Posts by Chuck Bird
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Russell, I have been following this closely as I can from a distance. It appears the media have not covered this case very well. It is unclear if the witness took the stand and was cross-examined. One thing that I have noticed is that on none of the blogs has anyone even pro smackers as you call them would justify punching a child in the face.
I would be most surprised if even one juror though a punch in the face was not a clear case of assault. If the evidence was clear beyond a reasonable doubt that Jimmy punched his son in the face it should not have taken them one hour let alone nine hours to reach a verdict. A guilty verdict not prove he hit his son in the face let alone punched him with a closed fist. Flicking one’s ear is assault as is pulling one’s hair or pulling their ear.
When the liberal Left do not like someone they find it very easy to embellish the story or even out and out lie. Just look how the Herald lied about Christine Rankin dancing with the man who is now her husband at a function she attended me left early and did not dance.
Do not get me wrong. If the story about Mason is true in other regards like his language his behaviour left a lot to be desired. If there was compelling evidence that he punched his boy in the face can you explain why a jury would take nine hours to reach a verdict?
-
"or say it isn't okay to brush off domestic violence as something that only happens in some "other" part of society?"
This whole debate started because Russell was trying to minimise the amount and extent of domestic violence initiated by women against men.
-
Craig, my main complaint is with the AIDS Foundation. They successfully lobbied to have screening stopped for immigrants. AIDS was predominately a homosexual disease in New Zealand until immigration was allowed. I have tried unsuccessfully to find out a reason for this lobbying. The only reason I can think of is they want to gain public support. If it can be shown heterosexuals are at risk this will help their case.
“whatever vicarious moral satisfaction I get from the name-calling doesn't really help”
On an individual basis you are correct. Anyone in a committed relationship particularly marriage who has high risk sex and infects their partner in my view is scum. High risk sex is homosexual sex. If my view was widely held public opinion this would have an effect like with drunk drivers.
There is unlike to be an agreement any time soon if homosexuals are born that way. There is some evidence that there may be a predisposition that way. However, I cannot accept that people must have sex with men and women to lead a fulfilled life. This puts others at risk.
I have no problem with homosexuals like you who are open and what to do their own thing. I do have problem with the militant homosexuals at the AIDS Foundation who put out misinformation for their own purposes.
BTW – Have you read what Michael Coote has to say about the AIDS Foundation?
-
"It's saying it isn't okay to brush off domestic violence as something that only happens in some "other" part of society."
Steve, that is exactly what you and Russell have been trying to do.
-
“It's not ok to say it only happens in certain parts of society
So be careful what you say”Mark, are you trying say that domestic violence happens at the same rate in higher socio economic homes where both parents are married to each other as it does in a home with a solo mother on a benefit and a live in boyfriend? If so where is your evidence?
-
"Chuck honey, the ad featured the word 'needle'.
Doubtless her nurse was one of those dirty filthy bisexuals."Emma, check out the following.
http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/pagesmh/2871/$File/issue-62-aids-nz-nov08.pdf
You will note that since 2000 only one female has been infected with HIV. I doubt if she would be the average middle aged woman. That is one person out of over 1,400.
The AIDS Foundation deliberately tries to hide the fact that AIDS is predominantly a homosexual disease in New Zealand. The next group overrepresented in HIV statistics is immigrants the previous Labour government was happy to let in without screening for HIV.
The most likely way a middle aged woman would be infected would be by a closet bisexual partner often her husband. I think classing a closet bisexual who would put his wife at risk as dirty and filthy would be quite appropriate.
-
"And oddly, when walking home from the pool yesterday I was passed by a bus with an AIDS campaign on the side. It featured a middle-aged woman and a slogan something like 'look beyond the stereotype'. Just sayin'."
Emma, think about it. How is a middle aged women gonming to be infected with HIV?
The most likely way is the she will have sex with a bi sexual.
The second most likely way is that she has sex with someone from a high risk country.
If the social parasites who work for the AIDS Foundation cared about reducing the incidence of HIV they would recommend that homosexuals not to have promiscuous and often anonymous sex.
-
If I had a rule for myself, that I would always say something if a saw an adult smacking a child, then I would be more likely to do it when it happened.
Kyle, if one of my children smacked one of their children when they deserved it in public I doubt if you would say anything. If you did you think twice before you meddled again. They would unlikely do anythink physical but they would let you know verbally to mind your own bloody business. I would bet that russel would have enough sense to mind his own business.
Please note I am talking about a smack and not abuse.
-
81stcolumn, Strauss and Gelles and other studies such as the one here in New Zealand Russell referred clearly show that women initiate violence roughly equally. None of you have been able to show a study based on a random sample that shows otherwise.
I believe Cathy like many people have underestimated the damage a woman can do with a hard punch. I have seen a photo of the damage one women did to another. The photo was for a court case. The victim did not look to pretty.
The demonising of men over the last 30 to 40 years has done a lot of damage to society. Very few men will teach young children as a result. If a little girl is lost and looking for help many if not most men will keep walking fear of false accusations.
The not OK campaign that says it is never okay to hit a woman clearly implies it is sometimes okay for a woman to hit a man. This has been reinforced for years in the movies. If man refers to a woman as a slut even if she is one it is justification for a slap in the face and a real man is not meant to respond.
