2 minutes ago, Elusive Tunbridge said:

The thing is, iv'a, what you write is a bit surprising coming from someone who chairs a domestic violence committee. I don't know where integrity comes into ti.  Then again, I used to chair an ethics committee.  Strange places we can wind up.

i didn't think it was ethical to be part of a committee, let alone be the chair and let alone ethics be the raison d'etre 

1 hour ago, JackoTheMuss said:

 

 

Jacko, I'm interested in your stance on this subject, especially given your moniker is a play on Jake The Muss, the wife-beating character from Once Were Warriors...

2 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Sorry Stuie i didn't put a GIF up

i forgot you don't use words...

And please don't tell me Wilson was not hammered hard on here because she was. 

Caro loves to go hard at The Man

She just copped a bit back and didn't like it. 

In today's world it is not funny to joke about wanting to see people die.   

I wouldn't laugh at it. 

21 minutes ago, Chris said:

It would be interesting to know the background of the people and there opinions, things like education level, age, socioeconomic factors, etc. There may be no link but it would almost be more interesting if there wasn't one and it would show that pervading attitudes are pervasive across the whole of society, not just in some segments. 

I believe there is no link.  Like many abhorrent behaviours in our society the person can come from any part. 

27 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

You're right. Why aren't females castigating females who condone kiiling men? I present you one of The AGE's finest journalists. 

 

 

16 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

It was really to point out the double standards. Violence against anyone is bad. Threatening violence is bad. Eddie should know better and in my view should be censured by the AFL. But let's not be selective about who cops it. Let's not excuse/ignore others just because they happen to be female.

I agree with you on the point in bold.

But what you're effectively saying is that it's ok to refuse to censure this behaviour on the basis that other behaviour isn't being censured elsewhere in the universe.

Edited June 20, 20169 yr by Undeeterred
Willing to retract a couple of paras on rereading jnrmac's post

19 minutes ago, Elusive Tunbridge said:

The thing is, iv'a, what you write is a bit surprising coming from someone who chairs a domestic violence committee. I don't know where integrity comes into ti.  Then again, I used to chair an ethics committee.  Strange places we can wind up.

Got no idea what you mean Geoff.  What have I said that is surprising for someone who chairs a domestic violence committee?

 

58 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

Disagree. The physical act of hurting a woman begins with a mindset that threats, aggressive behaviour and 'jokes' about hurting or killing a woman are acceptable. Violence against women can be verbal.

As I stated in my initial post, this is a popular viewpoint. Do you mind please helping me tease out the dynamic at play here? For starters, what percentage of incidents of domestic violence do you think occurred because the perpetrator, who otherwise would never commit an act of domestic violence, heard a joke similar to McGuire's?

Then, could you please put a percentage figure next to the following factors, of how important you think they are in contributing to an act of domestic violence:

- the reprehensible behaviour of the individual

- the behaviour of close male role models during the childhood of the perpetrator

- mental illness

- drug or alcohol abuse

- jokes like McGuire's

Then, if you've ever said, "I could just kill x for not cleaning her room/ for forgetting to pay me back/ for taking the last tim tam" OR if you've ever heard someone else say that but not challenged them, are you willing to admit that you have contributed to domestic violence in Australia?

1 minute ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

I believe there is no link.  Like many abhorrent behaviours in our society the person can come from any part. 

I think there probably are some links but they would not be absolutes. At a guess (and I may [censored] some people off here) people that hold the view that this is all a bit of fun would more likely be part of one of the following groups;

- Older (from a generation where everything was better and people just copped things on the chin)

- Lower education and tradies (some of my best mates are highly educated tradies but I have worked with enough tradies to know there are some serious idiots out there)

- Men who have predominately male families, socialise predominantly with men (sporting clubs etc), work with men, went to all boy schools, don't get exposed to strong, independent, intelligent women much.

These are very broad brush strokes and I am certainly not saying all people from these groups think that way but I would think the percentage would be higher than in the opposite groups, and conversely there would be people in the opposite groups who are just the same, just not as many.

Would be interesting to know the truth of the matter and if I am just a judgmental snob!

