🚀 go-pugleaf

yank@ionet.net (EllenSmith) wrote:

>jmorgan@galstar.com (Jerry Morgan) wrote:
>
>
>>>>>Probably just me, but this sounds sort of sarcastic? Is it? :)
>>>>>
>>>>Sarcastic, me?  Never.
>
>>>>I simply point out the tendency of humans, when moving to correct a
>>>>social ill, to over-correct, often tipping the scale in the opposite
>>>>direction rather than bringing it into balance.
>
>>>>We have seen this "over-correction" scenario in practically every
>>>>situation where actions have been taken by society to correct a
>>>>variety of discriminations.
>
>>>>This "over-compensation" has at times actually resulted in worsening
>>>>the problem it was intended to address.
>
>I see. 

I find that difficult to accept. Otherwise, why would one make the
following statements.

>Well, maybe if you had ever been "abused" (I'm not really sure
>I mean that word, 

I admit I am curious as to "what you mean".

>there are all different kinds of abuse) but, let's
>say you had, and that for lots of reasons, not because you were a
>wimp, or a chicken or a whiner, or whatever, 
> maybe, just maybe you would feel differently. 

Differently in what way. I feel that violence against another person
is wrong, unless it is necessary to defend one's self or another
unable to defend themselves.  

I don't qualify violence with a gender designation. Is that so wrong?
I feel that neither gender should be victimized by violence, why do
you appear to feel differently?

>I'm sure there are
>women who exaggerate or
>don't want to get their lives in order, but I'm also sure that many
>other women never,ever, want to let anyone know whatever they may
>be dealing with for lots of different reasons. 

Practically every person has been abused at one time or another in
their life, sometimes by "life itself".

>And posts like this
>making fun of something you'll probably never ever understand sure
>won't help them. 

Please point out where I "made fun" of the victims of domestic
violence?

>I'm always curious when I sit around with people
>talking, that they are so quick to come up with answers to so many
>things that they've never had to deal with. 

Being a victim of a wrong is not required to recognize a wrong, nor is
it required to propose a solution.  The above is akin to a statement
that only a physician that has suffered a life threatening disease is
qualified to treat that life threatening disease.

>Actually, I remember
>talking to a lawyer a long time ago and he said that women were always
>harder on other women in a rape case, divorce case. I wonder why that
>is? 

I have no idea, but then I am neither a lawyer nor a woman.

>Regardless, it's very hard to open up with women or men, who
>always seem to have an answer for everything. 

Insecurity is never "easy" to deal with and that is the basis of the
difficulties many people having "opening up".

>And, unfortunately, I
>don't see lots of compassion from woman to woman, especially
>concerning "abuse" (I sorta hate that buzzword). If we can help people
>who truly are in need, I see no problem with that. Only gladness.

One of the biggest mistakes I see in dealing with the issue of
domestic violence is the assumption by some observer that the victim
"likes" or "wants" to live in an abusive relationship.  

The reality is often that the "abusive relationship" is a *known* and
the alternative is an unknown and many people are more afraid of an
unknown than a bad and/or abusive relationship that they have become
accustomed to over time.

Now, back to the issue of why does the U.S. Department of Justice have
an office whose title is "Violence Against Women Office", while  the
department has no "Violence Against Men Office", "Violence Against
People Office", "Violence Prevention Office" or anything similar.

Does this mean that DOJ does not feel that men are also victims of
violence, or simply are not worth the effort to create an office to
address the issue?