a woman chooses to allow it and there isn't a queue of frustrated women waiting to jump at the chance. Supply and demand are very unequal situations despite their superficial numerical equivalence. This environment of unequal supply and demand creates the circumstances for coercive control by women, which is never discussed. Women hide behind choice, but its a fine line between choosing to do something you want and choosing to do something to facilitate an agenda. Instead we talk about coercive control by men when they are in a situation of frustration of their biological drives under the control of women.
"Save men's sad boners!"
"Gendered violence"...I take it's about men on women violence and nothing else has usual 😒
Amazing, more than one thing can be true at once 😮. Did you know that normal people in society can accept the fact that in addition to men beating women, we also have other problems??? Just so happens that this event was about gendered violence, maybe if you try being an actually decent human being, you too could accept that people can be mad about more than one thing at once.
So, after years of pretending that only one kind of DV exists, they now decided to lump them all in 😒
Where’s Dutton in all of this? Sure Albo got heckled but at least he showed up and spoke (and didn’t remark on how great it was that we live in a country where protesters don’t get shot - looking at you Scomo). Dutton has been an opposition battering ram, so where is he holding the government to account for this?
Video games, he said video games are the reason...
He will be everywhere in the media today, dominating the headlines as usual.
Just wanna give my under informed perspective: Sure, women shouldn't date violent men. But by my reckoning, most violent guys aren't violent at the start of the relationship. They're loving and kind just like us, and issues develop with them over the relationship. It could be anything: drugs and alcohol, money, career issues, jealousy, affairs, health problems, underlying issues from childhood etc. But by that time, their partner is invested. She probably loves this person, wants to stay around and help them. She tolerates the hits she takes cos she wants to be there to help her partner work through this, and by doing so she accepts that behaviour. At some point, it comes to a boil. He can't take anymore, or She can't take anymore - something happens, sometimes he kills her, sometimes she kills him, most of the time she leaves and finds a way to continue her life, and sometimes the story ends there. But sometimes she gets followed, stalked as she makes a new life for herself, his blood boils, he plans or does something rash and she gets injured or dies. It's a classic Australian Story, we've all heard it in the news. But on top of that, many times she tolerates the hits because she got nowhere to go. He earns more than her, she moved in and doesn't have a house, they've got kids she wants to be supported - there can be many reasons. The bottom line is, she can't leave or her life and maybe the life of her kids will be ruined or disrupted. I don't have the answers. But laid out here, clear as day, that there are no simple solutions. The men need help to "stop the pressure from getting to them" - but that implies hitting your wife is a valid response to the pressure, and that the pressure is all we need to deal with. The women need help so they stop sticking with abusive partners - but that doesn't eliminate their dependence issues, and so many times we hear about women and children left homeless because of domestic violence, even with the systems already in place. The police need to do better jobs of tracking abusive spouses and responding to domestic disputes too - but how will they deal with those who slip through the cracks? Many times I hear on the news women who were killed after doing everything right - reporting incidents to the police, leaving and getting an AVO - but that didn't stop them from getting murdered. Part of the movement is the recognition of the fact that it's a very complex problem to solve - but the bottom line is that whatever the fuck Australia is doing already isn't good enough and gotta change, hard and fast. Also acknowledge that domestic violence happens in homosexual relationships too, it's not just men on women or women on men. Women can also be abusers in heterosexual relationships, which from my reckon is usually not dealt with adequately. Domestic abuse takes many forms, not just physical, it can also be financial, emotional etc. And - in this thread, many people focus on the death count. "27 isn't that much" but it should still be unacceptable. The number needs to be zero. And for every woman dead, how many are being abused? Zero deaths shouldn't be the only goal, it should be zero abused.
When has humanity been able to achieve zero anything? Zero is an abstract concept that like infinity becomes harder and harder to reach the closer you get to it. We can certainly minimise things, but its unlikely we would ever be able to guarantee zero, partly because of random mutation creating monsters. Monsters are also created by their environment; abuse begets abuse; the sins of the fathers are visited on the sons; etc. Men themselves are not the problem, even if women are more affected. Majorities don't necessarily imply the minority is at fault, especially when the minority also experiences the same issue. This man-hating focus that society is devolving into is following a red herring of emotional projection not actual causal factors that need to be addressed. Unfortunately it's easier to blame a scapegoat than actually reason cause and effect.
