Hitting a women

[Margaret Pilkington]

not TV. I read a lot....have an active imagination....and a devious mind. I am a woman after all

[Margaret Pilkington]

Calculating, but not hysterical.

[Accyexplorer]

Some woman I know (I'm not saying all ) use the cultural idea that if a man hits a woman then he is a "scumbag" or a awful person because woman are weaker (personally, I think that's BS).

Not all men are bigger, stronger then women.
Their are women I know that are bigger,stronger an more fist happy than a some blokes and would certainly hold their own if it came to going toe to toe with their partner.

I think some women hit men because they know that there will be little to no consequences for their violent behaviour.
I've seen some violent women do some treacherous things to men because they knew those men wouldn't do anything (least of all give them a slap).
Do I think those type of women need to learn that they can't just go around and do what they want and not experience (aggressive) consequences? Hmmm

[Accyexplorer]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

If I were in a violent or abusive relationship I would head for the exit as fast as I could.....if that were not possible then I would use subterfuge to get my own back......a squeeze of Croton in his tea....a rub of insulating fibre in his underpants...or a cut chilli.
I could think of many ways that the perp might not die but might wish he had.

I've seen you in a new light now Mrs P

[Margaret Pilkington]

Just because I have the ability does not mean that I would use it.
Which ever way you cut it ,it is still wrong. As I said in a previous post I would head for the door and not look back.
I have been fortunate in my life not to have needed such strategies...but knowing they are there.......not saying it is right though.

There is a lot of domestic abuse that does not involve violence. This is much more serious as it doesn't leave physical scars, but it leaves mental scars that are disabling and not easy to treat.

I have seen this in a close family member and it is hard to prove, difficult to stop and the abused person very often does not recognise it as abuse for a very long time.

Putting all levity aside domestic violence/abuse is a very serious problem.... it not only affect the person getting the punches, but any children who may witness it. The results are insidious and long lasting.

[dotti34]

To my way of thinking fighting in public and domestic violence are two different things but both are very wrong and shouldn’t happen. I agree that people from either sex can be as bad as one another when it comes to aggressive behaviour. They certainly let themselves down.

My view on domestic violence, Accyexplorer, is that it is carried out by bullies and cowards who get some perverse enjoyment out of belittling their partner by beating them senseless, and so are able to dominate and control them. Sometimes it is a family member or a carer who is the perpetrator, not always the partner. This behaviour is inexcusable but sadly seems to be getting more prevalent, and there are many cases that are never reported because of fear of more retaliation and where the victims suffer in silence. As Margaret said, sometimes it is domestic abuse rather than violence but this is just as sinister in its outcome.

Restraining orders are often not worth the paper they are written on.

Accyexplorer, although you did suffer because of your intervention when the woman was being attacked I hope you WOULD intervene if you saw the same scenario happening again – or at least call the police for urgent assistance. Am sure you would.

[Accyexplorer]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

Just because I have the ability does not mean that I would use it.
Which ever way you cut it ,it is still wrong. As I said in a previous post I would head for the door and not look back.
I have been fortunate in my life not to have needed such strategies...but knowing they are there.......not saying it is right though.

There is a lot of domestic abuse that does not involve violence. This is much more serious as it doesn't leave physical scars, but it leaves mental scars that are disabling and not easy to treat.

I have seen this in a close family member and it is hard to prove, difficult to stop and the abused person very often does not recognise it as abuse for a very long time.

Putting all levity aside domestic violence/abuse is a very serious problem.... it not only affect the person getting the punches, but any children who may witness it. The results are insidious and long lasting.

Domestic violence is defined as "behaviors used by one person in a relationship to control the other."
(Definition - Domestic Violence)
It is generally seen as physical harm but, as you (rightly) point out "domestic violence" usually occurs over a long periods of time and (often) includes emotional abuse too.
Much of what is called "Domestic Violence" today is often very trivial.I believe this is a disservice to people who are actually victims of genuine violent/emotional abuse.

I also believe that all cases of "domestic violence" must be judged according to its unique context and circumstances.
And therefore it may well be wrong to say that "domestic violence" is "NEVER" justifiable.

