On Chivalry and Sexual Violence
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
"we are going to look at all aspects of this case" - no problem
"is it an instance of a husband being driven too far?" - big problem
Which is why you keep defending yourself, I guess.
Sure. Some feminists, and some people in the men's movement, take things too far.
There is a huge difference between "we considered the woman's state of mind" and wondering "did she push her husband too far - and then suffer the consequences of her actions?"
Are you sure?
Can't think of any other groups or stereotypes that some society, at some time, have victimized and scapegoated?
Again, not at all...simply giving examples I have been involved in personally. I mean I certainly am unable to read your mind and quote whatever example you have.
Great!!! Now show me where I have said anything different.
He didn't say anything about her pushing him too far. He said as you correctly quoted..."we are going to look at all aspects of this case" "is it an instance of a husband being driven too far?"
In other words justice without bias, as you would certainly require if you had been involved in anything similar or otherwise.
If you are referring to the policeman, then all he did was state exactly what any investigative force would and should do in any similar situation. Looking at the murderers state of mind is one of those things.
And wasn't this exactly the same as the situation re the Mother driving her three children into the dam? They reduced her sentence because of the state of her mind.
Let me add in both cases, it was and always will be indescribable murder by both and I really don't give a stuff about state of minds.
Many of us have gone through difficulties similar to the murderous arsehole that burnt his family, and many woman gone through the same as the woman that drove her children into the dam. You did see that link?
Bells
Staff member
And what facts would they be?
What we know so far about this man and his marriage:
- There was a history of domestic violence and police advised they had responded to the family home previously because of domestic violence.
- She left and was seeking to separate from him because of said domestic violence.
- He kidnapped one of their children and took her to Sydney for days, without informing the mother of where he or the child was and police had to be involved and return the child home.
- He threatened her enough times that there was enough evidence for her to apply to the court for an AVO to prevent him from getting close to her.
- He rejected the 50/50 child custody because he wanted more or all of the children's custody. Not because he felt she was unfit, but because he had to win..
Here is what that police officer said:
"Is this an issue of a woman suffering significant domestic violence and her and her children perishing at the hands of the husband, or is this an instance of a husband being driven too far by issues that he's suffered, by certain circumstances, into committing acts of this form?"
So let me ask you.. What would drive a man to douse his small children and estranged wife with petrol and then set them on fire after threatening them with a knife when he jumped into her car?
Driven too far by what?
Baxter's biggest issue, his gripe, was that his wife left him. He wanted her to suffer. That is why he had taken to stalking her, following her and threatening her to the point where she feared for her life and had told her mother that she was concerned he would kill her and wanted to complete her will to ensure her children would be cared for by her parents and family. He was obsessed with her. That is what he suffered from.. That she left him and he could no longer control her. It wasn't the kids. He rejected a 50/50 custody of the kids because he wanted her back. Or he wanted full custody so she would suffer so he could keep controlling her. That is how men like this operate.
So, I'll ask again, driven too far by what? Or by who?
The words that police officer uttered literally blamed Hannah for the circumstances that could have "driven" her estranged husband into threatening her with a knife, getting into that car after he hid in the neighbour's yard so he could grab them when she took the kids on the early morning school run.. He planned it and we know he did, because he went out and bought the petrol and had it with him and the means with which to set them on fire on him. Hannah drove as he threatened her with a knife, turned the corner of the street she was living on with her parents, saw people and a man washing his car, and tried to drive over to them to seek help after he had doused her and the children in petrol and then set them alight. She managed to get out of the car, screaming for help for her children, while engulfed in flames, people tried to rescue the children, he threatened them back and prevented them from doing anything and then he reached back into the burning car, grabbed the knife as people tries to douse the flames on that poor woman and stabbed himself next to the car as he watched his children burn while strapped in their car seats in the back.
We know what happened in that car because that poor woman held on after suffering 3rd degree burns to 97% of her body, to tell the police and witnesses what had happened before she lost consciousness and never woke up again.
A police officer in charge of the case then comes out and asks if a man with a history of domestic violence, who had abused his wife, who had been enough of a threat that she had an AVO against him, who was stalking and threatening her had been "driven too far by issues that he's suffered" - after this man set his fucking family on fire and watched his small children, babies, burn to death.. You think this police officer was voicing an opinion police often raise and was apparently shared by people?
