I'm very pleased to see comments from sane, well reasoned women about the recognition of violence against men. I'm manifestly lucky to live in a time I have someone of Bettina's calibre to articulate and call this out so well. Thank you for shunning the Duluth Model of men.
DV is not universlly considered a male versus female issue, well for those that are thinking folk.
It is "documented" that a % of women are also perpetuators of such actions.
It is accepted, by women (even their advocats), that about 30% are in fact contributers to violence against males.
Recenly, a prominent advocat for women suggested that in 2 years we can elimminate violence altogether aginst women. A commendable target no doubt and who would disagree, but assuming such elimination, what happens to the 30% males who remain? Of course, they then comprise 100% of DV and will be supported accordinly. And funded?
I was a second-wave feminist, and even worked in a battered women's shelter in my twenties. But the world is grey, not black and white. I personally knew enough monstrous women to know that feminist ideology was just that: ideas (which is not to denigrate ideas, but to underline the complexity of any idea). Today, while I'm deliberately 99% off mainstream media, I followed the trial just enough to know what was going on. I was very happy to see Depp vindicated.
> She slaps, he retaliates, and she’s the one more likely to be injured.
And for a brief moment, I hoped that someone wouldn't argue from the premise that only women matter. But, here we are again. Female on male violence is bad mostly because it hurts women.
That's rubbish to suggest I argue only women matter. I am simply pointing out that even the totally biased feminists should understand that even if they only want to protect women, they still need to address female violence.
Teach girls at a young age to respect both boys and girls. Girls are only taught to protect themselves from boys now. It leads to girls and women not respecting men throughout life.
Single moms talk poorly of the dad and men in general.
When Amber Heard 'wrote' that magazine article claiming to be a DV victim, it was a very cynical and arrogant move. Well, it has blown up in her face, and yes, the feminist stranglehold on the DV narrative is starting to weaken.
To me this is strange.I was raised by my grandmother,I was close to my aunts and we had a lot to do with other families.Violence in a marriage was never an issue.Alcohol was frowned upon.Drugs were never heard of.My second wife had a family and the husband attacked his children and hit his wife.Nothing was ever done.He is 94 now.
My first marriage, there was never an indication of violence.
I used to get caned at school. That was more of a thing to boast about.
To me it seems strange that there is so much domestic violence around.
As a Man previously facing physical assault from my ex wife, I was dismissed by my own Mother whom stated that Men cannot be assaulted by Women because they are the stronger sex. This attitude is ingrained in our society. The attitude that physical abuse toward husbands, boyfriends and males in general is perfectly acceptible and even a source of humour. And its one good reason to abhore the Feminism ideology....if you need a reason, which I do not!
That's tragic. Think of the fuss made when mothers in the past refused to believe children who reported sexual abuse. But now it is ok if a mother doesn't believe her adult son is being abused by his wife!
'Hitting home' again Betting. As an example of my own recent experience, a contravention application against me made by the woman is 'excused' even though putting my daughter up in lieu of her living on the street is the only option for the courts because there is no facility to deal with children rejecting parental behaviour and moving to the safety of the 'co-parent' in the Family Courts. So the contravention is against me rather than being a problem between mother and daughter based on the mother's inability to act in a civil manner when dealing with her subjects. Further, the court child experts are a coven who desperately tries to find 'he said/ she said' balance that basically compounds the lack of child focus while escalating the case by case requirement of normal legal evidence gathering in favour of personalised political choices in report writing to the court. This behaviour continues in referrals to a hearing by a judge where almost 100% of perjured statements supporting a contravention application that I have an excuse in the face of is then said to have some 'minor contraventions' attached to the application which are how the mother's endless sequence of successes in using the legal process to continue the campaign of control and what was essentially benign slave service from me until I called a halt. At this time the mother started an affair everyone collaborated in hiding from me, even as I was on the money in asking about it, and demanded the separation, instructed me to end the years of care I had engaged in with my kids because someone had pointed out the woman was missing her kids childhood while she enjoyed career building and its social aspect, and in full collaboration with every adult involved denied my conscientious support (non financial) for my family with much greater effort over longer hours than the woman's contribution, I was removed from my home, my kids, and forced to go to work in basic roles without any transition period essentially so the woman might then be able to ask for child support and continue her life with minimal interruption. No matter of the police regarding her calls as nonsense after the first two, how many people knew of the job I had been doing with everyone from schools to allied medical services, and all of the times I talked about my struggles with escalating inflamed competitive arguments for no reason, all was forgotten in preference for the ego driven Sir Galahad syndrome at every utterance of a complaint against me from the credible fictions the mother continues to spin. Yet my daughter lives with me without any manipulation from me AND despite the determined paranoia from the woman to anyone who will listen that I am undermining the one who does all the denigrating with evidence that would otherwise be reckless if I had left similar evidence.
