Ronda Rousey admitted to beating up her ex, so should we be outraged?

I might be wrong but there are nearly as many male victims of domestic abuse as females, however females tend to be victims of violent abuse from partners.
Bare in mind however in UK a "domestic crime" relates to family members/spouses/ex partners and any previous sexual encounters . So there's a wider spectrum of various crimes and issues.

(Essentially imagine any/all crime....just add any of the above)

 

also that stats on victims do not show who the attacker was.

Ill try to find the study but when there is male victims of domestic violence it tends to be perpetrated by a male (parents, siblings etc) or is a pattern of mutual abuse between partners.

 

No it doesn't. Key word in that post was 'justifiably'. Someone cuts you up at an intersection and you drag him out of his car and stomp on him, your rage might be honestly held, but its not justifiable. I'm arguing that Rousey's rage here was justifiable. You can disagree if you want.

 

I don't think that anyone would argue that her rage was justifiable, but rather that her actions were not.

 

OK here's a link with Rousey's version of events.
There's much more context to her actions here.

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2015/10/13/9520315/ufc-travis-browne-ronda-rousey-relationship-rousey-violent-altercation-ex-boyfriend

Reading that I don't think that's domestic violence (if it's accurate). It's not even pre-meditated retribution (beyond the initial slap). The initial slap in the face was what holy would called justified. Seems justified to me too.
The subsequent violence was in response to the boyfriend trying to prevent Rousey from leaving (which can be a crime of kidnapping in the US as far as I'm aware?).
The boyfriend was much more in control of any violence he received than someone I would consider a true victim of domestic violence.

 

The story; "Burning Bed" comes to mind



After intercourse, Rhonda can beat me up anytime

 

Jesus Christ. You are an idiot. Why post such idiotic stuff? Do you think it makes you look good? If you're gonna be an idiot at least spell her name right. Grant her that respect at least.
I seriously think 99% of your posts are trolling at this point.

 

Lighten up. Things do not have to be so serious on a forum when speaking of someone in legal trouble (outside of it). There will be spekking errors. As for spelling her name correct to give her respect, blah, as the mistake was unintentional.

 

Jokes I like. Banter I like. Silliness I like. I can quite honestly say I have a better handle on how to be funny in a forum than you.
Lighten up indeed.
You comment wasn't even funny it was just....uuuurrrggghhh. Horrible. Embarrassing even. It ain't the first time and sadly won't be the last.

 

Depends upon the audience. Just like there will be some that do not like you using Jesus' name in vain.

On another note, if it (Rhona) were more a serious subject, especially about a member, joking may not be appropriate. However, "Chadderz girl friend break up thread" is a serious subject, but jokes were made to help him, not hurt.

Also, I never call any member here such names as "idiot", etc. by intention of insult

 

Me either. Unless they do something idiotic over and over and over to the point where it's obvious they have no intention of contributing in a productive way.
Your English grammar is terrible and yet you feel qualified to pick up on others use of English.
I guess the utterly crass Ronda comment was just the straw that broke the camel's back.

 

...Wow.

"It was totally right I cleaned his clock, m'lord, because he did something I didn't like".

Yeah...no.

Don't get me wrong, the guy was a total tool and I have absolutely no sympathy for him in the slightest. But that situation does not justify him being thrown a beating. At no point was her health and safety (or anyone elses') in jeopardy.

Depends on which reports you use. The CSEW released earlier this year drew a lot of outrage from groups like Women's Aid (domestic violence advocacy group for women) because the ONS released the CSEW showing that men and women were victims of partner violence at equal rates.

Though the definition of "partner/ex-partner" is incredibly open ended and can be very misleading as it also includes "emotional rivals, lover's spouses, cohabiting partners", etc. So obviously, care should be taken when reporting it as a product of "partner" violence in the way many of us think of it as.

But were you to take a look at the CPS data, you would get a very different image, as that data shows the overwhelming percentages of prosecutions were against men for "VAWG" style crimes (though more care needs to be taken with that data, as their last report also includes male victims of 'VAWG').

You'd get a slightly different look if you examine family research pieces though. An examination of the largest scale studies of their kind on domestic abuse (PASK, Archer; 2000, Straus, Gelles & Steinmetz; can't remember the date, Fiebert (Martin S.); 1997 onwards) however shows us that domestic abuse of all kinds (including serious) is actually pretty even.

More specific studies have shown us though that men are significantly more likely to see violence perpetrated against them (especially by women) as "wrong, but not a crime" (e.g: Garratt; 2012, Carlson & Worden; 2005, Cook; 2009, Curran; 2010) and are less likely to report the crime when it does happen (additional example: CSEW in every edition). Frequently, additional research meant to debunk the notion of gender parity in partner violence also acknowledges that women are overwhelmingly more likely to use weapons and when arrested, are far more likely to be arrested for actual & serious bodily harm when using said weapons (e.g: Hester; 2009). Further smaller scale research (e.g: Busch & Rosenburg; can't remember the date) shows us than when examining injury levels perpetrated by people committed for domestic violence, there was no difference in the scale and severity of the damage done by men and women.

So yeah, it very much depends on where you look.

...Yeah, I've been busy since we last talking about DV rates on MAP. 'Cos I'm fun like that.

Would you accept it if we referred to it as IPV (Intimate Partner Violence)?

How are you defining "domestic violence"?

 

I'd be interested in seeing that if you can source it in full. There's a lot of things that don't add up compared to the data I've come across, so I'd be keen to see their methodology, sample size, choice of questions and such.

 

The fact the sleaze said "You ain't leaving" and barred her way puts a different context on it.
After the initial slap she was actually trying to leave and end the relationship.
He decided to try and stop her. As I said I think that counts as a crime in the US.
He could have let her go after the slap, he could have let her go to her car and not got inside and grabbed the wheel and tried to prevent her leaving.
He had the power to end the violence by acting in a reasonable manner (right from the start to be honest).

 

(Sloth , I am agreeing with you so bare with me with the following)

Stats and percentages IMO can be very open to interpretation. Previously, I would always look at these and go. "Aha, this is bible" but Government figures can always be fiddled and so can translations of the figures depending on what results the person wants. (also a slight change of definition and suddenly it all goes awry).
Which leads me to...

Essentially with the Police (in the UK at least) if you've had sex, In a BF/GF relationship or immediate family (including Auntie/Uncle/Cousins - unless as a minor) then it can fall under a Domestic related crime. Once again, yes, it keeps it quite broad but thats the simple explanation.

 

I'm actually a little conflicted with this statement.

On the one hand, I actually agree with you. His actions absolutely exasperated the situation and made it worse. He followed her and continued trying to prevent her leaving when he didn't have to. His actions did cause the situation to escalate.

However, everything that was just said can also be said of her, nor does it specifically justify her violence IMO. After the first couple of strikes when he tried to prevent her leaving when he fell down (let's assume that and yanking him by the hoodie was reasonable force given the situation - which some might debate), did she have to slap him, throttle him, knee him and throw him to the floor?

She had around as much power to end the violence as he did, but she didn't. Instead, she escalated.

I'm not sure I understand why her violence against him is somehow now permissible because he acted like a doofus but hadn't actually put her health and safety in danger at that point.

 

Tell me about it. It's scary how much people can manipulate the same pool of data to come out with drastically different outcomes that are all backed by research.

 

To be honest I think his actions have as much in common with domestic violence as hers. More so in fact.
He was attempting to control her, keep her in the relationship, restrict her movements, etc.
Her actions smack more of reactive use of violence in a weird situation.

Imagine if his and her actions were filmed on CCTV and rather than an apartment they were in a lift down to a car park?
He does something horrendous and violating so she slaps him and attempts to exit the lift.
He blocks her way and attempts to keep her in the lift.
She hits him 3 times and manages to clear the way and exit the lift.
He's physically capable enough to follow her and as she reaches her car he gets in the passenger seat and tries to wrest control of the car from her.
She gets out of the car and goes round and drags him out before getting back in and driving off.

We'd be applauding such a CCTV clip I think. I'd certainly think her actions are fine in that situation.

 

For me it's specifically the barring of her exit and saying "You're not leaving" that opens the door (heh) to using force to prevent him doing that.
That's fine to me. I won't accept someone barring my exit from a situation and ordering me not to leave and my children will be taught the same.
He could have said "Please don't go" and left the exit clear. But he didn't. *
As I see it she did enough to clear the exit and then exited. She didn't hand out a beating.

*This is of course all dependent on her version being accurate. It probably isn't.