…dude relax. I read your examples, saw that my reaction was similar to the replies you got and stayed silent about it because the conversation was still going on. It’s really not that serious…
That doesn’t mean it’s not hard sometimes.
I have not forgotten that I owe a reply above.
This Australian Government commercial is one of the reasons I take anti-male caricatures so seriously…
In Australia, this have been on our TV for several years. Stopping violence against “women and their children”, blaming all men for the actions of a few, while blocking out all serious discussion of the issue, has become a national hysteria, with massive government and media attention.
There is no evidence behind the scenarios or message in the ad. It is pure fiction and anti-male propaganda. This was proven when the authors of the campaign were quizzed about it. At 7:30 in the video the “expert” doesn’t even know how “common” violence against women is, in follow up to a claim that Australians should be taught that “violence against women” is common. Yet the campaign continues.
If you in the US haven’t been subject to this level of propaganda, at taxpayer expence, then I understand it is less emotive for you.
Of course, dad isn’t always around. During any absence, mom has to keep order and at least some decisions will have to be made.
I do find that when the kids have some sort of request for something I don’t want them to do (and I’m pretty sure their dad agrees), “Let’s ask Daddy!” is a handy stalling technique. In fact, it’s a handy stalling technique even when Daddy is going to say yes.
I remember when I was a little kid getting pingponged between “Ask your mother” and “Ask your father” when I asked either parent about something (like can I stay overnight with grandma).
Both my husband and I typically ask each other before putting anything potentially disruptive into the family calendar. My husband will clear work trips with me (for example, to avoid being gone for a kid’s birthday) and I ask him before making social engagements for the family.
Thank you for saying this.
Violence against and sexual exploitation of women and children is common. (Of course, a fair amount of violence against children is committed by mothers.)
Within my personal circle, there’s been
–physical abuse (my mom being the perp, but I believe that’s what she grew up with)
–multigenerational incest committed by a father and grandfather against at least 5 girls that I know of (possibly 6), and it’s quite possible there were more
–years of physical abuse that caused PTSD and permanent brain damage
While it’s true that it’s only a minority of men who molest, rape and abuse, we have to recognize that the percentage of women and children affected is enormous (some of these media guys that we have been hearing about lately have had dozens and hundreds of victims), and up until the evil feminists came along, they mostly got away with it. People are getting away with it less and less, but there has been a culture of silence up until the present day.
Even today, you’ll hear people (including conservative religious people) saying that it’s no big deal if Judge Moore groomed and molested a 14-year-old girl. Roman Polanski has a very similar resume, and people still love him.
And yes, we have to talk about this stuff in connection to marriage, because a lot of bad people are also married. Clinton, Weinstein, Weiner and Lauer were all married guys, but it didn’t stop them from being abusive creeps.
Marriage isn’t some sort of disinfectant that makes bad people virtuous. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
It’s much easier (and generally more objective) than judging them from the inside.
It is qualified: “Wives be subject to your husbands as to the Lord.”
That’s because, much like rape, it tends to go unreported. Not once in the video were all men blamed for the actions of a few, as you claimed. I’m part of a very large female-only Facebook group, and they talk about their experiences with this stuff pretty regularly. I’ve experienced some of it, as have many of my friends. Violence against women is real, and you have no right to get butt-hurt over people raising awareness.
And if the husband is going against the Lord? What then?
No, that’s the biggest load of baloney modern society has pulled on anyone.
Otherwise no one would ever be surprised when people get divorce or other information comes out.
There are things only spouses know about each other that can color how they choose to handle things or behave. Things that can impact everything from money, sex, child raising, home management etc. things people won’t and shouldn’t share outside of marriage because it is no ones business.
It is beyond arrogant to believe you can know and understand a marriage better than the people involved. What an utterly ridiculous statement
I think what Vico said is actually rather helpful.
Look at the Gospel. How often did Jesus boss people around, have people fetch and carry for him, ask him to do things for him that he could have done just as easily himself like the salsa and chips cartoon or the real life sandwich t-shirt guy?
The only example I can think of him asking for something for his own personal comfort was when he asked the Samaritan women for water.
Jesus lived out what he told James and John in Matthew 20, ““You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. 26 It shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever would be first among you must be your slave; 28 even as the Son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.””
So, it might actually be a fairly literal living out of “Wives be subject to your husbands as to the Lord” to work on the assumption that one’s husband is being Christ-like and doesn’t wish to be selfish and lazy or to cause pain to his family and that he would like to be told if he is causing pain to his family.
Being in an intimate relationship clouds people’s judgment. Spouses makes excuses for each other’s bad behavior, and it’s easier to call it out when you’re not desperately trying to maintain a relationship. For example: a friend of mine confided in me several years ago that she was upset with her boyfriend because he was doing something illegal. I told her she should probably break up with him. She ignored my advice and married him anyway, because she was so in LURV. Talking to her after she got married, the stuff she’s telling me pretty clearly indicates that she’s not happy with her marriage.
