Sunday, November 26, 2006

Putting another feminist statistic to rest

Over at Iain Hall's site there's been some discussion on the domestic violence issue. A Miss P, who is both a practising witch and a student union president, wrote indignantly in the comments thread:

This is about men. It's about men because the overwhelming amount of violence against women is undertaken by men. Domestic violence is the highest killer of women in Australia between the ages of 15 to 44! There is no excuse for this and trying to make one quite frankly is pathetic. Please note that this post does not allude that I hate men in fact I love them very much.


She loves us so much she is willing to believe the most damning statistics against us! A pity she hasn't learned yet to be a bit more sceptical about feminist statistics which rarely prove to be accurate.

Take the claim that the overwhelming amount of violence against women is undertaken by men. According to the two most recent ABS surveys, about 25% of assaults against women are actually committed by women. So whilst it's true that a majority of assaults are committed by men, the percentage of female perpetrators is significant enough to deserve attention.

The next claim by Miss P is even more off the mark. Any reasonable person ought to be immediately sceptical of a claim that most young women are killed by domestic violence.

So I checked out the causes of death of women in this age group in Australia for 2004 (see Australian Bureau of Statistics, Causes of Death, Australia, 2004).

The basic information is clear enough and is found on pages 11 and 12. The main cause of death for women in this age group is cancer, not domestic violence. 673 Australian women aged 15 to 44 died of cancer in 2004.

Deaths by external causes, the category in which deaths from domestic violence would be included, caused 743 deaths. However, if we subtract deaths by car accidents the number falls to 528, which is already less than deaths by cancer. If we further subtract suicide, we get 290 deaths by external causes.

How many of these 290 deaths were due to domestic violence? It's not possible from the ABS data to give an exact answer. There is a further breakdown of the data on pages 51 and 52, but only by female deaths and not by age group. However, the statistics do indicate that injuries by assault leading to fatality were a small percentage of total injuries. For all women there were 77 such injuries out of a total of 6056 for all causes (both intentional and accidental).

Another way to get a further breakdown is to note that about 40% of the fatalities to all women were from accidental causes (once we subtract car accidents and suicides). If we apply this percentage to our 290 deaths for women in the 15-44 age group, we are left with only 174 deaths from intentional injuries.

So we are now at 673 deaths from cancer and a maximum of 174 deaths from domestic violence. And of these 174 deaths? It's difficult to break down the figures any further. I'll only point out that injuries from assault totalled only 77 out of 3000 left in this intentional category - so I expect that most of these deaths were not related to domestic violence.

At any rate, I just don't see from the ABS data how the feminist claim could possibly be correct. Even if we simply take the original figure of 673 cancer deaths compared to 528 deaths from external causes (minus car accidents), the claim that domestic violence is the leading cause of death in the 15-44 age bracket simply can't be right.

So can I implore readers to always be cautious before accepting feminist statistics - they are all too often demonstrably inaccurate.

18 comments:

  1. Yep,

    Them Feminazis sure know how to twist the facts around.

    What annoys me though, is that they think they have a monoply on certain debates, their supporting ethosos, and any other stuff that the Leftists assuage.

    Even worse, the loose cannons use stats and research materail from all over from all over the world to bend their brains, make rabid their converts, and beat Australia over the head with.

    For what its worth, i think there is a large amount of shame that follows thase psuedo-intellectuals.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Miss Potitics is very sadly Missinformed but then she is a Greens voter :o)


    And thanks for the link and inclusion in your blog roll:o)

    ReplyDelete
  3. You have not done your homework very well. In fact there have been three specific surveys undertaken in relation to domestic violence in Australia. One in 1996 and 2006 by the ABS and one by the Australian Institute on Criminology in 2004.

    Some very startling facts have arisen from these surveys. Here is some food for thought:

    2006 - over 4440,000 Australian women have been subjected to domestic violence in the previous twelve months. Each and every case was violence of men against women.

    You can read more statistics at the following links:

    White Ribbon Day Statistics

    Violence Against Women

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200412/s1262151.htm
    I cannot fathom why you would deny this is a major issue. I would think that it is YOU that needs to get your facts straight.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Each and every case was violence of men against women.

    Miss Politics, here you go again. Both the 1996 and 2005 ABS surveys showed that 25% of cases of physical assault against women were committed by women.

    Why do you wish to ignore this and instead focus on male violence alone?

