How much do you collude with violence towards women by Magonsdaughter

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

So if your partner went outside your relationship and brought you home an STD, wouldn't you be angry? What would your response be? Might you hit a wall in frustration when no one was around?

If I did, I would be acting out my anger in an aggressive way and I would have to accept that fact.

Let me put it to you another way, if you were demoted at work, would you hit the wall at work in anger? What would be the consequence if you did? Would it be considered acceptable work behaviour?

Interesting that you would compare being demoted at work with having your partner violate the trust of your relationship and being careless enough about it to expose you to disease. A personal betrayal is the same as some manager's business decision? I don't think so.

Quote:
Anger is an emotion, btw, not a behaviour.

Yep. So? Emotions cause behaviors. Would it be better to punch a wall, or punch your partner? BTW, I note you never mentioned what your response to the situation above would be. I'd be interested to know.

Quote:
As for the rest of your post, I think you have consistently missed the parts where I have talked about abuse being a series of behaviours. I'm not going to continue to say the same thing just because you don't read properly.

When you ask "Which of the following behaviours would you consider abusive?", and list a number of behaviors, I figure you want to know which behaviors on that list I consider abusive. I noted that, in my opinion, they could be abusive or not, depending on circumstances, and - most importantly - on the attitude and motivation of the person exhibiting those behaviors.

Now if you'd asked "Could a pattern of the following behaviors possibly indicate an abusive relationship?", that'd be a yes. But you didn't ask that.

Quote:
What was coming? That having taken a contrary position, you would get further disagreement. Yeah, that one's a no brainer.

What I saw coming was the "It has to be black and white only. There's no case in which criticizing your partner's cooking (for example) can't be abuse".

And I don't think I've taken a contrary position. I'm against abusive behavior, in all cases. I've just noted that certain behaviors (actually, most any behavior you choose to list), it seems to me, can be abusive or not, depending on intent. If they're done with intent to abuse, they're bad and should be condemned.

Unfortunately, seems I've run up against the usual "If you don't agree with me 100%, you don't agree with me at all." attitude so prevelent here.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 12, 2013 2:43 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
You're really clutching at straws here in your ongoing attempt at being oppositional regarding this issue.

I've been quite clear in my language, but you are doing everything in your power to deliberately obsfucate meaning.

"Which of the following behaviours would you consider abusive?" seems pretty clear to me. You want to know which of a list of behaviors I would consider abusive. I noted why I though each could be abusive, or not, depending on circumstances and the attitude of the person exhibiting the behavior.

Quote:
What comes across loudly and clearly is that you tolerate behaviour that is demeaning, belittling, controlling or abusive so long as you feel it is justified . Additionally, you minimise the impact of such behaviour and refuse to see it as being harmful.

Hmm. Do you consider such an insulting statement as abusive towards a person you've never met, and who has never actually done any of these things, except in your mind?

As noted, any behavior can be "demeaning, belittling, controlling or abusive". Given a particular presentation, tone of voice, and physical attitude, "You're the most wonderful person in the world, and I love you so much" could be demeaning, belittling, controlling or abusive.

Quote:
You are a perfect example of someone who colludes with violence.

As you see it, aren't all men?

Quote:
Family violence, as defined by the law of my land...

'Examples of behaviour that may constitute family violence include (but are not limited to):

an assault; or
a sexual assault or other sexually abusive behaviour; or
stalking; or
repeated derogatory taunts; or
intentionally damaging or destroying property; or
intentionally causing death or injury to an animal; or
unreasonably denying the family member the financial autonomy that he or she would otherwise have had; or
unreasonably withholding financial support needed to meet the reasonable living expenses of the family member, or his or her child, at a time when the family member is entirely or predominantly dependent on the person for financial support; or
preventing the family member from making or keeping connections with his or her family, friends or culture; or
unlawfully depriving the family member, or any member of the family member’s family, or his or her liberty.'

I work within the context of this law, hence I am familar with the behaviours as defined by the law.

So why didn't you use this list of behaviors instead of the ones you did? A suspicious person might suggest that you wanted to post more ambiguous behaviors, look for answers other than a resounding "Abuse! Throw the fellow in jail", then conflate your original ambiguous list with the laws above, and say "See. All men collude with violence towards women".

