The Faulty Duluth Model
bola
drugs and pathology. Only one cause, only one solution. There's no real
evidence it works. It ignores domestic violence by women. Women who need
help can't get it. It's taught by "wounded healers." It's
gender-polarizing-perpetrates the "battle of the sexes" "
Hyerdahl
bola wrote:
> "Blame and shame, not help.
People who use violence against others, are generally put in jail, no?
Whether that results in shame or not, it is against the LAW to beat
people up, married or not.
Ideology, not science.
Law is based on the wrongful actions of people regardless of ideology
or science. Thus, people who use unreasonable force are often
incarcerated. That doesn't take much figuring out.
It ignores drinking, drugs and pathology.
Regardless of the motivation, beating people up is STILL against the
law. I have no objection to getting people help while they are paying
their debt to society.
Rhonda Lea Kirk
> bola wrote:
>
>
>> "Blame and shame, not help.
>
> People who use violence against others, are generally put in jail, no?
> Whether that results in shame or not, it is against the LAW to beat
> people up, married or not.
Not all abuse is physical abuse.
>> Ideology, not science.
>
> Law is based on the wrongful actions of people regardless of ideology
> or science. Thus, people who use unreasonable force are often
> incarcerated. That doesn't take much figuring out.
Not all abuse is physical abuse.
>> It ignores drinking, drugs and pathology.
>
> Regardless of the motivation, beating people up is STILL against the
> law. I have no objection to getting people help while they are paying
> their debt to society.
Have you ever been in an abusive relationship, Hyerdahl? Or do you just
know all of this from the biased reading you do?
You can be sure that the debt an abuser owes is to his/her victim, not
to society.
--
Rhonda Lea Kirk
Happiness limits the amount of suffering one is
willing to inflict on others. Phèdre nó Delaunay
Jude Alexander
"Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eh8ul8$2uv$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
> Hyerdahl wrote:
>> bola wrote:
>>
>>
>>> "Blame and shame, not help.
>>
>> People who use violence against others, are generally put in jail, no?
>> Whether that results in shame or not, it is against the LAW to beat
>> people up, married or not.
>
> Not all abuse is physical abuse.
>
>>> Ideology, not science.
>>
>> Law is based on the wrongful actions of people regardless of ideology
>> or science. Thus, people who use unreasonable force are often
>> incarcerated. That doesn't take much figuring out.
>
> Not all abuse is physical abuse.
>
>>> It ignores drinking, drugs and pathology.
>>
>> Regardless of the motivation, beating people up is STILL against the
>> law. I have no objection to getting people help while they are paying
>> their debt to society.
>
> Have you ever been in an abusive relationship, Hyerdahl? Or do you just
> know all of this from the biased reading you do?
>
> You can be sure that the debt an abuser owes is to his/her victim, not to
> society.
This is the MOST absurd thing I've heard for awhile. What you're saying is
that any abuser ONLY owes his/her victim. Well, you're wrong. Abuse, just
like good will has a ripple affect and it DOES affect others. I can't
believe you don't look at a subject well enough to understand this.... which
further lends support that you are an abuser apologist and almost always
(not always if you can't get it) it's men who do such.
Jude Alexander
"bola" <bo...@antimisandry.com> wrote in message
news:eh8fru$ruv$1...@news5.zwoll1.ov.home.nl...
Bottom line for me: Being dominant, for either male or female, is okay as
long as: Both agree that the roles are fitting for their personalities and
there is no abuse of of that dominance.
Rhonda Lea Kirk
Spoken like someone who does not understand what victims need to be made
whole.
> Abuse, just like good will has a ripple affect and it DOES
> affect others.
Tell me how you've been affected and how it benefits you to have someone
locked up. Then tell me how your right to benefit supersedes my right as
a victim to be made whole.
> I can't believe you don't look at a subject well
> enough to understand this.... which further lends support that you
> are an abuser apologist and almost always (not always if you can't
> get it) it's men who do such.
Jude, I almost died in an abusive relationship.
A victim gets nothing when a perp is jailed. And most abuse is not
physical abuse anyway--it's emotional. When you figure out how to put
away all those emotional and verbal abusers--and a lot of them are going
to be women, not just men--you let me know.
If you read Lundy Bancroft or Patricia Evans and any other number of
those who do research in this area, you will find that *victims of
abuse* feel emotional and verbal abuse inflicts more long-term damage
than does physical abuse.
--
Rhonda Lea Kirk
Happiness limits the amount of suffering one is
willing to inflict on others. Phčdre nó Delaunay
Jude Alexander
Couldn't be further from the truth. You aren't a very good judge of
character. I'm very much for victims to be made whole.
How can that be legislated? Right now, women who have been abused so much
that they need corrective surgery depend SOLELY on independent doctors to
GIVE that to them.
Society, at large & in general, doesn't care about it's individuals.... Oh,
unless you're some public figure and they've put you on some kind of
irrational pedestal.
>> Abuse, just like good will has a ripple affect and it DOES
>> affect others.
>
> Tell me how you've been affected and how it benefits you to have someone
> locked up. Then tell me how your right to benefit supersedes my right as a
> victim to be made whole.
>
>> I can't believe you don't look at a subject well
>> enough to understand this.... which further lends support that you
>> are an abuser apologist and almost always (not always if you can't
>> get it) it's men who do such.
>
> Jude, I almost died in an abusive relationship.
>
> A victim gets nothing when a perp is jailed. And most abuse is not
> physical abuse anyway--it's emotional. When you figure out how to put away
> all those emotional and verbal abusers--and a lot of them are going to be
> women, not just men--you let me know.
Well, there are many people both men and women who don't feel they owe you
(which means anybody) anything just because you had a hard deal out of life.
If you read Lundy Bancroft or Patricia Evans and any other number of those
> who do research in this area, you will find that *victims of abuse* feel
> emotional and verbal abuse inflicts more long-term damage than does
> physical abuse.
Okay, but then you should know that all your loved ones suffered because of
your abuse. All that suffered because you suffer also in some way passed
that on with the people they came in contact with at least for awhile until
they healed, if they ever do heal completely. I don't know. I guess at
least they can carry on but never the same.
I had a girlfriend once that was ugly/mean toward me and even slapped me
hard on the face once for a ridiculous reason that I can't even remember
now. I think I asked her to clarify something she said. She also liked to
let me know that I was last in her life but this was all after a very
positive start and I ultimately understood it had NOTHING to do with me. It
was all about how she was not dealing with an abusive relationship she had
just come out of. She made ME pay for her abuse. I stayed around longer
than I should have but it was for the person I knew to once be. Ultimately,
I left and don't think of her much, perhaps once a year and I sometimes
forget I could label our relationship as abusive, her to me. It did hurt a
lot for sure. I told her she made me pay for abusive behavior of others
toward her and that she should be ashamed of herself for passing that
onward. I never feared for myself,my life or even my health. A smack hurts
but it's nothing really in comparison to what some people have gone through
like cigarette burns, beating to wear one needs reconstructive surgery, etc.
etc.
EdMac
"Jude Alexander" <Cajun@middle of the swamp.com> wrote in message
news:5hTZg.460$X11...@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>
>>
> This is the MOST absurd thing I've heard for awhile. What you're saying
> is that any abuser ONLY owes his/her victim. Well, you're wrong. Abuse,
> just like good will has a ripple affect and it DOES affect others. I
> can't believe you don't look at a subject well enough to understand
> this.... which further lends support that you are an abuser apologist and
> almost always (not always if you can't get it) it's men who do such.
>
numbers are small but the affects are dramatically obvious. It is amazing
however that feminists refuse to open their eyes and acknowledge that women
too are very abusive, both physically and emotionally, and although the
affects are not as dramatically obvious, they are very widespread and
through a ripple affect have an overall societal impact. If feminists want
to gain a shred of credibility in regard to abuse issues, it will be
necessary to
acknowledge that the female is many times the perpetrator.
