Successful Relationships With Thai Women

[TingTawng]

To TingTawng

Your contention about the levels of domestic violence.........as you have referred to the progressive UK publication known as the Guardian, lets have a look at the domestic violence convictions in the UK.

Women convicted of domestic violence 4,000

Men convicted of domestic violence 55,000

So that follows that by UK conviction rates, and the only rates that matter as they are the only ones that have been tested in court, men are responsible for 93% of domestic violence. Sounds about right to me.

I'm not one for believing surveys, if your British you'll know that 9/10 cats prefer Whiskas, that has roughly the same validity as the majority of surveys that you read.

theblether, you overlook Home Office stats:-

Data from Home Office statistical bulletins and the British Crime Survey show that men made up about 40% of domestic violence victims each year between 2004-05 and 2008-09, the last year for which figures are available. In 2006-07 men made up 43.4% of all those who had suffered partner abuse in the previous year, which rose to 45.5% in 2007-08 but fell to 37.7% in 2008-09.

Similar or slightly larger numbers of men were subjected to severe force in an incident with their partner, according to the same documents. The figure stood at 48.6% in 2006-07, 48.3% the next year and 37.5% in 2008-09, Home Office statistics show.

The 2008-09 bulletin states: "More than one in four women (28%) and around one in six men (16%) had experienced domestic abuse since the age of 16. These figures are equivalent to an estimated 4.5 million female victims of domestic abuse and 2.6 million male victims."

In addition, "6% of women and 4% of men reported having experienced domestic abuse in the past year, equivalent to an estimated one million female victims of domestic abuse and 600,000 male victims".

Not sure that conviction rates mean anything - men are far less likely to report this crime because of social stigma. Of those that do, how many would go through the courts? Especially if courts - just like you - rely on out-of-date sexist stereotypes in regards to both men and women (this has been a common complaint by men who report domestic violence).

In any case, I think it's safe to say that ridiculous comments like "women are nonviolent" are inaccurate (my point proven beyond a shadow of a doubt now).

What is it with some posters who are willing to defend their stereotypes in the face of facts? Talk about blinkered...

As to my other points - theblether, I take it you agree with them as you didn't respond.

Edited November 29, 2011 by TingTawng

[theblether]

To TingTawng

Your contention about the levels of domestic violence.........as you have referred to the progressive UK publication known as the Guardian, lets have a look at the domestic violence convictions in the UK.

Women convicted of domestic violence 4,000

Men convicted of domestic violence 55,000

So that follows that by UK conviction rates, and the only rates that matter as they are the only ones that have been tested in court, men are responsible for 93% of domestic violence. Sounds about right to me.

I'm not one for believing surveys, if your British you'll know that 9/10 cats prefer Whiskas, that has roughly the same validity as the majority of surveys that you read.

theblether, you overlook Home Office stats:-

Data from Home Office statistical bulletins and the British Crime Survey show that men made up about 40% of domestic violence victims each year between 2004-05 and 2008-09, the last year for which figures are available. In 2006-07 men made up 43.4% of all those who had suffered partner abuse in the previous year, which rose to 45.5% in 2007-08 but fell to 37.7% in 2008-09.

Similar or slightly larger numbers of men were subjected to severe force in an incident with their partner, according to the same documents. The figure stood at 48.6% in 2006-07, 48.3% the next year and 37.5% in 2008-09, Home Office statistics show.

The 2008-09 bulletin states: "More than one in four women (28%) and around one in six men (16%) had experienced domestic abuse since the age of 16. These figures are equivalent to an estimated 4.5 million female victims of domestic abuse and 2.6 million male victims."

In addition, "6% of women and 4% of men reported having experienced domestic abuse in the past year, equivalent to an estimated one million female victims of domestic abuse and 600,000 male victims".

Not sure that conviction rates mean anything - men are far less likely to report this crime because of social stigma. Of those that do, how many would go through the courts? Especially if courts - just like you - rely on out-of-date sexist stereotypes in regards to both men and women (this has been a common complaint by men who report domestic violence).

In any case, I think it's safe to say that ridiculous comments like "women are nonviolent" are inaccurate (my point proven beyond a shadow of a doubt now).

What is it with some posters who are willing to defend their stereotypes in the face of facts? Talk about blinkered...

As to my other points - theblether, I take it you agree with them as you didn't respond.