Also, you'll notice the caveats built into these laws.

"repeated, derogatory..."

"intentionally"

"unreasonably"

"unlawfully"

Apparently the folks who wrote these laws realize what you do not, that it depends.

I've tried to be as straightforward as I can in this discussion, but doing anything other than agreeing 100% seems to confirm Frem's concern from earlier in this thread.

"All too often those who WANT to discuss it and are willing to, wind up buried under flames by femmes bitter about the whole thing, previous mistreatment and so forth - not that they don't maybe have cause to be angry, but directing it at folks who didn't do it cause they're male doesn't help the situation or encourage that dialogue."

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 12, 2013 3:06 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Why is anyone still trying to communicate with Geezer? His intent is obvious, tho' his reasons for wanting to play this game completely elude me. Whatever you write, it's obvious by now he will twist it to fit his own narrative of some kind of "blame game". Why bother?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 12, 2013 3:20 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Why is anyone still trying to communicate with Geezer? His intent is obvious, tho' his reasons for wanting to play this game completely elude me. Whatever you write, it's obvious by now he will twist it to fit his own narrative of some kind of "blame game". Why bother?

Frem said I was gutless for not expressing my opinions. I said it was because I figured that if I didn't toe the doctrinal line 100%, I'd get flamed. I tried anyway, and seems I was right.

ETA: I also noted that I expected folks would respond, not to what you say, but to their stereotype of you - and in many cases, ignore completely what was said because of who said it. Frem answered Magons' questions with some of the same caveats I did, but drew no negative response. Seems my theory is confirmed.

So to wrap up, and not bother the sancitity of your outrage against men further, I'll say this.

Abuse is bad, M'kay?

It's bad whether directed at women by men, men by women, men by men, women by women, anyone against children, and any combinations I may have missed.

Abuse is a matter of intention, and can be demonstrated in a multiplicity of ways; physical, emotional, verbal, behavioral, etc.

Some acts are always abusive.

Some acts may be abusive or not, depending on intent.

Very few acts cannot never be abusive, again depending on intent.

Thinking that all acts have to be either abusive or not in all situations, with no consideration of the context in which the act takes place, or the intention of the actors, shows a (probably willful) lack of understanding of the complexity of human relationships.

Ya'll have a nice time sharpening your pitchforks and tying your nooses.

Bye.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 12, 2013 4:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

So if your partner went outside your relationship and brought you home an STD, wouldn't you be angry? What would your response be? Might you hit a wall in frustration when no one was around?

Man, I don't get these faithfulness issues. It's their body, if they're dumb enough to take risks that could drastically reduce their lifespan, and they told you what happened before they spread the disease, then wherefore anger?

If they're already sleeping around, seems like they've lost interest, why make a big deal about trying to stay together at that point?

But then I have no respect or comprehension in regards to the concept of marriage or monogamy anyway so. I guess that's just me being practical. All this romance stuff seems INSANE and IRRATIONAL anyway. It's like society has embraced a form of institutional crazy that works against natural impulses, and then everyone is SO SHOCKED when people don't play by those rules. Really? Really?

Quote:
Quote:
Abuse is usually a package of behaviours, sometimes including physical violence, sometimes not. Making fun of your partners cooking may not be on the high end of the scale, but it is demeaning behaviour ultimately. If done in conjunction with other behaviours which demean and belittle, and as I have said before, the more on the list the more abusive.

So teasing your partner would be abuse? You never tease your partner? If you have kids, do you ever tease them?

Quote:
Sometimes a perpetrator will use the excuse that it was done in fun, because they cared, or more often, minimise the behaviour.

So teasing your partner could never actually be fun for both of you, if you know what's going on?

Yep. Knew this was coming.

I'd argue the point, but my family is super dysfunctional for pretty much exactly this reason.

And the anger management problems.

It's kind of twisted me into an individual who finds that sort of constant needling and the resulting blowups and crying to be wickedly funny. But then, I'm a jerkass and I know it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 12, 2013 4:37 AM

I do however think that Geezer is honestly answering the question - I also think a lot of this can be context sensitive.

I think it's probably unfair to pile on him for saying that and not pile on me for saying the exact same stuff.

On the other hand, my upbringing might be biasing my perspective. I've never been around anything remotely resembling what other people would call a "healthy" relationship in my life.