    Similarly when you quote statistics like 440,000 women being subject to domestic violence, the first thing you have to do is to look at how domestic violence has been defined.

    When I looked at the 1996 survey I found that 2.6% of women were subject to any form of violence from their partners, including threats, in a 12 month period. The percentage falls to no more than 1.3% of women if you remove less severe cases of violence such as threats or grabbing.

    1.3% of an entire population of women will still generate significant numbers. But it's not the 30%, 40%, 50% of women frequently bandied about by feminists.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thats right Mark.

    It's easy for feminists to define 'violence' as anything that makes women feel uncomfortable.

    The exteme 'physically' violent acts inflicted by men on women are NOT in the high numbers. They are a minority. If most men were such physically vilolent, then no women would even want to talk to men, let alone date them. To paint men as ‘violent’ toward women (by such high statistical numbers), only serves to paint all men as violent (or potentially violent) – which, in our current state of “men are pigs” culture, only serves to push men further away from women. If feminists define ‘raising ones voice’ (or not backing down to a women and subsequently making her ‘feel’ emotionally abused) as violence, then it’s no wonder the numbers are high.

    Given that feminism has painted most men as violent, brutish, incompetent, lazy, sleazy, etc, etc – it rubs me no end to hear the consequential juvenile whining that follows (when men are less & less interested in women because of their vilification of men) , of the often repeated, “Where are all the gentlemen?” or “There are no real men anymore.”

    The current ‘self-righteous’ (entitled) feminist sense of itself is enough to treat every one of them with the same respect one would of a salesman at your door.

    “No thank you”…. *slam*.


    Bobby.N

    ReplyDelete
  6. The statistics that feminists definitely don't want you to see are those relating to domestic violence against men by women. See the following study and its fascinating history:
    KWONG, MARILYN J. 1; BARTHOLOMEW, KIM 1; DUTTON, DONALD G. 2
    Institution (1)Simon Fraser University
    (2)University of British Columbia.
    Title Gender Differences in Patterns of Relationship Violence in Alberta.[Article]
    Source Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science. 31(3):150-160, July 1999.
    Abstract Gender differences in patterns of relationship violence were investigated in a representative sample of adult men (N = 356) and women (N = 351) from the province of Alberta. Respondents reported on their receipt and perpetration of violent acts in the year prior to the survey. Men and women, respectively, reported similar one-year prevalence rates of husband-to-wife violence (12.9% and 9.6%) and wife-to-husband violence (12.3% and 12.5%). However, differential gender patterns of reporting were identified. On average, men reported that they and their female partners were equally likely to engage in violent acts and to initiate violent conflicts. In contrast, women reported lower levels of victimization than perpetration of violence, and they reported less male-only and male-initiated violence than did men. The majority of respondents in violent relationships reported a pattern of violence that was bidirectional, minor, infrequent, and not physically injurious. The discussion focuses upon the meaning of gender differences in reports of relationship violence, and the existence of distinct patterns of violence within intimate relationships.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I would like to point out that there are many different strands of feminism, and not all feminists think men are intrisically violent and evil. I would call myself a feminist, but I read blog posts such as this one with interest. I welcome different opinions.

    I accept that the dynamics behind domestic violence is complex, and that those who say that our society is filled with violent men abusing victimised women are painting an over-simplistic and incorrect picture.

    Nevertheless, I'm still a supporter of White Ribbon Day. Let's look at the big picture. Surely no one could say that it is a bad thing to support women who have been victims of violence? I think it's important to make sure that the issue of domestic violence is not brushed under the carpet, and that any people (female or male) who have suffered as a result of domestic violence get support.

    ReplyDelete
  8. LEGAL EAGLE SAID:
    Let's look at the big picture. Surely no one could say that it is a bad thing to support women who have been victims of violence?

    How typically (and conveniently) feminist of you. (whatever ‘strand’ of feminist you are).

    This post has put up statistical (and rational) discourse as to why spending millions of dollars of tax payer’s money on ‘violence against women’ (solely) is fiscally irresponsible. It also exposes the inaccurate data purported by feminists to justify their campaign… and all feminists can do, is bat your eyelids and tell everyone that it’s ‘not a bad thing’ and let it continue?

    The issues are only ‘complex’ because our feminist lead culture has made it so. Defining ‘violence’ in a relationship as anything that makes a female feel bad, is exactly how the issue became complicated. When the laws become ‘subjective’, then it’s little wonder that it IS complex.