9 out of 10 cats prefer whiskas.........and once the Home Office which used to be responsible for operating the Justice system in the UK starts reporting conviction rates that reflect anything like the Guardian figures then I'll doff my cap.

As for your earlier hysterical post I chose not to reply as it was at points laughable, the salient points that you did make were more than undone by your ridiculous assumptions and pejorative language. The pity is that if you stuck to the facts you are capable of making an excellent case.

Up to you

[TingTawng]

9 out of 10 cats prefer whiskas.........and once the Home Office which used to be responsible for operating the Justice system in the UK starts reporting conviction rates that reflect anything like the Guardian figures then I'll doff my cap.

Actually the Guardian never mentioned 55,000 male convictions - not sure where you got that number from, but it sure wasn't from the Guardian article.

Also, did you actually read the article anyway? It states:-

Campaigners claim that men are often treated as "second-class victims" and that many police forces and councils do not take them seriously. "Male victims are almost invisible to the authorities such as the police, who rarely can be prevailed upon to take the man's side," said John Mays of Parity. "Their plight is largely overlooked by the media, in official reports and in government policy, for example in the provision of refuge places – 7,500 for females in England and Wales but only 60 for men."

The official figures underestimate the true number of male victims, Mays said. "Culturally it's difficult for men to bring these incidents to the attention of the authorities. Men are reluctant to say that they've been abused by women, because it's seen as unmanly and weak."

They pretty much sums up the kind of blinkered thinking you are displaying here - with people like you burying your head in the sand, it's no surprise that men have a problem reporting domestic violence. What's more, now you are armed with an insight into domestic violence through facts, you still choose to have a blinkered view of it.

the salient points that you did make were more than undone by your ridiculous assumptions and pejorative language. The pity is that if you stuck to the facts you are capable of making an excellent case.

So...you can't answer my points. I guess it's hard to make a case for western morals and economic systems in 2011 - very hard points to defend - I don't blame you for bowing out.

Edited November 29, 2011 by TingTawng

[theblether]

9 out of 10 cats prefer whiskas.........and once the Home Office which used to be responsible for operating the Justice system in the UK starts reporting conviction rates that reflect anything like the Guardian figures then I'll doff my cap.

Actually the Guardian never mentioned 55,000 male convictions - not sure where you got that number from, but it sure wasn't from the Guardian article.

Also, did you actually read the article anyway? It states:-

Campaigners claim that men are often treated as "second-class victims" and that many police forces and councils do not take them seriously. "Male victims are almost invisible to the authorities such as the police, who rarely can be prevailed upon to take the man's side," said John Mays of Parity. "Their plight is largely overlooked by the media, in official reports and in government policy, for example in the provision of refuge places – 7,500 for females in England and Wales but only 60 for men."

The official figures underestimate the true number of male victims, Mays said. "Culturally it's difficult for men to bring these incidents to the attention of the authorities. Men are reluctant to say that they've been abused by women, because it's seen as unmanly and weak."

They pretty much sums up the kind of blinkered thinking you are displaying here - with people like you burying your head in the sand, it's no surprise that men have a problem reporting domestic violence. What's more, now you are armed with an insight into domestic violence through facts, you still choose to have a blinkered view of it.

the salient points that you did make were more than undone by your ridiculous assumptions and pejorative language. The pity is that if you stuck to the facts you are capable of making an excellent case.

So...you can't answer my points. I guess it's hard to make a case for western morals and economic systems in 2011 - very hard points to defend - I don't blame you for bowing out.

Apologies.......I forgot to add this link to my last post in connection with conviction rates,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13661407

Your doing that assumptive and pejorative thing again.......

I have maintained throughout this thread that if you are a decent guy and you treat your Thai girl decently then you will have a good chance of having a successful relationship.......I did add some precursors earlier too but they can stand alone.

The thread is about relationships, and how to have a successful one in Thailand.......it's been interesting to note your selective misanthropy, aimed at the West and Western culture. I have also pointed out that the richer Thailand becomes the more like the West it will become. There is already a mass exodus of people heading out of the country into the urban sprawl. For many people the only time they see their family is at Songkran, weddings and funerals, Just like the West huh?

Edited November 29, 2011 by theblether

[harryfrompattaya]

9 out of 10 cats prefer whiskas.........and once the Home Office which used to be responsible for operating the Justice system in the UK starts reporting conviction rates that reflect anything like the Guardian figures then I'll doff my cap.