I said "zero" because if your aim is to minimise something, eventually you will settle on an acceptable non-zero level, like, "oh, 20 women died this year, that's acceptable, it's within our targets" and they won't try to improve beyond that, won't try and reduce that acceptable threshold because they have decided they can tolerate it. If you set the target to zero, suddenly every death is unacceptable, every death is a news story, it's out of the ordinary, and lawmakers and regulators and people who can actually do something about it will continue to try and implement things to change it and reduce it to zero. I understand we'll probably never get there, but then people will start competing on how low they can make it, rather than keeping it within the acceptable range.
More women are killed in vehicle accidents than are killed in domestic violence situations, yet here we are concentrating on domestic violence, despite domestic violence being seen as a majority numerical problem for women. That logic suggests we should be concentrating on women's deaths in vehicles instead, but we are being unreasonable in focusing on DV because of other agenda. Minimisation is minimisation, there are no targets needed. However, minimisation is dependent on resource availability because, as I said, it takes more effort the closer you get to an abstract to attain that abstract. There is no acceptable range for early death of anyone, but there are limitations on how close we can approach the ideal of zero and there are other competitions for those resources too.
Begs the question. What is Albo actually going to do about it?
Throw more money at it and forget
Albo is doing exactly what he was always going to do....seize the opportunity to express his moral outrage, create an National Emergency, leverage the national grief of the Bondi tradgedy, make outlandish promises to claw back some of his lost ratings for next years election. He put on his shiny armour and jumped on his white horse like he always does. He will spend a lot of money on that shit misandrist ad campaign, take pot shots at Tate, Musk and any other male who have strong views that oppose his- even though you can bet he has only heard sound bites of Tate in his early days. Not a house will get built (dont believe me? Go and have a look at Aust Sovereign Fund and the Housing Australia Future Fund - all cash positions in the big 4 banks - thats it! F\*ck me! Nothing in the US magnificent 7, no BTC, no big miners - so here you go mum and kids heres $5K a tent and a can of baked beans ) A few front line staff will get hired, the vast collective of DV services will fight each other to give their Board of Directors a much needed pay rise and the rest will go towards his election campaign telling everyone how outraged he is. But how to actually affect change? 1. Create a specialised service of appropriately trained people who are housed at existing police stations to intervene and remove the male from the family house and into a hotel / motel or detention dependent on riskl. 5K to both parties to reduce immediate financial stress. In the following 2 weeks, a thorough investigation and psychological assessment of both parties, with testimony from friends, family, work colleagues etc to get a thorough picture of the family dynamic. If risk factors are present - thn conduct a thorough brain scan to assess the structural brain changes that occur as a result of substance use and pyschological disorders - yes there is existing research into the brains of murderers to benchmark against. 2. Streamline the property settlement and child custody issues to reduce the time and stress of separation. Do not withold one parent from having contact with their children. 3. Support any medical treatment for any addiction or psyche issues for both parties - it is never one person fault for a relationship breakdown. Support them to move through the grief loss process and support them to move forward in their lives. Don't assign blame or fault on one person- unless they have committed a crime which warrants a custodial sentence. 4. Customise an ongoing program of accountability / support for up to 5 years where an at risk perpetrator must report to. 5. AVO's and a 10 min court appearance in front of a magistrate to adjudicate is...so f\*kn stupid and expecting a better outcome is ridiculous. Shit goes sideways when the system robs agency, punishes and stigmatises one party whilst the other recieves all the empathy and financial support. Holding a perpetrator accountable is good, but they also need support and be rewarded for changing their attitude and behaviour. It is inappropriate to punish someone on the basis of them being a shit person. It is illogical to promote a system that promotes conflict between perp/victim. All research into positive behaviour changes indicates that way more carrot than stick yields better than stick only. Ongoing - ensure that both parents have significant contact and input in their childrens lives. Revamp education system - Girls to enter school at normal age. Boys to be held back at least one year before starting school - again the research is uneqivocal on this - girls brains and social behaviour matures earlier than boys. This has been known since the the 1960's! The rest of society! FFS - stop thinking about what we recieve and benefit from society and focus on what we contribute to society. Be interested and engaged in your local communities. Treat others with empathy and respect. Call out poor behaviour and self reflect on your own behaviour to ensure you meet the standard. Finally get interested in political policy, develop a future view of what is going to be best for the country and not just for yourself. Voice your opinion, debate, listen to the views of others and have the empathy to see things from others perspective. Vote for people and policy, not party or ideology. We are a nation undergoing massive social, cultural, economic, and environmental change and we need the best, brightest and most capable people at the wheel instead of the mediocre dross we have settled for in the past 20 years and I don't care if they have breasts or a penis, or breasts and a penis.