    The gentleman may ask:
    “Why is it NOT violence when woman-A can put up with shouting, while woman-B cannot?”
    “Oh, it’s a complex issue.” She replies.

    No doubt.

    Exactly ‘what’ constitutes actual ‘violence’ should be made definitive If people are going to face fines and/or prison terms don’t you think?

    LEGAL EAGLE SAID:
    I think it's important to make sure that the issue of domestic violence is not brushed under the carpet, and that any people (female or male) who have suffered as a result of domestic violence get support.

    Violence towards women isn’t brushed under the carpet. We are spending millions of dollars in taxpayer’s money to ensure that it isn’t. (Even to the point of exaggerating logic) because of the female-centred notion of the ‘greater good’ of women’s safety. Feminists don’t care about their ‘methods’ – as much as the end result. Their methods and ideals can be at opposing ends. It doesn’t matter to them. Just take a look at the latest Women’s Professional Golfing calendar that has half-naked women golfers showing us that they are indeed ‘sport-worthy’ (like the men) and NOT just sex objects.

    Well done ladies… that’ll show us.

    How long are feminists going to continue to complain? You’ve won almost every victory in our culture to ensure you can do whatever you want, whenever you want…. So ‘do it’ already. You’ve had 40 years to show us that you’re equal. I thought you were ‘strong’ (independent) women now? Why would you need a bicylcle? (sorry, I meant a man).

    I look around and all that has changed is women’s attitudes – and not much else.

    Feminists idea of equality is picking ONLY the red m&ms from the bowl (and often being fed them), while expecting men to eat the less desirable colours, and them claiming that we ALL eat the m&ms.

    (Oh, and men selfishly eat most of them.)

    Bobby.N

    ReplyDelete
  9. I must say, I am a little taken aback at your vitriol! I was trying to be a "gentlewoman" and talk rationally and fairly on these issues.

    Although I would call myself a feminist, I don't think everything feminism has produced is good. Sometimes women can be their own worst enemies. After I had my child, I was told by another woman that I should just put my 3 month old child in care and "get back to work" like she had, because that's what women have to do these days, otherwise they are "weak". Seems to me that's a bad kind of feminist attitude. The men in the workplace were actually much more understanding and told me to enjoy my new baby.

    I'm glad that Mark raised these statistics. If Miss P and others are quoting incorrect and misleading statistics, I want to know about it. I think it is really important that government and other decisions be made based on accurate facts.

    I'm not sure what you want or what your point is. Do you want the government to stop spending money altogether on domestic violence? Or do you want the goverment to ensure that all victims of domestic violence (male, female and children) are supported?

    What do you suggest women do? Just shut up and stop "whinging" altogether? What if a woman is really abused badly (beaten or raped and the like)? Do she have a right to speak out then? Can she form a support group with other women who have similar experiences?

    It seems that at least we both agree that society is full of mixed and confusing messages for both men and women. Should a man open a door for a woman? What if she then shouts at him for "patronising" her? That doesn't seem fair. I don't know what the answer is to resolving these mixed messages.

    You mock me for saying that this is a complex issue: but I stand by that assertion. Let's take your Woman A and Woman B example. Let's say Woman A and her partner have a robust relationship where they regularly have loud arguments in which they both shout at each other. Woman A is fine with that. However, what if Woman B's partner regularly makes loud threats to hurt or kill her? That puts a entirely different complexion on the "shouting", and may explain why Woman B is scared and Woman A is not.

    If you have an easy answer as to how to deal with domestic violence in society, let me know. But please treat my opinion with the same respect with which I have tried to treat yours.

    ReplyDelete
  10. LEGAL EAGLE:
    What if a woman is really abused badly (beaten or raped and the like)?

    Of course, in these cases, it is valid. My objection is in defining ‘violence’ as anything that makes women uncomfortable, like shouting, etc. It dilutes your above example to the same category as shouting – which doesn’t do women any favours.

    LEGAL EAGLE:
    You mock me for saying that this is a complex issue: but I stand by that assertion. Let's take your Woman A and Woman B example. Let's say Woman A and her partner have a robust relationship where they regularly have loud arguments in which they both shout at each other. Woman A is fine with that. However, what if Woman B's partner regularly makes loud threats to hurt or kill her? That puts a entirely different complexion on the "shouting", and may explain why Woman B is scared and Woman A is not.