At the same time, relatively speaking, it's all so incredibly MINOR to what other people have gone through that the mere thought of calling anything I've been through "abuse" is laughable. I have however drawn the line at some very unacceptable behaviours.

I think that a number of the behaviours Magons posted are unacceptable even in context. People gotta be free to make their own choices. If finances worry you, then split assets, manage separate accounts, cut them lose from your support and see how they do. Personal choice AND personal responsibility see. If they get a STD from sleeping around, that's the consequences of their choices and something you aren't duty-bound to deal with. Drop them like a hot potato and don't even look back. No one has to help anyone, and my understanding is the best relationships are the result of a meeting of equals - as in neither one NEEDS help from the other.

Frankly if people dealt with their emotional problems and responsibilities themselves instead of thinking they need a sugar-daddy husband or a mothering wife to take care of them, people and relationships wouldn't be so goddamned screwed up.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 12, 2013 6:16 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I do however think that Geezer is honestly answering the question - I also think a lot of this can be context sensitive.

I think it's probably unfair to pile on him for saying that and not pile on me for saying the exact same stuff.

Thank you, Byte.

I get the feeling that a lot of the folks in this thread have a lot of their self-image tied up in absolutes, to the point that "I don't think that criticizing your partner's cooking must always, absolutely, be abuse", is seen by them as "I reject and dispise your entire world-view and hope to see all you believe in crushed to dust!!! BWAHHHH!!!"

Now when I said "I don't think that criticizing your partner's cooking must always, absolutely, be abuse", someone could have said, "I believe it is, and these are my reasons". That didn't happen. What I got was:

"What comes across loudly and clearly is that you tolerate behaviour that is demeaning, belittling, controlling or abusive so long as you feel it is justified . Additionally, you minimise the impact of such behaviour and refuse to see it as being harmful.

You are a perfect example of someone who colludes with violence."

Sort'a shuts down any rational discussion right there, I'd say.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 12, 2013 6:51 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

"the sancitity (sic) of your outrage against men" -- my WHAT?!?!

Wow. You have at least as much of a problem with your bias as you accuse others of having. My frustration with your gamesmanship was because you persisted in re-writing the questions, and nothing more. Maybe you just misunderstood, but I doubt it; the wording of the questions was very clear.

Now this:

Quote:
Abuse is a matter of intention, and can be demonstrated in a multiplicity of ways; physical, emotional, verbal, behavioral, etc.

Some acts are always abusive.

Some acts may be abusive or not, depending on intent.

Very few acts cannot never be abusive, again depending on intent.

Says it all. For me, the simplicity of the title of the thread and how the questions were worded made it totally clear what was being asked. Not "do you and your partner josh each other about your cooking", etc., but the question AS WORDED.

My husband and I tease each other UNMERCIFULLY about just about everything...we also make almost as many SELF-DEPRECATING jokes about ourselves. We both know that under all of it is love, and neither of us ever feels abused or even gets our feelings hurt because of that, much as you seem to be indicating about you and Mrs. G. To ARGUE that the questions posed could go either way completely ignores the title of the thread and the wording of the questions, which is why I snarked at you.

I have NO "outrage against men". I have outrage against abuse of anyone by anyone, regardless of sex, or species. I'm as offended by the more recent portrayal of men on TV as bumbling idiots as I was of women as stupid homebodies. I EXPRESS outrage against abuse of women because it is something we are dealing with in many states around many political issues; if men were being abused and we were focusing on it, I'd express equal outrage.

Your own bias is so blatant that you leap to conclusions like this one without a moment's hesitation. Because I am bisexual apparently means to you that I'm anti-male; bullshit. All but one of my relationships my entire life were with those of the opposite sex, in none of those relationships did I abuse my partner or he abuse me, and they were good relationships, I treasure their memory and so do the men (a number of whom have contacted me in the past ten years, by the way).

I stuck with my Jim for over twenty years despite abuse (NOT physical) and blamed myself as much as him when I got help and realized how I contributed to the situation. HE got help and woke up too, and the following 15 years have more than made up for the past and I would happily die for him (as long as he promised to take care of the dogs).