Actually the Guardian never mentioned 55,000 male convictions - not sure where you got that number from, but it sure wasn't from the Guardian article.

Also, did you actually read the article anyway? It states:-

Campaigners claim that men are often treated as "second-class victims" and that many police forces and councils do not take them seriously. "Male victims are almost invisible to the authorities such as the police, who rarely can be prevailed upon to take the man's side," said John Mays of Parity. "Their plight is largely overlooked by the media, in official reports and in government policy, for example in the provision of refuge places – 7,500 for females in England and Wales but only 60 for men."

The official figures underestimate the true number of male victims, Mays said. "Culturally it's difficult for men to bring these incidents to the attention of the authorities. Men are reluctant to say that they've been abused by women, because it's seen as unmanly and weak."

They pretty much sums up the kind of blinkered thinking you are displaying here - with people like you burying your head in the sand, it's no surprise that men have a problem reporting domestic violence. What's more, now you are armed with an insight into domestic violence through facts, you still choose to have a blinkered view of it.

the salient points that you did make were more than undone by your ridiculous assumptions and pejorative language. The pity is that if you stuck to the facts you are capable of making an excellent case.

So...you can't answer my points. I guess it's hard to make a case for western morals and economic systems in 2011 - very hard points to defend - I don't blame you for bowing out.

You are always right tell us more so we can learn.

Did you ever write a book if not you should write a book.

Please tell us how did you get so smart. Where did you learn everything you know so good?

[TingTawng]

You are always right tell us more so we can learn.

Step One: Accept facts and don't let your prejudice stop you from learning.

Did you ever write a book if not you should write a book.

I think you should read more books.

Please tell us how did you get so smart. Where did you learn everything you know so good?

One thing I do to save time is not just repeat the same question over and over.

Edited November 29, 2011 by TingTawng

[TingTawng]

The thread is about relationships, and how to have a successful one in Thailand.......it's been interesting to note your selective misanthropy, aimed at the West and Western culture.

Selective misanthropy? A selective general dislike of the human species? Selective and general - doesn't seem to make sense. And if you simply mean misanthropy, I've attacked western governments, not people. Again, you do not come up with any counterargument to support western governments and their economic policies, so I guess you agree with my points.

For many people the only time they see their family is at Songkran, weddings and funerals, Just like the West huh?

Well, all your points up to now have been about how poverty keeps Thais living in big families. So now it seems Thailand is already too rich to bother with families. Your points contradict - but that happens if you're not sure what you're on about.

Edited November 29, 2011 by TingTawng

[theblether]

The thread is about relationships, and how to have a successful one in Thailand.......it's been interesting to note your selective misanthropy, aimed at the West and Western culture.

Selective misanthropy? A selective general dislike of the human species? Selective and general - doesn't seem to make sense. And if you simply mean misanthropy, I've attacked western governments, not people. Again, you do not come up with any counterargument to support western governments and their economic policies, so I guess you agree with my points.

For many people the only time they see their family is at Songkran, weddings and funerals, Just like the West huh?

Well, all your points up to now have been about how poverty keeps Thais living in big families. So now it seems Thailand is already too rich to bother with families. Your points contradict - but that happens if you're not sure what you're on about.

I don't know whether to buy you a book on Self Awareness for your Christmas, or to send you a bone to chew on. Or maybe a book on how to understand what is being said would be good too?

Anyone reading this thread will clearly see that my point has been.......................

The richer that Thailand becomes, the more like the West it will become.

Wealth brings choice, choice brings independence, independence weakens family ties as people choose to move away in pursuit of careers and more money.

There are thousands upon thousands of people on Thaivisa that can remember poverty in the West, they can remember hunger, inadequate housing, large families clubbing together and scraping by...................just like Thailand?

The West then moved to a period of economic expansion, increased educational opportunities, a boom in travel and housing availability.

Thailand is undergoing this type of change already, if you cannot see what is in front of your eyes then up to you

[ludditeman]

To those of you who witter on about domestic violence in the UK

I tried to report domestic violence against me (a man) in the UK to the police, the desk sergeant laughed at me and suggested i grow a set of balls.

If a woman had reported the same circumstances, I would suggest the outcome would have been different.

In the UK institutional misandry is the norm, men are always guilty, women are always innocent.

Hence the biased statistics on domestic violence in the UK.

[theblether]

To those of you who witter on about domestic violence in the UK

I tried to report domestic violence against me (a man) in the UK to the police, the desk sergeant laughed at me and suggested i grow a set of balls.

