Chris

Read my earlier comments and you will see I agree it was not a reference to domestic violence. Watch the vid I posted on the first or second page and you may just be able to see the link.

It doesn't actually matter what proffession she is in or how good she is at the job. If the comments were about her ability to do her job then fine, no issue, she is more than capable of sticking up for herself. The comments werent about her ability to do her job though were they, they were about killing her. The fact you think tbat is OK is baffling.

No it wasnt a comment about domestic violence, it was a comment about violence towards a women who happens to be a Journo. Making comments that disrespect women and about violence towards women, no matter their occupation, is not good and contributes to the problems we have with our culture towards women, and there is a problem.

Except of course that it wasn't Caro who cried foul

You may out of luck as isn't there an unwritten rule that you can't be a lefty and support Melbourne? Loud mouth and nasty should be easy to find.

Whoops, I wasnt alive but always associate it with an early 70's hippy mantra (taken from Dylans song. Just looked it up and it mid 60's. It must have been a great time to live and make the world change around you into the better world you want it to be.

Never said it was a competition stuie, just that i don't beleive the stats as even the experts agree that male victims are far more under represented than women (who are also under represented). I also said I was happy to focus on women for know but that the discussion has to evolve at some point to include all victims. Really can't see your problem here stuie.

See point 1 of the people I think are more likely to think this way. Another line from the 70's for you SWYL, 'the times they are a changin'. Think about it for a bit.

I would seriously question the stats as most experts I have heard speak on the matter say that many many men don't report it (as many women don't but they are sure more men don't). This has to do with shame and being told to toughen up and sort their women out by the authorities. There are also lots of men who take their lives due to domestic violence. It is a whole untapped and generally unrecognised issue. Happy to focus on the women for now though to get the discussion really going and it can grow from there. I do hate being painted as a monster by certain segments of the media though.

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.

So is the father son rule if you get rid of the academies. The best way for the academies/FS rule to work is to treat them the same and limit the number you can get to say 3 in every 5 year period. My model for it would go something like this. Each club can get 3 players in 5 years (rolling 5 year period) from either their academy or from Father son. Each of these 3 can be selected outside of the draft, if a club wants more than the 3 they are allowed then they have to bid on them under the current system (but make the price higher). makes it fair for everyone as long as everyone has access to an academy.

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!

I thought that while we were dealing with the sociology thread we could expand it and cover all the worlds issues. We could have it all solved by mid night!

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 did think about war but that fits in with the self defense or defense of others category, it is just an extreme version. There is still no excuse for starting a war if not for the afore mentioned reasons.

Just had a look back and the offending comments have been removed, it seems he may have been as well.

Just to Help Iv'a out a bit. This is what he has said (feel free to correct Iv'a if I get it wrong) - Violence and threats of violence are wrong against anyone, including women, in almost all circumstances. (I am guessing self defence is the only one where it is right) - One a separate issue, Journos need a thick skin and need to be accountable for what they write as they can be very inflammatory at times. This means they can be ridiculed, attacked, have things written about them as long as they are not violent or threatening. What Iv'a hasn't written - That journos need to be accountable as they write hurtful things and therefore they shouldn't get upset about threats of violence. Hope this helps.

Not in my close circle of friends but that is in part by design. It is out there though, you don't need to look very far or dig very deep to find it as there is lots of it. Generally in places where lots of immature boys hang out.

He has said numerous times that he would like Caro beaten to a pulp. He actually said that we (as in all of Demonland) would like Caro beaten to a pulp.

That was a reply for SWYL. I understand the separate parts of your argument and agree about the accountability. I have no issue with going as hard as you want against a Journo as long as it is not based on sex or includes threats of violence.

Not publicly Ricky, but I bet someone you know has abused a partner and no one knows about it. There is certainly an accepting culture in this country of disrespecting women, there is no argument for that.

And? I may not disagree with any of that, but none of that is a threat of violence and none of it warrants a threat of violence in return.

Could not disagree with this more and actually think you have missed the point. It matters not how hard hitting Caro is, crude jokes are not justified full stop. No one is saying jokes like this are domestic violence, or even on the spectrum. What they are is an indication of a culture where it is acceptable to denigrate and disrespect women, that is a world where the few nutters find acceptance for what they are doing. If we cut out the disrespectful culture then the nutters will not have the acceptance or think they have the right to do what they do. Yes some still will, but some wont, that is the point.

She doesn't like it when it comes back with comments based on her sex or threatening violence. Can you quote one time she has gone gone at the man hard based on them being a man or threatened violence towards them? Didn't think so.

Then why use the word ALL? And are you standing by the comment that you wanted to physically harm her?