Not superior moral character, but a lack of physical strength is the reason
that emergency wards across the US are not filled with battered men. It is
not for a lack of trying that in huge numbers women are not inflicting
grievous bodily harm on men.
Jude Alexander
"EdMac" <E...@none.com> wrote in message news:XqUZg.20654$P7.4264@edtnps90...
I tell you that I've never talked to a woman feminist who claimed that there
weren't women were bad people.
Just because someone may zero in on the worst side of an issue doesn't mean
that they haven't recognized that others suffer too.
In fact, I've seen women feminists give several men throughout a decade (I
posted off and on during that time) who told their personal story woman
abuse or loss a lot of sympathy and hope that he'll do better in the future.
I've NEVER seen men on alt.feminism or soc.men do the same toward a woman
who has given her story of abuse.
Hyerdahl
Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
> Hyerdahl wrote:
> > bola wrote:
> >
> >
> >> "Blame and shame, not help.
> >
> > People who use violence against others, are generally put in jail, no?
> > Whether that results in shame or not, it is against the LAW to beat
> > people up, married or not.
>
> Not all abuse is physical abuse.
I was talking about VIOLENCE here and that is physical abuse.
>
> >> Ideology, not science.
> >
> > Law is based on the wrongful actions of people regardless of ideology
> > or science. Thus, people who use unreasonable force are often
> > incarcerated. That doesn't take much figuring out.
>
> Not all abuse is physical abuse.
I was talking about unreasonable FORCE here and that IS physical
violence.
>
> >> It ignores drinking, drugs and pathology.
> >
> > Regardless of the motivation, beating people up is STILL against the
> > law. I have no objection to getting people help while they are paying
> > their debt to society.
>
> Have you ever been in an abusive relationship, Hyerdahl? Or do you just
> know all of this from the biased reading you do?
I know this from the law cases out there, the reality of the fact that
those folks who beat up on other folks, using unreasonable force, need
to be put in jail.
>
> You can be sure that the debt an abuser owes is to his/her victim, not
> to society.
That's cool; now a perpetrator of crime against the person can be
subject to civil awards to the victim as well as being punished for his
or her crimes.
EdMac
saying that the men of soc.men and alt.feminism have not offered
sympathy/support to women suffering abuse while the reverse was often true.
Is that correct?
I am not being an ass. I truly did not get the gist of your post.
Hyerdahl
Jude Alexander wrote:
> "Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eh8ul8$2uv$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
> > Hyerdahl wrote:
> >> bola wrote:
> >>
> > You can be sure that the debt an abuser owes is to his/her victim, not to
> > society.
>
> This is the MOST absurd thing I've heard for awhile. What you're saying is
> that any abuser ONLY owes his/her victim. Well, you're wrong. Abuse, just
> like good will has a ripple affect and it DOES affect others. I can't
> believe you don't look at a subject well enough to understand this.... which
> further lends support that you are an abuser apologist and almost always
> (not always if you can't get it) it's men who do such.
Indeed. 'Rhonda the Honda' is just using tailpipe action here to try
to keep those who are actually exhibiting violence from going to jail.
In fact, that was the objective of the original postor as well.
Obvsiously violence has an effect and takes a toll on generation after
generation and on all those connected to the violence, directly or
indirectly.
Hyerdahl
EdMac wrote:
> "Jude Alexander" <Cajun@middle of the swamp.com> wrote in message
> news:5hTZg.460$X11...@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> >
> >>
> > This is the MOST absurd thing I've heard for awhile. What you're saying
> > is that any abuser ONLY owes his/her victim. Well, you're wrong. Abuse,
> > just like good will has a ripple affect and it DOES affect others. I
> > can't believe you don't look at a subject well enough to understand
> > this.... which further lends support that you are an abuser apologist and
> > almost always (not always if you can't get it) it's men who do such.
> >
> Nobody will deny that there are men who abuse women. In percentages, their
> numbers are small but the affects are dramatically obvious. It is amazing
> however that feminists refuse to open their eyes and acknowledge that women
> too are very abusive, both physically and emotionally, and although the
> affects are not as dramatically obvious, they are very widespread and
> through a ripple affect have an overall societal impact. If feminists want
> to gain a shred of credibility in regard to abuse issues, it will be
> necessary to
> acknowledge that the female is many times the perpetrator.
The law and those who administer it, KNOW that people fight. They know
that sometimes women start fights. The reason the law punishes
violence is not because people fight, but rather to stop the
violence....or the unreasonable force used that ends up with people
dead, hospitalized, or permanently damaged from violence.
> Not superior moral character, but a lack of physical strength is the reason
> that emergency wards across the US are not filled with battered men. It is
> not for a lack of trying that in huge numbers women are not inflicting
> grievous bodily harm on men.
No one here is trying to give women a medal for being less violent, but
studies acknowledge that women EXHIBIT violence less often, when it
comes to unreasonable force. And, quite frankly, the hospitals are
NOT filling with men complaining of domestic abuse. Saying that
women are weaker is just blaming the victim, and not looking at what is
actually happening, i.e. that women exhibit violence less often for
whatever reasons they have for that, INCLUDING, but not limited to what
you say above that most women realize they would lose in a game of
push-shove. In the end, those who use UNREASONABLE FORCE should spend
time in jail, whether or not they get treatment.
Poofy's Fuck Buddy
"Hyerdahl" <Hyer...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1161295379.3...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> bola wrote:
>
>
>> "Blame and shame, not help.
>
> People who use violence against others, are generally put in jail, no?
Not if it's justified :o)
> Whether that results in shame or not, it is against the LAW to beat
> people up, married or not.
Not exactly poofy.
>
> Ideology, not science.
>
> Law is based on the wrongful actions of people regardless of ideology
> or science.
No, Law is based on tradition and customs of thousands of years. Long before
it was codified people still followed certain rules.
Thus, people who use unreasonable force are often
> incarcerated. That doesn't take much figuring out.
And that still comes down to what the average reasonable man in a particular
society believes is rational. He makes his opinion known while serving as a
juror.
>
> It ignores drinking, drugs and pathology.
>
> Regardless of the motivation, beating people up is STILL against the
> law. I have no objection to getting people help while they are paying
> their debt to society.
It depends if the beating was justified. And under what conditions it
occurred. If a man comes home and finds his wife licking another female's
cunt he has ever right to beat her and she should be grateful he didn't just
shoot her :o)
>
EdMac
Does the word "feminist" have a clear definition in your mind?
I know feminists that are very reasonable likable people that have a
sinscere belief in male/female equality. They recognize that men and women
are different and all things will never be absolutely equal, but equality
should exist to the greatest extent possible.
I agree with that philosophy.
However, others that describe themselves as feminists, lie and twist facts
in a never ending quest for privledge and power.
In the following, my usage of the word "feminist" refers to the latter.
There are enourmous numbers of men out there living with abusive women while
simultaneously being bombarded with the message that domestic abuse is a
female victim / male perpetrator situation. If feminist would like to gain a
huge amount of credibilty and support in addressing domestic violence, they
need only address the situation as a two way street. Men as group will get
behind ending domestic violence when feminists quit misrepresenting the
facts.
The sorry part is that I don't expect that to happen any time soon.
EdMac
Actually women are held accountable for their violence less often. That is
what we know. Of course the hospitals are not filled with men complaining of
domestic abuse. Men suffer in silence. When a man calls police, his
complaint is dismissed as trivial. A women on the other hand will be taken
to the hospital by the police in an effort to document injuries. She may not
need medical treatment, but she is going to get a drive to the hospital
anyway. That is the way it works.
How does the fact that women are weaker equate to blaming the victim?