    Firstly - You just proved my point. – you cant, so treating example A & B as the same is ridiculous. You can’t lay down a ‘blanket’ rule of violence for everything from shouting-to-punching and expect everyone to treat them as equal offenses. Physical abuse (ie. Hitting, bruising, etc) can reasonably be defined as such, but to lump shouting and emotion as ‘violence’ is ridiculous. That’s my point.

    It’s the same as making ‘rape’ vague in it’s legal definition. Rape should lean more towards “to force to have sexual intercourse.” – instead of ‘broadening’ it’s definition to encapsulate a girl changing her mind the morning after sex, or being ‘looked’ at a certain way by someone. It’s a disservice to victims of ‘forced’ rape.

    Secondly, I didn’t mock you Legal Eagle. I only called you a feminist. (which somehow feminists object to , even though they themselves identify with it.). which you did… so I’m not sure why you’re offended or feel mocked. It was not meant as vitriol Leagal Eagle. Only satirical in regards to feminism – not you personally. (Analogous to how sitcoms portray people to show a kernel of truth.) – that’s all.

    Heading towards the ‘answers’ (to me) – suggests thinking about how we define issues in society. Feminists can’t even decide upon a definition of their own movement, let alone legal ones pertaining to relationships (even though ‘they’ think they are the experts on it) – so they keep ‘broadening’ and ‘redefining’ (legally no less) – as they go.

    Bobby.N

    ReplyDelete
  11. heh heh, I'm amazed. apparently there are people who actually think statistics cited by feminists might have some validity. I mean c'mon people - how many times does the emperor have to parade up and down starkers with his ol' fella swinging in the breeze before it dawns on ya there's something a little unconventional about the cut of his suit?

    ReplyDelete
  12. BobbyN,

    Thank you for clarifying your position. I'm glad it was nothing personal.

    The points you raise are interesting.

    1. BobbyN: "You can’t lay down a ‘blanket’ rule of violence for everything from shouting-to-punching and expect everyone to treat them as equal offenses. Physical abuse (ie. hitting, bruising, etc) can reasonably be defined as such, but to lump shouting and emotion as ‘violence’ is ridiculous. That’s my point."

    I think your problem is actually with the way in which the law works. It is the law which lumps shouting and emotion in with violence. So when feminists do so, they are just following the way in which the law works.

    It is well established in the common law that "assault" does not only include physical assault and may include an apprehension in the mind of the victim that violence is immediately about to occur. Assault may even include conduct such as shining a torch in someone's eyes.

    I had a look on Halsbury's Laws of Australia to find cases where an apprehension of immediate violence was found by the court. Yep, I'm not just a feminist and a lawyer, I'm a nerd too - three strikes against me! ;-) Anyway, here's those cases: R v Lewis [1970] Crim LR 647 (protagonist in another room); R v Beech [1911-13] All ER Rep 530 (protagonist on other side of locked door apparently about to break it down); Logdon v DPP [1976] Crim LR 121 (accused opened a drawer and showed victim gun declaring he would hold her hostage); Smith v Chief Superintendent Woking Police Station (1983) 76 Cr App R 234; [1983] Crim LR 323, QB (accused peered in through window, victim in night clothing); R v Everingham (1949) 66 WN (NSW) 122 (pointing a toy pistol at a taxi driver); Rozsa v Samuels [1969] SASR 205 (conditional threat); R v Dale [1969] QWN 30 (pretending to have a gun); R v Ireland [1998] AC 147 (a series of silent telephone calls).

    You'll note that some of those cases are quite early (prior to a time where feminism could influence judges).



    You may be relieved to know that the apprehension of violence in the victim is determined by an objective evaluation of the facts rather than the reaction of the victim.

    So, let's take your Woman A and Woman B example again and assume that the shouting was exactly the same. If Woman B was timid, and her fears were unjustifiable, the court would find that there was no assault. However, if Woman A was brave, and a Court found that an ordinary person would have been afraid, but Woman A was not, assault would be established. Courts try to make sure that these things are taken into account.

    The Court would also take into account the gravity of the conduct in sentencing. So if someone merely shouted at a victim, they would get a lesser sentence than a person who beat a victim black and blue.

    2. BobbyN: It’s the same as making ‘rape’ vague in its legal definition. Rape should lean more towards “to force to have sexual intercourse.” – instead of ‘broadening’ its definition to encapsulate a girl changing her mind the morning after sex, or being ‘looked’ at a certain way by someone. It’s a disservice to victims of ‘forced’ rape.

    Again, I think your problem is with the law not feminism. The legal definition of rape is "non consensual sex". In law, there is no rape if if can be proven that the woman changed her mind the day afterwards, and I agree with that conclusion. I do not support the broadening of rape to a mere look, or to situations where there's a change of mind. I agree with you that people who say this should constitute rape are doing a disservice to real rape victims.

    There must be a lack of consent at the time. But the issue in this case is proving that there was a lack of consent. What if you are a juror and you are listening to evidence at a rape trial? The victim says "I didn't consent" and the perpetrator says "She did consent, she has just changed her mind."

    I think you should look at these questions objectively (and any feminist who "presumes" the woman is telling the truth and "presumes" the man is guilty is highly unjust!) I take each person as I find them. To me, it's really a question of whose word you prefer: his word against hers. I have worked in a couple of different Courts before (although not in the criminal jurisdiction), and my observation is that it's very difficult coming to a decision on these things when you actually have to assess the truth of the matter.

    Although I am a feminist, I certainly don't think I am an expert in relationships or that this gives me an entitlement to presume men are bad.

    Perhaps it will help you understand where I am coming from when I tell you that someone I know and love dearly was repeatedly sexually assaulted by her boss. She was young, insecure and naive. She didn't actually want his advances, but because it was coming from her boss, she was too scared to speak out, and thought maybe this was normal workplace behaviour. Eventually, she confronted her boss, and was told that she was "asking for it". The boss seemed to think that because she was young, vulnerable and attractive, that meant she wanted his attention and indeed was asking for it.

    That's why I feel so passionately about these issues: I want to stop conduct like that happening, and raise awareness in people like that girl's boss that his conduct is really wrong.

    And no: I'm not the girl. If it was me, I would have told the guy to get his hands off me (politely, but firmly) and if he didn't, I would have slapped him (proving that sometimes, yes, women are violent towards men...! But justifiable?)

    ReplyDelete
  13. LEGAL EAGLE:
    I think your problem is actually with the way in which the law works. It is the law which lumps shouting and emotion in with violence.


    But who created the laws?
    They didn’t just appear.

    Feminists have extended definitions to ludicrous extremes in an attempt to protect the most fragile person. Surely this is an anti-productive way to create ‘strong-independent’ women of the future? In Darwinian terms, the laws that protect these type of ultra-sensitive individuals, should require them to live at home with mom & dad their whole lives and stop diluting the potential strength of what society can become. Tolerance for minorities, yes – but to retard society for minorities, I think, bespeaks the intent of feminism to hold those of us who may excel (often beyond the average person/gender), and in so doing, discover new frontiers for society’s benefit. Affirmative action is the most ludicrous (and obvious) parallel.

    How can we progress as a society if we are ‘hamstrung’ by these laws?

    Aside from;

    LEGAL EAGLE:
    R v Beech [1911-13] All ER Rep 530 (protagonist on other side of locked door apparently about to break it down)


    All the other cases you mentioned came well after feminism gained momentum in the legal system. The 60s saw the beginning of most feminism’s ‘wants’ made into law. (read: Abortion, Birth control, etc) followed by Affirmative Action, University/Business gender quotas, etc…

    LEGAL EAGLE:
    However, if Woman A was brave, and a Court found that an ordinary person would have been afraid, but Woman A was not, assault would be established. Courts try to make sure that these things are taken into account.


    The problem still remains, that a “reasonable” person (as defined by law) assumes the weakest individual. There should be a ‘flat’ assertion to claims. Each defined breach of law should have a clear penalty. Whether or not the person was of stronger/weaker character should not come into it. For example, if a female hits me, or I hit her – should result in the same penalty ruling. (The proof of ‘severity’ can be proven medically) – but shouldn’t rely on how one person ‘feels’, or what ‘gender’ they are. Particularly in our modern times when women want to be treated as equals – the law shouldn’t be retro-active when it suits them. Either both genders get the same penalties, or we return to the ‘good-ol-days’ where men and women have their respective places in society. It can’t be both ways. It’s too grey and far too inconsistent.

    Especially where legal repercussions eventuate for each respective gender.

    LEGAL EAGLE:
    What if you are a juror and you are listening to evidence at a rape trial? The victim says "I didn't consent" and the perpetrator says "She did consent, she has just changed her mind."……….it's very difficult coming to a decision on these things when you actually have to assess the truth of the matter.


    The rulings should be as pragmatic as possible. Even if its taking only people’s ‘word’ – a semblance of the situation can be arrived at. Did they both consent to going up to his apprtment? Did she object in the beginning? Did he stop right away? How long does he have to ‘stop’ if she says “NO”?

    All these things need to be considered.
    What I object to, is ONLY focusing on one perceived aspect (ie. “He raped me!”) – rather than other consentual factors which might lessen the severity of what took place. ‘Feeling’ sorry for the ‘victim’ isn’t fair to society or the legal system that is designed to serve the public’s best interests. People will always feel more sorry for a pretty crying girl than they will for a plain indifferent one. These superficial/subjective factors is what I think makes law unfair in many social/gender rulings. The motto seems to be, “We’re all equal, except when consequences come into it… then it’s all too complicated and a case-by-case basis.”

    I believe that the law has far too much say in the personal relations between men & women. If couples can get together without legal help, then they can certainly part without its help as well. Very (Very) little has been left in the truly ‘personal’ domain. People’s strength/morals have been relinquished to outside forces.

    As for the example of your friend and her boss – (and I respect that she is dear to you) - in what way was she “repeatedly sexually assaulted”? The reason I ask is that it’s a very strong term to use.

    Bobby.N

    ReplyDelete
  14. Bobby N,

    I am not convinced by affirmative action myself. I do not like it when people are promoted because they are a particular "race", gender or anything else. A person should be promoted because they are the best person for the job (and gender or race is immaterial). To do otherwise smacks of "tokenism". I would hate to be appointed to a particular position just because someone thought it was time for a woman to be appointed. I would want to be promoted because I was the BEST! :-D

    I agree with you that there is a very weird dichotomy in feminism: on the one hand "We're strong, clever and empowered and we can do whatever we want" and on the other hand "We're victims and we're oppressed by the patriarchy". I think this kind of dichotomy is common to any group who perceives that it has been treated unjustly. Men's rights groups have that same dichotomy, except they see themselves as disadvantaged by changes created by feminists, the family law system and the like.

    Personally, I don't see myself as a victim 99% of the time, and I tend towards the view that I'm pretty darn lucky (I'm educated and empowered).

    It does give me the irrits, however, when someone tries to write me off or assumes that I am not competent just because I am a woman. For example, I once appeared in court for a client. The barrister for the other side was an unpleasant fellow. He stood over me, and said "I'll handle this case, don't worry your pretty little head about it." He was presuming that just because I was female, I was not competent and he could bully me. Of course, I stood up for myself, stood my ground. And I won the argument that day. But I hate that attitude.

    In terms of your point about assault: I agree with you that if a man hits a woman and a woman hits a man and each inflects equal damage on the victim, they should get equal penalties. Anything else is unfair. I also agree that you can't convict a man of rape just because you feel sorry for the female victim! That would also be unfair. It has to be proven (beyond reasonable doubt) that the man committed the crime. I think that it is very important that a defendant is presumed innocent by the legal system unless found guilty by a jury.

    I'm guessing from your use of the word "Mom" that you're from North America - in any case, I think feminism must have reached your courts well before it reached ours! There were still a number of cases in the 1980s where judges in Australia said it was fine for a husband to subject his wife to "rougher than usual handling" or that a woman who dressed skimpily was "asking for it".

    I don't really want to disclose too many details of what happened to my friend (as it's her story to tell). Just imagine a married fellow the age of this girl's Dad grabbing and playfully slapping her in inappropriate places, while making comments about how good she'd be in bed and the like. Yuk. Anyway, she left that workplace and is now fine, working elsewhere: just a little older, sadder and wiser.

    I wonder what you'd think of my recent post on a recent High Court case, in which a husband sued his wife for damages when he discovered that two of "his" children were not his? Personally, I didn't think it was appropriate for a court to get involved in private matters of this nature.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Strong and capable individuals will ‘prove’ their worth through their actions. (Just as you did in that court room LegalEagle) – but when most women today get offended by every.little.comment or opinion, and then attempt to convince me that they’re strong independent women, I’m much more inclined to treat them with a similar, “Don’t worry your pretty little head about it.”

    LEGAL EAGLE SAID:
    There were still a number of cases in the 1980s where judges in Australia said it was fine for a husband to subject his wife to "rougher than usual handling" or that a woman who dressed skimpily was "asking for it".


