jamaica's shame

[Gen]

Re: jamaica's shame

well the ones up there could be a blue print for other countries then.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Nylah</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

i couldnt figure out what u meant by the word equipped

well, I have only what i have seen here and the issues you have listed below havent seem to hinder the shelters operating here.

and if they didnt exist, I dont think there would be as many of them as there currently are. </div></div>

[britisha]

Re: jamaica's shame

Hiff di woman or man (there should be accomodations for men who di ooman beat dem tuh) is assaulted, they can even go through the ER...where social workers can find them a place for them for d time being, and help them sort out what needs to be sorted out...too many women are dying from spousal abuse...we waste money on a lot of nonsense...why not WASTE it on providing shelters for battered women?

[Nylah]

Re: jamaica's shame


i never questioned the legality of it at all. What is legal isnt always equal to ethics or morality. They can be opposing forces at some points.....Spirit of the law vs letter of the law and all that.

Anyway.

As for the rest, sorry I dont buy it

Express yourself all you want, I aint gonna legislate anyone's choice to dagger, but that still doesnt nullify if it is degrading or not. If the slope is that slippery then many laws would be struck of the books

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: amberal37</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Nylah</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: blakkgiant</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

well then you really don't want to see some of the dancehall vids making the rounds. more like mortal kombat than dance. </div></div>

ruff sex sells

butt iss dat abusinn oomen? </div></div>


you must be joking right?

ruff sex sells - so because it sells it is moral, ethical and not degrading?

u can still degrade a person even if they dont think they are being so.
</div></div>

Yes, but unless what they are doing is illegal - where you can throw them in jail, the only way that you will stop them is by educating them as to the wrongs of the act.
Then you are touching on cultural boundaries, and personal morality - what you may consider demeaning, might be someone else's way of expressing themselves.

[j-kid]

Re: jamaica's shame

What about the local Church(es) responsibility?

[Tuff Gong]

Re: jamaica's shame

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: amberal37</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In UK (Britain), most (if not all) of the shelters are voluntarily run (by NGOs, charities and lobby groups) </div></div>Maybe because even in a heavily socialized Jurisdiction such as Britain they know that it is best for Government to stay out of this enterprise. I am pretty sure the British Government see it role of trying to prevent abuse and if and when a shelter is needed they prefer set the rules rather than build and staff the facilities.

[Nylah]

Re: jamaica's shame

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: J kid</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What about the local Church(es) responsibility? </div></div>

and if the abuser attends church


seriously though, given all the money some of those <span style="text-decoration: line-through">hustlers </span> pastors make, they could be providing more social net structures for people than they currently do.

but I also and not keen to make certain help tied to whether a person attends church or not. Help should be help.

[Tuff Gong]

Re: jamaica's shame

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Nylah</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: J kid</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What about the local Church(es) responsibility? </div></div>

and if the abuser attends church


seriously though, given all the money some of those <span style="text-decoration: line-through">hustlers </span> pastors make, they could be providing more social net structures for people than they currently do.

but I also and not keen to make certain help tied to whether a person attends church or not. Help should be help.
</div></div>

The Church operates all or most of the shelters here <span style="font-style: italic">(male/female)</span> in some fashion.

[rudemonk]

Re: jamaica's shame

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: amberal37</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Nylah</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: blakkgiant</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[quote=monk]well then you really don't want to see some of the dancehall vids making the rounds. more like mortal kombat than dance. </div></div>

ruff sex sells

butt iss dat abusinn oomen? </div></div>


you must be joking right?

ruff sex sells - so because it sells it is moral, ethical and not degrading?

u can still degrade a person even if they dont think they are being so.
</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes, but unless what they are doing is illegal - where you can throw them in jail, the only way that you will stop them is by educating them as to the wrongs of the act.
Then you are touching on cultural boundaries, and personal morality - what you may consider demeaning, might be someone else's way of expressing themselves.
</div></div>

watch the vids amberal, then we can talk about the right of being able to express oneself. flipping on top of a young girl with her legs held apart so she gets knocked unconscious, then having dirt and trash pails crammed on her head...

with the shelters, clearly the best path forward is a partnership arrangement- the shelters can not exist without the government's support- be that as it may and however it might come.

The place I was speaking of is just such an effort. The only problem with having private sector based assistance is in establishing a criteria for qualified quality care, and in the case of Theodora, there is a religious component which requires mandatory participation in order to access the facility's programs. I don't personally feel as though people in need should be put to the test like that, and I have a feeling it is more something that is on paper than applied there but that is conjecture on my part. I like to believe the best of Christians who put their money where their mouth is so to speak.

This may not necessarily be a bad thing, but it might be. Whichever way it is, they are at least willing to get into the trenches so to speak, and pave a way.

To me, and if asked about someone I might know, I would rather that young woman deal with a slightly corrupt government institution (maybe) and sit through some soft lies about Jesus and God than succumb to a boss' perceived privilege of his position, nor stay a night with someone where she is in corporal or mental danger...

no government or private effort will be without issue, but I think it safe to say that if you stacked the issues between dealing with government based programs against not doing anything, the scale would tip in such a way as we can all see what is more beneficial.

[Nylah]

Re: jamaica's shame


ironically, I dont see this working in Canada at all. The church could offer some but the belief in turning to the church for social support just isnt here in Canada. Overall the country is in many ways too liberal for that.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tuff Gong</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Nylah</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: J kid</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What about the local Church(es) responsibility? </div></div>

and if the abuser attends church


seriously though, given all the money some of those <span style="text-decoration: line-through">hustlers </span> pastors make, they could be providing more social net structures for people than they currently do.

but I also and not keen to make certain help tied to whether a person attends church or not. Help should be help.
</div></div>

The Church operates all or most of the shelters here <span style="font-style: italic">(male/female)</span> in some fashion. </div></div>

[j-kid]

Re: jamaica's shame

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Nylah</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: J kid</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What about the local Church(es) responsibility? </div></div>

and if the abuser attends church


</div></div>

If things work the way that is should, that person should be able to go to another church for shelter.

But as you indicate, the way things are, even churches hav become a big hustle, a con game, focusing on money gaining schemes, instead of the work they were meant to do.

[KD_09]

Re: jamaica's shame

Statistically speaking in western nations women abuse men MORE than men abuse women. The real problem is that men are not free culturally to be open about it.

http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2007/08/reciprocal-violence-can-lead-to-more.html

If the government wants to open shelters then so be it, but you better open some for men as well. Equality, not special treatment. No more perpetuating stereotypes.

[rudemonk]

Re: jamaica's shame

KD- you must have a very narrow definition of abuse if you think that is even remotely possible.

men have forever dictated the terms by which women engage society at large and have had that participation's parameters defined by men, that is a form of abuse that goes down from jump.

this is not to say that women do not abuse men, but in general that is almost impossible as society and culture favors the position of men.

[rudemonk]

Re: jamaica's shame

they have a website turns out.

http://www.theodoraproject-negril.org/index.html

[Tuff Gong]

Re: jamaica's shame

Still don't see how this is Jamaica's shame!
Jamaica is a very violent country with failing and failed institutions, spousal abuse is just one facet of the problem, building 50 shelters operated by the GOJ will not IMO help.

[gourmet]

Re: jamaica's shame

Well said, Tuff Gong. Women's shelters are a wonderful thing, but also the kind of luxury that only the richest nations can afford. There's no point in criticizing third world countries for not supplying shelters.