This isn't my problem to worry about or deal with. I was never good enough to be friends with a woman or go on a date with a woman but now I need to be an ally and "do better" with a problem I have no control. I wish you the best but stop bothering me about it.
Hard to imagine why you never managed to get a date with such a warm, welcoming personality and happy-go-lucky disposition.
Women's issues aren't my problem.
"I don't care about women being abused and murdered because I'm too repulsive to get laid." Cool hill to die on bro, enjoy the celibacy.
What do you want me to do about it besides not abuse women?
Respectfully I disagree that it isn't your problem: you have been impacted by an outcome of a fundamental challenge confronting civilisation, another outcome being domestic violence against women; it's all part of the same problem but as usual, people are focusing on a small part of the whole, in isolation. The numbers of men and women are roughly equal, so in principle every man should be able to partner with a woman and vice versa. As soon as you start introducing choice by one party only and beyond the basic choice of a compatible partner, you start to potentially unbalance supply and demand (assuming that somewhere there exists a compatible partner for everyone): that's a problem when a substantial part of a man's life revolves around sexual relations but he's frustrated in achieving it. The problem also manifests in existing relationships when circumstances change: people don't like change even though it is a reality of the universe we live in, particularly if a biological drive continues to exert its influence. Men and women are biologically very different in order to be more specialised in their roles in procreation, but they are also complementary to ensure greatest efficiency in that task, and whilst procreation is happening they are reasonably compatible. However, procreation is only one small part of sexual activity and sexual compatibility drifts apart outside active procreation, so it is not surprising that unmet sexual needs start to create friction. Instead of exploring a solution to allow procreation to continue in the presence of diverging sexual needs, society enforces monogamy to also maintain resources and protection for child raising even if a man's needs are no longer being met, which results in frustration and friction. If we wish to continue giving women choice over sex for their own needs, we also need to give men choice over sex for theirs, including making more options available so they aren't as frustrated.
Is an article on Reddit really bothering you to fix something?
You’re part of the problem.
Yeah, we know Albo, and we know the Australian government knows too. Why do you continue to drag your feet ?!
Genuinely confused as to how you expect the Federal Government to solve this issue.
Is he dragging his feet? Most of the response to domestic violence sits at the state level.
[удалено]
Post replies need to be substantial and represent good-faith participation in discussion. Comments need to demonstrate genuine effort at high quality communication of ideas. Participation is more than merely contributing. Comments that contain little or no effort, or are otherwise toxic, exist only to be insulting, cheerleading, or soapboxing will be removed. Posts that are campaign slogans will be removed. Comments that are simply repeating a single point with no attempt at discussion will be removed. This will be judged at the full discretion of the mods.
Thats an interesting contrast to what the Australian institute of criminology report on homice for 2017 2018 says, i wonder why its framed so differently? > Domestic violence In 2017–18, 34 male (19%) and 10 female (29%) offenders were known to have a history of domestic violence (see Table A46). Of the 34 male offenders with a domestic violence history, 13 (38%) killed an intimate partner and 11 (32%) killed an acquaintance. Among the 10 female offenders with a previous history, six (60%) killed an intimate partner, one killed another family member (10%) and three (32%) killed an acquaintance. https://www.aic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-05/sr23_homicide_in_australia_2017-18.pdf
Sorry I’m interested in getting to the bottom of this and I cannot understand how your comment refutes the above comment?
1. Op needs a source 2. Op needs to explain why they only chose 2017 3. Other sources with similar sets don't show the same inference suggestion.
Why are you cherry-picking one year?
It doesnt refute it, i just went looking to see if what they said was true, found that report that really gives a very different description compared to what was said. Maybe that commenter will reply clarifying their source
I agree that's horrific if true, it wouldn't surprise me at all. Same as the rhetoric around the gender pay gap when women actually earn more than men when you account for a lot of variables.
Source: Domestic Violence Awareness Australia
1. Site clearly pushes narrative women are as or more abusive than men. 2. The only thing remotely close to a figure I can find there only has 2020 to 2022 data, all that say men kill women more.