    Depends (again) on ‘what’ the definition of USUAL is. Speaking from personal experience, almost all the women I’ve dated liked to be ‘manhandled’. I think there’s a world of difference between that, and ‘abuse’. Getting the law to interpret intimacies of that nature will always lean predominantly toward the ‘female’ interpretation of intimacy, not to mention the fact (as you’ve mentioned) it becomes a “He said/She said” scenario).

    As for skimpy clothing – I don’t believe that women can afford to ‘pretend’ that they won’t get ‘sexual’ attention if they dress ‘sexy’. (It’s implied in the word.). It IS precisely a case of ‘dressing FOR attention’ when a woman exposes herself with sexy clothing. If it was (as feminists would have us believe) a woman’s right to dress comfortably, then she would wear what she wears at home watching tv… that is, a tracksuit and t-shirt. But it’s not.

    I don’t think women can afford to ‘pretend’ that certain actions don’t provoke certain responses. The majority of men looking at a female ‘work-of-art’ (that is a ‘sexy’ women) - will drool, ogle and make complete fools of themselves (which feminists simply relish), but can, non-the-less, restrain themselves from ‘touching’ the Picasso. However, I think it would be the more ‘sensible’ women that would err on the side of caution of the ‘lone-nut’ that doesn’t have social constraints. Add alcohol, and you multiply the threat. Men, similarly ‘know’ the effect their Ferrari, Money & power have on women.

    In broad terms - women’s power is sex, whereas men’s is money. Being apathetic about it, only increases the power level of each gender.

    Your blog article was interesting.

    If, as you state,

    LE said:
    I think the High Court made the right decision. If Mr Magill's cause were upheld, if a wife suspects a child is not her husband's, would she have a legal duty to voice this suspicion to the husband? You can't impose a duty like that in law, no matter what one's moral duty is. What if a husband suspects he may have fathered a child out of wedlock? Does he have a duty to tell his wife too?


    Not a duty, but there are consequences. They don’t have a legal obligation to say anything, but if the truth is discovered, then there are consequences. Like most ‘wrong’ acts – they must first be ‘discovered’ before they can be addressed to a degree that is equitable to both parties.

    I’d contend that if the law ‘can’ interfere FOR women when children, alimony, domestic violence, etc – are concerned, then a man should have a similar recourse under his own domestic issues toward her. Is the man to be constantly ‘on his own’ in issues, while the woman has the legal & social support of the country?

    Ultimately, the law should’nt get involved between the disputes of couples, but of course – there is a LOT of money to be made. (In most cases, at the man’s expense).

    LE said:
    Essentially, Mr Magill wants to get revenge on his ex-wife for cheating on him which, while understandable, is not the kind of thing for which the law of deceit should be used.

    Mr Magill wants justice/compensation for being made to pay for someone else’s children under willfully false pretenses. What if a woman was given the wrong baby at the hospital and raised it, then became aware it wasn’t hers? Does she not have a right for compensation/justice? (It has happened a number of times and the hospital has had to take responsibility.) – BUT (and it’s a very big BUT), the hospital’s mistake was unintentional – whereas the wife’s affair and subsequent ‘using’ of he husband to pay for another man’s children was ‘willful’. That is another reason there are different interpretations for killing others. (ie. Murder v Manslaughter, etc) – where pre-meditation is a whole different scenario compared to unintentional harm.

    LE said:
    ... it seems no one's a winner in this scenario. I feel very, very sorry for Mr Magill…… I feel very, very sorry for the children too….. he has not had contact with the three children since 2000. They have lost the person whom they knew as their "father" from their birth…. I think they are the ones I feel sorriest for.


    No, I think the children have lost the ‘fool’ that their mother used to pay for their upbringing, while she secretly had sex with their ‘real’ father when they were being cared for by the ‘fool’. She’s responsible for the mess. Not Mr Magill.

    While no one has ‘won’ (in a complete sense) – I’d say Mr Magill has certainly come out the ‘loser’ compared to his wife (which, if he has any sense, is now his EX-wife). She continued to have an affair for a number of years with a man (behind her husband’s back), had Mr Magill raise her lover’s children, then when the truth came out she had no repercussions aside from ‘feeling’ bad and having to pay for her bastard children herself. She was, after all, quite comfortable to have an affair for a number of years and have, not only one, but two children by another man. I can’t see how one cannot look at her as anything BUT willfully responsible. In basic legal terms… why should anyone have to pay for something that isn’t theirs?

