Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Sceptical, I think I kinda get where you’re coming from. (could that sentence be any more equivocal?)
I grew up with aggressive solidarity the province of men (e,g, the bawdy rugby songs of old).
It was assumed that our gender called the shots. Remember all those heroes who slapped a woman hard to bring her to her senses? And the the now-sensible heroines who would sink gratefully into their arms? Compulsory cookery, sewing and typing classes for girls and metalwork, woodwork, science and engineering and anything ‘businessy’ for manly men?
Groups of people who previously accepted a subservient role (aside from a few suffragettes, feminists and rabble-rousers) were finding that they could articulate their sense of injustice openly for a few drunken moments and find others who would join in. This assertion came as a real shock to guys brought up with an unspoken agenda of superiority.
The real target was not so much you and me, but more the kind of anonymous institutions that said it was ok for poor, frail John Wayne to give a woman a blow that in real life would have injured her, and told even the most intelligent woman she should keep her views to herself if she wanted to attract a man.
Of course, we could be seen as a representing that ‘system’ and the target for finger-pointing and sloganeering, but our world wasn’t changed by Gloria Gaynor.
Yes abuse is wrong full stop. In the larger scheme of things we need a new way of saying and doing things that takes us away from some of the old norms. I’m glad a lot has changed for the next generation.
@tinks wrote:
people should be careful at the moment ……..there are a lot of trojans around at the moment wich do untold damage
Very true, and the emails carrying them are getting more and more convincing – looking like special offers from supermarkets, enquiries from banks etc.
Check anything that doesn’t make sense. Google some of the text and see if the hoax has been registered or reply telling them you will delete if you don’t hear from them explaining who they are and the nature of the email.
If you let your cursor hover over the tag of the sender you will find the email address doesn’t sit with the sender – so an email purporting to be from a bank will show a personal or gobbledegook email address.
@eve wrote:
One thing that i do find difficult to understand is how a person who is being abused, physically, emotionally, verbally or in anyway, returns to the abuser over and over again.
It’s not a rational thing as such. It’s complicated by emotion and something akin to brainwashing, Normal rules don’t apply. ‘Love’ makes fools of us all as they say.
Grooming a victim often involves creating or exploiting low self esteem and the abused is convinced there is no-one else for them but the abuser. Receiving the abuse can be made an almost religious duty. The same process often applies to abused children, cults and the grooming of suicide bombers.
Sometimes emotional damage causes the abused to believe that the abuse provides some sort of validation or attention and the intensity of the abuse is seldom matched by anything normal relationships supply.
Sometimes the abused is persuaded by apologies, threats against children, threats of suicide, promises it will never happen again, guilt if they’ve been persuaded that somehow they ‘asked for it’.
Something akin to obsessive devotion is in operation, it doesn’t usually respond to reason and needs a kind of deprogramming to rectify it.
@simplysu wrote:
@wordsworth60 wrote:
@eve wrote:
Have only just seen this thread. My take, and it is only my personal opinion, is that no one , man or woman , has the right to “beat up ” anyone else. However, everyone, male and female, has the right to self defence. If a man hits a woman she has the right to defend herself. If a woman hits a man, he has an equal right to hit back.
Fair point eve. What I would add is that much pain can be avoided if someone learns how to de-escalate the violence, which might mean refusing to retaliate, walking or running away, calling for help or intervention or changing tack, e.g. replacing violence with rational words.
Not easy when passions are high.
What happends if one partner seeks the thrill of fear from the other? Sometimes the threat of violence is more painful pyschologically and emotionally than actual violence which often has a catalyst, albeit avoidable. Emotional scars take so much longer to heal and are harder to explain.
Very true Su, and a different scenario from the ‘eye for an eye’ type, perhaps closer to the ‘grooming’ situation. Sometimes it takes something to shock the individual into getting away from the sadist, or some kind of outside intervention might be necessary, with more continuing support. Anything that stimulates the adrenal system can become addictive even in a destructive situation. That is most definitely not the same as saying “he/she asked for it” it goes far deeper and more complicated.
@eve wrote:
Have only just seen this thread. My take, and it is only my personal opinion, is that no one , man or woman , has the right to “beat up ” anyone else. However, everyone, male and female, has the right to self defence. If a man hits a woman she has the right to defend herself. If a woman hits a man, he has an equal right to hit back.
Fair point eve. What I would add is that much pain can be avoided if someone learns how to de-escalate the violence, which might mean refusing to retaliate, walking or running away, calling for help or intervention or changing tack, e.g. replacing violence with rational words.
Not easy when passions are high.
@(f)politics? wrote:
you make a good point words about being honest about emotions the only problem with that sometimes for various reasons, whether you have no one to share them with, or people dont understand you and just tell you to get on with it or gloss over the subject not wanting to know, these things can build up and cause a rare reaction to their normal behaviours, simply because everyone and i mean everyone, or anyone (look at the vicar on emmerdale lol ) are capable of reaching a point where reason doesnt come into it, this can result in breakdowns, violent behaviours and so forth. Repeated behaviours like this are not acceptable and a different thing entirely.
Just for the record i am in no way condoning any form of domestic violence either towards a man or a woman. These feelings can be taken to extreme reactions more so with the use of crutches, ie.. alcohol and or drugs, none of it an excuse merely making the point every one can be human and have weaknesses or fail in reasonable and acceptable behaviours if the mind is pushed to an extreme. And yes these people need help i agree with panda, on that.
I would also like to add that verbal and emotional abuse, especially repeatedly, can be as harmful, indeed i would say at times more harmful too.This might be where Mr Waterman’s linguistic distinctions might have some validity. There are abusers whose behaviour stems from built up emotions such as frustration or anger. There are also those who consciously or otherwise groom victims, using emotional and verbal abuse to rob them of their personal and social identity before exploiting the resulting dependency and vulnerability with shows of violent power.
@londonseagull wrote:
@panda12 wrote:
@londonseagull wrote:
Wordsworth, I find you a very articulate poster and if I came across and a ‘knob’ I apologise. I wasn’t talking about Mr Waterman personally, I was talking in general. Women do, many times, cause men to lose their temper, and whether or not it is right, men will retaliate. It may be repulsive, which is not defendable, but sometimes, just sometimes, these women really do deserve a punch. My ex wife once told me she deliberately got me angry in order to get a reaction. I didn’t punch her however, I just told her to get out of the room and proceeded to rip it apart. Women are not stupid, they know what they are doing.
Children cause their fathers’s to lose their temper as well. Is it okay for the father to lose it and hit the children?
Men, woman and children who resort to violence whatever the provocation need help.
Mums don’t hit kids? Grow up.
It’s not about it being OK, because it isn’t. Actions speak louder than words, and I reckon if Seagull, thought it was OK he wouldn’t be talking about taking out his temper on furniture.
At the risk of being unpatriotic, what I think we need is a verbal and behavioural vocabulary for dealing with heightened emotions.
I remember working with someone who was always talking about emotions and how it was important to be honest and non-judgmental about them. Trouble is, he was a bit of a succubus for people’s emotions, feeding on the more vulnerable ones, like sadness, grief, regret, insecurity. The slightest show of power in the form of joy or anger and he went right into blame mode, trying to devalue the expression and the person. It left me really suspicious of people who trot out therapy-speak.
Sometimes simply acknowledging “I am angry” “I am sad” “I am happy” can help us own our feelings and deal with them non-destructively and be less vulnerable to people who will exploit our emotions. Not sure what the point is I’m trying to make, but thanks for reading.
@londonseagull wrote:
Wordsworth, I find you a very articulate poster and if I came across and a ‘knob’ I apologise. I wasn’t talking about Mr Waterman personally, I was talking in general. Women do, many times, cause men to lose their temper, and whether or not it is right, men will retaliate. It may be repulsive, which is not defendable, but sometimes, just sometimes, these women really do deserve a punch. My ex wife once told me she deliberately got me angry in order to get a reaction. I didn’t punch her however, I just told her to get out of the room and proceeded to rip it apart. Women are not stupid, they know what they are doing.
Apology accepted, experience acknowledged, point taken.
Happy Birthday Irene
@londonseagull wrote:
@wordsworth60 wrote:
@londonseagull wrote:
@terry wrote:
Has admitted (on tv) that he once gave his wife a black eye. :?
She probably deserved it.
Ah well, joke or not, at least I’ve just found out it’s not just Chameleon can make me feel a bit sick on these boards.
Violence as a response to verbals?
No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No!
And in case that didn’t make my point, No!
And that’s regardless of how ‘intelligent and powerful’ the words are.
Physical action to prevent or restrain genuine physical aggression is one thing. Striking the first blow in an argument? Never!.
And that probably says more about your political correctness than it does about light heartedness. Read what Pols says, she makes sense, you just drivel. Women have no right to drive men (or otherwise) to distraction and then bleat physical abuse because of the consequences. Everyone has a breaking point irrelevant of sex.
Thank you for your perspective LS, you are entitled to disagree with me and your revulsion seems genuine. Despite this, I wish you were less dismissive and insulting of my point of view, it is as valid as your own.
I was describing a genuine gut reaction. Whether it stems from my political correctness or not is untested and in itself doesn’t make it inappropriate.
According to a telegraph article, Rula Lenska, the wife in question, has said: “There were times when he hit me. I became the object of his hate,” “It got so bad that he became abusive to me and my daughter, and the last time it happened I had to run out of the house in tears.”
Mr Waterman’s explanation, quoted from the interview, was: “We were going through a horrible time and arguing a lot. “The problem with strong, intelligent women is that they can argue, well. And if there is a time where you can’t get a word in … and I … I lashed out. I couldn’t end the argument.
“Something must have brought it on. When frustration builds up and you can’t think of a way out … It happened and I’m very, very ashamed of it.”Describing the events, he admitted he might have “drunk too much” to remember details, and said: “I must have punched her one time ’cause she did have a black eye. Afterwards, I felt utterly ashamed.”
No indication of violence on her part from either of them and he doesn’t appear to think it was justified, despite the semantic argument of whether she was “beaten” or “hit”, which seemed to depend on how habitual the behaviour was and how cowed she was.
F_pol’s comments about victims of violence goading someone into hitting make a valid point. But ultimately physical violence is always a choice, even when the consequences or alternatives seem untenable. Even though provocation can be present and severe, ultimately the accountability lies with the hitter and I’m prepared to give Mr Waterman credit for not ducking the issue when asked.
Alcohol can take away the capacity to decide clearly and the inhibitions which would usually prevent violence – Mr Waterman seems to hint at that too by citing his drunkenness.