3 minutes ago, Chris said:

I think there probably are some links but they would not be absolutes. At a guess (and I may [censored] some people off here) people that hold the view that this is all a bit of fun would more likely be part of one of the following groups;

- Older (from a generation where everything was better and people just copped things on the chin)

- Lower education and tradies (some of my best mates are highly educated tradies but I have worked with enough tradies to know there are some serious idiots out there)

- Men who have predominately male families, socialise predominantly with men (sporting clubs etc), work with men, went to all boy schools, don't get exposed to strong, independent, intelligent women much.

These are very broad brush strokes and I am certainly not saying all people from these groups think that way but I would think the percentage would be higher than in the opposite groups, and conversely there would be people in the opposite groups who are just the same, just not as many.

Would be interesting to know the truth of the matter and if I am just a judgmental snob!

probably got the last bit right, chris 

20 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

i didn't think it was ethical to be part of a committee, let alone be the chair and let alone ethics be the raison d'etre 

Need must when bureaucracy beckons, as I'm sure iv'a understands.

Just now, Elusive Tunbridge said:

Need must when bureaucracy beckons, as I'm sure iv'a understands.

No sorry you've lost me.  I have represented many women, who have been the subject of domestic violence.  My role on a committee is a spin off from my advocacy. 

2 hours ago, Undeeterred said:

What's wrong with 'Gee what a crap journalist with no integrity' (or something else relevant to their professional relationship) rather than 'wouldn't it be great to drown her'.

As jnrmac said, you could be fired, or worse SUED!

I think Chris' summary of iv'as word are how i feel.  It is great to bring awareness to such a terrible thing like violence against women but why do they get singled out?  There is such a thing as violence against men too, and children and animals.  Why do we feel the need to single women out again, I think that's what gets my goat when things like this come up.  It's always spoken that women are equal, so why in these matters do we single them out?  And sometimes it is women's groups that do it too. Why not have an ad campaign about all violence being a terrible thing that should never be condoned, no matter the colour, age, sex etc.  Women are stronger than they ever have been when it comes to physical & mental abuse, while creating awareness for the issue is great, and may get people thinking differently, i think it sometimes hinders other areas like equality.

1 hour ago, Hellfish said:

So when is anyone who is bashing the triple M crew gonna acknowledge that 3AW commentators said the exact same comments about Wilson on their station with Carro in the box at the time and she just laughed it off and said "Oh boys".

they too said people would be lining up to push her down the slide and made the same joke about holding her under.

Corro didn't mention a thing about 3AW in her article today about McGuire and the triple M commentators.

either go after everyone or no one at all.

Surely this isn't true, surely.

6 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

No sorry you've lost me.  I have represented many women, who have been the subject of domestic violence.  My role on a committee is a spin off from my advocacy. 

No time to respond to this now, iv'a, but I'll PM you later.

1 minute ago, AzzKikA said:

 It is great to bring awareness to such a terrible thing like violence against women but why do they get singled out?  There is such a thing as violence against men too, and children and animals.  Why do we feel the need to single women out again, I think that's what gets my goat when things like this come up.  It's always spoken that women are equal, so why in these matters do we single them out?  And sometimes it is women's groups that do it too. Why not have an ad campaign about all violence being a terrible thing that should never be condoned, no matter the colour, age, sex etc.  Women are stronger than they ever have been when it comes to physical & mental abuse, while creating awareness for the issue is great, and may get people thinking differently, i think it sometimes hinders other areas like equality.

Surely you're not serious? Do you actually have the slightest idea of what you're talking about? This is one of the worst comments I've ever read here.

 

6 minutes ago, AzzKikA said:

As jnrmac said, you could be fired, or worse SUED!

I think Chris' summary of iv'as word are how i feel.  It is great to bring awareness to such a terrible thing like violence against women but why do they get singled out?  There is such a thing as violence against men too, and children and animals.  Why do we feel the need to single women out again, I think that's what gets my goat when things like this come up.  It's always spoken that women are equal, so why in these matters do we single them out?  And sometimes it is women's groups that do it too. Why not have an ad campaign about all violence being a terrible thing that should never be condoned, no matter the colour, age, sex etc.  Women are stronger than they ever have been when it comes to physical & mental abuse, while creating awareness for the issue is great, and may get people thinking differently, i think it sometimes hinders other areas like equality.

Surely this isn't true, surely.

Women are singled out in this as women are over represented in domestic violence figures, especially deaths. It annoys me as well that men are forgotten in the domestic violence discussion but that is another rant I have.