Congratulations for being able to see the obvious in one particular case.
That does not mean you can understand the inner workings of someone else’s marriage.
Do people do silly things and turn blind eyes to their spouses faults, of course. That still doesn’t make you privy to the mountain of private information you would need to understand another marriage better than them.
Do you really not see how arrogant your statement is?
I’ve actually been able to predict problems in a lot of relationships. That was just the most tragic example.
Not arrogant. Just the truth of my experiences.
As promised, here is my response.
This is my final word on the matter because, firstly, I want to bow out of this thread, and, secondly, because while domestic violence is relevant, it shouldn’t derail the thread.
We seem to be talking at cross-purposes. I’m mainly talking about the depiction of domestic violence which we get in the media and from government. Here, my perspective is very much Australian. I suspect that we get more “propaganda” here than you do (assuming that you are American). You seem to be talking more about the reality - which is probably more similar in both countries. Whether the reality meets the depiction is a difficult issue, and is likely to be different in both countries. In Australia, at least, it’s an utter fiction, and a feminist lie. There’s also the law, particularly in relation to separation, which does seem to be different.
Answering your questions/points, as I understand them.
The problem is ubiquitous in that it touches everyone’s life at some point; it could be a family member, friend, co-worker.
That’s not the propaganda we get here. The propaganda is that violence against women is in “epidemic” proportions and that all men and boys are in some sense the problem. That traditional “masculinity” is the main cause of domestic violence, and that men and boys need to be re-educated. This comes from the multi-billion dollar domestic violence industry, at the taxpayer’s expence.
Well, if it is abusive…it is abusive. Abuse isn’t just physical and to dismiss other types of abuse will allow mistreatment of women, men and children to perpetuate.
Thanks for acknowledging that abuse of men exists.
Some “anger” and “coercive behaviour”, as mentioned in my original post, is going to happen at times in most relationships, from both sides. The problem I mentioned is that when it’s the husband doing it to the wife (in a normal relationship), she is able to label it as “domestic violence”, which has now become a societal taboo and this is very empowering for her. Husbands are trapped, unable to express their feelings or resist a domineering wife, lest they be labelled as “abusers”. I’m talking about normal relationships here, not those with persistent abuse by the husband. I’ve seen wives do exactly that, and experienced it myself.
As far as leaving: It takes an average 7 times for a victim/survivor to leave an abusive relationship.
Again, I’m not talking about relationships where there is a persistent pattern of serious abuse - I’m talking about the infiltration of domestic violence propaganda into normal relationships.
My point you were responding to here is that a woman, after leaving by choice rather than necessity, can allege “abuse” and use that to get advantage within Australian law. Such is well established, and is a known lawyer’s tactic. One of the evil consequences of it is that it restricts the father’s access to the children. It also allows her to get a larger property settlement - not an insignificant motivation for many women.
This is however a side issue, as we can expect that a Catholic wife in this thread is not planning to leave her husband so selfishly. It certainly happens in society, however.
I have to ask: When is it okay for a victim/survivor to leave? How bad does it have to get?
For a man there is no choice. Unless the wife has left scars (visible, not just emotional) on him and the children, he has to stay, or surrender their children to an abusive mother.
Erin Pizzie (English, BTW): Refuting 40 years of lies about domestic violence
This is Erin Pizzie’s account, from first hand experience, of how dv was taken up as a cause by feminists in the '70’s, and used to fund an industry and demonise men. They also suppressed the complexities of domestic violence, as established through research.
One of the authors of Australia’s government funded anti-DV campaign can’t answer simple questions about: the evidence which underpins the campaign, its purpose, whether it’s effective, or even how “common” dv is.
Miranda Devine: Domestic violence: Stop demonising our little boys
“It is just the latest taxpayer-funded attempt by gender-bending social engineers to control what we say and how we think, using the excuse of “preventing domestic violence””.
Dr Augusto Zimmerman: Domestic-violence laws disregard basic rights
Under the new legislation it is enough for a person simply to claim that she fears violence may occur in order to be issued with a restraining order. “Powerful protection for the truly vulnerable? Or an incredibly dangerous weapon in the hands of the streetwise, vexatious and manipulative litigant?”,
Several egregious “lies” about male perpetrated violence, published in our major press, are exposed. “This [the first] is only one tiny example of the constant and distorted propaganda we face every day.”
I think that’s actually true and true of women and girls, too.
I think people in general have a lot of problems with understanding respect, fairness, self-control, communicating clearly but with love, boundaries and consent. There are a lot of problems with people not stopping to apply the Golden Rule to their marriages–would I be happy to live under the restrictions or living and working conditions that I am imposing on my spouse? I think this is very much the case with men who advocate hard core wifely submission–they would regard it as horrible cruelty to live under the system they want to impose on wives.
This stuff isn’t instinctual–people have to learn it. So it’s not so much re-education as education.
For example, how many men who prefer “feminine wiles” would like it if the only way they could get anything they wanted in the marriage was by elaborate “masculine wiles”?