You actually think that was an appropriate phrase to use? And it really was not obvious that this was "an issue of a woman suffering significant domestic violence and her and her children perishing at the hands of the husband"? I mean, that sentence should have been bloody obvious to everyone.
Hannah and her 3 children died because he was abusive, controlling and possessive and he murdered them when she left him for being abusive, controlling and possessive and had endured years of abuse and had clearly had enough.
As for that police officer you said was doing his job:
Commissioner Carroll said Inspector Thompson was "distraught and gutted" after listening back to his own comments.
"He is a man who has protected Queensland communities all his life and has worked endless hours. And when he looks back, and I know he's listened to it, he cannot believe how he has phrased that," she said.
"He's distraught because he cannot understand how he said it and how it came out.
"He is a man who has protected Queensland communities all his life and has worked endless hours. And when he looks back, and I know he's listened to it, he cannot believe how he has phrased that," she said.
"He's distraught because he cannot understand how he said it and how it came out.
Phrasing is everything.
And when we are dealing with a clear case of domestic violence (again, he threatened them with a knife, doused them with petrol and then set them on fire), especially given the fact that at least one woman dies a week to domestic violence in this country and domestic violence has reached epidemic proportions, when we have a society that is more keen on focusing on monsters than the people who commit such horrific crimes, a police officer giving the appearance of shifting blame from the man who may have "suffered" to be "driven to it", phrasing is everything.
Because that is exactly what that police officer did. He appeared to try to shift the blame from the murderer to circumstances he may have apparently suffered.
I'll be blunt..
No one gives a shit about who you give your seats to and how you foist that seat giving to women and keep insisting that they take it.
Your argument and self promotion in regards to how you treat women come across as 'I have black friends' when racists are confronted with their racism.
You wear your treatment of women like a similar shield.
You have shifted the subject of this thread by inserting completely off topic things to muddy the waters because in your view, men and women do not rape..
And then you did so by trying to stupidly give examples of how society respond by citing something that was so patently wrong, and you tried to praise that police officer who monumentally fucked it up so much, it now has the risk of women not contacting police when they are victims of domestic violence because they do not want to be blamed or they believe their abuser is the one who is suffering to be driven to commit such acts.
Not to mention you then also cited a case of a woman murdering her children because #NotAllMen..
Bells
Staff member
And if this subject was about parents who murder their children, your introduction of two different subjects might have made a point.
You introduced them because you have a bee up your backside each time the word rape or sexual violence is brought up and given men commit most of those acts, you feel that for some reason or other, you as a man will be painted as a rapist, so you have to set yourself aside by giving examples of just how good of a bloke you are to the sheila's on the bus when you refuse to take no for an answer and demand she takes your seat because you, the man, knows more about what she needs or wants than you do and you puffed out your chest to inform us of how loudly she thanked you.
As a result, it's your state of mind that is now the subject of this discussion.
Because it has nothing to do with this thread's subject matter! You are not the subject matter of this thread.
This isn't the first time you have done this to try to muddy these types of discussions in this way and it unfortunately may no be the last. For example:
You put her in that position and she spoke loudly because you, by your own admittance, insisted she did as you said or wanted her to do after she had said no thank you... She may have also thought you might have been hard of hearing, given how you refused to acknowledge her initial responses to you and kept insisting... She may not have been thanking you to make sure the other apparently young folks around heard to show them how you were such a gentleman. Something something about liability and responsibility applies here.
She was probably thanking you loudly because she wanted to make sure that people understood she had not taken your seat willingly because as an elderly gentleman, you have priority to a seat on a bus.. You placed her in an awful situation. I'd have been mortified if an elderly man insisted I take his seat on a bus. And I would have been terrified that if something like that happened, someone would take a photo and put it on social media as an example of my bad manners.
I think we need to get away from the phrase ''domestic violence.'' It seems to suggest that it's a ''lesser type'' of violence, because it's happening ''at home'' by one's spouse, usually husbands against wives. From different stories that I've read of women who have been victims of ''domestic violence,'' that end in their deaths, there seems to be this trivialization of what they were going through in their marriages. This idea of ''why didn't she just leave, if it was that bad,'' or ''why did she tolerate it?'' I don't know, it just seems like victims of domestic violence have less credibility or something, because society views the victim as having the ability to just up and leave, if she was that afraid of her husband. The cycle of abuse isn't that simple. If you've ever been abused or have known people who are abused, it is not easy for victims to ''just leave.''