If a woman had reported the same circumstances, I would suggest the outcome would have been different.

In the UK institutional misandry is the norm, men are always guilty, women are always innocent.

Hence the biased statistics on domestic violence in the UK.

Was the attack unprovoked?......or did your wench break free from the chain attaching her to the sink when you told her who to vote for? and attempt to use said chain to strangle you?

Being a misogynist is a dangerous business you know.

[ludditeman]

To those of you who witter on about domestic violence in the UK

I tried to report domestic violence against me (a man) in the UK to the police, the desk sergeant laughed at me and suggested i grow a set of balls.

If a woman had reported the same circumstances, I would suggest the outcome would have been different.

In the UK institutional misandry is the norm, men are always guilty, women are always innocent.

Hence the biased statistics on domestic violence in the UK.

Was the attack unprovoked?......or did your wench break free from the chain attaching her to the sink when you told her who to vote for? and attempt to use said chain to strangle you?

Being a misogynist is a dangerous business you know.

Being a misandrist means always excusing the woman, the man is always at fault.

[TingTawng]

To those of you who witter on about domestic violence in the UK

I tried to report domestic violence against me (a man) in the UK to the police, the desk sergeant laughed at me and suggested i grow a set of balls.

If a woman had reported the same circumstances, I would suggest the outcome would have been different.

In the UK institutional misandry is the norm, men are always guilty, women are always innocent.

Hence the biased statistics on domestic violence in the UK.

Was the attack unprovoked?......or did your wench break free from the chain attaching her to the sink when you told her who to vote for? and attempt to use said chain to strangle you?

Being a misogynist is a dangerous business you know.

Your views are so outdated - a 70s feminist view of things, and an 80s view of western economies . You are stuck in the previous millenium with your opinions, and it's hard to convince you that things have moved on, and the world is a bit more enlightened now.

Edited November 30, 2011 by TingTawng

[TingTawng]

The West then moved to a period of economic expansion, increased educational opportunities, a boom in travel and housing availability.

That statement would be correct if you wrote it in 2007.

Unfortunately, the last 4 years just happened.

You have a ridiculously utopian view of western economies that seems to forget anything that's happened in the last 4 years in the US and Europe. Not sure what's so great about high unemployment, homelessness, unaffordable housing, inflation, spending cuts, endless recession, out of control debts, structural deficits, weak currencies, endless rounds of QE, bank bailouts, Greece, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Occupy demos etc. As I said previously, you can choose to forget the last 4 years, but again you're being willfully ignorant. Ignorance isn't something you should proudly display in a public forum.

Contrast that with Thailand - strong currency (while not always good, it does give a country a lot of future economic options, a weak currency does not), surplus to GDP, strong manufacturing economy (one of the strongest in the world right now), growth, free health care (are you from the US?) etc.

Edited November 30, 2011 by TingTawng

[BRichards]

The vast majority of marriages though, are between male and female from similar backgrounds and jobs.

V few are between educated men and women with virtually no education.

What is your point? It does not negate that women marry up, and since they are more likely to be the stay-at-home-parent, they will earn a lot less than their husband in the long run. Divorce is far more likely if the husband loses his job too :- http://www.telegraph...ce-for-men.html - which strongly suggests the tacit agreement in most western marriages is that the man will be the breadwinner.

My point is that women aren't much different around the world and to suggest Thai women are more "money hungry" than western women (which a lot of people suggest in this thread) is pretty racist IMHO.

Why do men marry down? If you say women marry up meaning they marry men who have more money then why a man with money choose to go out with a uneducated poor person coming from a horrible upbringing? I always focused on marrying equal or up. BR

[BRichards]

true in the West most men do earn more then women and in the East they earn a hell of a lot more then women and in most cases in the east the men are like rullers while the women are shaking their butts. In the east the women that do work are well over worked and way underpaid. Most places in the East do not even have a minimum wage. BR

[TingTawng]

Why do men marry down? If you say women marry up meaning they marry men who have more money then why a man with money choose to go out with a uneducated poor person coming from a horrible upbringing? I always focused on marrying equal or up.

Nature. Women want protection, men want to protect, and pass their genes on to the best looking woman they can find. Nature makes men more competitive in that respect - we're testosteroned to the hilt to become breadwinners.