"Thinking that all acts have to be either abusive or not in all situations, with no consideration of the context in which the act takes place, or the intention of the actors, shows a (probably willful) lack of understanding of the complexity of human relationships." I don't see anyone here having said anything about anything always being abusive; I think everyone here understood the questions and everyone but you answered honestly. Look to your own INTENT before you go spewing about other people's prejudices, mister. I can't speak to how anyone else responded to you, but that's why I did.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 12, 2013 6:57 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Byte, I saw within your responses a recognition that there can be greys involved, not the flat black-and-white of Geezer's "it isn't always abuse" and his extremely aggressive stance, which is why I responded to him the way I did.

I maintain that the questions as written and the title of the thread made it perfectly clear what was being asked. I don't think we need to go into the greys, they're understood, and he insisted on not only going into them, but re-wording the questions to make his OWN points repeatedly, which points were irrelevant to the discussion.

That's by way of explaining why I find what he wrote so frustrating, while I have no problem with what you wrote. I'll probably edit this, because I'm going to go back and re-read your posts to be sure I'm clear.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 12, 2013 7:10 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Frem said I was gutless for not expressing my opinions. I said it was because I figured that if I didn't toe the doctrinal line 100%, I'd get flamed. I tried anyway, and seems I was right.

ETA: I also noted that I expected folks would respond, not to what you say, but to their stereotype of you - and in many cases, ignore completely what was said because of who said it. Frem answered Magons' questions with some of the same caveats I did, but drew no negative response. Seems my theory is confirmed.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JerkassHasAPoint

And as you did finally step up when I needled you about it, I retract the lack of guts comment.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 12, 2013 7:21 AM

Quote:
I have NO "outrage against men". I have outrage against abuse of anyone by anyone, regardless of sex, or species. I'm as offended by the more recent portrayal of men on TV as bumbling idiots as I was of women as stupid homebodies.

That's cool. +1 Like

Quote:
I EXPRESS outrage against abuse of women because it is something we are dealing with in many states around many political issues; if men were being abused and we were focusing on it, I'd express equal outrage.

Your own bias is so blatant that you leap to conclusions like this one without a moment's hesitation. Because I am bisexual apparently means to you that I'm anti-male; bullshit.

Um... Not sure that's where it's coming from though. Geezer said nothing about your partners. I know some of the right has said ugly things about you being a lesbian insult here insult here, but I don't recall Geezer ever said anything like that.

I think it's the fact that you say "IF men were being abused and we were focusing on it."

They are and we should. Saying "if" almost ignores that and diminishes the pains and struggles men go through sometimes.

Also sometimes there are jokes around here on the board from the ladies about how women are less violent or more suited to lead or whatnot. That can actually be pretty offensive to menfolk. I'm not sure if you ever particularly engaged in that sort of thing, but you sometimes get mistakenly lumped in with the viewpoints of some of the other ladies around here like Sig or 1kiki.

I wouldn't call it anti-male, as I'm not sure it's deliberate, but there is kind of an insensitivity to male issues I see around here sometimes. Just because male issues seem to not be as widespread or bad as mistreatment of women, doesn't mean mistreatment of men isn't a problem. And ignoring the issues perpetuates the issues, where men feel they aren't supposed to acknowledge their problems or admit to abuse.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 12, 2013 7:56 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Geezer, by numerous posters' opinions, has taken a very direct tack. "What I saw coming was the "It has to be black and white only. There's no case in which criticizing your partner's cooking (for example) can't be abuse". Nobody said that, or even intimated it. Numerous posters have acknowledged that there are greys, acknowledged it and moved on. Only Geezer has been absolutely determined to make an issue of how each question, by rewording or reinterpreting it, might not be abuse.

"I've run up against the usual "If you don't agree with me 100%, you don't agree with me at all." attitude so prevelent here." No, what you've run up against is people understanding the questions and the intent each one carries, because of the CONTEXT PROVIDED in the title and in the questions, and you refusing to acknowledge that context. You have RE-WORDED each question and FOCUSED on how each question could NOT be abuse, highlighted it, argued about it, and then blamed everyone else for picking on you because they won't play that game.