Let's start calling it what it is - assault, sexual assault, rape, and in this case, murder. This is how we refer to other crimes that occur outside of the home (say stranger to stranger), why are we dubbing assault and murder by another name, simply because the crimes are committed by a husband against his wife? If this man were unknown to Hannah and her children, murdering them, no one would be asking if he had a reason. He would be dubbed a cold blooded murderer, but because he is her estranged husband, police and other authorities start taking a different look at the situation, lessening the severity of his crime because maybe, he was ''driven'' to murdering his wife and children.
I've read many stories that have a similar tone as this one, once the words ''estranged spouse'' are entered into the plot. The cops are ''gathering all the facts.'' What facts? That they dropped the ball and didn't protect this woman against her husband, because there was clearly evidence of abuse? That the husband is a psychopath and psychopaths often get married and have kids? Society needs to stop lessening the severity of these cases, simply because the victim was married to or involved with her/his murderer/abuser.
Back to the original topic, most of Harvey Weinstein's victims knew him quite well, even had friendships or relationships with him. His attorney tried to lessen the severity of what he did, banking on the idea that a jury would believe that rape culture is a concocted myth, created by radical feminists. That he didn't attack unknown women in the still of the night...lurking in a bush somewhere, should indicate that he's not a rapist. The fact that these women knew and trusted him to a degree, to me, shows that he is a predator, so I was surprised he didn't get convicted on that charge.
paddoboy, I don't see you offering your seat to someone as being anything other than a kind gesture, but you seem to focus your kindness on certain women. The woman at the store, now this woman...I'm wondering if your kind gestures are really just you flirting, and do you display such...um...chivalry, when your wife is around? I get that you've been raised a certain way and you consider yourself old-fashioned, but if you're really just looking for excuses to flirt with women, that is a different thing altogether.
Let's start calling it what it is - assault, sexual assault, rape, and in this case, murder. This is how we refer to other crimes that occur outside of the home (say stranger to stranger), why are we dubbing assault and murder by another name, simply because the crimes are committed by a husband against his wife? If this man were unknown to Hannah and her children, murdering them, no one would be asking if he had a reason. He would be dubbed a cold blooded murderer, but because he is her estranged husband, police and other authorities start taking a different look at the situation, lessening the severity of his crime because maybe, he was ''driven'' to murdering his wife and children.
I've read many stories that have a similar tone as this one, once the words ''estranged spouse'' are entered into the plot. The cops are ''gathering all the facts.'' What facts? That they dropped the ball and didn't protect this woman against her husband, because there was clearly evidence of abuse? That the husband is a psychopath and psychopaths often get married and have kids? Society needs to stop lessening the severity of these cases, simply because the victim was married to or involved with her/his murderer/abuser.
Back to the original topic, most of Harvey Weinstein's victims knew him quite well, even had friendships or relationships with him. His attorney tried to lessen the severity of what he did, banking on the idea that a jury would believe that rape culture is a concocted myth, created by radical feminists. That he didn't attack unknown women in the still of the night...lurking in a bush somewhere, should indicate that he's not a rapist. The fact that these women knew and trusted him to a degree, to me, shows that he is a predator, so I was surprised he didn't get convicted on that charge.
paddoboy, I don't see you offering your seat to someone as being anything other than a kind gesture, but you seem to focus your kindness on certain women. The woman at the store, now this woman...I'm wondering if your kind gestures are really just you flirting, and do you display such...um...chivalry, when your wife is around? I get that you've been raised a certain way and you consider yourself old-fashioned, but if you're really just looking for excuses to flirt with women, that is a different thing altogether.
Last edited:
Without knowing too much of the detail, I’m going to hazard a guess that you are blowing it somewhat out of proportion, Bells. Unless you were actually there you can have no idea how things were actually stated, the mood of the exchange, etc, to make such a judgement as to whether she was place in an awful situation or not.