I linked earlier to an article about how out-of-work men are more likely to be divorced, and were also more likely to leave a marriage of their own accord because the natural role of "man as protector" could not be fulfilled while he was unemployed. I expect certain posters here to be upset by nature's rather socially-unacceptable crudeness, but there's no point denying it.

[MrJohnson]

The key is...there are no keys. Pot luck. Good luck!

[BRichards]

True again there is nature that we are born with, culture that is pushed onto us and theres ethics and morals. We humans can think and if we cant then we just react to whatever nature tells us to do. Best looking women was a sight in the past for health or to have best looking babies but now that we have science and medicine and pyshcology just cause a woman looks good doesnt mean she has the best genes nor is able to raise a child correctly. if all you do is see a pretty girl then feel you want to mate then go ahead but there are more to life then being a man driven by nature. Marry up for women then means about security but then it has nothing to do with love. Also a man that marries for looks has nothing to do with love. If she gets old she will end up worthless then and if he loses his job he will get stabbed in the back.

[TingTawng]

True again there is nature that we are born with, culture that is pushed onto us and theres ethics and morals. We humans can think and if we cant then we just react to whatever nature tells us to do. Best looking women was a sight in the past for health or to have best looking babies but now that we have science and medicine and pyshcology just cause a woman looks good doesnt mean she has the best genes nor is able to raise a child correctly. if all you do is see a pretty girl then feel you want to mate then go ahead but there are more to life then being a man driven by nature. Marry up for women then means about security but then it has nothing to do with love. Also a man that marries for looks has nothing to do with love. If she gets old she will end up worthless then and if he loses his job he will get stabbed in the back.

Nature is not all bad, and nurture is not all good. You have to use both, and let both inform your decisions.

It sounds like you are denying the rules of attraction and that we've somehow "overcome" physical attraction because of science. I suppose then that the best looking women are simply over-looked, right? Right? Didn't think so. They're still seen as attractive because our nature doesn't change as quickly as science does. We don't evolve so fast - and physical attraction is solely based on genetic attraction. You shouldn't confuse your distaste of the crudeness of nature (when compared to our social sensibilities) with it being somehow "wrong".

[BRichards]

Why do men marry down? If you say women marry up meaning they marry men who have more money then why a man with money choose to go out with a uneducated poor person coming from a horrible upbringing? I always focused on marrying equal or up.

Nature. Women want protection, men want to protect, and pass their genes on to the best looking woman they can find. Nature makes men more competitive in that respect - we're testosteroned to the hilt to become breadwinners.

I linked earlier to an article about how out-of-work men are more likely to be divorced, and were also more likely to leave a marriage of their own accord because the natural role of "man as protector" could not be fulfilled while he was unemployed. I expect certain posters here to be upset by nature's rather socially-unacceptable crudeness, but there's no point denying it.

Protect from what another man? Physical protecting? If so he better know how to fight. What if this man is weak but has money then protect a woman from what money, lacking of money? So women are not able to work except in the kitchen? Everything in society has evolved and not really nautre as it was say 50,000 - 1 million years ago. marriage itself is not nature. yes I have read that article on how women cannot be with a man if he loses his job and women well most will not be happy working while her man is not working. That just says how ignorant and selfish people are and how ignorant men are who put self worth in a job.

[GreenSnapper]

To those of you who witter on about domestic violence in the UK

I tried to report domestic violence against me (a man) in the UK to the police, the desk sergeant laughed at me and suggested i grow a set of balls.

If a woman had reported the same circumstances, I would suggest the outcome would have been different.

In the UK institutional misandry is the norm, men are always guilty, women are always innocent.

Hence the biased statistics on domestic violence in the UK.

Even worse in Germany.

A woman can claim "domestic abuse" and the police will immediately throw a man out of his own house or apartment. The police is ordered not to check if the woman's claim is valid or not. Even in deepest winter, men find themselves in the middle of the night on the street - just because a woman orders so. You are lucky if she gives you the time to pack your credit card.

Most of the West is now on this level of misandry.

[TingTawng]

Why do men marry down? If you say women marry up meaning they marry men who have more money then why a man with money choose to go out with a uneducated poor person coming from a horrible upbringing? I always focused on marrying equal or up.

Nature. Women want protection, men want to protect, and pass their genes on to the best looking woman they can find. Nature makes men more competitive in that respect - we're testosteroned to the hilt to become breadwinners.