I wrote a long post detailing the above, but by now I think it's obvious to everyone and I won't waste your time or mine. The accusation that people view things through a "filter" and want "accommodation" is offensive; I believe we're all intelligent enough to know when something is meant kindly versus when the intent is cruel. Certainly humans misunderstand one another, and certainly people get their feelings hurt unintentionally, but that is not the issue.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 12, 2013 8:02 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Byte, the issue of abuse of men is a perfectly valid one; if anyone wants to discuss it I'm more than willing. The problem is that in our country today, abuse of women so far outweighs abuse of men, and it is a HISTORICAL problem, so it keeps coming up because it is something we still have a long ways to go to fix.

No, I do not believe women are in any way "better" than men, I think both sexes have pluses and minuses, and I believe if we were governed equally by both sexes, we'd be better off. As it stands now, abuse of men by women is a small issue, men don't collude with it and I don't know any women who do; if I heard it, I would speak up just as loudly. Change my sentence to "If we were focusing on abuse of men" if you will, that's what I intended, by way of "if someone posted about men being abused...", not "if men were being abused". Of course they are; children, animals, teenagers, men, women all get abused.

FYI: Turns out I couldn't go back and look at what you posted, as you deleted your posts.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 12, 2013 8:32 AM

Quote:
The problem is that in our country today, abuse of women so far outweighs abuse of men, and it is a HISTORICAL problem,

Quote:
As it stands now, abuse of men by women is a small issue, men don't collude with it and I don't know any women who do; if I heard it, I would speak up just as loudly.

...I think you'd find people who disagree with that. Not saying they're right on everything. In fact I've run into a number of men's rights advocates that think their victimization at the hands of feminists gave them free reign to treat women however they want. Went through one hell of a mind wtf before I got away from someone like that. It's made me a little prone to berserking whenever I catch a whiff of that mindset on the internet - defensive coping mechanism of a sort really.

But... Misandry and men and women colluding with abuse against men is a thing that happens. I don't think we should compare problems and say "this group has it worse than this group and so their complaints are more valid." Just like it's missing the point a little when AURaptor came in here and shouted "Muslims mistreat their women more than anyone!" They do, but we'd been discussing this as an offshoot of a thread about attitudes on the internet about women, which is predominantly a western thing.

And while your comments here are not intended to be malicious, and I really think you WOULD stand up with men to combat an injustice against them, there are things that get said around here that can really get someone's back up if they feel marginalized.

I half suspect that some of the reaction and thread derails and reinterpretations we're getting from some of the guys discussing this thread is stemming from that exact same discomfort. And the certainty that they're going to get flamed for commenting. You remember even FREM was worried he was going to get flamed? That says something about how strongly people can come across on stuff like this.

Problems are problems. I think we have to respect that. And I think men do get marginalized and aren't recognized equally on abuse issues because of prevailing cultural mindsets which is something that HAS to change.

It might well be they just want that recognition before they feel "safe" enough in the conversation to discuss abuse against women.

Quote:
FYI: Turns out I couldn't go back and look at what you posted, as you deleted your posts.

One thing I will never be accused of - being a mature, calm, and collected individual.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 12, 2013 8:59 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Frem said I was gutless for not expressing my opinions. I said it was because I figured that if I didn't toe the doctrinal line 100%, I'd get flamed. I tried anyway, and seems I was right.

ETA: I also noted that I expected folks would respond, not to what you say, but to their stereotype of you - and in many cases, ignore completely what was said because of who said it. Frem answered Magons' questions with some of the same caveats I did, but drew no negative response. Seems my theory is confirmed.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JerkassHasAPoint

And as you did finally step up when I needled you about it, I retract the lack of guts comment.

-Frem

I appreciate that.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 12, 2013 11:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Interesting that you would compare being demoted at work with having your partner violate the trust of your relationship and being careless enough about it to expose you to disease. A personal betrayal is the same as some manager's business decision? I don't think so.

So once again, you demonstrate that you think aggressive and violent behaviour may be acceptable depending upon the circumstances. A personal betrayal would excuse violence. Does that include punching your partner?

Quote:

Yep. So? Emotions cause behaviors. Would it be better to punch a wall, or punch your partner? BTW, I note you never mentioned what your response to the situation above would be. I'd be interested to know.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. There is no necessity to either punch a wall or your partner. You choose the behaviour. Or are you saying that you have NO control over your behaviour.

No, I wouldn't punch a wall.

