|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
loggerhead007
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:57 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
How bout your other half bobber?
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
3MB
Joined: 26 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| While it might be possible to make a case for a stronger man having more control over the outcome of an individual episode of abuse than his weaker but abusive girlfriend (I assert this shouldn't be considered an ethical factor, for reasons I outline at the end of the post), I don't see the case for having more control over the long term outcome. For both a male and a female domestic abuse victim, control over the long term outcome can be achieved through either leaving, engaging socia protections, or pursuing legal action. |
Women often don't leave because they are afraid of the physical violence, even death should they make this choice. I would argue that men indeed do have more control over the outcome of the long term abusive relationship because a lot of this fear isn't there. Why would a man stay? A number of reasons might compel one to stay in an abusive relationship, although Id again argue that fear of leaving most likely isn't one of them. Trying to keep a family together may be a reason why a man would choose to stay.
| Quote: |
| I'm not sure this is as true as you think it is, particularly once tools and weaponry become involved. An angry woman with a frying pan could do some serious damage, much less a baseball bat or otherwise; this is doubly true if you as the man want to avoid harming her in return. Perhaps as a strong, physically capable man yourself you are filled with confidence your ability to diffuse the situation while entirely avoiding meaningful injury, but I certainly would not be. |
Weaponry of course is a factor, but barring a gun, or maybe a large knife, I still don't think a woman attacker is equal to a male attacker, and conversely a male target isn't the same as a female target. I'm not particularly strong, nor big, but I do feel confident that should my wife attack me with a frying pan I would be able to defend myself and do it without harming her in the process. I doubt she could do the same should I pick up a frying pan and attack her. Weapons help but they don't exactly level the playing field.
| Quote: |
| A further complication in such a situation is that should a man physically defend himself, it's entirely possible that (due to this type of thinking which considers male on female abuse worse than female on male abuse), he will be considered in the wrong (this happens). Consider even the case mentioned earlier in this thread: a man sees two women and a man fighting, automatically assumes it's the man that is the aggressor, and reacts accordingly. People on juries are just as prone to reactions like this, unfortunately, and it's another example of the damage done by the ethical ideal you put forward. |
That is a good point. However Id counter with this. If you are a man being attacked by a woman the onus is on you to end the conflict without further physical escalation. IOW if a woman hits a man, it isnt ok for the man to then harm her. Subdue or get out. Both much easier for a man to do.
Im not saying one is ok, either. Im sayiong as males, we have a responsibility to control a situation even if we are the targets of the attack by a woman. faced with an abusive woman my main concern would be to escape the situation without hurting her in the process. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| loggerhead007 wrote: |
How bout your other half bobber?
|
Do you have nothing better to do than to troll every thread I post on logger? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yu_Bum_suk wrote: |
| But an average-size man hitting either an average size 14-year-old or average-size woman is still if nothing else a very cowardly act. |
Yes, it's cowardly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 3MB wrote: |
| Women often don't leave because they are afraid of the physical violence, even death should they make this choice. I would argue that men indeed do have more control over the outcome of the long term abusive relationship because a lot of this fear isn't there. Why would a man stay? A number of reasons might compel one to stay in an abusive relationship, although Id again argue that fear of leaving most likely isn't one of them. Trying to keep a family together may be a reason why a man would choose to stay. |
I feel like you're trying to separate the two too much. Some women might remain in the relationship out of some sense of terror that they'd been found and murdered, but I suspect the reasons are the same in many cases. Keeping a family together, fear of being alone, the feeling that one simply deserves this situation, and so forth seem like justifications both men and women could easily use for not leaving.
I also feel like it would be much harder to get a man to admit he really was afraid to leave the relationship, given the stigma attached to cowardice in our society (even in this thread, the term cowardly act has been used as a condemnation for instance). Men who feel fear are generally considered less manly.
| 3MB wrote: |
| Weaponry of course is a factor, but barring a gun, or maybe a large knife, I still don't think a woman attacker is equal to a male attacker, and conversely a male target isn't the same as a female target. I'm not particularly strong, nor big, but I do feel confident that should my wife attack me with a frying pan I would be able to defend myself and do it without harming her in the process. I doubt she could do the same should I pick up a frying pan and attack her. Weapons help but they don't exactly level the playing field. |
They may or may not perfectly level the playing field depending on the weapon (as you admit, some weapons may very well, but those are unlikely to be common implements of domestic abuse), but a perfectly level playing field isn't necessary for violence against adult men and violence against adult women to be equally reprehensible. Remember, I'm not arguing a fight between an average man and an average woman is somehow a 50/50 chance, I'm simply arguing that violence against either should be viewed as equally ethically reprehensible.