You mentioned in the article of the impact of Hollywood's messaging for millions of females worldwide that slapping a man was an appropriate response to some kind of subjectively taken offence so I have a couple of questions, Which group in Hollywood holds the most sway and power to enact such a long term narrative? Are they the same group that are responsible for the feminist view taken in family & domestic abuse law making?
Are you ready for the rabbit hole Tina? (ok, that was 3...)
Not the same group but part of the sisterhood which has captured all these organisations. I've been digging in this rabbit hole for decades but hard to get daylight into these murky depths.
That is close to our story. However it was the children who copped it from mum - potentially fatal. But nobody believed me or sided, or took note of the children's interests. The State, the Court, the police, the churches and their supposed family outreach, work colleagues all treated me as a poisonous criminal. An who recognised that the real victims were female and very young children. Seems if the story does not fit with feminist political narratives, even child females are disregarded and not protected by the hypocrites. Sure, I can tell how it was for me, and maybe you might weep, but what about the kids. People around me noted my bioloogy and shamed me for criticising mum - 'come on Man-up' they would say. I also got ' Nobody will believe you!" - and that is true, so prejudiced and bigoted and full of hatred for Mother's sons - which all males are.
It is beyond me understanding how so many women who do have sons are blind to what is happening to men. They never believe it will happen to their boys because they were properly brought up and it never occurs to them that even good boys get set up.
For years I've been trying to communicate just this point using the analogy of what goes on 'behind the play' on football fields (or behind closed doors domestically) - to little avail I might add. The initiator of violence often acts surprised when retaliation occurs, and it's usually the retaliator who gets 'pinged' by the umpire (or police). Many people - particularly women - don't seem to understand this basic 'law' of biological nature - you can only push a cornered animal so far before it pushes back. Many naively seem to think that verbal abuse somehow doesn't count, and then cry foul when the inevitable retaliation occurs. I'm not for a second advocating such retaliation, just observing human behaviour.
One has to ask though, why the 'verbal' aspect has been incorporated into the sexual abuse definition, yet remains conspicuously absent from the domestic violence situation. Maybe this favours one side more than the other?
Retaliation is not hard wired into us men - well not all of us. Had I resited or retaliated? I would end up in prison. I realised that is what they wanted - I did not give them what they wanted. But we get terribly humiliated - our masculinity gets questioned. But the other falsely accused I know, did resist and did end up in prison. It is a feminist tactic.
Even when we do not respond to violence, we are still accused of violence. In our case the governemnt ?"Social workers"? claimed my wife was victimised by an "unusual controlling manner!" which reportedly {and included in court affidavits} I had. So Even when we control ourselves, we are violent. My girls are adult now and still have mums scars. Me, I have no friends, I do not go out, I have no hobbies - I do have self respect.
The 'verbal' aspect is very much part of the new coercive control laws which are being pushed through across the country. But as I have explained, even though the laws are supposed to be gender neutral they are being promoted as all about curbing dangerous men. And in the UK, these laws resulted in 98% of perpetrators charged being male. It favours women, as it is designed to do.
I'm very pleased to see comments from sane, well reasoned women about the recognition of violence against men. I'm manifestly lucky to live in a time I have someone of Bettina's calibre to articulate and call this out so well. Thank you for shunning the Duluth Model of men.
DV is not universlly considered a male versus female issue, well for those that are thinking folk.
It is "documented" that a % of women are also perpetuators of such actions.