Sure, it can happen, and they can get quite testy about it, making it seem your fault that they have gone out of their way to be kind despite that kindness putting them in pain, etc. But why assume that is the case here?
I have to say that I fear this speaks more about you and your relationship with social media than it does the situation.
If you won’t do something because you think there’s a chance a photo might get taken that takes it completely out of context that then makes you look bad, then that’s a shame. Maybe that’s another thread entirely, as to how what one does, or the way one does it, is determined by the potential optics on social media when taken out of context?Further I actually think that, in a way, you are guilty of what those who criticised the people in the photo are guilty of: judging a situation while not aware of the full facts of it, and thinking the worst.
Look, I’m not saying the discussion isn’t worth having, but do let’s try to keep a perspective on it, and not jump to conclusions.
Because of the long tradition, in many (most?) modern civilizations of the adult male citizen as autonomous agent, who owns land, livestock, slaves, wife and children. This notion is so ingrained in pretty much all cultures, including the Judeo-Christo-Muslim ones: it's right there, in the bible. It's also been in the judicial codes from ancient times, and still on the books of many existing legal systems.
Changing that mind-set, that world-view, has been the struggle of the past two centuries. There is a lot of resistance, both overt and covert, to every step forward, a lot of backlash when it's been taken - and one step backward for every two forward.
Entrenched power and privilege don't give up easily.
And now I'll make two observations:
1. The progress that's been made - however inadequate some of us may find it, compared to what we wish - could not have been made without the co-operation of those who willingly gave up their privilege.
2. If men felt more fianancially, socially and emotionally secure - which is to say, if our present political and economic system didn't drive people so crazy - there would be a lot less spontaneous violence of every kind, but especially domestic. The kiss up/kick down arrangement always allocates a disproportionate amount of kicks to the weakest members of the lowest class.
Bells
Staff member
We'll never know.
We have a story that doesn't really apply to this thread and he went on to misunderstand a point I was making about how it came across. He's upset that I don't particularly care. Because apparently I should care.
Firstly it's sexist. Secondly, she said no. Take the hit and move on and sit back down. Thirdly, insisting and putting anyone in that position where on a public and crowded bus, one may feel about how they look that elderly men are giving them their seats and he targets her sex and age quite distinctly.
Not really. In my home state, for example, people can get into trouble for not giving up our seats or sitting in designated seats that are reserved for elderly, pregnant women, the disabled or people with strollers.. If those seats are taken by people they are otherwise reserved for and say an elderly person gets on the train or bus and people don't give up their seats, you can literally get into trouble for failing to do so. Particularly if you are young.I have to say that I fear this speaks more about you and your relationship with social media than it does the situation.
And I do not particularly care for social media. But I have seen people lose jobs, relationships and be demonised for less. Threats, threats of violence, being tracked down.. Ya, I'd be concerned.
Pretty sure I am not the one that you need to be saying this to. For example, just because a woman gets onto a bus, does not mean that she has to sit down.Look, I’m not saying the discussion isn’t worth having, but do let’s try to keep a perspective on it, and not jump to conclusions.
Yes and no.
Maybe we should use it more, so that people understand the severity and extent of the issue and dangers of domestic violence.
Frankly, I am surprised he was even convicted at all.
Maybe men who murder their wives and kids just need to own what they did, no excuses really. There is no excuse under the sun, to murder one's family. And, I don't think these acts of violence are ''spontaneous.'' There are often times, red flags and warning signs indicating that someone is not steady emotionally, and may commit violent acts. It just so happens that women who report instances of domestic violence (red flags/warnings), are frequently not taken as seriously as if they were reporting an unknown intruder attacking them in their homes. (or outside of their homes) This is why this case escalated, it wasn't spontaneous. It shouldn't be required that a woman needs to flee her home and live like a fugitive, to get away from her abusive spouse.
?? You didn't. I agreed with you.
Once again, please stop trying to defend yourself.
His words - "is it an instance of a husband being driven too far?"
Good. So you agree that asking if the "husband was driven too far" is completely irrelevant.
Yes, many of us have. And . . . ?
I don't think it's a suggestion that it's a "lesser form of violence" or anything. I think there's a distinction because it is treated very differently by police. As an example, when police respond to a domestic disturbance, they will sometimes arrest the man - only to be accosted by the woman who now feels a need to defend him. And even if that doesn't happen, they then often have to deal with the safety/custody of kids in the house. That means they approach such circumstances differently.