I linked earlier to an article about how out-of-work men are more likely to be divorced, and were also more likely to leave a marriage of their own accord because the natural role of "man as protector" could not be fulfilled while he was unemployed. I expect certain posters here to be upset by nature's rather socially-unacceptable crudeness, but there's no point denying it.

Protect from what another man? Physical protecting? If so he better know how to fight. What if this man is weak but has money then protect a woman from what money, lacking of money? So women are not able to work except in the kitchen? Everything in society has evolved and not really nautre as it was say 50,000 - 1 million years ago. marriage itself is not nature. yes I have read that article on how women cannot be with a man if he loses his job and women well most will not be happy working while her man is not working. That just says how ignorant and selfish people are and how ignorant men are who put self worth in a job.

Use the word "provider" if that fits better for you. Again, you are polarising nature and nurture as if they are opposites - as if one is evil and one is good. Let's take two examples of where only nature is bad, and where only nurture is bad.

Example 1: a man chooses a woman to be his partner purely because of physical attraction but later on he finds they are simply not compatible to live under the same roof. Result: you cannot rely on nature alone to decide what is right for you. It can lead you astray.

Example 2: a gay man marries a woman because he's been nurtured to believe this is normal and acceptable. Result: you cannot rely on nurture alone to decide what is right for you. Your innate nature must be listened to.

Edited November 30, 2011 by TingTawng

[TingTawng]

To those of you who witter on about domestic violence in the UK

I tried to report domestic violence against me (a man) in the UK to the police, the desk sergeant laughed at me and suggested i grow a set of balls.

If a woman had reported the same circumstances, I would suggest the outcome would have been different.

In the UK institutional misandry is the norm, men are always guilty, women are always innocent.

Hence the biased statistics on domestic violence in the UK.

Even worse in Germany.

A woman can claim "domestic abuse" and the police will immediately throw a man out of his own house or apartment. The police is ordered not to check if the woman's claim is valid or not. Even in deepest winter, men find themselves in the middle of the night on the street - just because a woman orders so. You are lucky if she gives you the time to pack your credit card.

Most of the West is now on this level of misandry.

I wonder what the egalitarians (theblether, BRichards) think of this inequality? Don't hold your breath.

[F1fanatic]

To those of you who witter on about domestic violence in the UK

I tried to report domestic violence against me (a man) in the UK to the police, the desk sergeant laughed at me and suggested i grow a set of balls.

If a woman had reported the same circumstances, I would suggest the outcome would have been different.

In the UK institutional misandry is the norm, men are always guilty, women are always innocent.

Hence the biased statistics on domestic violence in the UK.

Even worse in Germany.

A woman can claim "domestic abuse" and the police will immediately throw a man out of his own house or apartment. The police is ordered not to check if the woman's claim is valid or not. Even in deepest winter, men find themselves in the middle of the night on the street - just because a woman orders so. You are lucky if she gives you the time to pack your credit card.

Most of the West is now on this level of misandry.

I wonder what the egalitarians (theblether, BRichards) think of this inequality? Don't hold your breath.

I think I would like a little proof that "most of the West....immediately throw a man out of his own house". As far as I know the police will put the man in a cell for the night if they believe he is a danger to the woman.

I've never come across a wife abusing her husband in the West (although I accept it happens -RARELY), and would love to know how the Home Office came up with their statistics.

[TingTawng]

To those of you who witter on about domestic violence in the UK

I tried to report domestic violence against me (a man) in the UK to the police, the desk sergeant laughed at me and suggested i grow a set of balls.

If a woman had reported the same circumstances, I would suggest the outcome would have been different.

In the UK institutional misandry is the norm, men are always guilty, women are always innocent.

Hence the biased statistics on domestic violence in the UK.

Even worse in Germany.

A woman can claim "domestic abuse" and the police will immediately throw a man out of his own house or apartment. The police is ordered not to check if the woman's claim is valid or not. Even in deepest winter, men find themselves in the middle of the night on the street - just because a woman orders so. You are lucky if she gives you the time to pack your credit card.

Most of the West is now on this level of misandry.

I wonder what the egalitarians (theblether, BRichards) think of this inequality? Don't hold your breath.

I think I would like a little proof that "most of the West....immediately throw a man out of his own house". As far as I know the police will put the man in a cell for the night if they believe he is a danger to the woman.

I've never come across a wife abusing her husband in the West (although I accept it happens -RARELY), and would love to know how the Home Office came up with their statistics.

