The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Domestic violence - a statistical 'shock and awe' campaign? > Comments

Domestic violence - a statistical 'shock and awe' campaign? : Comments

By Michael Gray, published 8/6/2005

Michael Gray argues manipulation of domestic violence statistics oscures the true facts.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 24
  7. 25
  8. 26
  9. All
I have to agree that many people have terrible skills when it comes to interpreting statistical data, but that does not mean the data is necessarily false.

While in the case of domestic violence, the definition used to accumulate this data is alot broader than what I would consider normally accepted as domestic violence within society and indeed many people quote that particular statistic without the "within their lifetime" clause. That does not invalidate the data.

Being part of well educated democratic society, I believe it is my responsibility to fully understand information presented to me. If the terms and definitions of a statistic are not presented to me I will question how has the subject of survey been defined.

I know alot of people do take these things at face value, but it is condscending to think that people are incapable of understanding nature of statistics and while they can be a useful tool, they are limited. So if I am being sold a statistical lie, then I am not in the market.
Posted by Javaira, Wednesday, 8 June 2005 11:48:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think this an excellent article as it begins to look at the very serious question of domestic violence studies.

"One in four Australian women (25 per cent) experience domestic violence within their lifetime".

However this “one in four” figure seems to be almost universal, as it is regularly quoted in issues ranging from mental health http://www.one-in-four.co.uk/ to ID fraud http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4311693.stm to use of nuclear weapons against terrorists http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000819252

There is so much talk about “Domestic Violence” the logical question becomes “What constitutes domestic violence”. Unfortunately each study on domestic violence seems to have its own interpretation or definition of what is domestic violence. This then means that domestic violence cannot be adequately monitored to see if it is increasing, decreasing, changing etc.

There are laws regarding domestic violence, and these laws apply penalties that are increasing in severity over time. The rational behind this appears to come from a belief that domestic violence is increasing, so it becomes necessary to increase penalties. However this has lead to the situation in Tasmania, where a person can be put in jail and no bail allowed.

“TASMANIA'S leading judge blasted the state's controversial new domestic violence laws yesterday, after being forced to refuse bail to a man accused of assaulting his former partner. Supreme Court Chief Justice Peter Underwood said he would have granted bail to the man, had he not been restricted by the Family Violence Act. “http://www.themercury.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,15357727%255E921,00.html

The granting of bail requires a Family Violence Risk Assessment, but people who have attempted to get a copy of the Risk Assessment have been told that they have to apply under the Freedom of Information Act, so the definition of Domestic Violence in the Risk Assessment is also not widely known at present.

So when it comes to domestic violence, no one seems to have a clear idea of what it is, although the “one in four” figure is repeated over and over.
Posted by Timkins, Wednesday, 8 June 2005 12:59:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Top article Michael. How many genuine victims of DV suffer unnecessarily because of the repeated cries of "Wolf, Wolf" by those running agenda's which are not about stopping actual DV?

If we can get a focus on truth into the DV debate then maybe we have a chance of dealing with the real issues regardless of who the victim is.
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 8 June 2005 2:35:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Isn't it sad that such a litany of mistruths originates from "respectable" government departments? Thanks for highlighting this Michael.

One correction - my information on the results of the WSS shows that about 30% of the women who have at some point in their lives since the age of 15 been physically harmed or threatened were the victims of feamle perpetrators (not 2% as Michael notes). (See http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/0b565c403b0a0356ca2569de0025631c?OpenDocument

ALSO, and far scarier, is that the Australian Parliamentary Library (you know, the one that our pollies turn to for a quick update on social issues and facts) has somehow found that the WSS shows a level of violence that I cannot calcualte from the WSS, no matter how hard I try to fudge the figures. The relevant exageration is quoted below:

The best indicators available to date about the levels of violence against women in Australia are from the 1996 ABS Women’s Safety Survey which gathered information about women’s experiences of violence. In its findings, the ABS estimated that 1.2 million women (18 per cent) had experienced sexual violence and 2.2 million (33 per cent) had experienced physical violence since the age of 15.

From:
Parliament of Australia Parliamentary Library

“Measuring violence against women: a review of the literature and statistics”
E-Brief: Online Only issued 06 December 2004
Janet Phillips, Information/E-links, Social Policy Section
Malcolm Park, Analysis and Policy Statistics Section
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/SP/ViolenceAgainstWomen.htm

