Red Ajah IWW: Crimes against women in the Media (Discussion)

[Nolder]

Why don't we all stop trying to interpret what each other meant and get back to the topic?

Let's all take a step back and come back to violence in media.

 

Are we going to discuss violence in books?

[Arez Al'Loke]

Just trying to make a point, that it's wrong to assume what someone else meant to say, even though the person in question corrects the allegation.

[Ryrin]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Taht works gret if yuo have mony or acess for self-defnse or wespons, whih soem women dont, especily in les-devloped countries.

In western countries woman have as much right as anyone else to stay fit and work out which costs nothing. In non western society it's a different story of course.

 

 

 

I think it's very important to state where these problems occur. As I said in my previous post, there are several countries where violence against women is a "thing of the past". Any violence being done there is being done equally between both genders.

 

 

I'm sorry but VaW is not a thing of the past in ANY country on this planet.

 

 

Of course it isn't.

 

Sweden:

 

www.nck.uu.se/en

 

Welcome to the National Centre for Knowledge on Men's Violence Against Women (NCK), a knowledge and resource centre based at Uppsala University. NCK has been commissioned by the government to increase knowledge of men's violence against women in Sweden, and to develop methods for the treatment and care of women subjected to violence.

 

The centre is a part of Uppsala University and has a clinic for women subjected to violence at Uppsala University Hospital. This is also the home of Kvinnofridslinjen which is a national helpline for women who have been subjected to threats and violence. In 2008 NCK presented a handbook to support healthcare professionals in their treatment of victims of sex crime. As from 1 January 2011 the national programme has been implemented in the healthcare and medical services all over Sweden. The handbook offers concrete recommendations for routines in the encounter with sex crime victims including how to take samples and secure evidence.

 

Norway:

 

lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/20/even-in-norway-abuse-and-assault/

 

Photographing Violence Against Women, Even in Norway.

 

"Norway has a well-deserved reputation as one of the wealthiest, safest, best-educated and most democratic countries in the world. But this is precisely why Walter Astrada chose Norway as the place to complete his magnum opus on violence against women. Everyone thinks that Norway is a paradise, and of course it is in many ways — if you compare it with India or Guatemala,” he said. “But you cannot say that a country has no human rights problems if women suffer from violence and you are not protecting them.” In Norway, the violence against women does not often happen in public as it often does in Guatemala and Congo. It is hidden, and therefore more difficult for Mr. Astrada to document. Though the Norwegian government is often responsive to survivors, he found that women rarely talk about their stories. If 50 percent of a country can be beaten, raped, killed or tortured, then it’s not a free country no matter how developed it is.”

 

www.krisesenter.com/english/english.html

 

Violence against women occurs across all levels of society and in all societies across the world. Women and girls all over the world face the risk of being subjected to various forms of gendered violence. Violence against women is a gross violation of women’s human rights.

 

In recent years the Government of Norway has implemented a number of measures in order to eliminate and prevent violence against women.

 

Providing financial support to the shelters in Norway is one such measure.

 

 

Denmark:

 

www.si-folkesundhed.dk/upload/english_summary.violence_003.pdf

 

Men’s violence against women

 

Extent, characteristics

and the measures against violence.

 

Women under the Danish National Women’s Council published a comprehensive overview of

the amount and the character of physical and sexual violence against women in Denmark.

Survey data demonstrated that about 65,000 women each year were victims of any form of

physical violence and that 42,000 were victims to violence by a current of former partner.

 

Data from 2000-2003 have now been updated to include 2006...data also shows an increase in the total prevalence of violence against women, since 2000-2004. About 70,000 women are each year victims of any form of physical violence.

[Arez Al'Loke]

Are we talking about VaW, VaW in correlation to violance in general, or just violance in general?

 

Because what I meant with my post is that, solely VaW in, lets say Sweden, does not take a big majority of the total violance being commited in the countrie.

 

Ofcourse VaW exists, and will always exist, because violance in general will always exist. And that is not the movie industries fault.

[AesSedaiGuy]

I feel the need to address my original comments.

 

Nolder, I think you have confused disdain with dissent. No one minds a dissenting opinion, I myself called in to question Moon's use of Psycho as an example of VAW, but I didn't do it with disdain or dismissiveness. I was attempting to understand if you were indeed being disdainful or dismissive or if your words were being misconstrued because of the lack of body language, verbal tone and facial expressions. It was an attempt to understand if you were aware how you were coming across, and if you weren't to inform you so you could adjust for greater efficacy.