Men are over represented in deaths from coward punches, hence the campaign about coward punches being aimed at men. 

The only real way to be engaged is if men start to actually stand up and say something. Standing up for the women in our lives and against the cowards punch is doing this. We can do both separately and it doesn't detract from the other. Jump on board and speak up against all of it as it is all crap and should not be tolerated. 

13 minutes ago, AzzKikA said:

As jnrmac said, you could be fired, or worse SUED!

I think Chris' summary of iv'as word are how i feel.  It is great to bring awareness to such a terrible thing like violence against women but why do they get singled out?  There is such a thing as violence against men too, and children and animals.  Why do we feel the need to single women out again, I think that's what gets my goat when things like this come up.  It's always spoken that women are equal, so why in these matters do we single them out?  And sometimes it is women's groups that do it too. Why not have an ad campaign about all violence being a terrible thing that should never be condoned, no matter the colour, age, sex etc.  Women are stronger than they ever have been when it comes to physical & mental abuse, while creating awareness for the issue is great, and may get people thinking differently, i think it sometimes hinders other areas like equality.

 

So as a society, we'd prefer to fire someone when they question someone's professionalism, but not when we advocate violence against them. Excellent.

And to the second point - I think you're either being disingenous, or dumb as a brick, to suggest there is no press or publicity around violence against men, children and animals. Not seen any of the one-punch campaigning? Or cruelty to animals ads? 

The reason we are discussing violence against women in this instance is because there was a specific incident where violence against women was raised.

2 minutes ago, stuie said:

Surely you're not serious? Do you actually have the slightest idea of what you're talking about? This is one of the worst comments I've ever read here.

 

Yes i am, try reading the whole thing, not skipping it over to support your outrage.  You really are a nasty piece of work.

2 hours ago, stuie said:

I'd rather be someone who comes across as angry on an internet forum than someone who wants to smash a woman to a pulp for writing some articles that upset them.

 

It's a figure of speech Stuie

so just get off your little high horse

i have never punched any woman

even when they have taken me to the cleaners (relationships) knowing they would get away with it. 

So please spare me the moral lectures. 

All i am saying is that when 1 issue is raised it takes away from others, lets all concentrate on this issue now and forget about the coward punch, or the way animals are treated overseas when they are live exported. It just bugs me how the media and specific groups control the focus of such issues, while others are forgotten, that's all.

No where have i said this is acceptable behavior.

 

Edited June 20, 20169 yr by AzzKikA

7 minutes ago, AzzKikA said:

Yes i am, try reading the whole thing, not skipping it over to support your outrage.  You really are a nasty piece of work.

Well hey, maybe if men were dying at the same rate as women from domestic violence then the attention would be more even. Think of that maybe?

 

Wow... just wow.

The boys club is alive and well.

What would Ed have said if those remarks were about Carla? Or Frawleys if they were about his daughters... 

 

17 minutes ago, AzzKikA said:

Surely this isn't true, surely.

Look it up. I heard the grab from the radio this morning 

http://www.triplem.com.au/melbourne/news/blog/2016/6/3aw-under-fire-for-the-same-unacceptable-comment-about-caroline-wilson/

absolutly no different.

carro can't have it both ways. It can't be unacceptable when Eddie says it but a joke when her tony shaw and dwayne russell say it.

3 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

It's a figure of speech Stuie

so just get off your little high horse

i have never punched any woman

even when they have taken me to the cleaners (relationships) knowing they would get away with it. 

So please spare me the moral lectures. 

Really? A figure of speech? I have never heard the saying that goes "I'm going to smash that woman to a pulp".

 

10 minutes ago, Chris said:

Women are singled out in this as women are over represented in domestic violence figures, especially deaths. It annoys me as well that men are forgotten in the domestic violence discussion but that is another rant I have.

Men are over represented in deaths from coward punches, hence the campaign about coward punches being aimed at men. 

The only real way to be engaged is if men start to actually stand up and say something. Standing up for the women in our lives and against the cowards punch is doing this. We can do both separately and it doesn't detract from the other. Jump on board and speak up against all of it as it is all crap and should not be tolerated. 

Totally agree with most except the highlighted.  We focus on what the media tells us to focus on.

3 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

If i had heard that on Radio i would have laughed. 

This is no laughing matter.