And why do you like to think that woman = victim?
Actually many women provoke the push-shove game, knowing that her
boyfriend/husband cannot
defend himself without risking a ride to the local lock up. Keep in mind
many women are beating on non violent men with out fear of physical
repercussions and then calling the police when she receives the slightest
mark through his attempts at self defense.
Many of these men suffer horrible injuries as they try to defend themselves
as gingerly as possible, so as not to mark their assailant.
Rhonda Lea Kirk
> Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
>> Hyerdahl wrote:
>>> bola wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Blame and shame, not help.
>>>
>>> People who use violence against others, are generally put in jail,
>>> no? Whether that results in shame or not, it is against the LAW to
>>> beat people up, married or not.
>>
>> Not all abuse is physical abuse.
>
> I was talking about VIOLENCE here and that is physical abuse.
It doesn't matter what you were talking about.
The Duluth Model addresses more than physical abuse.
>>>> Ideology, not science.
>>>
>>> Law is based on the wrongful actions of people regardless of
>>> ideology or science. Thus, people who use unreasonable force are
>>> often incarcerated. That doesn't take much figuring out.
>>
>> Not all abuse is physical abuse.
>
> I was talking about unreasonable FORCE here and that IS physical
> violence.
It doesn't matter what you were talking about.
The Duluth Model addresses more than physical abuse.
>>>> It ignores drinking, drugs and pathology.
>>>
>>> Regardless of the motivation, beating people up is STILL against the
>>> law. I have no objection to getting people help while they are
>>> paying their debt to society.
>>
>> Have you ever been in an abusive relationship, Hyerdahl? Or do you
>> just know all of this from the biased reading you do?
>
> I know this from the law cases out there, the reality of the fact that
> those folks who beat up on other folks, using unreasonable force, need
> to be put in jail.
It doesn't matter what you think you know or how you characterize
"reality."
The Duluth Model addresses more than physical abuse.
>> You can be sure that the debt an abuser owes is to his/her victim,
>> not to society.
>
> That's cool; now a perpetrator of crime against the person can be
> subject to civil awards to the victim as well as being punished for
> his or her crimes.
The success of a lawsuit is not measured only by whether you win or lose
but by whether you are able to collect any damages when you win.
--
Rhonda Lea Kirk
Happiness limits the amount of suffering one is
willing to inflict on others. Phčdre nó Delaunay
Rhonda Lea Kirk
Oh, I'm a very good judge of character. I can spot a narcissist the
minute it opens its mouth.
> How can that be legislated? Right now, women who have been abused so
> much that they need corrective surgery depend SOLELY on independent
> doctors to GIVE that to them.
Unless, of course, they have insurance.
> Society, at large & in general, doesn't care about it's
> individuals.... Oh, unless you're some public figure and they've put
> you on some kind of irrational pedestal.
Y'know, I've responded to the bullshit, but it's like one big fat
non-sequitur.
I begin to understand the blank posts. You're as incoherent as Hyerdahl.
>>> Abuse, just like good will has a ripple affect and it DOES
>>> affect others.
>>
>> Tell me how you've been affected and how it benefits you to have
>> someone locked up. Then tell me how your right to benefit supersedes
>> my right as a victim to be made whole.
>>
>>> I can't believe you don't look at a subject well
>>> enough to understand this.... which further lends support that you
>>> are an abuser apologist and almost always (not always if you can't
>>> get it) it's men who do such.
>>
>> Jude, I almost died in an abusive relationship.
>>
>> A victim gets nothing when a perp is jailed. And most abuse is not
>> physical abuse anyway--it's emotional. When you figure out how to
>> put away all those emotional and verbal abusers--and a lot of them
>> are going to be women, not just men--you let me know.
>
> Well, there are many people both men and women who don't feel they
> owe you (which means anybody) anything just because you had a hard
> deal out of life.
What does this have to do with what I wrote?
> If you read Lundy Bancroft or Patricia Evans and any other number of
> those
>> who do research in this area, you will find that *victims of abuse*
>> feel emotional and verbal abuse inflicts more long-term damage than
>> does physical abuse.
>
> Okay, but then you should know that all your loved ones suffered
> because of your abuse.
How do you know?
> All that suffered because you suffer also in
> some way passed that on with the people they came in contact with at
> least for awhile until they healed, if they ever do heal completely. I
> don't know. I guess at least they can carry on but never the same.
Again, how do you know?
> I had a girlfriend once that was ugly/mean toward me and even slapped
> me hard on the face once for a ridiculous reason that I can't even
> remember now. I think I asked her to clarify something she said. She
> also liked to let me know that I was last in her life but this
> was all after a very positive start and I ultimately understood it
> had NOTHING to do with me. It was all about how she was not dealing
> with an abusive relationship she had just come out of. She made ME
> pay for her abuse. I stayed around longer than I should have but it
> was for the person I knew to once be. Ultimately, I left and don't
> think of her much, perhaps once a year and I sometimes forget I could
> label our relationship as abusive, her to me. It did hurt a lot for
> sure. I told her she made me pay for abusive behavior of others
> toward her and that she should be ashamed of herself for passing that
> onward. I never feared for myself,my life or even my health. A
> smack hurts but it's nothing really in comparison to what some people
> have gone through like cigarette burns, beating to wear one needs
> reconstructive surgery, etc. etc.
There is no doubt in my mind that you're an abusive control-freak.
As a matter of fact, Bancroft describes your type right down to the last
detail.
Supreme Ayatollah of the Discordian Meme
> Hyerdahl wrote:
>> That's cool; now a perpetrator of crime against the person can be
>> subject to civil awards to the victim as well as being punished for
>> his or her crimes.
>
> The success of a lawsuit is not measured only by whether you win or
> lose but by whether you are able to collect any damages when you win.
Are you suggesting that vindication alone is insufficient for those who
seek vindication alone?
--
Supreme Ayatollah of the Discordian Meme (Furiae Plasmator) and
Ordained Priest of the Paratheo-anametamystikhood of Eris Esoteric.
Unus vox vocis in chorus universum.
HAIL ERIS! -><- KALLISTI -><- ALL HAIL DISCORDIA!
We are a tribe of philosophers, theologians, magicians, scientists,
artists, clowns, and similar maniacs who are intrigued with ERIS,
GODDESS OF CONFUSION, and with Her Doings.
Talis est drama humanus species: Primordia universum es fio victus
quod conscius, ergo cogitationis poenam sulum humanus; sapientia emo
procul valde carus.
The earth-centered model of the universe, developed by astronomer
Claudius Ptolemy in AD 200, is a fine example of intellectual
brilliance not being any kind of guarantee against being dead wrong.
Hyerdahl
I don't know that at all. I've heard people say it, but I don't know
it to be so.
Of course the hospitals are not filled with men complaining of
> domestic abuse. Men suffer in silence.
Untrue. When my father and mother caught colds or flues everyone knew
my father was sick. :-)
When a man calls police, his > complaint is dismissed as trivial. A
women on the other hand will be taken > to the hospital by the police
in an effort to document injuries. She may not
> need medical treatment, but she is going to get a drive to the hospital
> anyway. That is the way it works.
> How does the fact that women are weaker equate to blaming the victim?
> And why do you like to think that woman = victim?
Saying that's "the way it works" does not make it true either. I need
facts. ...not your speculation. Trying to MANipulate the facts to
say that the only reason women exhibit less violence is because they
are weaker is just speculation, therefore, blaming the victim.
>
> Actually many women provoke the push-shove game, knowing that her
> boyfriend/husband cannot
> defend himself without risking a ride to the local lock up. Keep in mind
> many women are beating on non violent men with out fear of physical
> repercussions and then calling the police when she receives the slightest
> mark through his attempts at self defense.