 

You obviously were aware that you not only disagree with Moon's assessment and examples or other posters commenters (which there is nothing wrong with) but that you would prefer to be condescending. I make this distinction because condescension does not enhance communication. To me, participation in threads acknowledges a mutual agreement to attempt to understand, find common ground and participate under the assumption that everyone is coming with the intention to share and discuss. You, in my opinion, were failing to do that, so I was attempting to discover if this was purposeful or unintended. I now see you have verified that you did indeed intend to be dismissive and condescending. Therefore there is nothing more to be said. NOT because you disagree, but because you're not willing to discuss or even dissent, instead you chose to dismiss, out of hand the relevancy of the topic and the issues. I do not, as Arez alluded to, think that just because there is disagreement, that those who disagree are female-haters. Nor am I accusing you of female-hating, I was just clarifying that your approach was being taken as though you didnt think the topic was worth discussing and I called into question if you thought VAW was even an issue that existed outside of an "echo chamber and oft repeated talking points". THAT was what I was attempting to ascertain.

 

And Gudrean, thank you for addressing Arez's faulty statement that there are some countries where VAW doesn't even exist.

 

We can disagree on causes, reasons, measures, degrees and solutions, etc. but we cannot dismiss the existence in the first place.

[Ryrin]

"Men's violence against Women."

 

"Photographing Violence against Women, even in Norway."

 

"Violence against Women occurs across all levels of society."

 

"Physical and Sexual Violence against Women in Denmark."

 

 

Arez, the key word is "Women."

[Nolder]

I feel the need to address my original comments.

 

Nolder, I think you have confused disdain with dissent. No one minds a dissenting opinion, I myself called in to question Moon's use of Psycho as an example of VAW, but I didn't do it with disdain or dismissiveness. I was attempting to understand if you were indeed being disdainful or dismissive or if your words were being misconstrued because of the lack of body language, verbal tone and facial expressions. It was an attempt to understand if you were aware how you were coming across, and if you weren't to inform you so you could adjust for greater efficacy.

 

You obviously were aware that you not only disagree with Moon's assessment and examples or other posters commenters (which there is nothing wrong with) but that you would prefer to be condescending. I make this distinction because condescension does not enhance communication. To me, participation in threads acknowledges a mutual agreement to attempt to understand, find common ground and participate under the assumption that everyone is coming with the intention to share and discuss. You, in my opinion, were failing to do that, so I was attempting to discover if this was purposeful or unintended. I now see you have verified that you did indeed intend to be dismissive and condescending. Therefore there is nothing more to be said. NOT because you disagree, but because you're not willing to discuss or even dissent, instead you chose to dismiss, out of hand the relevancy of the topic and the issues. I do not, as Arez alluded to, think that just because there is disagreement, that those who disagree are female-haters. Nor am I accusing you of female-hating, I was just clarifying that your approach was being taken as though you didnt think the topic was worth discussing and I called into question if you thought VAW was even an issue that existed outside of an "echo chamber and oft repeated talking points". THAT was what I was attempting to ascertain.

I would appreciate it if you would refrain from making such remarks on my character in the future. I shrugged it off before but the fact that you keep repeating it is starting to bother me. Framing your questions so that I have to answer "yes" to being dismissive in addition to honestly answering the question of what I think of the topic is dishonest. I was at no time condescending or patronizing to anyone with regards to the topic, violence against women in media. In my first post in the thread I put my foot in my mouth because I misunderstood what was being said in the example and have since apologized for it but other than that one incident all my comments since then have been to reassert my opinion that violence in media has no effect on 100% sane adults, which is not in itself a condescending opinion to hold.

[Arez Al'Loke]

Hey, I rectified that, asumptions

[AesSedaiGuy]

 

 

I feel the need to address my original comments.

Nolder, I think you have confused disdain with dissent. No one minds a dissenting opinion, I myself called in to question Moon's use of Psycho as an example of VAW, but I didn't do it with disdain or dismissiveness. I was attempting to understand if you were indeed being disdainful or dismissive or if your words were being misconstrued because of the lack of body language, verbal tone and facial expressions. It was an attempt to understand if you were aware how you were coming across, and if you weren't to inform you so you could adjust for greater efficacy.

You obviously were aware that you not only disagree with Moon's assessment and examples or other posters commenters (which there is nothing wrong with) but that you would prefer to be condescending. I make this distinction because condescension does not enhance communication. To me, participation in threads acknowledges a mutual agreement to attempt to understand, find common ground and participate under the assumption that everyone is coming with the intention to share and discuss. You, in my opinion, were failing to do that, so I was attempting to discover if this was purposeful or unintended. I now see you have verified that you did indeed intend to be dismissive and condescending. Therefore there is nothing more to be said. NOT because you disagree, but because you're not willing to discuss or even dissent, instead you chose to dismiss, out of hand the relevancy of the topic and the issues. I do not, as Arez alluded to, think that just because there is disagreement, that those who disagree are female-haters. Nor am I accusing you of female-hating, I was just clarifying that your approach was being taken as though you didnt think the topic was worth discussing and I called into question if you thought VAW was even an issue that existed outside of an "echo chamber and oft repeated talking points". THAT was what I was attempting to ascertain.