Quote:

When you ask "Which of the following behaviours would you consider abusive?", and list a number of behaviors, I figure you want to know which behaviors on that list I consider abusive. I noted that, in my opinion, they could be abusive or not, depending on circumstances, and - most importantly - on the attitude and motivation of the person exhibiting those behaviors.

Now if you'd asked "Could a pattern of the following behaviors possibly indicate an abusive relationship?", that'd be a yes. But you didn't ask that.

But I actually did say that on a number of occasions.

Quote:

What I saw coming was the "It has to be black and white only. There's no case in which criticizing your partner's cooking (for example) can't be abuse".

And I don't think I've taken a contrary position. I'm against abusive behavior, in all cases. I've just noted that certain behaviors (actually, most any behavior you choose to list), it seems to me, can be abusive or not, depending on intent. If they're done with intent to abuse, they're bad and should be condemned.

Unfortunately, seems I've run up against the usual "If you don't agree with me 100%, you don't agree with me at all." attitude so prevelent here.

Since the point of my argument is that saying 'depends' excuses the behaviour, I doubt we will ever be in agreement. I made my questions quite clear, I believe. AS Niki demonstrated

Quote:
"Throwing keys at your partner" is not "tossing keys to your partner"

"Making fun of your partner's cooking" is not "joking about each other's cooking"

"Making disparaging comments about your partner's weight/appearance" is not "Being concerned about your partner's health"

"Needing to know where your partner is at all times" is not "being concerned for your partner's whereabouts and safety"

"Making your partner account for every cent of spending" is not "being cautious about spending"

"Disliking your partner's family and or friends to the point where you encourage him or her to no longer see them" is not "one or both partners choosing to avoid poisonous relations"

And yet you continued to argue that maybe I could have meant the latter in each case, when I clearly did not.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 12, 2013 11:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

I think that a number of the behaviours Magons posted are unacceptable even in context. People gotta be free to make their own choices. If finances worry you, then split assets, manage separate accounts, cut them lose from your support and see how they do. Personal choice AND personal responsibility see. If they get a STD from sleeping around, that's the consequences of their choices and something you aren't duty-bound to deal with. Drop them like a hot potato and don't even look back. No one has to help anyone, and my understanding is the best relationships are the result of a meeting of equals - as in neither one NEEDS help from the other.

Frankly if people dealt with their emotional problems and responsibilities themselves instead of thinking they need a sugar-daddy husband or a mothering wife to take care of them, people and relationships wouldn't be so goddamned screwed up.

Spot on, Byte. This is what I believe.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 12, 2013 11:29 AM

Quote:
You choose the behaviour. Or are you saying that you have NO control over your behaviour.

No, I wouldn't punch a wall.

I've punched a lot of walls. I have no partner, through both simple cause and effect, and also by choice.

But I am abusive.

Quote:
And yet you continued to argue that maybe I could have meant the latter in each case, when I clearly did not.

That is true. The way most of those were written did suggest abuse...

Except maybe the punching the wall one, but I'm not in a good position to judge, and I'd need more details for the context. Was anyone around to see said wall punch? Was it directed towards or away from a person? Was it in response to a person or because of a person, or a more general conceptual frustration like when you have work to do but your stuff keeps breaking and breaking more stuff seems like the thing to do?

It CAN be abusive and intimidating, but it can also be feeble and sad flailing temper tantrum against a brutally uncaring universe. Also your hand and that wall offends you and both need to be punished.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 12, 2013 1:00 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Interesting that you would compare being demoted at work with having your partner violate the trust of your relationship and being careless enough about it to expose you to disease. A personal betrayal is the same as some manager's business decision? I don't think so.

So once again, you demonstrate that you think aggressive and violent behaviour may be acceptable depending upon the circumstances. A personal betrayal would excuse violence. Does that include punching your partner?

No. I say that betrayal of trust by a partner is a whole different kettle of fish than a demotion at work. Nowhere do I say it justifies violence against your partner. That conclusion is just your biased imagination.

Your rage is impervious to reason, so I'll leave you with it.

Bye.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 12, 2013 1:27 PM

Quote:
No. I say that betrayal of trust by a partner is a whole different kettle of fish than a demotion at work.

Well... Geezer left which is too bad. So I'll pose this question to everyone else.