> Many of these men suffer horrible injuries as they try to defend themselves
> as gingerly as possible, so as not to mark their assailant.
Sorry, you have no FACTS here to back up your story. I keep hearing
about male victims but don't see any. The fact remains that women
don't exhibit the same amount or degree of violence as those folks are
not showing up in hospitals and morgues.
Hyerdahl
Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
> Hyerdahl wrote:
> > Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
> >> Hyerdahl wrote:
> >>> bola wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> "Blame and shame, not help.
> >>>
> >>> People who use violence against others, are generally put in jail,
> >>> no? Whether that results in shame or not, it is against the LAW to
> >>> beat people up, married or not.
> >>
> >> Not all abuse is physical abuse.
> >
> > I was talking about VIOLENCE here and that is physical abuse.
>
> It doesn't matter what you were talking about.
It does if you're arguing against it. :-)
>
> The Duluth Model addresses more than physical abuse.
>
That's fine, but my contribution was about violence. If you want to
talk about some other part of the Duluth Model, please cite or quote
what you're wanting to debate; I was debating the part that deals with
VIOLENCE.
> >>>> Ideology, not science.
> >>>
> >>> Law is based on the wrongful actions of people regardless of
> >>> ideology or science. Thus, people who use unreasonable force are
> >>> often incarcerated. That doesn't take much figuring out.
> >>
> >> Not all abuse is physical abuse.
> >
> > I was talking about unreasonable FORCE here and that IS physical
> > violence.
>
> It doesn't matter what you were talking about.
It does if you're trying to debate what I'm talking about, idiot.
>
> The Duluth Model addresses more than physical abuse.
If you want to talk about some other part of the Duluth Model, feel
free to cite or quote from what you'd like to discuss. My contribution
is about the violence.
>
> >>>> It ignores drinking, drugs and pathology.
> >>>
> >>> Regardless of the motivation, beating people up is STILL against the
> >>> law. I have no objection to getting people help while they are
> >>> paying their debt to society.
> >>
> >> Have you ever been in an abusive relationship, Hyerdahl? Or do you
> >> just know all of this from the biased reading you do?
> >
> > I know this from the law cases out there, the reality of the fact that
> > those folks who beat up on other folks, using unreasonable force, need
> > to be put in jail.
>
> It doesn't matter what you think you know or how you characterize
> "reality."
Since we are in a debating format, what I debate is worth as much as
what you debate.
I am debating the issue of violence and how it is addressed in the
Duluth Model. What would YOU LIKE to debate?
>
> The Duluth Model addresses more than physical abuse.
Again, if you want to debate another issue here, be my guest. My issue
is strictly about violence.
>
> >> You can be sure that the debt an abuser owes is to his/her victim,
> >> not to society.
> >
> > That's cool; now a perpetrator of crime against the person can be
> > subject to civil awards to the victim as well as being punished for
> > his or her crimes.
>
> The success of a lawsuit is not measured only by whether you win or lose
> but by whether you are able to collect any damages when you win.
That's very true, but you were the one concerned about the victim here,
so I addressed your point. I thought that was very considerate of me,
since MY POINT about violence remains totally unaddressed by you.
Wimp.
> Happiness limits the amount of suffering one is
> willing to inflict on others. Phèdre nó Delaunay
Supreme Ayatollah of the Discordian Meme
There are two intricately woven threads related in Jude's text, neither of
which you seem to have picked up on. Unless I have misunderstood something
here, it appears to me that you have only identified a convenient hook for
yourself to latch on to. I think I feel disappointment because I expected
better.
Reluctant as I am to state it, I also believe that, very much like the woman
related to in Jude's message, if I were to scrutinize your posting history
it might be evident that there is a persistent and recurrent theme of
identifying such behaviors where no such behavior may actually exist or
where the threads to the alleged behavior are tenuous in the extreme. People
who do that are destined to drive away anyone who might genuinely love them.
Supreme Ayatollah of the Discordian Meme
> Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
>> The Duluth Model addresses more than physical abuse.
>>
>
> That's fine, but my contribution was about violence. If you want to
> talk about some other part of the Duluth Model, please cite or quote
> what you're wanting to debate; I was debating the part that deals
> with VIOLENCE.
violence -noun
1. swift and intense force.
2. rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment.
3. an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against
rights or laws.
4. a violent act or proceeding.
5. rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language.
6. damage through distortion or unwarranted alteration.
The common understanding of the word VIOLENCE recognizes no such distinction
of the meaning as you would like applied.
Supreme Ayatollah of the Discordian Meme
> Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
>> The Duluth Model addresses more than physical abuse.
>>
>
> That's fine, but my contribution was about violence. If you want to
> talk about some other part of the Duluth Model, please cite or quote
> what you're wanting to debate; I was debating the part that deals
> with VIOLENCE.
violence -noun
Supreme Ayatollah of the Discordian Meme
> This is the MOST absurd thing I've heard for awhile. What you're
> saying is that any abuser ONLY owes his/her victim. Well, you're
> wrong. Abuse, just like good will has a ripple affect and it DOES
> affect others. I can't believe you don't look at a subject well
> enough to understand this.... which further lends support that you
> are an abuser apologist and almost always (not always if you can't
> get it) it's men who do such.
Read your text once more but remove the word 'apologist'. Take care to note
that all reference to anyone in particular has been deleted.
In situations where there is or has been an abusive relationship it is not
implausible that for the abused there remains a number of unresolved but
significant tensions arising from said relationship, no matter the sad
event's distance in time and no matter the victim's affirmations of being
'over it'. It is equally as plausible that the result of such a
relationship is the victim perceiving abusive behaviors in almost all
related situations, thus due to an out-of-control self-protection
mechanism, an inadvertent step into being that which is feared most is
taken.
Whacky speculation but not so whacky as to be incredible. In essence, what
you wrote about the ex whom you say made you suffer for the abuse she
received elsewhere is, ignoring all situational context, not that much
different from what I am pointing to.
"kinda sad that once a good guy comes along..." jakeir...@yahoo.com
in news:1161245419.3...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
Now I've said all that, I will remind you that you are not permitted to
construe that I no longer view you as being an idiot. I suspect you will
unwisely turn your dirty, torn and unsanitary fingernail that sits upon
your gnarled and shriveled pointing digit toward someone in particular
and characterize them as I have stated when you should do nothing of the
like.
It's 1AM. I'm going to sleep. Tomorrow I will return to poke some more sharp
sticks into you.
bola
(...)
> Does the word "feminist" have a clear definition in your mind?
> I know feminists that are very reasonable likable people that have a
> sinscere belief in male/female equality. They recognize that men and women
> are different and all things will never be absolutely equal, but equality
> should exist to the greatest extent possible.
> I agree with that philosophy.
But that's the problem. The sexes have never been so unequal as they
are today. That's because male power is tranferable and female power is
not. We depend much more on them, than they depend on us. It's a sellers
market. We have moved from a situation of moderate inequality to a
situation of gross inequality. And even if radical feminism is pushed
back, this is not going to change. We've been duped.
EdMac
If you selectively accept only that information that supports
your biases, much information will bounce off you and later
you will not even realize that it was available.
>
> Of course the hospitals are not filled with men complaining of
>> domestic abuse. Men suffer in silence.
>
> Untrue. When my father and mother caught colds or flues everyone knew
> my father was sick. :-)
So you've learned that facts as they pertain to male/female relationships
from your mother and father?
Gaining information through a statistical sampling of 1, will be frought
with inaccuracies.
>
> When a man calls police, his > complaint is dismissed as trivial. A
> women on the other hand will be taken > to the hospital by the police
> in an effort to document injuries. She may not
>> need medical treatment, but she is going to get a drive to the hospital
>> anyway. That is the way it works.
>> How does the fact that women are weaker equate to blaming the victim?
