Domestic Violence Article in Australian Media

The Article

OPINION: Mark Latham is a dangerous man and it’s time to take him off air

ACCORDING to Mark Latham, domestic violence is a coping mechanism for men who have had their masculinity taken away by women.

WTF. No.

For some unexplainable reason, radio station Triple M have given him a platform for his podcast called “Lathamland”, and in the first episode this is what he says about why some men hit their intimate partners:

“I don’t think it’s about how men look at women, it’s about how men look at themselves. They’ve lost their self-esteem, they’ve lost their job, they’re welfare dependant, they’ve got other troubles, drugs, alcohol in their life. It’s that loss of self esteem where I think they use domestic violence as a coping mechanism to get over all the crap in their lives.”

Lathamland: A place where women are the reason men are hitting them.

Key Parties referenced

* Mark Latham - an Australian author and former politician. A controversial figure for his outspoken views.

* Triple M - The Triple M Network is an active rock radio network in Australia owned by media company Southern Cross Austereo, who also own the Hit Network. A popular modern radio station.

* Rosemary Anne "Rosie" Batty - an Australian domestic violence campaigner and the 2015 Australian of the Year.

* Emelia "Em" Rusciano - an Australian comedian, singer, and radio presenter. The author of this article.

My views on the article

While I am no fan of Mark Latham, Em Rusciano completely misunderstands and misinterprets Latham's words in her typical pro-feminism, anti-male diatribe. Much of what Latham says can be taken with a grain of salt, but the words quoted in this article do not state what the author is claiming, nor do they come across as unreasonable when put into context.

I don't wish to downplay the suffering of the many women affected by domestic violence, but we in the West have this notion that domestic violence always involves some crazy big bad male overpowering and beating the helpless fragile female as a way to sooth his own insecurities. What is rarely talked about is emotional abuse - while men tend to dominate in the physical sense, women tend to dominate in the emotional sense.

Your Verdict

After reading the article in full, using those slick critical thinking skills and forming your own opinion, with whom do you agree or disagree with?

If you "get over" the problems in life by beating the women in it, you're a complete f#ing tard.

And what you deserve cannot be shared due to T&Cs.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

what is his stance and yours when women hit men, just curious

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

How's that Kool-Aid, Charlie?

Did you read the article in full? I assume not...

a reply to: DOCHOLIDAZE1

It should be the same as when men hit women (i.e. it is unacceptable), but of course according to many here, men are always the perpetrators and women always the victims.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Delicious.


And no...

"I think they use domestic violence as a coping mechanism to get over all the crap in their lives.”

This was enough to come to the conclusion I did.
I don't need to read another persons opinion on that.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

People use alcohol, drugs, gambling and various other variables as "coping mechanisms" in life - that is factual. Violence is just another variable. Did Latham OR did I say that it was a just or acceptable coping mechanism?

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Did Latham OR did I say that it was a just or acceptable coping mechanism?

I never even suggested that, so at this point I'm wondering what you're arguing about really.

I stand by my original point.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Do you agree that some people use violence as a coping mechanism to deal with the problems in their lives?

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Against the women (or men) that they're supposed to Love unconditionally?
No, I highly disagree.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Stop looking at the topic through emotional reasoning and let's try and be as logical and reasonable as we can.

Do you still highly disagree that people do use violence as a coping mechanism in their lives, NOT that they ought not use violence as a coping mechanism?

ETA: To be fair, that sentence was a little tricky, but I am confident you will understand the distinction I am attempting to make as I know you are a highly intelligent person.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

I already said I highly disagree...

Back to your initial point...
He may not be "justifying" it...

But he certainly paints the abuser as the victim.

They’ve lost their self-esteem, they’ve lost their job, they’re welfare dependant, they’ve got other troubles, drugs, alcohol in their life.

Poor guy. No wonder he beats his wife. Said no one ever.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
I already said I highly disagree...

Back to your initial point...
He may not be "justifying" it...

But he certainly paints the abuser as the victim.

They’ve lost their self-esteem, they’ve lost their job, they’re welfare dependant, they’ve got other troubles, drugs, alcohol in their life.

Poor guy. No wonder he beats his wife. Said no one ever.

No, he is reaffirming the point that they use it as a coping mechanism - which is factual. NOT that it is justifiable or acceptable to use in such a manner, but that it...just is.

When we are presented with sensational stories in the media, we are encouraged to dehumanise the perpetrator and empathise with the survivor - you already know this. Anybody that shows leniency toward the perpetrator is a sympathiser of their actions, anybody that shows empathy towards the survivor is well-informed.

a reply to: Dark Ghost
Well I read the article and I say there's no reason whatsoever for a man to beat a woman. Hell, if a guy does that he's not a man. I'm saying this as someone that had the misfortune to witness domestic violence on an almost daily basis.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs
Thank you, Charlie. I really respect you for that.

originally posted by: Skid Mark
Well I read the article and I say there's no reason whatsoever for a man to beat a woman. Hell, if a guy does that he's not a man. I'm saying this as someone that had the misfortune to witness domestic violence on an almost daily basis.

See how you stated "there's no reason whatsoever for a man to beat a woman" - this is indicative of feminist conditioning. Why? It fails to even consider situations where women might be dangerous perpetrators - e.g. lunging at your child with a knife after being high on drugs. Would it not be permissible to use physical force in such a scenario if your child's life were put in direct danger at the hands of the woman?

"Hell, if a guy does that he's not a man" - again, placing a certain standard of behaviour on all men and not expecting the same of women.

See how you stated "there's no reason whatsoever for a man to beat a woman" - this is indicative of feminist conditioning.

I was with you up to that. I was brought up in the South (US) where we called it moral character. That was just something you did not do. Period. I guess I have been called a lot of things in my life , but being " feminist conditioned " is certainly not one of em.

a reply to: Gothmog

You should at least read the rest of the post (it isn't long) before making such a judgement.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

i ask because im getting tired of the whole "we want equal rights, unless it comes to violence" thing. I am all for equal rights btw, and look down on all hypocrites

a reply to: Dark Ghost
And I agree . All people have coping mechanisms active. And most are self-destructive. Violence , drugs , alcohol . You name it . (mine is chocolate cake , but to a diabetic even that is self destructive.) Just disagree with the part that states the basis is feminist conditioning