I would appreciate it if you would refrain from making such remarks on my character in the future. I shrugged it off before but the fact that you keep repeating it is starting to bother me. Framing your questions so that I have to answer "yes" to being dismissive in addition to honestly answering the question of what I think of the topic is dishonest. I was at no time condescending or patronizing to anyone with regards to the topic, violence against women in media. In my first post in the thread I put my foot in my mouth because I misunderstood what was being said in the example and have since apologized for it but other than that one incident all my comments since then have been to reassert my opinion that violence in media has no effect on 100% sane adults, which is not in itself a condescending opinion to hold.

I am not attempting to frame the question in an unfair way. Nor am I referring to your original comment, where you felt you misspoke. Nor was I personally attacking your character. I have been very clear in what I was attempting to do and how I feel. If you were not trying to be dismissive say that, but then you must either recognize you were coming across that way and change your approach, or recognize you don't like being called dismissive for being dismissive.

 

Do I think VAW is serious and goes unreported and overlooked, absolutely. And, I have no problem that you disagree with the examples provided. However, I cannot stand by and allow its existence to be called into question. Or more directly, I won't. I am not attacking or directing this at you because of your beliefs on the merits, instead I am asking you again, is it your intent to dismiss the subject in its existence? Do you state that VAW is no difference or pervasive in society, REGARDLESS of reason, rationale, causes or solution? (I say "regardless" because those are the areas where I think disagreement can exist and ensue.)

[AesSedaiGuy]

Also, I want to clarify, I do not consider this thread hijacking because we are discussing if VAW is worth discussing for its specific existence and target. To not recognize VAW as a separate subject, apart from, and different from in rationale and reason than general violence (which is bad as well), is also a unique problem and barrier to VAW.

 

Finally, if the Mods or Moon feel my response is out of line, I will gladly apologize and step aside. :-)

[Nolder]

Why don't we just forget it and move on like I asked before eh?

I have no interest in derailing the topic further.

 

Edit: Skimmed over this before, my bad.

 

Do I think VAW is serious and goes unreported and overlooked, absolutely. And, I have no problem that you disagree with the examples provided. However, I cannot stand by and allow its existence to be called into question. Or more directly, I won't. I am not attacking or directing this at you because of your beliefs on the merits, instead I am asking you again, is it your intent to dismiss the subject in its existence? Do you state that VAW is no difference or pervasive in society, REGARDLESS of reason, rationale, causes or solution? 

 

I never called into question the existence of violence against women.

[Ryrin]

Hey, I rectified that, asumptions

Arez, did you really think that there are places in the world today where women are free of violence?

[Nolder]

I think he misspoke. I'm pretty sure he meant that in most western countries violence against women is generally reciprocal not that it actually doesn't exist. If it's usually reciprocal it's not just a women's issue but a violence issue unlike in non western countries where that may not necessarily be true.

 

Or maybe I'm just putting words in his mouth. If so I'm sorry.

That's what I thought he meant though.

[Elgee]

I think what quite a few of you are missing is the fact that this is NOT the Debates and Discussions board. This is the Events Board for the White Tower & Warders, and you are currently participating in an Event led by the Red Ajah. In case you couldn't be arsed to read the opening post, the Event is the Red Ajah's Annual International Women's Week event, and the theme this year is Crimes against Women. Not men, women. That's what this event is about. Deal with that, please.

 

Furthermore, this might well be an open board so that all those who wish to participate but aren't members of the WT/W, may do so. You ARE still on a WT/W board and therefore subject to our rules. If you don't like that, go somewhere else.

 

I've already posted about this in the main thread:

 

 

It
has occured to me that this tone being taken with the lovely lady
running this thread is indeed a form of the same concept of aggression
towards women and should be ceased. There is simply no need for this . 

 

Thank you. I will stand with this. The next person who steps over the line (and since I'm the SGL here, I draw the line), will be asked to leave. This is an extremely sensitive topic to women in general, and to several of us on here in particular. Don't expect me to be 100% impartial.

 

And in case you missed it - this event is officially International WOMEN'S week. If anyone would like to host an International MEN'S week, I'll be more than happy to accommodate you.

 

This is a final warning to members and non-members alike. If you don't like the theme of this event, don't participate in it. If you think that another area needs to be highlighted too, please contact Mystica, the Head of the Red Ajah, and ask if you may start a thread about that. Don't tell someone you think their thread is bullshit.

[Nolder]

I don't understand. This isn't the D&D forum but this is still a discussion is it not?

My opinion on this topic specifically is that it is a non issue. Crimes against women (or anyone) does not "normalize" or cause a "system" or anything like that. 