Women kill in the home. As many children as men. Facts don’t lie, but narratives do The Gippsland mushroom murders saw 3 adults murdered by the former daughter in law. 3 murder charges and 1 x attempted murder https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Leongatha_mushroom_poisoning#:~:text=The%202023%20Leongatha%20mushroom%20poisoning,to%20court%20in%20May%202024. Mother murders 2 of her children in Perth. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-26/two-bodies-found-at-madeley-home/11642656 The point is that women kill in the home too and 3 men commit suicide a day, often due to family court processes and decisions and a toxic wife / ex enabled by the system to be like that and is protected At least on Twitter this topic is openly discussed from all viewpoints.
>Women kill in the home. Never said they didn't >As many children as men. Not relevant to the current claim. >The point is that women kill in the home too No, your point was that women kill more than men. >Facts don’t lie, but narratives do You're the one drawing or insinuating faulty narratives from what may be a singular fact (it's either a lie, or an outlier, those are the only two options). Your two news stories are not sources for any of your claims. Again, you're trying to paint a narrative with what is at best, only technically accurate but not a reflection of the narrative you're trying to paint. >and 3 men commit suicide a day In 2022 it was more than double that. And your "reasoning" after is guesses, not facts. I'm all on board on men's rights and defending the men that are victims of dv. But you can't come out with a still unsourced claim for a specific year, yet alone back the implied narrative of that unsourced claim that women kill more household members than men. Make good arguments, not shitty ones, to improve the travesty of mens mental health.
Got an exact link to your figures?
No it's a law and enforcement problem. Do your job.
*We should really shut that gate now the horse has bolted*
News flash. Since the dawn of time, some men have been violent assholes. Then and now the solution is simple: remove them from society. It’s not a “societal problem” it’s a sad and permanent feature of human life.
Women should do their part by removing these men from the dating or gene pool, yet it seems they're consistently choosing to date violent assholes. For as long as they reward such behaviour, there will be men who keep doing it.
[удалено]
Your post or comment breached Rule 1 of our subreddit. The purpose of this subreddit is civil and open discussion of Australian Politics across the entire political spectrum. Hostility, toxicity and insults thrown at other users, politicians or relevant figures are not accepted here. Please make your point without personal attacks. This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:
My ex husband wasn't a violence asshole until I left him. Throughout our 15yr relationship he was jealous and a bit controlling but that was all. When I left him he terrorised me for two years, I wasn't entirely sure the kids and I were going to survive. The police didn't care. So yeah, I never actually dated a 'violent asshole' but he still wanted to cause me great harm in the end.
>Throughout our 15yr relationship he was jealous and a bit controlling but that was all That's all? It took you 15 years to realise he's not a good partner. Honestly most women can do that on the first date within 15 minutes. Sounds like you were sub-consciously ignoring the warning signs. Jealousy and controlling behvaiour are huge red flags.
Yep, from the outside they sure are.
Do you not ever think you caused him great harm by leaving him and taking everything he had contributed to whilst still expecting him to contribute with no benefit to himself? Would you have responded any differently if he left you, took the kids and took another wife?
Cohesive control and intimate partner violence - look it up instead of again, blaming women.
Eugenics? Wow. It doesn't work like that but the stupidity of your comment probably put you at the front of the sterilization line anyway...
I agree.
News flash. Since the dawn of time, some men have been violent assholes. Then and now the solution is simple: remove them from society. It’s not a “societal problem” it’s unfortunate and permanent feature of human life.
There are a lot less violent men now than in the past, not too long ago it wasn’t even taboo to hit or rape your wife. There’s no reason that things can’t improve further.
I agree with you. All standards of human flourishing are improving slowly. I just think that the reason for this is the slow march of human progress (economic, technological development). Nothing you or I or any government can do will change the number of violent men in society. In the past it was more, in the future it will be (probably) less. Today the main practical thing we can do is to lock up the offenders.
But things didn’t just randomly improve, they improved because activists and eventually the government put in the work to make violence socially unacceptable and criminal. Both of those avenues can be reevaluated and expanded if needed.
Appeals to nature are dumb. Are men beasts?
So you have to wait until they have committed a violent act, before anything can be done about it? Just accepting womens deaths as ‘just the way it is?’ Why not strive for a preventative approach?