Facts aren't based on what you experience directly yourself, but they are conclusions based on evidence collected by a number of people. I've never been to Russia, but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Unless I'm living in some conspiracy to make me believe Russia exists (when it doesn't), I'll simply believe the collective experiences of others.

What's happening here is cognitive dissonance. Your preconceptions of domestic violence are being questioned and you're in the phase of confusion - it's hard to let go of preconceptions.

Edited November 30, 2011 by TingTawng

[GreenSnapper]

Facts aren't based on what you experience directly yourself, but they are conclusions based on evidence collected by a number of people. I've never been to Russia, but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Unless I'm living in some conspiracy to make me believe Russia exists (when it doesn't), I'll simply believe the collective experiences of others.

What's happening here is cognitive dissonance. Your preconceptions of domestic violence are being questioned and you're in the phase of confusion - it's hard to let go of preconceptions.

More than 40% of domestic violence victims are male - Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence

What we see above is the typical feminist denial tactics: victims can only be women. Unfortunately, these views are cemented now in Westerm legal systems.

Talking about personal experiences, I know of several guys here in TH who had very severe attacks by knives and other weapons.

Same in the West. If you are not the typical submissive beta male, you can be almost sure to have experienced attacks by women over the years. Throwing things at you, throwing you down the stairs ( or trying to), painful bruises or even broken bones - it is very common.

You are just not assumed to talk about it. And you cannot defend yourself against it, because "men don't beat women". And if you do, you are guilty.

[thaibeachlovers]

To those of you who witter on about domestic violence in the UK

I tried to report domestic violence against me (a man) in the UK to the police, the desk sergeant laughed at me and suggested i grow a set of balls.

If a woman had reported the same circumstances, I would suggest the outcome would have been different.

In the UK institutional misandry is the norm, men are always guilty, women are always innocent.

Hence the biased statistics on domestic violence in the UK.

Even worse in Germany.

A woman can claim "domestic abuse" and the police will immediately throw a man out of his own house or apartment. The police is ordered not to check if the woman's claim is valid or not. Even in deepest winter, men find themselves in the middle of the night on the street - just because a woman orders so. You are lucky if she gives you the time to pack your credit card.

Most of the West is now on this level of misandry.

I wonder what the egalitarians (theblether, BRichards) think of this inequality? Don't hold your breath.

I think I would like a little proof that "most of the West....immediately throw a man out of his own house". As far as I know the police will put the man in a cell for the night if they believe he is a danger to the woman.

I've never come across a wife abusing her husband in the West (although I accept it happens -RARELY), and would love to know how the Home Office came up with their statistics.

You are obviously only referring to physical abuse. You overlook the fact that huge numbers of women mentally abuse their partners.

That very argument is used by women to justify killing their partners where there is no evidence of physical abuse, or to divorce him and take most of his money.

[F1fanatic]

Umm, what argument is used by women to justify killing their partners where there is no evidence of physical abuse?

And - as far as I know, divorce is 50/50 - the woman will never take "most of his money"...

[theblether]

To those of you who witter on about domestic violence in the UK

I tried to report domestic violence against me (a man) in the UK to the police, the desk sergeant laughed at me and suggested i grow a set of balls.

If a woman had reported the same circumstances, I would suggest the outcome would have been different.

In the UK institutional misandry is the norm, men are always guilty, women are always innocent.

Hence the biased statistics on domestic violence in the UK.

Even worse in Germany.

A woman can claim "domestic abuse" and the police will immediately throw a man out of his own house or apartment. The police is ordered not to check if the woman's claim is valid or not. Even in deepest winter, men find themselves in the middle of the night on the street - just because a woman orders so. You are lucky if she gives you the time to pack your credit card.

Most of the West is now on this level of misandry.

I wonder what the egalitarians (theblether, BRichards) think of this inequality? Don't hold your breath.

Put that on my gravestone.......here lies theblether, he was egalitarian. I'll be back in a few minutes to excoriate you, but what I'll do is I'll stick to facts, not assumptions.

[theblether]

Umm, what argument is used by women to justify killing their partners where there is no evidence of physical abuse?

And - as far as I know, divorce is 50/50 - the woman will never take "most of his money"...

Your wasting your time trying to have a balanced debate here f1fanatic. We've got misanthropists, and misogynists, who by their own admission are delusional, ( well at least one of them admitted it, the other one lacks self awareness ).