That's my opinion and I'm sticking to that. When I said the topic was BS I wasn't trying to put Moon down for posting it, merely stating my belief that this isn't actually an issue.

Is that not a valid position to take on the subject?

[Elgee]

I don't know how to make this clearer - several people have already tried to explain this to you, Nolder.  Yes, if you disagree with someone on something, you may say so. Politely and in a non-aggressive way. The mere use of the word "bullshit" (and no, using the letters BS instead of typing out the word does not change the meaning of the word), is an attitude we do not allow at the WT/W.

 

"Crimes against women (or anyone) does not "normalize" or cause a "system" or anything like that." I have no clue what that means.

[Nolder]

"Crimes against women (or anyone) does not "normalize" or cause a "system" or anything like that." I have no clue what that means.

Opinions held by others in the thread. I only mentioned them in a shorthand way though so yeah it doesn't really make sense. You'd have to read the thread for the context.

[Arez Al'Loke]

 

Hey, I rectified that, asumptions

Arez, did you really think that there are places in the world today where women are free of violence?

No, as I said before, it was to make a point.

 

What I think is, also as I said before, that the VaW in these communities do not claim a "large" proportion of the violence pies. Abuse against

children, immigrants claim a bigger part.

[Elgee]

 

"Crimes against women (or anyone) does not "normalize" or cause a "system" or anything like that." I have no clue what that means.

Opinions held by others in the thread. I only mentioned them in a shorthand way though so yeah it doesn't really make sense. You'd have to read the thread for the context.

 

I have read the thread, but unfortunately that still does not make me understand your short hand. Anyhoo, I think I've explained myself enough.

 

We've digressed enough - I can't even find the last post by the thread leader, so I have no clue where we are in this topic.

[Gudrean]

 

"Crimes against women (or anyone) does not "normalize" or cause a "system" or anything like that." I have no clue what that means.

Opinions held by others in the thread. I only mentioned them in a shorthand way though so yeah it doesn't really make sense. You'd have to read the thread for the context.

sorry if I'm out of line here, but do you actually think the Amyrlin, as in leader of the WT, has not read the entire thread before posting? She asked earlier for the attitude to end and it was ignored and now she has asked again and still it seems the jabs are coming, though passive-aggressive. I for one do not like the idea of someone undermining the authority of or disrespecting my Amyrlin. You keep saying that your opinion is that the topic, Violence Against Women, is a NON ISSUE, your words exactly, and having been a victim of violence against women I can say that it is most definitely an issue, so stop saying that, it is rude....if you do not believe in the topic then go somewhere that you do believe in. It is extremely offensive to tell women that VaW does not exist or in your words is a non issue!!!

[Arez Al'Loke]

I'm pretty sure that Nolder said "VaW has nothing to do with media".

 

not "VaW does not exist"
 

Big. Big. Differance.

[Arez Al'Loke]

I think he misspoke. I'm pretty sure he meant that in most western countries violence against women is generally reciprocal not that it actually doesn't exist. If it's usually reciprocal it's not just a women's issue but a violence issue unlike in non western countries where that may not necessarily be true.

 

Or maybe I'm just putting words in his mouth. If so I'm sorry.

That's what I thought he meant though.

 

Yeah, that's pretty much what I meant.

It feels like everyone reads a post and tries so hard to find a way to misinterpret it. I'll make sure to be more precise in the future.

[Elgee]

It's very hard to say here who meant to say what. If you get misunderstood, generally it's because you weren't clear enough, so yes I think everyone needs to pay VERY close attention to what they're typing, and how they're typing it. Think before you post.

 

For instance, from what Nolder said it seems to me that he thinks Arez believes women in western societies are subjected to violence because they did it first. That's the best explanation I can find for "reciprocal", anyway. I'm sure Arez doesn't really believe that. 

 

I think it's best if each person speaks for himself here, yes?

 

Carry on.

[Arez Al'Loke]

I have to say that I thought Reciprocal meant something else =P

[Gudrean]

that is how i was taking reciprocal as well, that a person was receiving violence due to giving violence, but I think it actually meant that men and women alike are victims of violence in western countries. However this thread is about specifically women and violence. I do think there is precedence to having a thread or event that focuses on the trials and violations of men in each of our countries. ??? I want to say to Arez and Nolder that I personally apologize if I seemed to be attacking them, and explain that my intentions were only to point out that a few of us were "hearing" your typed words in a light that put us out of our comfort zone in this subject matter. Again I apologize, but I say that to victims of violence, nothing about it is to be taken lightly. And this thread among others was to bring about more awareness to the problems, which I personally feel are depicted in way too graphic of a way for the general public/audiences that it reaches, however this is my opinion only and is not up for debate =))))