Unfortunately, some women think that domestic violence is okay as long as they are doing the hitting. They get away with it a few times before the man finally snaps. If women were told it is never acceptable for them to respond to verbal abuse with physical violence you would see fewer women getting bashed up.
It would be interesting to see how some of you left wing men respond. I suspect many would be like Tim Shadbolt. He would preach peace and love to others but kicked the crap out if his missus in private. I know this is on the public record.
I am against violence either way in a relationship. If it happened to me I would not respond aside from ending the relationship.
Josh, lesbian violence is greater the heterosexual violence. I cannot be bother looking up a source of which they are many as it would be out of date, done overseas or not peer reviewed or some such nonsense.
If men and women were treated equally before the law this would not be an issue. However, false or greatly exaggerated claims of domestic violence can affect a man’s custody or access.
I will copy this to Kiwiblog. Most lefties are not prepared to debate an issue so I do not think I will get a response there.
-
Russell, I will try to be more specific and be sure to do a spell check. I have no doubt some on your blog will make still make silly comments like the study I am quoting is from overseas and 10 years old.
At the end of this post I have cut and passed an article by Cathy Young at the end of this post as I do not have a source I can refer to on the internet.
Firstly, you quote Women’s Refuge as a source. How can that be relevant to the relative violence imitated by men against women versus violence imitated by women against men? They only look at the former as did the expensive taxpayer funded “Hitting Home” report that received a bent spoon award by the NZ Skeptics.
Secondly, you quote police complaints. If you read Straus and Gelles they explained why while police complaints were about 14 to 1 made by women unbiased random studies show that domestic violence is initiated roughly equally by men and women.
Another point you should consider is lesbian violence. If spousal violence is mainly initiated by men how do you explain lesbian violence that is at the very least as great as violence in heterosexual relationships and greater than for married couples?
The following is from an intelligent non man hating women, author of Ceasefire: Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality.
http://www.menweb.org/ceasefir.htm
Cathy presents arguments far better that I could hope to. Do you dismiss her views in the same way you do with Bill Ralston?
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 19:18:30 EDTFrom: Cathy Young [71774.1305@COMPUSERVE.COM]
Subject: Injury in domestic violence cases
Another point to ponder about domestic violence:
It has been commonly said -- by those who concede that the rates of violence are roughly equal -- that, at the same time, women are six or seven times more likely than men to be seriously injured by their partners. Straus and Gelles themselves have said this. This is based on their finding that about 3% of female victims of domestic violence, but about 0.5% of the male victims, reported having sought medical care as a result of a dom. violence incident.
I have no doubt that women are more likely than men to be injured (let's face it, if we take the average man and the average woman and she punches him in the face as hard as she can, it's likely that the worst that will happen is a bruise and/or a sore jaw; if he responds in kind, he's likely to knock some of her teeth out). But I'm beginning to doubt that the discrepancy is _that_ great. I think the 7-to-1 or 6-to-1 figure is partly due to the fact that more women than men may seek medical care for minor injuries such as a swollen lip or a superficial cut. I think it is generally true that females are somewhat more likely than males to seek medical attention for the same problems; this would be especially true, I think, in cases of domestic violence. The male with a bruised lip or a cut on his face may be especially reluctant to seek medical aid if he thinks medical personnel may find out he was hit by his wife. Some females, of course, may also be embarrassed to admit that they were hit by a partner; OTOH, if the woman is considering filing charges, she may go to the emergency room in order to have her injuries documented.
Studies that have asked about specific injuries rather than seeking medical assistance usually yield a smaller gap. In the recently published book THE VIOLENT COUPLE by Anson Shupe, Lonnie Hazelwood, and William Stacey (Praeger), based on case studies from the Family Violence Diversion Network in Austin, TX, the overall "injury index" (combined score of the percentages who have sustained a given type of injury) is 158 for men and 335 for women. In particular, 4% of men and 17% of women sustained broken teeth or bones (i.e., about 4 times as many women as men); 10% of men and 38% of women had a split lip; 4% of men and 21% of women had a black eye; and 10% of men and 47% of women had multiple bruises. Cuts were sustained by 22% of men and 31% of women; the same percentage of women and men -- 4% had cuts requiring stitches. More men than women (53% compared to 49%) had scratches.
Overall, the differences are obviously there but they are not as pronounced.
In the study "Determining Police Response to Domestic Violence Victims" (AMERICAN BEHAVIORAL SCIENTIST, May 1993), based on police records from Detroit, MI, Eve Buzawa and Thomas Austin conclude that while 85% of the victims in the reported cases were female, only 14% of the female victims compared to 38% of the male victims had "serious injuries." 85 x 14% = 11.9; 15 x 38% = 5.7. Thus, according to those numbers, women are about twice as likely as men to be seriously injured in a domestic violence incident.
If I had to guess, I'd say that 20 to 30% of serious injuries in domestic violence incidents are sustained by males. A minority, yes; but hardly an insignificant number. And it certainly doesn't justify 100% of public attention to domestic violence going to female victims.
Cathy Young is a free-lance writer specializing in women's issues. Her work has appeared in the Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Reason and The New Republic.