Is it?

I mean there's various instances of violence from disgruntled (ex) employees. I postulate that there's a similar underlying inability to adapt to life changes that leads to these events. Just as a partner is someone that these people "rely" on, so is their workplace, and yet neither one "belongs" to the person in question. The psychological response to being left or let go is also similar.

A feeling of being adrift, a desperation and wanting and feeling that life or way of life is threatened, which when they are rejected again, leads to rage.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 12, 2013 3:52 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
I think that a number of the behaviours Magons posted are unacceptable even in context. People gotta be free to make their own choices. If finances worry you, then split assets, manage separate accounts, cut them lose from your support and see how they do. Personal choice AND personal responsibility see. If they get a STD from sleeping around, that's the consequences of their choices and something you aren't duty-bound to deal with. Drop them like a hot potato and don't even look back. No one has to help anyone, and my understanding is the best relationships are the result of a meeting of equals - as in neither one NEEDS help from the other.

Yer on a role, Byte; that was beautifully written. And perfectly on point; as a libertarian, isn't it Geezer's stance that each person is only responsible for their own actions? If so, see above; the right to control another's behavior, whether by requiring accounting of funds, where one is at any given time, whether one sees one's family or not, etc., seems to me extremely anti-libertarian, if nothing else.

Essentially, what I get in part from Geezer is that it's okay for one person to control another, if it's for what he judges is good reason. I'm not sure what he's inferring about the STDs, but it reads as if that IS a valid reason to do...something, as opposed to anything that happens at work.

As to your question; certainly work-related stuff can be as insane-making as relationship stuff, surely we all know that. If we didn't, the number of people who have taken violence back to the work place in response to what they at least PERCEIVE as things done wrong to them there should be sufficient illustration that this is so.

Note: I do disagree that release of emotions in violence is a bad thing, as long as it doesn't involve anyone else. As a bipolar, one of the things we NEED to do is find outlets for our emotions, and physical things can work. Logically physical exertion like exercise or running or something (I spent one Summer "hiking angry", STOMPING down the trails, as one of my symptom-management strategies), but that doesn't work for everyone. Like Byte has described, it can be a healthy release to do something violent and physical; one of the techniques some I've known use is to buy a bunch of cheap dishes from Goodwill, go somewhere away from everyone and throw them against a rock, scream and yell. I disagree that such release is always a bad thing. For some people, not letting it out in some way just builds up and can be really bad, for them or for others when they don't let it out somehow.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 13, 2013 1:39 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
And perfectly on point; as a libertarian, isn't it Geezer's stance that each person is only responsible for their own actions? If so, see above; the right to control another's behavior, whether by requiring accounting of funds, where one is at any given time, whether one sees one's family or not, etc., seems to me extremely anti-libertarian, if nothing else.

Essentially, what I get in part from Geezer is that it's okay for one person to control another, if it's for what he judges is good reason. I'm not sure what he's inferring about the STDs, but it reads as if that IS a valid reason to do...something, as opposed to anything that happens at work.

Well, no. You're wrong. But since it's obvious that trying to explain anything to you or Magons is impossible in the face of your biases and preconceptions...

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 13, 2013 1:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

No. I say that betrayal of trust by a partner is a whole different kettle of fish than a demotion at work. Nowhere do I say it justifies violence against your partner. That conclusion is just your biased imagination.

Your rage is impervious to reason, so I'll leave you with it.

Bye.

I don't feel any rage. I just disagree with you.

Quote:
Note: I do disagree that release of emotions in violence is a bad thing, as long as it doesn't involve anyone else. As a bipolar, one of the things we NEED to do is find outlets for our emotions, and physical things can work. Logically physical exertion like exercise or running or something (I spent one Summer "hiking angry", STOMPING down the trails, as one of my symptom-management strategies), but that doesn't work for everyone. Like Byte has described, it can be a healthy release to do something violent and physical; one of the techniques some I've known use is to buy a bunch of cheap dishes from Goodwill, go somewhere away from everyone and throw them against a rock, scream and yell. I disagree that such release is always a bad thing. For some people, not letting it out in some way just builds up and can be really bad, for them or for others when they don't let it out somehow.

I think the key is that you are not hurting or intimidating anyone else, nor are you wrecking their property. I think that's a reasonable way to let off anger if you need to do so.