| 3MB wrote: |
| That is a good point. However Id counter with this. If you are a man being attacked by a woman the onus is on you to end the conflict without further physical escalation. IOW if a woman hits a man, it isnt ok for the man to then harm her. Subdue or get out. Both much easier for a man to do. |
This is a good example of exactly what I am against, and a good example of the result of your ethical proposal. If you are a man being attacked by a woman, there should be no additional onus upon you compared to if you were being attacked by a man; in either case you are being attacked and should be free to defend yourself as necessary. Any defensive measure that would be acceptable against an adult male assailant should be acceptable against an adult female assailant. Females shouldn't be made into some sort of priviledged citizenry in the sense you're describing, that's a dangerous idea, completely against equal protection clauses of the law, and heavily sexist against men.
Mind you, beyond the sexually discriminatory part of your claim, I'm not necessarily arguing the idea that one being assailed should try to end the situation without causing the assailant harm is necessarily wrong. I'm merely saying that if it's true when you're assailant is a woman, it should also be true if your assailant is a man. I don't see how it becomes suddenly reasonable to beat the male aggressor into a bloody pulp, particularly since if you are able to do so, he's weaker than you, and as such should fall into the same ethical category your logic places the average female in.
| 3MB wrote: |
| Im not saying one is ok, either. Im sayiong as males, we have a responsibility to control a situation even if we are the targets of the attack by a woman. faced with an abusive woman my main concern would be to escape the situation without hurting her in the process. |
Ascribing additional ethical responsibilities to males as opposed to females isn't something I can support, though you obviously feel differently.
In any case, I think I've articulated my case more or less fully, and I don't think either of us will be persuading the other. I appreciate that you've engaged me rationally rather than emotionally over the last few posts, and look foward to any closing statements in response to what I said in this post you care to make. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
[
This is a good example of exactly what I am against, and a good example of the result of your ethical proposal. If you are a man being attacked by a woman, there should be no additional onus upon you compared to if you were being attacked by a man; in either case you are being attacked and should be free to defend yourself as necessary. Any defensive measure that would be acceptable against an adult male assailant should be acceptable against an adult female assailant. Females shouldn't be made into some sort of priviledged citizenry in the sense you're describing, that's a dangerous idea, completely against equal protection clauses of the law, and heavily sexist against men.
. |
I would love to see you try to make that claim in a Western courtroom.
And as for the last sentence of your quote...guess what? That already happens |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loggerhead007
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 11:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I love you bobber, can we meat? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Sun May 03, 2009 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Protection of the weaker from the stronger is the glue that holds society together at least in the West. It is the social contract!
AArontendo glad that you think like you do. This is why so many many Korean women chase Western men. Well one of the reasons not the BIg reason |
Yeah...cuz the Irish have a such a great reputation when it comes to domestic violence... 
As for protection of the weaker- I see great 'protection' of the elderly going on in America- yeah just dump grammy in the crappy nursing home and never visit.
But in Korea the people here will not 'get rid' of their family.
As for women chasing, watch a Korean man go to Poland and see who gets 'chased'- same reasons as here for westerners- Status, Something New, and Reputation
I try to avoid being the Angry Defender of Korea...but geez...too much condescension in your post.[/quote] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon May 04, 2009 2:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
[
This is a good example of exactly what I am against, and a good example of the result of your ethical proposal. If you are a man being attacked by a woman, there should be no additional onus upon you compared to if you were being attacked by a man; in either case you are being attacked and should be free to defend yourself as necessary. Any defensive measure that would be acceptable against an adult male assailant should be acceptable against an adult female assailant. Females shouldn't be made into some sort of priviledged citizenry in the sense you're describing, that's a dangerous idea, completely against equal protection clauses of the law, and heavily sexist against men.
. |
I would love to see you try to make that claim in a Western courtroom. |
The sexist hypocrisy of Western courts is no concern of mine. My contempt is meaningless to them and I ensure I never place myself in a situation where their faulty judicial practices can harm me.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| And as for the last sentence of your quote...guess what? That already happens |
And, as I said, it shouldn't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcviking
Joined: 24 Mar 2009
Location: 'Fantastic' America
|
| Posted: Mon May 04, 2009 8:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Its really simple. Don't hit women and children. If you do you are a fucking coward and deserve to be dragged in the street and stoned to death. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcviking
Joined: 24 Mar 2009
Location: 'Fantastic' America
|
| Posted: Mon May 04, 2009 8:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Its really simple. Don't hit women and children. If you do you are a fucking coward and deserve to be dragged in the street and stoned to death. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cubanlord
Joined: 08 Jul 2005
Location: In Japan!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
