• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Hitting Women

Puppycow said:
Thanks for clarifying that. Why do people have to be so autistic about it? It's a survey about "attitudes towards domestic violence," not a trick question.
Click to expand...

If you want it to be about that then give the full information in your op. otherwise you're going to get discussion over what certain circumstances means.
 
DrDave said:
If you want it to be about that then give the full information in your op. otherwise you're going to get discussion over what certain circumstances means.
Click to expand...

Or people could have been slightly less lazy and checked it out for themselves (the answer was a couple of mouse-clicks away) instead of assuming that the researchers asked a stupid question. Some people have no intellectual curiosity and prefer to be armchair cynics.
 
Puppycow said:
Or perhaps they have a higher rate of reporting DV.

In a country where 90% of even women think it's OK to beat their wives, the vast majority of DV isn't reported or isn't taken seriously by police even if it is.
Click to expand...

Well, since Amnesty dropped the focus on DV, it is harder to get statistics. The usual problem with DV is the lack of any social supports for victims and their reliance on the perpetrators.

The vast majority of DV isn't reported anywhre.
 
Puppycow said:
Thanks for clarifying that. Why do people have to be so autistic about it? It's a survey about "attitudes towards domestic violence," not a trick question.
Click to expand...
Excuse me? Nobody chooses to be autistic, it is a disorder of neural development.
 
Puppycow said:
In which countries is domestic violence considered acceptable

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=200&pictureid=5694[/qimg]

The thing that stands out most to me is not so much the differences between countries, but the one thing that's consistent among all of them: the poor women consider domestic violence to be more acceptable than the rich. Is it just a self-esteem thing? Rich women tend to have more self esteem than poor women, and hence think it less acceptable that their husbands should beat them?
Click to expand...

I would answer yes if asked if, under "certain circumstances" it is acceptable for a husband to hit is wife. Mind you, those circumstances would have to involve legitimate self defense (i.e. the wife was trying to do serious bodily harm to the husband. Shoves or slaps wouldn't qualify, swinging at the husband with a baseball bat might), or protecting children from serious harm. The question is too broad, as I think there are extraordinary situations where a violent action may be the only means of preventing a greater evil.
 
CORed said:
I would answer yes if asked if, under "certain circumstances" it is acceptable for a husband to hit is wife.

...

The question is too broad, as I think there are extraordinary situations where a violent action may be the only means of preventing a greater evil.
Click to expand...

And the award for person who responded without reading the other posts OR researching the question goes to...

As to the OP's actual question, if I had to guess I would be willing to bet that the major differences between the rich and poor responses have to do with things like family history and education. The wealthiest quintile is more likely to lead a modern lifestyle, be exposed to more modern (Western, liberal? not sure of the right adjective here) views of women in society, and to have had an educational background to reinforce those ideas. The poorest have not had the same exposure to these ideas, so the traditional views would tend to be stronger. Again, that's only my guess, but it doesn't seem unreasonable.
 
Dancing David said:
And the award for the inappropriate use of the word autistic goes to....
Click to expand...

I'm not one that gets offended per sae, but this use of the word did make me go "Wow, was that necessary?".

I have no special attachment to autistic folks, in fact the only 2 i have ever met were pretty awefull, ( though this is just personal experience, i am sure that isn't the case on a large scale.) , but sans any humor value, that comment just seems out of place, and needlessly offensive when plenty of other words would have sufficed, and done better, obtuse, for example.

I mean, i could see a dozen ways that comment could have been funny, and therefore would get a pass, ( as humor can often describe a situation well.) but as done, its ham fistedness tosses it into the realm of eye rolling comments.
 
crimresearch said:
Excuse me? Nobody chooses to be autistic, it is a disorder of neural development.
Click to expand...

What he was getting at is that the ways people choose to immediately look at the issue were very non standard, creating needless confusion, similar to attempting to converse with a person who is functioning but highly autistic.

That being said, if your going to go that route with a comment, put a bit more effort into making a joke out of it, humor can be very descriptive, and conducive to discussion, regardless of how offensive it may be, but in this case, ironically, his comment had the same inherent flaws as the commentary he was speaking of, in that it simply caused needless confusion, as opposed to clearing anything up.