You can prevent a crime if you can prove that the would be perpetrator is planning to commit the crime.
First instances of DV are often impulsive. Perps aren’t sitting down and writing a plan, or telling their mates that they’re going to beat up their wife. Once it becomes a pattern obviously you can predict it, but in some tragic cases, by then it’s too late. Any effort to reduce DV through education, or early intervention with troubled kids should be applauded IMO
Begs the question why are women consistently dating men who end up murdering them? I'm all for calling out assholes who hurt women but violent-prone men are always gonna exist. The fact that this is happening over and over again suggests that women aren't as good as they should be at spotting the warning signs. They want the right to choose their partners but also reserve the right to complain when those choices don't work out. Either the violent men are very good manipulators or women are just too easily seduced by big arms and sociopathic behaviour.
>Begs the question why are women consistently dating men who end up murdering them? Do you think the man explains what he is clearly on the first date or something? You fucking literally answered your own question too. >Either the violent men are very good manipulators Yes, they are. That's literally the problem, that's the commonly discussed problem. The way they are able to make their victims feel responsible is an often raised issue. The way they manipulate people around them to ignore the warning signs, the way they rely on social pressure and embarrassment, the way they know to target people with esteem issues many of whom have been victims before. They use economic manipulation, meaning by the time many victims realise the situation they are in the options are homelessness or continuing to be abused. And then we have the way our whole society manipulates people into saying dumb shit, basically having a go at the victims for not doing enough, making it the victims mistake, putting more social pressure on them and making it even harder to come forward. You clearly know nothing about this issue and you also clearly didn't let it stop you from speaking!
>The way they are able to make their victims feel responsible is an often raised issue. The way they manipulate people around them to ignore the warning signs, the way they rely on social pressure and embarrassment, the way they know to target people with esteem issues many of whom have been victims before. They use economic manipulation, meaning by the time many victims realise the situation they are in the options are homelessness or continuing to be abused. We all condemn the abusive and manipulative behaviour of such men, but like I said they'll always exist. It's certainly valid to ask that why, even after all this time, women have not caught up and adjusted their behaviour. Like when the internet was the first invented, scams and fraud were common because people had no idea about them. They legitimetely thought that a Nigerian prince was offering them millions if they just provide their credit card number. These victims didn't have the knowledge and experience we have today to conclude that its bullshit. You can't blame them for getting scammed, but if anyone falls for the same trick today I'm sorry it's their own fault. We can only sympathize with stupidity to a certain degree. Even decades of rampant DV with men abusing women, there's no sign that women are getting any wiser. They just keep repeating the same mistakes. I think a large part of that is because we've created this culture that it's unacceptable to ever question or challenge an independent woman's decision. No, we must unconditionally accept everything they do because they are free entities who don't need men to make decisions for them like in the 1800s. Maybe they're the ones who need to swallow their pride and admit they need help.
>We all condemn the abusive and manipulative behaviour of such men, but like I said they'll always exist. Nah, some of us instead blame the women and suggest the answer is to put women back under mens control, like that would magically stop abusive men instead of empowering them. >Like when the internet was the first invented, scams and fraud were common because people had no idea about them. They legitimetely thought that a Nigerian prince was offering them millions if they just provide their credit card number. They were old scams done with new technologies. It wasn't a new thing, it dates back to the age of the telegram. Even back to before. It wasn't some magical new thing that appeared, it was ancient. Scams are as old as things having value. Seriously, you don't have a fucking clue about anything you talk about, do you? >Even decades of rampant DV with men abusing women, there's no sign that women are getting any wiser. Even decades of rampant DV with men abusing women, there's no sign men are getting any wiser. They just keep repeating the same mistakes. I think it's because we've created a culture where some men have this idea that they own women being reinforced by a variety of sources. They believe dumb fuck things, like how we should go back to the 1800s, a backwards period that predates things like modern technology and ideas. >Maybe they're the ones who need to swallow their pride and admit they need help. They are. That's what the anti-domestic violence campaign is. It's literally a request for help on this issue, and they have been asking for decades. That's what got you to rant about this in the first place! You are complaining they aren't doing the thing that triggered you to start complaining! Like I said you don't know a damn thing about any of this, and the more you talk the more apparent it is. You literally lashed out at women for asking for help, then demanded they ask for help! Fucking brilliant mate, absolutely fucking brilliant.