>> And why do you like to think that woman = victim?
>
> Saying that's "the way it works" does not make it true either. I need
> facts. ...not your speculation. Trying to MANipulate the facts to
> say that the only reason women exhibit less violence is because they
> are weaker is just speculation, therefore, blaming the victim.
>>
>> Actually many women provoke the push-shove game, knowing that her
>> boyfriend/husband cannot
>> defend himself without risking a ride to the local lock up. Keep in mind
>> many women are beating on non violent men with out fear of physical
>> repercussions and then calling the police when she receives the slightest
>> mark through his attempts at self defense.
>> Many of these men suffer horrible injuries as they try to defend
>> themselves
>> as gingerly as possible, so as not to mark their assailant.
>
> Sorry, you have no FACTS here to back up your story. I keep hearing
> about male victims but don't see any. The fact remains that women
> don't exhibit the same amount or degree of violence as those folks are
> not showing up in hospitals and morgues.
>
It really doesn't matter what you know. You will only ever know or admit
that which supports your quest for privlege.
It would appear that you primarily serve as a bad example of feminism.
Men in large numbers along with their friends and families know.
I find it quite amazing that I made a post about a particular brand of
feminist being bent on gaining power and privilege through lies, twisting of
facts etc, and within minutes you came along and demonstrated it.
Many reasonable women are witnessing brothers, sons etc suffer and are
coming to recognize the whole picture.
By the way, fact are not merely that which has been documented through
selectively collected, filtered and sorted statistics.
It is this manipulation of data that the dishonest feminists love most.
Jude Alexander
"EdMac" <E...@none.com> wrote in message news:RKUZg.20865$P7.8282@edtnps90...
Yes, this has been my experience. I have to say, however, that for these
past 10 years, I have only posted off and one, perhaps for 3 month period on
& 6 off, and other differing time slots.
I have seen women feminist actually give succor to men who have come to
alt.feminism and told their "story" about a woman doing them in. I have
NEVER seen any soc.men or men who post to alt.feminism do the same. If a
woman feminist posts ANYTHING (from my experience) about what a man has done
to her, it has been met with ridicule, disbelief, accusations of
exagerating, slamming, baiting, and many other negative reactions.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Jude Alexander
Thank you. I can always count on you to have rational and common sense.
>
Jude Alexander
It can't be overlooked either that there have been "equalizers" out there
for a VERY LONG TIME for women to commit as much violence as men and they
simply do not choose to go that route AS OFTEN as men.
>
Jude Alexander
I don't know about many men but it is surely a reality that there are men
who do the right thing and not engage in a free for all fight with someone
(either male or female) that there is "no contest."
The same dispictable behavior would be violence toward children.
What the bottom line is for civilized men is that they shouldn't choose to
use an advantage given them naturally (physical strength) against anyone
other than in self defense. This goes for women also. However, women don't
have the temptation, if you will, to use their God-given greater strength to
an unlawful advantage. Yet, like I've said before, there ARE "equalizers"
that have been in existence for many years (weapons) with which women COULD
theorically be as violent as men and get away with it (in the negative sense
of that phrase) but they don't choose to. We don't know why. Somethings
will probably always be unknowable because there are too many variables to
weight.
MCP
best laugh i have had in ages!!
Jude Alexander
"EdMac" <E...@none.com> wrote in message news:uT1_g.31160$P7.12341@edtnps89...
You have shown yourself to have knee jerked at Hyerdahl's statement. YOU
gave NO facts. Therefore, she can't be what you accuse her of being since
she didn't respond to any fact giving statistical report and which DOES look
like our own opinion based on your OWN experience of ONE.
In fact, like I said earlier, people can claim that there are a lot of so &
sos or such & such out there and it could be in line with their own
experiences but you already know that the statistic of ONE can be way off.
I deal with the public and have done so for over 18 years and I DO come
across men who show the obvious sign of having a very dominant and
negatively dominant wife. The number of men I've come across like that are
little compared to the vice versa. Again, this is MY own experience which
is very different from other people's experiences.
There's just no good trustworthy way in which to find out some things so we
go with our experiences and the experiences of others we trust are telling
the truth. Still far from a perfect system.
We also know that statistics, although the statistics takers may have honest
attitude, can be terribly off base. Statistic takers tend to take small
groups of people and project from there. Still a far less than perfect
system.
Jude Alexander
> Jude Alexander wrote:
>> "Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:eh91cg$9if$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
>>> Jude Alexander wrote:
>>>> "Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:eh8ul8$2uv$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
>>>>>> bola wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Blame and shame, not help.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> People who use violence against others, are generally put in jail,
>>>>>> no? Whether that results in shame or not, it is against the LAW to
>>>>>> beat people up, married or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not all abuse is physical abuse.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ideology, not science.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Law is based on the wrongful actions of people regardless of
>>>>>> ideology or science. Thus, people who use unreasonable force are
>>>>>> often incarcerated. That doesn't take much figuring out.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not all abuse is physical abuse.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> It ignores drinking, drugs and pathology.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regardless of the motivation, beating people up is STILL against
>>>>>> the law. I have no objection to getting people help while they
>>>>>> are paying their debt to society.
>>>>>
>>>>> just know all of this from the biased reading you do?
>>>>>
>>>>> You can be sure that the debt an abuser owes is to his/her victim,
>>>>> not to society.
>>>>
>>>> This is the MOST absurd thing I've heard for awhile. What you're
>>>> saying is that any abuser ONLY owes his/her victim. Well, you're
>>>> wrong.
>>>
>>> Spoken like someone who does not understand what victims need to be
>>> made whole.
>>
>> Couldn't be further from the truth. You aren't a very good judge of
>> character. I'm very much for victims to be made whole.
>
> Oh, I'm a very good judge of character. I can spot a narcissist the minute
> it opens its mouth.
I can read the not so hidden meaning in your statement that either I or
Hyderdahl is a narcissist. You just can't keep that negative personality of
your in check, can you?
Granted, that over a length of time and with a bit of interaction, I believe
one could spot a narcissistic type of individual if they are aware of what
characteristics to look for.
We're all self centered to a degree and there is no escape from that in
minor degrees. It's the massively self centered gombas that make life a bit
more difficult for everybody they come intact. So, if you're thinking that
you've got some special gift to spot self centeredness, you'll forgive me
for laughing.
To be clinically diagnosed as a narcissist is another matter. I've know, in
fact, someone who has been clinically diagnosed as a narcisstic personality
and also a sociopath.
>> How can that be legislated? Right now, women who have been abused so
>> much that they need corrective surgery depend SOLELY on independent
>> doctors to GIVE that to them.
>
> Unless, of course, they have insurance.
>> Society, at large & in general, doesn't care about it's
>> individuals.... Oh, unless you're some public figure and they've put
>> you on some kind of irrational pedestal.
>
> Y'know, I've responded to the bullshit, but it's like one big fat
> non-sequitur.
> I begin to understand the blank posts. You're as incoherent as Hyerdahl.
MASSIVE PROJECTION, ill tempered one. Non-sequitur means not following
logically from what has been said. You claim that victims are owned
wholeness after being victimized. I responded that the greater part of
society doesn't care about victimized individuals (I should have added
unless they're connected to them) or unless they are public figures. THAT
does
not fit the definition of "non-sequitur." DUH
My first impression of you as a nasty tempered gay man or transsexual still
stands. ALL you have is insults and disrespect toward those you disagree
with and yet you criticize others for the same behavior or what you perceive
as the same behavior. THAT is called hypocrisy. WHERE in the all time that
I've seen you post be respectful? It's almost like you can't control your
negativity and it HAS to be out, even though someone tries to have a decent
conversation with you!!!!