Now if only we could find out what the government does to make commentary autistic , we could really blow the lid off of the conspiracy.
 
Morrigan said:
And the award for the posts going out of their way to be offended at a colloquial, non-scientific use of a word goes to these two autists pointless nitpickers... ;)
Click to expand...

It is the price you pay for attempting offensive humor as a way of describing a situation.

If it is not a damn fine joke, your going to get people getting offended.

Offensive humor is the balisong of humor, when used absolutely right it can be just as effective as any other tool used to describe a situation, but used improperly it can have severe consequences for the person using it.
 
Morrigan said:
And the award for the posts going out of their way to be offended at a colloquial, non-scientific use of a word goes to these two autists pointless nitpickers... ;)
Click to expand...
At best it was a poor choice of words, at worst, it was using the word as a euphemism for some other personal and derogatory notion.

Either way, it is on you and on the poster, not on those calling you out for it.

Whether you admit it, much less apologize for it will be telling as to intent.

Based on posting history, I predict the usual smirking spin, denial, and projection, in defense of such offensive games.
 
Last edited:
Let me guess, you're also offended by people who use the words "retard" or "lame" as insults because no one chooses to be trisomic and there's nothing funny about having a limp? :v:
 
Morrigan said:
Let me guess, you're also offended by people who use the words "retard" or "lame" as insults because no one chooses to be trisomic and there's nothing funny about having a limp? :v:
Click to expand...

Personally I've always found those juvenile misuses of labels to be irritating and unpleasant, though I don't suppose I'm any more offended by them than by 'gay' or 'faggot' or 'bitch' or '******'.

I'm certainly disappointed to find any of them used here. They aren't useful words for addressing arguments, they're lazy words for discrediting arguers. I know I'm not the only Aspergian poster, so let's not go out of our way to encourage it, eh?
 
They're just insults. No need to get your panties in a bunch. "Dumb" used to mean "mute", but I'm sure the mute community isn't throwing tantrums at the "misuse of the word" whenever someone says "you're dumb" or "that's dumb" or whatever.

Edit: likewise, I'm female, but if someone gets told that he punches/throws/etc. "like a girl", I'm not gonna whine about how that's demeaning to women. It's just a saying.
 
Last edited:
sadhatter said:
I'm not one that gets offended per sae, but this use of the word did make me go "Wow, was that necessary?".

I have no special attachment to autistic folks, in fact the only 2 i have ever met were pretty awefull, ( though this is just personal experience, i am sure that isn't the case on a large scale.) , but sans any humor value, that comment just seems out of place, and needlessly offensive when plenty of other words would have sufficed, and done better, obtuse, for example.

I mean, i could see a dozen ways that comment could have been funny, and therefore would get a pass, ( as humor can often describe a situation well.) but as done, its ham fistedness tosses it into the realm of eye rolling comments.
Click to expand...

Point taken. I'm sorry for using the word. Obtuse would have been a better word but it didn't occur to me.

What I meant is taking the question too literally when there were plenty of clues from the context that it was not intended as a question about self defense situations or unusual scenarios you can dream up to justify hitting your wife, but rather common situations in which domestic violence occurs.
 
Puppycow said:
What I meant is taking the question too literally when there were plenty of clues from the context that it was not intended as a question about self defense situations or unusual scenarios you can dream up to justify hitting your wife, but rather common situations in which domestic violence occurs.
Click to expand...

Edit: Deleted prior paragraphs due to Yaffle's correction.

Edit: I think the problem wasn't taking the question too literally, it was mistaking the text accompanying the graph as being the question that was asked when the questions were actually quite distinct from that.
 
Last edited:
cornsail said:
What's most relevant is not how posters in this thread interpret the question. What's relevant is how the people who answered it in the poll interpreted the question. "Under certain circumstances" doesn't mean "common situations in which domestic violence occurs". And "common situations in which domestic violence occurs" is neither identical from country to country nor from the mind of country A person A to country A person B. I have to agree with those who said it's a very poorly constructed question.
Click to expand...

Something tells me you haven't followed the links to the actual question (like many others in this thread).

No skin off my nose if you prefer to talk about some imaginary research rather than the research that was actually done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom