Why do some men minimise or deny the reality of domestic violence?

[timewerx]

@timewerx are you talking about the position of women - socially and economically - on a global scale or in a specific country?

Not really the position or equality in liberties, opportunities etc.

I was talking about the environment women face which leads to decisions that would be unfavorable to them and making them vulnerable to exploitation.

The solution lies in socio-economic changes to give women economically sustainable ways out of abusive situations and educating women on the psychological profiles of abusive men so women can avoid them entirely.

Abusive men tend to be accomplished psychological manipulators. Consequently, they may also be chronic cheaters, players or has history of those. They have low regards for women. It's no surprise their abused wives will choose to stick to them, due to psychological pressure by the abusive husbands and non-ideal socio-economic settings.

Note, the abuse can also be in psychological/emotional form as well and could be equally devastating as physical abuse. Sadly, this form of abuse, doesn't usually appear in the statistics!

A little word of advice. It can be prudent to check a man's historical background, even talk to former ex's early in the relationship - a point where you can still easily get out of. After all, the decisions made could have life-long consequences, not only to you but your future children.

 

[grandvizier1006]

Domestic violence against women sounds like something a lot of people would do more about if they were made more aware of it. So spread awareness as best as you can.

 

[JacksBratt]

Ugh, just ugh. I'm sorry that's been your experiences, but it hasn't been mine. Or that of many people I know. I've had wonderful female bosses (at a woman's university) and female ministers. MUTUAL submission is required, not gender-based submission.

I have had bosses that are male and bosses that are female. I can work for either and have had good male bosses and poor male bosses. Good female bosses and poor female bosses.
I have found, male or female, the boss that has a complex about their authority or is a seeker of power will make a poor boss.
I find that women that are some how offended by the gender roles, in a marriage, will be a seeker of power in that marriage and upset the apple cart. A man, who is power hungry, in a marriage, will, also, not make a good leader, husband or father.
The reasons behind this desire for power could fill the context of a book. The reason a woman wants to take the power from her husband was written in God's book at the very beginning.
Anyone who is driven by and for power or the need to obtain power, is not Godly. The responsibility that a man has in a family unit is given by God and not taken or forced on the members of the family. A woman that quenches the role of the man as the head of a house is a contentious woman and will ruin the functional family she so much desires.
I'm sorry if this steps on the toes of some readers, especially the women readers. But, it is a scriptural framework that God has designed. Do you want to argue God's design. It is reinforced throughout the NT.

I know women were not treated as equal in the past. They have had to fight for rights that are truly and Biblically theirs, this is for sure. However, the pendulum has swung past and is now gone too far. Men have become unnecessary to many women. Or, just need to be there to do the heavy lifting.

It has become so ridiculous that the Canadian Federal government is now voting on the changing of the lyrics or our national anthem. They are voting on changing the line "In all thy sons command" to "in all of us command" in order for it to be "gender neutral". It's pathetic. How long will it be before "God keep our land, glorious and free" is changed to remove God from the anthem too?

I understand. Woman desire to have a say in things, and rightfully so. However, the best way to lose that "say in things" is to demand it. If a woman wants a good marriage, she first needs to carefully chose a good Godly man. Fail at this and it's anyone's guess as to what kind of life and marriage she is in for.

If she has a good Godly man and puts him at the head of the house, respects his decisions, respectfully presents her needs, wishes and thoughts on matters of the house, she will want for nothing that the man is humanly capable of giving her. The man will treat her as part of his own body, his own flesh and what's more, he will unselfishly treat her better than himself. He will treat his children well too. He will easily fulfill and mirror the servant like qualities that Christ showed His disciples. A woman that usurps this role of leader will tear her house down with her own hands.

The OP deals with the question "why do men minimize or deny the reality of domestic violence"? I don't know many men that would do either. Not in my neck of the woods. Men are quite aware and quite sympathetic to this problem.

What I am sensing from the way women feel is that there is very few good men out there. I also sense that there are a lot of women who are seeking for their husbands role as well.

 

[Paidiske]

The solution lies in ... educating women on the psychological profiles of abusive men so women can avoid them entirely.

Do you think part of the solution lies in training men not to be abusive?

Jacks, I'm sorry your marriage is an unhappy one, but many of us manage to have very happy marriages sharing leadership and power (such as it is). There is more than one way to have a happy, functioning marriage (which makes sense, since people are all so different).

 

[timewerx]

Do you think part of the solution lies in training men not to be abusive?

Some men just can't be trained. The abusive men are the worst of them. Training men can be a part of the solution but not by much.

It's based on my own experience dealing with abusive men. They have big issues with ego and pride which is a huge obstacle to learning.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Do you think part of the solution lies in training men not to be abusive?

This is at the heart of where Protestant Liberalism - in fact where all Liberals go wrong. It's never a matter of education. You cannot cure sin with education, otherwise Jesus could have saved Himself a lot of suffering.

Sin can only be repented of and forgiven by the blood of Christ. The law has now power to change a man. That's Christianity 101. Do you not believe this?

 

[Paidiske]

So you don't think we can do anything to form Godly character in our men and boys?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

So you don't think we can do anything to form Godly character in our men and boys?

Firstly, why do you imagine that only men are sinners?

Secondly, without regeneration, all you can possibly do is transform a younger brother into an elder brother, which leaves him in a worse state than where you found him.

“When an impure spirit comes out of a person, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. 44Then it says, ‘I will return to the house I left.’ When it arrives, it finds the house unoccupied, swept clean and put in order. 45Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that person is worse than the first. That is how it will be with this wicked generation.” (Matt 12:43-45)​

 

[Paidiske]

I don't imagine that only men are sinners. But in this thread I wanted to discuss the phenomenon of the prevalence of this sin, by men, being minimised or denied.