Yeah, I believe you've been abused AND you're passing it along to others
daily! Isn't that why you come to the net? So you bash others? You have
no real purpose in mind with the bashing. The bashing IS the point. You
wouldn't think for a second to clean up you own house, now would you?
Incoherent as Hyerdahl? lol She's one of the brightest people I've seen
post on any ng I've visited! lol OBVIOUSLY, you just slamming cause we're
not in agreement with you. With all the retards, lackluster individuals out
there that so densely populate the internet and you're calling Hyderdahl &
I incoherent! lol WHAT A LAUGH! You're as easy to read as Dick and Jane.
>>>> Abuse, just like good will has a ripple affect and it DOES
>>>> affect others.
>>>
>>> Tell me how you've been affected and how it benefits you to have
>>> someone locked up. Then tell me how your right to benefit supersedes
>>> my right as a victim to be made whole.
>>>
>>>> I can't believe you don't look at a subject well
>>>> enough to understand this.... which further lends support that you
>>>> are an abuser apologist and almost always (not always if you can't
>>>> get it) it's men who do such.
>>>
>>> Jude, I almost died in an abusive relationship.
This is a appeal for my sympathy or minimally for my understanding and I
ALMOST was drawn in...
>>> A victim gets nothing when a perp is jailed. And most abuse is not
>>> physical abuse anyway--it's emotional. When you figure out how to
>>> put away all those emotional and verbal abusers--and a lot of them
>>> are going to be women, not just men--you let me know.
>>
>> Well, there are many people both men and women who don't feel they
>> owe you (which means anybody) anything just because you had a hard
>> deal out of life.
>
> What does this have to do with what I wrote?
(clipped)
You ARE a waste of my time as you're clearly a gamey, insincere, ill
tempered, negatively-inspired individual who, after months of engaging in
flame wars, appeared to want to engage in a normal debate about the subject
of abuse. However, I suspect all you're doing is playing a temporary game
at being nice (I see that you can hardly contain your negative personality
though as your little darts fire off automatically! lol) in order to
draw people in and in the doing so, see how you can slam them better.
Clipped the rest. Buh Bye.
Jude Alexander
So do I.
> However, others that describe themselves as feminists, lie and twist facts
> in a never ending quest for privledge and power.
This is a known fact that moderate feminist have recognized AND commented
on. In fact, I've heard some feminists comment that some of their prior
comments were out of the times and that were a bit overmuch, as they say.
>
> In the following, my usage of the word "feminist" refers to the latter.
Just as in any group, you're going to a range of individuals who identify
themselves as a member of a group but the range of ideas and beliefs will be
very different.
>
> There are enourmous numbers of men out there living with abusive women
> while simultaneously being bombarded with the message that domestic abuse
> is a female victim / male perpetrator situation. If feminist would like
> to gain a huge amount of credibilty and support in addressing domestic
> violence, they need only address the situation as a two way street. Men
> as group will get behind ending domestic violence when feminists quit
> misrepresenting the facts.
I don't know about enormous being correct.
Look, we ALL take and give a little "abuse" in our lives. If you come in
grouchy from work and snap at your wife, that's abuse. Geez, it doesn't
make us monsters. If she gets up and is stressed out and snaps at you
that's literally "abuse."
Marriage has difficult times and we all do things we're not proud of. It's
a matter of degrees when we talk about a relationship being abusive.
There's a line that can be crossed over where one or the other is married to
CONTROL and not a human being.
And although we'd all like to control somewhat those things that affect us,
we know this is irrational to expect. Much of people's lives are not within
their control. Wanting control over our lives has no negative attached to
it. What we're willing to do in order to get it is what can turn very
negative.
Jude Alexander
Jude Alexander
"MCP" <gf010...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:wS4_g.267$3D1...@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Like a hyena! You're a grotesque hater. Who but other haters would give
you credit for anything.
>
>
Rhonda Lea Kirk
Does it seem to you that there is any possibility of Jude and I having a
civil discussion when, each time he dislikes what I say, he accuses me
of being a biological man on the way to becoming a woman?
> Reluctant as I am to state it, I also believe that, very much like
> the woman related to in Jude's message, if I were to scrutinize your
> posting history it might be evident that there is a persistent and
> recurrent theme of identifying such behaviors where no such behavior
> may actually exist or where the threads to the alleged behavior are
> tenuous in the extreme. People who do that are destined to drive away
> anyone who might genuinely love them.
And you, like Jude, are certainly welcome to think as you please.
EdMac
> You have shown yourself to have knee jerked at Hyerdahl's statement. YOU
> gave NO facts. Therefore, she can't be what you accuse her of being
> since she didn't respond to any fact giving statistical report and which
> DOES look like our own opinion based on your OWN experience of ONE.
Actually Hyerdahl provided NO facts.
Is not every statement provided by Hyerdahl based on opinion or are they
based on statistics.
If they are based on statistics, your above comment is incorrect.
My reference to a statistic sampling of 1 was in reference to her statement
that it is "untrue" that men suffer in silence. She made this proclamation
based on one situation, that being her mother and father. I did not make the
statement because it was the opinion of one person but rather formulated
through one situation.
The opinion of one person can be very accurate provided they have had enough
exposure to many pertinent situations.
> In fact, like I said earlier, people can claim that there are a lot of so
> & sos or such & such out there and it could be in line with their own
> experiences but you already know that the statistic of ONE can be way off.
>
> I deal with the public and have done so for over 18 years and I DO come
> across men who show the obvious sign of having a very dominant and
> negatively dominant wife. The number of men I've come across like that
> are little compared to the vice versa. Again, this is MY own experience
> which is very different from other people's experiences.
>
> There's just no good trustworthy way in which to find out some things so
> we go with our experiences and the experiences of others we trust are
> telling the truth. Still far from a perfect system.
>
No system will ever be perfect, but we will never know the complete story
until it is acknowledged that men suffer abuse and attemps made to
document/study it. This is the part of feminism that is dishonest. Feminisn
does not want this to happen.
> We also know that statistics, although the statistics takers may have
> honest attitude, can be terribly off base. Statistic takers tend to take
> small groups of people and project from there. Still a far less than
> perfect system.
The type of "facts" that prove the abuse of women will not be available to
men anytime soon.
The statistic producing part of the medical and legal system is under the
control of the feminist agenda.
If for some reason, we quit documenting the abuse of women, does the notion
that women suffer abuse cease to be a fact?
Reasonable people would say no?
They will not hide behind the notion that there are no"facts" to prove abuse
is happening
jenius
Hyerdahl wrote:
> bola wrote:
>
>
> > "Blame and shame, not help.
>
> People who use violence against others, are generally put in jail, no?
> Whether that results in shame or not, it is against the LAW to beat
> people up, married or not.
>
>
> Law is based on the wrongful actions of people regardless of ideology
> or science. Thus, people who use unreasonable force are often
> incarcerated. That doesn't take much figuring out.
>
>
> Regardless of the motivation, beating people up is STILL against the
> law. I have no objection to getting people help while they are paying
> their debt to society.
how many women have beaten you up lately asswhole. jenius
bola
> Hyerdahl wrote:
>> bola wrote:
>>
>>
>>> "Blame and shame, not help.
>> People who use violence against others, are generally put in jail, no?
>> Whether that results in shame or not, it is against the LAW to beat
>> people up, married or not.
>>
>> Ideology, not science.
>>
"asswhole"? You can't read and you can't write English. Some "Jenius"
you are.
Jude Alexander
"EdMac" <E...@none.com> wrote in message news:Nx8_g.22135$P7.21153@edtnps90...
>
> "Jude Alexander" <Cajun@middle of the swamp.com> wrote in message
> news:DX4_g.2184$Zn1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>
>
>
>> You have shown yourself to have knee jerked at Hyerdahl's statement. YOU
>> gave NO facts. Therefore, she can't be what you accuse her of being
>> since she didn't respond to any fact giving statistical report and which
>> DOES look like our own opinion based on your OWN experience of ONE.
>
> Actually Hyerdahl provided NO facts.
Neither did you.
> Is not every statement provided by Hyerdahl based on opinion or are they
> based on statistics.
Nor anybody else much on these newsgroups. Perhaps you a bit new but most
people rely mostly on their own experiences. Nothing wrong with that. It's
just not rational to think that everybody's experience is the same. Some
people I know have had such easy lives and others just tremendously awful.
Their experiences are absolute opposites of each other.
> If they are based on statistics, your above comment is incorrect.
Hmmm? My "above comment" is no where to be found on this clipped up post.
> My reference to a statistic sampling of 1 was in reference to her
> statement that it is "untrue" that men suffer in silence.
Some men DO suffer in silence because they believe they don't want to be
seen as unmanly. My brother isn't abused whatsoever but he became Mr. Mom
and raised their two boys while she made healthy 6 figures. He STILL won't
go to family reunions because he doesn't want to admit he was Mr. Mom. I
feel badly for him but I'd defend him like hell if I were there and anybody
said anything derogatory. In fact, the man did an excellent job as the two
boys are health, both physically and mentally, and have goals in life,
aren't assholes and generally are doing well.
She made this proclamation
> based on one situation, that being her mother and father. I did not make
> the statement because it was the opinion of one person but rather
> formulated through one situation.
Well, I missed the statement that men don't suffer in silence. However,
it's the more ordinary boring "abuse" that people do that men are more
silent about. I don't know if one could say that severely abused men can't
be spotted even if they don't say anything. Bruises, scratches, etc. can be
seen and if they're seen often, people get it.
> The opinion of one person can be very accurate provided they have had
> enough exposure to many pertinent situations.
>
>
>> In fact, like I said earlier, people can claim that there are a lot of so
>> & sos or such & such out there and it could be in line with their own
>> experiences but you already know that the statistic of ONE can be way
>> off.
>>
>> I deal with the public and have done so for over 18 years and I DO come
>> across men who show the obvious sign of having a very dominant and
>> negatively dominant wife. The number of men I've come across like that
>> are little compared to the vice versa. Again, this is MY own experience
>> which is very different from other people's experiences.
>>
>> There's just no good trustworthy way in which to find out some things so
>> we go with our experiences and the experiences of others we trust are
>> telling the truth. Still far from a perfect system.
>
> No system will ever be perfect, but we will never know the complete story
> until it is acknowledged that men suffer abuse and attemps made to
> document/study it. This is the part of feminism that is dishonest.
> Feminisn does not want this to happen.
My experience with feminists is that is not true. I've never heard a
feminist say that men don't suffer NOR that no man suffers from women.
Geez, marriage will tell everybody different! lol We ALL suffer, men and
women. It's hard to learn to compromise and everybody has little
personality quirks. "Good" husbands and wives give each other headaches
from time to time, some more than others.
Jude Alexander
"bola" <bo...@antimisandry.com> wrote in message
news:ehb8lp$n2f$1...@news3.zwoll1.ov.home.nl...
LOL. You beat me to the line! I was just about to say something very close
to that.... At first I didn't know if he was making a "funny" out of the
word Genius or if he was also playing with the word asswhole meaning wholly
an ass or completely an ass or something like that.
EdMac
>
> "EdMac" <E...@none.com> wrote in message
> news:Nx8_g.22135$P7.21153@edtnps90...
>>
>> "Jude Alexander" <Cajun@middle of the swamp.com> wrote in message
>> news:DX4_g.2184$Zn1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>>
>>
>>
>>> You have shown yourself to have knee jerked at Hyerdahl's statement.
>>> YOU gave NO facts. Therefore, she can't be what you accuse her of
>>> being since she didn't respond to any fact giving statistical report and
>>> which DOES look like our own opinion based on your OWN experience of
>>> ONE.
>>
>> Actually Hyerdahl provided NO facts.
>
> Neither did you.
That is my point.
You failed to acknowledge that Hyerdahl used no facts while making a
lack of "facts" the focal point of your rebuttal to my post.
>
>> Is not every statement provided by Hyerdahl based on opinion or are they
>> based on statistics.
>
> Nor anybody else much on these newsgroups. Perhaps you a bit new but most
> people rely mostly on their own experiences. Nothing wrong with that.
> It's just not rational to think that everybody's experience is the same.
> Some people I know have had such easy lives and others just tremendously
> awful. Their experiences are absolute opposites of each other.
>
>> If they are based on statistics, your above comment is incorrect.
>
> Hmmm? My "above comment" is no where to be found on this clipped up post.
Sorry about that. Careless snipping on my part.
It is included below.
"Therefore, she can't be what you accuse her of being since
she didn't respond to any fact giving statistical report and which DOES look
like our own opinion based on your OWN experience of ONE."
>
Jude Alexander
>
> "Jude Alexander" <Cajun@middle of the swamp.com> wrote in message
> news:LI9_g.31281$zF5....@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "EdMac" <E...@none.com> wrote in message
>> news:Nx8_g.22135$P7.21153@edtnps90...
>>>
>>> "Jude Alexander" <Cajun@middle of the swamp.com> wrote in message
>>> news:DX4_g.2184$Zn1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> You have shown yourself to have knee jerked at Hyerdahl's statement.
>>>> YOU gave NO facts. Therefore, she can't be what you accuse her of
>>>> being since she didn't respond to any fact giving statistical report
>>>> and which DOES look like our own opinion based on your OWN experience
>>>> of ONE.
>>>
>>> Actually Hyerdahl provided NO facts.
>>
>> Neither did you.
>
> That is my point.
> You failed to acknowledge that Hyerdahl used no facts while making a
> lack of "facts" the focal point of your rebuttal to my post.
Well, I didn't see Hyerdahl claiming that her personal experience was in
line with what the majority of people experience. We can make sometimes
reasonable guessimations sometimes.
>>
>>> Is not every statement provided by Hyerdahl based on opinion or are they
>>> based on statistics.
>>
>> Nor anybody else much on these newsgroups. Perhaps you a bit new but
>> most people rely mostly on their own experiences. Nothing wrong with
>> that. It's just not rational to think that everybody's experience is the
>> same. Some people I know have had such easy lives and others just
>> tremendously awful. Their experiences are absolute opposites of each
>> other.
>>
>>> If they are based on statistics, your above comment is incorrect.
>>
>> Hmmm? My "above comment" is no where to be found on this clipped up
>> post.
>
>
> Sorry about that. Careless snipping on my part.
That's alright. Some people do that on purpose for probably multiple
reasons.
That is a possibility. Exposure to many pertinent situations as well as
taking reputable statistic source with a small grain of salt can probably
get us closer to some truths.
>>>> In fact, like I said earlier, people can claim that there are a lot of
>>>> so & sos or such & such out there and it could be in line with their
>>>> own experiences but you already know that the statistic of ONE can be
>>>> way off.
>>>>
>>>> I deal with the public and have done so for over 18 years and I DO come
>>>> across men who show the obvious sign of having a very dominant and
>>>> negatively dominant wife. The number of men I've come across like that
>>>> are little compared to the vice versa. Again, this is MY own
>>>> experience which is very different from other people's experiences.
>>>>
>>>> There's just no good trustworthy way in which to find out some things
>>>> so we go with our experiences and the experiences of others we trust
>>>> are telling the truth. Still far from a perfect system.
>>>
>>> No system will ever be perfect, but we will never know the complete
>>> story until it is acknowledged that men suffer abuse and attemps made to
>>> document/study it. This is the part of feminism that is dishonest.
>>> Feminisn does not want this to happen.