It is accepted, by women (even their advocats), that about 30% are in fact contributers to violence against males.
Recenly, a prominent advocat for women suggested that in 2 years we can elimminate violence altogether aginst women. A commendable target no doubt and who would disagree, but assuming such elimination, what happens to the 30% males who remain? Of course, they then comprise 100% of DV and will be supported accordinly. And funded?
You seriously believe this ?
Without that video he would have been toast.
You mean audio... Hours of audio showing she's a monster...
I was a second-wave feminist, and even worked in a battered women's shelter in my twenties. But the world is grey, not black and white. I personally knew enough monstrous women to know that feminist ideology was just that: ideas (which is not to denigrate ideas, but to underline the complexity of any idea). Today, while I'm deliberately 99% off mainstream media, I followed the trial just enough to know what was going on. I was very happy to see Depp vindicated.
> She slaps, he retaliates, and she’s the one more likely to be injured.
And for a brief moment, I hoped that someone wouldn't argue from the premise that only women matter. But, here we are again. Female on male violence is bad mostly because it hurts women.
That's rubbish to suggest I argue only women matter. I am simply pointing out that even the totally biased feminists should understand that even if they only want to protect women, they still need to address female violence.
Love you work. Its so reassuring to finally begin to hear pragmatism in a sea of ‘emotion’
Teach girls at a young age to respect both boys and girls. Girls are only taught to protect themselves from boys now. It leads to girls and women not respecting men throughout life.
Single moms talk poorly of the dad and men in general.
Sons grow up to not marry.
When Amber Heard 'wrote' that magazine article claiming to be a DV victim, it was a very cynical and arrogant move. Well, it has blown up in her face, and yes, the feminist stranglehold on the DV narrative is starting to weaken.
To me this is strange.I was raised by my grandmother,I was close to my aunts and we had a lot to do with other families.Violence in a marriage was never an issue.Alcohol was frowned upon.Drugs were never heard of.My second wife had a family and the husband attacked his children and hit his wife.Nothing was ever done.He is 94 now.
My first marriage, there was never an indication of violence.
I used to get caned at school. That was more of a thing to boast about.
To me it seems strange that there is so much domestic violence around.
> My second wife had a family and the husband attacked his children and hit his wife.
How do you know that?
As a Man previously facing physical assault from my ex wife, I was dismissed by my own Mother whom stated that Men cannot be assaulted by Women because they are the stronger sex. This attitude is ingrained in our society. The attitude that physical abuse toward husbands, boyfriends and males in general is perfectly acceptible and even a source of humour. And its one good reason to abhore the Feminism ideology....if you need a reason, which I do not!
That's tragic. Think of the fuss made when mothers in the past refused to believe children who reported sexual abuse. But now it is ok if a mother doesn't believe her adult son is being abused by his wife!
My mother's response when I first told her twenty years after the fact that I'd been molested by an aunt whilst young was "You must have wanted it".
'Hitting home' again Betting. As an example of my own recent experience, a contravention application against me made by the woman is 'excused' even though putting my daughter up in lieu of her living on the street is the only option for the courts because there is no facility to deal with children rejecting parental behaviour and moving to the safety of the 'co-parent' in the Family Courts. So the contravention is against me rather than being a problem between mother and daughter based on the mother's inability to act in a civil manner when dealing with her subjects. Further, the court child experts are a coven who desperately tries to find 'he said/ she said' balance that basically compounds the lack of child focus while escalating the case by case requirement of normal legal evidence gathering in favour of personalised political choices in report writing to the court. This behaviour continues in referrals to a hearing by a judge where almost 100% of perjured statements supporting a contravention application that I have an excuse in the face of is then said to have some 'minor contraventions' attached to the application which are how the mother's endless sequence of successes in using the legal process to continue the campaign of control and what was essentially benign slave service from me until I called a halt. At this time the mother started an affair everyone collaborated in hiding from me, even as I was on the money in asking about it, and demanded the separation, instructed me to end the years of care I had engaged in with my kids because someone had pointed out the woman was missing her kids childhood while she enjoyed career building and its social aspect, and in full collaboration with every adult involved denied my conscientious support (non financial) for my family with much greater effort over longer hours than the woman's contribution, I was removed from my home, my kids, and forced to go to work in basic roles without any transition period essentially so the woman might then be able to ask for child support and continue her life with minimal interruption. No matter of the police regarding her calls as nonsense after the first two, how many people knew of the job I had been doing with everyone from schools to allied medical services, and all of the times I talked about my struggles with escalating inflamed competitive arguments for no reason, all was forgotten in preference for the ego driven Sir Galahad syndrome at every utterance of a complaint against me from the credible fictions the mother continues to spin. Yet my daughter lives with me without any manipulation from me AND despite the determined paranoia from the woman to anyone who will listen that I am undermining the one who does all the denigrating with evidence that would otherwise be reckless if I had left similar evidence.