And of course once it gets to the courts there are significant differences as well. Restraining orders are common, as are custody battles.
Definitely agreed there. It's another reason there is a difference, but it is one that's not commonly understood.
I'm pretty sure that when you get down to the actual name of the charges, that's what they are. "Domestic violence" is a wrapper that the media (and police, and courts) put on the charge.
Agreed there. Sadly all the facts are right there, out in the open. The police officer who spouted that nonsense has apologized, fortunately.
And THAT is the biggest problem I have with Paddoboy's statement. "Well, he wasn't an evil heinous violent rapist, like those other real rapists!" Not that Paddoboy said that, but dividing people into good, upstanding people and evil, violent rapists makes it a lot easier for Weinstein's lawyers to make that argument.
Good point.
No, that's not the way it works.
Domestic violence is regarded as an especial and escalated violence, not lesser. Domestic violence is notable in particular, as such, because sometimes a person cannot so easily walk away from certain fights the way blithe societal mores might equivocate for the sake of self-gratifying prescription.
To the other, when it comes to wishy-washiy societal mores about crime and punishment, yes, it is true society looks at most of domestic violence as something lesser. But if you want the lesser part fixed in statute, marital sexual violence is where you'll find it. In the United States, it took until 1993 to win the last state, and thirty-three states, or thereabout, still statutorily reserve marital rape a lesser crime.
I didn't say there was an excuse. I said there is a reason. I also maintain that the causes could be reduced, if not eliminated in by a society that makes people less crazy.
Not the final, fatal one, no. That's usually premeditated: imagined, dreamed, visualized, planned, over a period of weeks, sometimes even months. But the first instance, the first slap, is nearly always unexpected, even by the violent man himself. He's usually repentant the first few times. He swears - and believes - that it won't happen again. But it does, and it gets easier for him, as he comes up with justifications. Over time, he builds a whole narrative in his head - a kind of subjective reality - as he drifts farther into madness (frequently, one might even posit usually, accompanied by self-medication which quickly escalates to substance abuse and addiction.) By the time he decides to buy the gun and drive to the in-laws' house, that man is very gone.
So what? Are you saying that mental health support is readily available to all Americans?
Not just women. Anybody. Crimes against property are serious business: an insurance company might have to shell out. Violence among the lower classes is just them being yobs, making "poor life choices".
It shouldn't be that children are ripped from their mothers' arms and put in cages; it shouldn't be that old people get beaten in nursing homes; it shouldn't be that veterans live in their cars; it shouldn't be that a single illness wipes out a family's fortunes; it shouldn't be that police shoot down unarmed youth in the street; it shouldn't be like this.
No, of course it shouldn't. But it is.
On paper, that's ''not the way it works,'' but in actuality, it very much works that way, thus the cop's comments as to if the wife had pushed him (her estranged murderous husband) over the edge, or some such derivative. It comes back to questioning if she was at fault, somehow. Why? Because it all falls under the umbrella of ''domestic violence,'' which setting your family on fire really is murder in the first degree. "Oh well, they were having ''domestic issues'' for a long time, so...guess this must have pushed him over the edge." That is how ''domestic violence'' is viewed by many cops and legal authorities, you know...the ones who should be protecting women in the first place.
This cop - male or female? Because police may not be the solution.
When the whole society is on the verge of nervous breakdown, why would you expect an improvement in just this one symptom?
Because police are ONE PART of the solution. Preferably one that never needs to be used - but one that history has proven is sometimes needed.
You know that was a specific response to Wegs, right?
Certainly, intervention by third parties, whether law enforcement, community, family or church, is often necessary.
But arresting a man who is already out of control and tossing him into a cage with a lot of other out-of-control men is NOT a SOLUTION. It's just another symptom: kicking yet another rock a little farther down the same blind alley.
The police are a BIG PART of the PROBLEM, as well.
Certainly, intervention by third parties, whether law enforcement, community, family or church, is often necessary.
But arresting a man who is already out of control and tossing him into a cage with a lot of other out-of-control men is NOT a SOLUTION. It's just another symptom: kicking yet another rock a little farther down the same blind alley.