Quite honestly, I don't think it need "documentation." It's a known fact
that some women are slightly to heavily abusive.
Hyerdahl
There are many things people here have not been able to proove.
> If you selectively accept only that information that supports
> your biases, much information will bounce off you and later
> you will not even realize that it was available.
Again, information requires a source. I have none for what you offer.
>
> > Of course the hospitals are not filled with men complaining of
> >> domestic abuse. Men suffer in silence.
> >
> > Untrue. When my father and mother caught colds or flues everyone knew
> > my father was sick. :-)
>
> So you've learned that facts as they pertain to male/female relationships
> from your mother and father?
Sure, we all do to one degree or another. And I don't believe you when
you say "people know" or "we all know"; that is one sure sign of an
emotional offering.
> Gaining information through a statistical sampling of 1, will be frought
> with inaccuracies.
Sure, but it's better than nothing. :-)
And that goes for you as well. So what. You have still offered
nothing to prove your thesis.
> It would appear that you primarily serve as a bad example of feminism.
Appearances can be deceiving.
> Men in large numbers along with their friends and families know.
> I find it quite amazing that I made a post about a particular brand of
> feminist being bent on gaining power and privilege through lies, twisting of
> facts etc, and within minutes you came along and demonstrated it.
> Many reasonable women are witnessing brothers, sons etc suffer and are
> coming to recognize the whole picture.
> By the way, fact are not merely that which has been documented through
> selectively collected, filtered and sorted statistics.
> It is this manipulation of data that the dishonest feminists love most.
Again, even our govt. as poor as it has been run for the last 6 years,
requires PROOF before they put funding into things like domestic abuse
centers for men. They think of things in much the same way I do, that
proof is required before money is spent.
Hyerdahl
There are many things people here have not been able to proove.
> If you selectively accept only that information that supports
> your biases, much information will bounce off you and later
> you will not even realize that it was available.
Again, information requires a source. I have none for what you offer.
>
> > Of course the hospitals are not filled with men complaining of
> >> domestic abuse. Men suffer in silence.
> >
> > Untrue. When my father and mother caught colds or flues everyone knew
> > my father was sick. :-)
>
> So you've learned that facts as they pertain to male/female relationships
> from your mother and father?
Sure, we all do to one degree or another. And I don't believe you when
you say "people know" or "we all know"; that is one sure sign of an
emotional offering.
> Gaining information through a statistical sampling of 1, will be frought
> with inaccuracies.
Sure, but it's better than nothing. :-)
>
And that goes for you as well. So what. You have still offered
nothing to prove your thesis.
> It would appear that you primarily serve as a bad example of feminism.
Appearances can be deceiving.
> Men in large numbers along with their friends and families know.
> I find it quite amazing that I made a post about a particular brand of
> feminist being bent on gaining power and privilege through lies, twisting of
> facts etc, and within minutes you came along and demonstrated it.
> Many reasonable women are witnessing brothers, sons etc suffer and are
> coming to recognize the whole picture.
> By the way, fact are not merely that which has been documented through
> selectively collected, filtered and sorted statistics.
> It is this manipulation of data that the dishonest feminists love most.
Again, even our govt. as poor as it has been run for the last 6 years,
Hyerdahl
Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
>
> Does it seem to you that there is any possibility of Jude and I having a
> civil discussion when, each time he dislikes what I say, he accuses me
> of being a biological man on the way to becoming a woman?
Well, he's got your number just like I do, 'Rhonda'.
>
Hyerdahl
Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
>
> Does it seem to you that there is any possibility of Jude and I having a
> civil discussion when, each time he dislikes what I say, he accuses me
> of being a biological man on the way to becoming a woman?
Well, he's got your number just like I do, 'Rhonda'.
>
Hyerdahl
Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
>
> Does it seem to you that there is any possibility of Jude and I having a
> civil discussion when, each time he dislikes what I say, he accuses me
> of being a biological man on the way to becoming a woman?
Well, he's got your number just like I do, 'Rhonda'.
>
Hyerdahl
Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
>
> Does it seem to you that there is any possibility of Jude and I having a
> civil discussion when, each time he dislikes what I say, he accuses me
> of being a biological man on the way to becoming a woman?
Well, he's got your number just like I do, 'Rhonda'.
>
Hyerdahl
Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
>
> Does it seem to you that there is any possibility of Jude and I having a
> civil discussion when, each time he dislikes what I say, he accuses me
> of being a biological man on the way to becoming a woman?
Well, he's got your number just like I do, 'Rhonda'.
>
Dustbin
> bola wrote:
>
>
>> "Blame and shame, not help.
>
> People who use violence against others, are generally put in jail, no?
> Whether that results in shame or not, it is against the LAW to beat
> people up, married or not.
>
> Ideology, not science.
>
> or science.
D.
--
=======================
Women have spent the last
30 years proving that men
have been right for the
last 30 centuries.
=======================
Day Brown
> Hyerdahl wrote:
>> Law is based on the wrongful actions of people regardless of ideology
>> or science.
>
> Whose definition of wrong-doing?
Mercutio; he is a barbarian who thinks the customs of his tribe are the
laws of Nature."
In "The Genealogy of Morals" Nietzsche notes that Christian dogma has
been so accepted so long by so many that even those who think they are
not, or no longer, Christian, maintain their Christian values.
Women are beginning, just beginning, to realize that among the most
oppressive Christian value is monogamy. What other species, mammal or
primate, has females that think that all their progeny should be from
the same sperm donor?
DNA shows that Native Europeans evolved in villages over the course of
the last 10,000 years of perhaps 300. Inbreeding would have been bad
enough without monogamy.
They didnt *have* nuclear families; the tels show they lived in large
communal houses, not that much different from what Spartan women used.
It didnt matter if a man got emotionally wound up ready to do violence,
or horny enough to try to fuck the girls. There were plenty of eyeballs
around while the mothers were out working in the fields, picking
berries, managing the warehouse or whatever.
They didnt *need* laws. The elders and matrons saw what was going on,
and dealt with emotional states that lead to abuse *before* the abuse
ever happened. A stud muffin mite be able to convince one woman,
desperate for relationship to leave him alone with a kid, but he'd never
be able to convince a coven. Moreover, without all the romantic
propaganda women are now subjected to, they found relationships with the
other *women* of the group (who would still be there for her when her
beauty had faded).
And, if a woman is being unreasonably bitchy, while a man would have a
hard time proving the case, the elders and the coven would pick up on it
and jerk her chain before things got out of hand.
Tacitus reports the rebuttal of a Celt to the charge of wantonness:
"Well, we Celts consort with the best of men in public, while you Roman
wives do so in secret with the most vile." But by the same token, if a
woman in a communal house was not in the mood, frigid, or whatever, that
was no biggie. No man depended on her for sex. There were plenty of
others around who would have enthusiasm; better for both.
pandora
> EdMac wrote:
> (...)
> > Does the word "feminist" have a clear definition in your mind?
> > I know feminists that are very reasonable likable people that have a
> > sinscere belief in male/female equality. They recognize that men and
women
> > are different and all things will never be absolutely equal, but
equality
> > should exist to the greatest extent possible.
> > I agree with that philosophy.
>
> are today. That's because male power is tranferable and female power is
> not.
What female power? Oh, you mean getting pregnant and gestating? Tough
noogies. That is Nature's doing and not that of feminists or women.
>We depend much more on them, than they depend on us.
In specific instances, yes. Is that what has your knickers in a twist?
Poor baby.
It's a sellers
> market.
It always was.
We have moved from a situation of moderate inequality to a
> situation of gross inequality. And even if radical feminism is pushed
> back, this is not going to change. We've been duped.
Are you saying that you didn't KNOW about the inequalities with regard to
birth? Musta not been listening when you had those sex education classes,
eh?
CWQ