Might be useful to clean up the glass afterwards though.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 13, 2013 5:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
And perfectly on point; as a libertarian, isn't it Geezer's stance that each person is only responsible for their own actions? If so, see above; the right to control another's behavior, whether by requiring accounting of funds, where one is at any given time, whether one sees one's family or not, etc., seems to me extremely anti-libertarian, if nothing else.

Essentially, what I get in part from Geezer is that it's okay for one person to control another, if it's for what he judges is good reason. I'm not sure what he's inferring about the STDs, but it reads as if that IS a valid reason to do...something, as opposed to anything that happens at work.

Well, no. You're wrong. But since it's obvious that trying to explain anything to you or Magons is impossible in the face of your biases and preconceptions...

Hmm.

I think I might actually get what you're saying and where you're coming from. I don't really think this conversation has anything to do with your libertarian political beliefs.

Do you view the most basic unit of society as the family? And according to the times you were raised in, perhaps you view each part of the family, mother and father, as having a specific role?

And the patriarch of the family is the one who manages the finances after receiving a report from other members of the family?

According to you, that's not abusive, it's just how your conception of a family unit traditionally manages their finances. Instead of individual budgets, it's a group budget with a treasurer holding the purse strings, an organizational scheme as opposed to what you would think of as a tool of oppression.

Magons is talking about something else though. For the record.

Here, an example. I have a friend, you might have met her around here but she's not as active in the fandom anymore. But we still talk because she has an amazing conception of the Firefly crew and especially her way of writing River. And we also have a similar sense of humour and I'm getting way off topic.

Anyway. She's always struggled with her parents who were very controlling, and who made her feel guilt over her basic necessities like food and medical treatments for a condition she has. And recently there was a kerfluffle about her spending habits (which again were mostly basic necessities, particularly physical therapy for aforementioned medical condition), and her parents demanded that she surrender control of her bank account, and if she didn't, they would take away her car and/or steal and hide her driver's license. It was very likely based on past experience if she did surrender her bank account then they would use all her money and she'd never see a dime of it. And if they took her car, she would be unable to drive to work and make money, exacerbating the very spending problem that theoretically touched off this conflict.

She's 26.

THAT is abusive. They're actually deliberately undermining and sabotaging her independence and her health for the sake of control. It's a catch 22 situation for her that always ends in her being worse off than before. It's impossible to tell whether her parents actually have good intentions but they're screwed up or if this is just straight up malice, but the end result is the same.

And that's the sort of thing Magons is talking about in regards to controlling finances or controlling who you go see or access to transportation. Only instead of parents, she's talking about romantic partners who do this.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 13, 2013 10:36 AM

Yes, all very true. You're writing style is impressive these days, Byte. Thanks for explaining what I am trying to say only much more elequently.

I do think that a lot of times in intimate partner situations, that one person does not intend to abuse the other, but they certainly seek to control. They may perceive that to be their role, but that doesn't diminish the impact on their partner, nor excuse their behaviour.

These beliefs underlies a lot of male violence towards their partners. I've not been gender specific, but this kind of violence and control is much more common, and I think because of common beliefs around what it means to be a man.

That's why I think these conversations are important, so that people can understand the range of behaviours that may constitute abuse, that many behaviours seek to control, belittle or diminish another and are not acceptable under any circumstance.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 13, 2013 10:58 AM

Quote:
These beliefs underlies a lot of male violence towards their partners. I've not been gender specific, but this kind of violence and control is much more common, and I think because of common beliefs around what it means to be a man.

...I would avoid gender even still, because there are gender roles and expectations that are abusive towards men. For example, in traditional gender roles, men are expected to fight off aggression towards the family and make personal sacrifices, as though they are "expendable." They're also expected to waste their lives at a desk working instead of bonding with children. It's possible that stress related to gender roles is the reason that men tend to die younger than women.

Men are also expected to "just take it" if the "weaker" gender attacks them, or throws things at them, or tries to compel them or blackmail them into situations against their will.

Society can force men into roles just as much as it tries to force women into roles. And abuse can be done by anyone. As such just as gender roles and common beliefs can paint a man into being an abuser, it can also paint a man into being the abused.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 13, 2013 11:25 AM