[Margaret Pilkington]

I do not get the premise in your last sentence.
I agree it must always be judged on individual circumstances.
But I cannot see a set of circumstances where you could justify it...even as a retaliatory action.

[dotti34]

Sorry, Accyexplorer, but I disagree with you. Domestic violence of any sort is never trivial - try being on the other end of it. Thankfully I am not speaking from personal experience but I know of some who have suffered through it, and it is certainly never justifiable. No violence is.

[cashman]

Originally Posted by dotti34

My view on domestic violence, Accyexplorer, is that it is carried out by bullies and cowards who get some perverse enjoyment out of belittling their partner by beating them senseless, and so are able to dominate and control them. Sometimes it is a family member or a carer who is the perpetrator, not always the partner.

I would say inadequates rather than bullies or cowards, But as far as i'm concerned if anyone oined my missus, I would knock em as far back as John The Baptist.

[Accyexplorer]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

I do not get the premise in your last sentence.
I agree it must always be judged on individual circumstances.
But I cannot see a set of circumstances where you could justify it...even as a retaliatory action.

I'll have to get back to you with a set of scenarios M, I guess what I'm trying to say is, Is it ever justifiable to carry out a act of violence, for instance if it serves a greater good?
I know it's extreme but, for example, if you've two kids you come home and your partner has seriously hurt (even killed) one and is threatening violence against the other.
(In your eyes) Would it not be fair to say that a (preemptive) strike would be acceptable even justified?

Originally Posted by dotti34

Sorry, Accyexplorer,but I disagree with you

No need to apologise d, it's your opinion and I respect your honesty. Also I'd like to thank you (as well as others) for sharing their views on this topic.

I do think (like I've said in previous posts) that you should "never say never"

[Margaret Pilkington]

In such a situation, no-one can know exactly what they would do.
I would hope that as a mother I would have made an exit before such an event took place.
If a father can act in such a violent way against his children I would hope that there would have been signals before this arose.......and that I had acted on them.
Children should not witness such things......and in many cases the violence is hidden, but the results of the violence are definitely picked up by children. It harms them as much as if the blows had been directed at them.
No act of violence ever can be said to serve the greater good.

[Studio25]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

...Why is there violence against anyone? Might it have something to do with what people see on their TV and computer screens...

No.

I'm constantly amazed by the number of people who get the cause and effect the wrong way around when it comes to violence in entertainment. The kids who perpetrated the columbine massacre modelled themselves after characters from The Matrix. Does that mean they were influenced by the film? Only insofar as it gave them an idea what to wear. The wiring in their head which led them to carry out the atrocity was bad before they saw the film. Yet typically you'll get a whole bunch of detractors whose focus is in the wrong place - usually headed by people who see it as a convenient blame instead of admitting they were so close to the perpetrators that they should have seen the signs and maybe taken some positive action.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Originally Posted by Studio25

No.

I'm constantly amazed by the number of people who get the cause and effect the wrong way around when it comes to violence in entertainment. The kids who perpetrated the columbine massacre modelled themselves after characters from The Matrix. Does that mean they were influenced by the film? Only insofar as it gave them an idea what to wear. The wiring in their head which led them to carry out the atrocity was bad before they saw the film. Yet typically you'll get a whole bunch of detractors whose focus is in the wrong place - usually headed by people who see it as a convenient blame instead of admitting they were so close to the perpetrators that they should have seen the signs and maybe taken some positive action.

Well, you are entitled to your opinion. There is evidence to suggest that playing computer games as a child changes the hard wiring.
Violence desensitises those who watch it. It normalises it...it gives it a validity.
If you speak to those who are subject to violent childhood episodes, they will justify the violence that they practise by telling you it was part of their background.
Children who watch/play violent computer games have difficulty in separating the fiction from the fact.

I didn't mention any of the atrocities which have taken place in schools in the US.
I have never seen the Matrix so I cannot comment on it. In fact I avoid all the blood and gore films. I have seen enough blood and gore in my life to last anyone three lifetimes.....there is no entertainment in it for me.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Violent Video Games Change Kids to Think More Aggressively - TIME

http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2006-23323-000

Study: Violent Video Games May Make Kids More Aggressive

Cornell University is also doing a study on this subject.