Brilliant work as ever Tina.
You mentioned in the article of the impact of Hollywood's messaging for millions of females worldwide that slapping a man was an appropriate response to some kind of subjectively taken offence so I have a couple of questions, Which group in Hollywood holds the most sway and power to enact such a long term narrative? Are they the same group that are responsible for the feminist view taken in family & domestic abuse law making?
Are you ready for the rabbit hole Tina? (ok, that was 3...)
Not the same group but part of the sisterhood which has captured all these organisations. I've been digging in this rabbit hole for decades but hard to get daylight into these murky depths.
But at least, thanks to you, there's a lot more eyes peering into those depths now.
That is close to our story. However it was the children who copped it from mum - potentially fatal. But nobody believed me or sided, or took note of the children's interests. The State, the Court, the police, the churches and their supposed family outreach, work colleagues all treated me as a poisonous criminal. An who recognised that the real victims were female and very young children. Seems if the story does not fit with feminist political narratives, even child females are disregarded and not protected by the hypocrites. Sure, I can tell how it was for me, and maybe you might weep, but what about the kids. People around me noted my bioloogy and shamed me for criticising mum - 'come on Man-up' they would say. I also got ' Nobody will believe you!" - and that is true, so prejudiced and bigoted and full of hatred for Mother's sons - which all males are.
It is beyond me understanding how so many women who do have sons are blind to what is happening to men. They never believe it will happen to their boys because they were properly brought up and it never occurs to them that even good boys get set up.
For years I've been trying to communicate just this point using the analogy of what goes on 'behind the play' on football fields (or behind closed doors domestically) - to little avail I might add. The initiator of violence often acts surprised when retaliation occurs, and it's usually the retaliator who gets 'pinged' by the umpire (or police). Many people - particularly women - don't seem to understand this basic 'law' of biological nature - you can only push a cornered animal so far before it pushes back. Many naively seem to think that verbal abuse somehow doesn't count, and then cry foul when the inevitable retaliation occurs. I'm not for a second advocating such retaliation, just observing human behaviour.
One has to ask though, why the 'verbal' aspect has been incorporated into the sexual abuse definition, yet remains conspicuously absent from the domestic violence situation. Maybe this favours one side more than the other?
Retaliation is not hard wired into us men - well not all of us. Had I resited or retaliated? I would end up in prison. I realised that is what they wanted - I did not give them what they wanted. But we get terribly humiliated - our masculinity gets questioned. But the other falsely accused I know, did resist and did end up in prison. It is a feminist tactic.
It is certainly a no win for men, particularly when they do resist and she still lies and claims he was violent. No wonder men despair.
Even when we do not respond to violence, we are still accused of violence. In our case the governemnt ?"Social workers"? claimed my wife was victimised by an "unusual controlling manner!" which reportedly {and included in court affidavits} I had. So Even when we control ourselves, we are violent. My girls are adult now and still have mums scars. Me, I have no friends, I do not go out, I have no hobbies - I do have self respect.
The 'verbal' aspect is very much part of the new coercive control laws which are being pushed through across the country. But as I have explained, even though the laws are supposed to be gender neutral they are being promoted as all about curbing dangerous men. And in the UK, these laws resulted in 98% of perpetrators charged being male. It favours women, as it is designed to do.
Thank you Bettina, for all you do.
Yes perhaps a start but in the realm of moneyed celebrity. Vast majority of abused men still don’t have the resources, support to get a fair deal.