So your argument, as I understand it, is that there is nothing we can do which will reduce another person's propensity to behave badly, and as such, we should... what? Accept the bad behaviour?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

I don't imagine that only men are sinners. But in this thread I wanted to discuss the phenomenon of the prevalence of this sin, by men, being minimised or denied.

So your argument, as I understand it, is that there is nothing we can do which will reduce another person's propensity to behave badly, and as such, we should... what? Accept the bad behaviour?

The OP involves two parties. You seem to imagine only one at fault. There are some women who find their identity and purpose in saying in abusive relationships. I believe the psych. term is codependent.

Training boys and girls falls to their parents. Other than that, the state bears the sword, and God has provided that mercy for our benefit. If a man strikes a woman, he should be charged and punished for it.

Preaching the gospel is the only cure for your problem. All meaningful change takes place from inside a man and works out, not from the outside working in.

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness. (Matt 23:27)​

 

[Paidiske]

The OP involves two parties. You seem to imagine only one at fault.

Not necessarily, but once it gets to physical violence I do think that has to stop before anything else can be worked on.

There are some women who find their identity and purpose in saying in abusive relationships. I believe the psych. term is codependent.

The theological term might be submissive.

Training boys and girls falls to their parents. Other than that, the state bears the sword, and God has provided that mercy for our benefit. If a man strikes a woman, he should be charged and punished for it.

Preaching the gospel is the only cure for your problem. All meaningful change takes place from inside a man and works out, not from the outside working in.

So there is no room for the gospel to shape wider social discourse in ways which might be transformative?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Not necessarily,

Always, and without exception. There is no abuse with an abuser and an abusee.

The theological term might be submissive.

If I'm correct in my knowledge of Australia, there aren't many Christians in the country (people that attend church at least once per month is 15%), and of that small percentage, most are very Liberal, so you are very mistaken if you think that women in Australia are staying in physically abusive relationships because they are being submissive to their husbands. That's a straw-man argument.

So there is no room for the gospel to shape wider social discourse in ways which might be transformative?

The gospel only has the power to change individuals. Those individuals then go into society as changed people and have an impact on culture.

 

[Paidiske]

Always, and without exception. There is no abuse with an abuser and an abusee.

Are you for-freaking-real? Are you really suggesting that small children who are beaten, or raped, are somehow contributing to that situation by their sin?

Are you really saying that there are not situations, even between adults, where the fault lies almost exclusively on one side?

If so, I don't think there's anywhere this conversation can go that is useful, but I am utterly horrified at your willingness to blame the powerless for their own suffering.

If I'm correct in my knowledge of Australia, there aren't many Christians in the country (people that attend church at least once per month is 15%), and of that small percentage, most are very Liberal, so you are very mistaken if you think that women in Australia are staying in physically abusive relationships because they are being submissive to their husbands. That's a straw-man argument.

Somewhere closer to ten per cent of the population as regular church attendees, I think. My comment was tongue in cheek, but I was making a serious point.

The gospel only has the power to change individuals. Those individuals then go into society as changed people and have an impact on culture.

But as those individuals change the messages that others receive - in education, through the media, and so forth - you don't think that has a wider salutary impact?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

But as those individuals change the messages that others receive - in education, through the media, and so forth - you don't think that has a wider salutary impact?

I said that, didn't I? Yes, of course. That's what all great nations are nations which have/had a large percentage of Christians and/or Christians who were very influential positions, and the Christian influence is not one which is passed on through chalkboards or billboards. The Church changes the unbelieving world for the better as salt and light through godly character.

 

[Paidiske]

I disagree. I think Christians can make a case for the good which can influence the wider culture (humanism, which arose in Christianity, being a good example of this). Not that personal character makes no difference, but that as we participate in the marketplace of ideas, we can contribute in other ways as well.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

I disagree. I think Christians can make a case for the good which can influence the wider culture (humanism, which arose in Christianity, being a good example of this). Not that personal character makes no difference, but that as we participate in the marketplace of ideas, we can contribute in other ways as well.

Are you saying that didactic instruction can stop sin in unregenerate man?

 

[Paidiske]

Are you saying that didactic instruction can stop sin?

Stop sin as a human phenomenon, no. Pre-empt specific instances, sure.

That's why schools educate about drugs, why courts send people to anger management classes, and so on. So that people are well-equipped to make wise choices.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Stop sin as a human phenomenon, no. Pre-empt specific instances, sure.

That's why schools educate about drugs, why courts send people to anger management classes, and so on. So that people are well-equipped to make wise choices.

How are those anti-drug classes doing? The number of people in the US who have used and are addicted to drugs has increased since we began telling kids about their dangers.

Also, more importantly, it's not the mission of the church to stop people from taking drugs or manage anger. The mission of the church has been given by Christ: Make disciples, baptize, teach all that I have commanded you.

Hell won't be lacking people who "make wise choices" yet reject Christ.

 

[Paidiske]

And you don't think there are any other factors involved in that? Like the aggressive market expansion of the drug producers?

At the end of the day, even if you were correct and no effort made to help others to avoid any type of moral mistake would be in any way effective, I think I prefer the approach which is willing to try; I would rather walk in hope than give up in despair.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

And you don't think there are any other factors involved in that? Like the aggressive market expansion of the drug producers?

At the end of the day, even if you were correct and no effort made to help others to avoid any type of moral mistake would be in any way effective, I think I prefer the approach which is willing to try; I would rather walk in hope than give up in despair.

That's not our job. Real change only comes through Christ and being united with Him. Make your effort in the right direction and it will be fruitful. Politics won't save the world. Ad campaigns won't stop women being beaten, but the regeneration of the Holy Spirit will.