    If Mr Magille gets no compensation, then he should’nt have to be obliged to the children in anyway. (Unlike recent court ruling over the years that tell of men continuing to pay child support to children that aren’t theirs because the children ‘identify’ with him as the father, despite him not being the father at all) – Its rediculous.

    It’s interesting that when the law gets involved in marriage, gender, ect – the rulings are never as ‘obvious’ or ‘absolute’ as anywhere else. Why is marriage the only contract under English common law that can be ‘revisited’ due to changed circumstances? If the law has the audacity to be involved in matters of ‘private’ concern, then it should do so in exactly the way it does everything else.

    Rulings need to be pragmatically made on the facts – and not on feelings.

    I agree with sentiments such as;

    “I didn't think it was appropriate for a court to get involved in private matters of this nature.

    But, neither should the court attempt to resolve any personal issues. Marriage, divorce, child custody, etc. again – if people (as adults) can start their relationships on their own, then they can end them on their own as well.

    Bobby.N

    ReplyDelete
  16. Bobby N,

    I thought the analogy you drew between the Magill case and hospitals who give a family the wrong child being liable to compensate was a really interesting one.

    I agree that Mrs Magill should definitely be liable to pay back all the child support in relation to the two children back to Mr Magill (with interest added!). The reports said that she agreed to do so, although I don't think the Department of Family Services has given him the money yet. But I still don't think she should have to pay him damages for mental suffering caused as a result. I think the hospital situation can be distinguished because it has a professional duty to make sure it gives you the right child. Whereas, from my point of view, Mrs Magill just has a moral duty. I think we both agree that her conduct was immoral, selfish and just plain contemptible!

    Sometimes I wonder if disputes like this could be sorted out with a simple and heartfelt apology rather than damages. Perhaps it's naive of me. But when I was a girl, my sister was run over by a car and badly injured. I was devestated - as the big sister, I had been given responsibility for "looking after her" at high school. Fortunately, after a few months in hospital, she recovered fully. However, the driver never apologised to my sister or our family, and didn't even send my sister a bunch of flowers or ask how she was. Presumably this was because he was worried that to do so was to admit legal liability. We didn't want any money from him. How could money compensate for the anguish we'd gone through? But it would have been really nice if he'd just genuinely said sorry to us.

    LE

    ReplyDelete
  17. I agree with you here.

    I assumed Ms Magille had no consequences at all.... whereas if she's required to pay back all the financial contributions Ms Magille made - then that (to me ) is fair.

    I've always thought that people who sue for 'emotional' damages (where they pluck a monetary figure out of thin air that 'supposedly' equates to emotional pain) - is rediculous - but we accept it in this culture.

    Yes, he should get every cent of his own contributions back but as far as all the other stuff goes... no.

    People seem to want to be compensated for 'their' mistakes. (ie. Emotional reimbursment). If you married an idiot, then trying to get 'more' from them than is fair is simply (as you put it) - 'revenge'.

    Similarly, when women (upon divorce) want alimony or child support (often after they've won custody of the children) - that is based on the husband's earning. If she stayed home during the marriage then she should get her yearly salary BEFORE she got married [multiplied by the years she was married] and no more. If she worked during the marriage, then she should get nothing. Parenthetically, WHY should he have to pay for the children? If she 'owns' them, then she should pay for them. If he sees them only 10-20% of the time, then he should ONLY pay for 10-20% of their upkeep.

    The response to these obvious inequities by feminists is, "Oh, but thats different."

    Bobby.N

    ReplyDelete
  18. I think they've recently made some changes to family law here so that there's a presumption that Dads get equal contact with their children.

    Children are "made" by both parents, so it seems fair to me that both parents should get equal access to the children (where practicable). I'm sure it would make many Dads feel a lot better about paying maintenance if they got to spend equal time with their kids. I can only imagine how heart-breaking it is to see your kids occasionally.

    However, I suppose you've got to think about what the child wants too. One of my friends decided when she was about 13 that she no longer wanted to spend every second weekend with her Dad. I've never asked her why, but I'm guessing it was very dislocating and disruptive to be moving around all the time. Luckily, her Dad was okay with that and respected her choice. I guess that it helped that her parents were amicable, and if her Dad had wanted to come to her Mum's to visit her, that would have been fine.

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.