If this totally false picture can obtain such prominence in an august Library, what hope is there for a little bit of truth? And when we do get some attention to the real data, who is going to hold accountable all of those politicians, academics, journalists and commentators who have sown such social dissent on lies - and built a DV industry to provide "jobs for the (misandrist) girls"? (over $10 million dollars per year of Commonwealth funding alone goes to the DV industry).
Posted by MHIRC, Wednesday, 8 June 2005 3:00:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While I vehemently diagree with the general tone of this article (the whole "men as victim" paradigm seems on the whole kind of pathetic - right up there with those "men don't know their place in society any more" arguments), the author has manged to miss the single most important argument in favour of his cause. That is that over-reporting of domestic violence (if it is occuring) could well normalise this sort of action in the minds of potential perpetrators (eg. "a quarter of the blokes out there are hitting their wives, why shouldn't I?")
Posted by chris_b, Wednesday, 8 June 2005 4:30:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
chris_b
The idea that it is a “quarter of the blokes” (or “one in four”) out there hitting their wives is quite suspect, if the studies are carefully analysed. The 1996 ABS study into domestic violence only surveyed women who wanted to be in the survey, so it is more than likely that women who had been involved in domestic violence would volunteer to be in the survey, thereby creating bias in the results.

The “one in four” is routinely stated in all types of studies and media announcements , and it could be that this figure more readily captures the imagination of people, but is not necessarily an accurate figure.

EG
'One in four of all crimes dealt with by the Metropolitan Police is a domestic violence incident. This is proof of the scale of the problem.' This comment by John Grieve, head of the Metropolitan Police's Racial and Violent Crime Taskforce” at http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/000000005423.htm However further investigation found this figure to be actually 4%, not 25%

In the UK, the Home Office also carried out a domestic violence study that was very similar to that undertaken by the ABS in Australia in 1996, and they also found the “one in four”. However there were questions regards bias in that study, including exaggerating the results.

EG
“But behind these figures lie some pretty questionable assumptions. Take the much-quoted Home Office Research Study in 1999, that found that 1 in 4 women had suffered domestic violence (1). This category contains a broad variety of incidents, some of which would not be generally be considered as a serious crime of violence. Indeed, only 17 percent of incidents recorded in the survey were considered to be crimes by their victims. And only a third of women victims agreed that their experience made them 'a victim of domestic violence'. http://www.spiked-online.co.uk/Articles/00000006DC52.htm

If further investigated, the results of the 1996 Australian ABS survey would probably be very similar.
Posted by Timkins, Wednesday, 8 June 2005 8:49:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The ugly secret that truly endures in Australia and nationally is that the domestic violence industry provides a funding source for a discriminative propaganda machine that denigrates men in our culture. This domestic violence industry continually ignores the wealth of research data and expert opinion that reveals woman as equal perpetrators of domestic violence.

Even a cursory investigation into domestic violence reveals that DV is not gender specific. Yet, the DV industry continues to publicise this advocacy research with 'data' twisted to their own political ends. Reports on male victims of DV have been systematically silenced for a very long time. Shootings, character assassinations and bomb, death and career threats have been experienced by some prominent researchers and social workers for discussing female to male violence.

Even Erin Pizzey, the founder of DV shelters in the UK 25 years ago and first to write about DV, had to flee her country because of feminist attacks against her. She was brave enough to report publicly, from her considerable experience, that "that women can be as violent as men and that women were a great deal more psychologically violent than men".

Our culture has swallowed the 'men are pathologically violent' message, without critical analysis of the dissenting research, and has conformed to a politically driven hysteria that will never help to end DV

The domestic violence industry is truly an industry … because it fabricates statistics, which in turn destabilise male / female relationships in our community ... thus promoting their political mythology.
Posted by silversurfer, Wednesday, 8 June 2005 10:24:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
chris_b, another perspective you might want to consider is the total lack of attention paid to female initiated domestic violence and the potential impact of that on the thinking of the perpetrators.

Any man hitting a partner is doing so in the face of widespread and clear public comdemnation of male initiated DV. Unfortunately some still choose to do.

A woman who hits a partner is often reassurred that she probably could not have hurt him anyway or that she must have had good reason to do so. The media continues to portray female initiated violence as acceptable if the female thinks she has a good reason. Think of the TV add's which feature women hitting men and try to picture similar scenarios being played when the aggressor was a man.

I've been on the receiving end of DV from my former wife. Pretty much impossible to get support or have the issue addressed. The whole subject is so impacted by the gender bias in the reporting and handling of the subject that almost nobody not directly impacted takes female initiated DV seriously. All of the relationship professionals (Relationships Australia, Centacare etc) have copious material on display about protecting women and children from men, almost none about female initiated DV.
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 9 June 2005 7:54:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Something made me very uncomfortable reading this article and it has taken me a while to work out what it is.

Statistics are not pure, they always need to be interpreted and this can be abused. But to assume that a pure, 'true' numerical picture can ever become available is absurd and to disregard all information and issues raised by looking at some statistics is a bit like throwing out the baby with the bath water.

I am not sure what the point of this article was.

Anyone working in domestic services will tell you that they do not have enough money to meet the need of their clients. Women and children in need of protection are still being turned away from hostels, short term accomodation and Department of Housing accomodation.

Domestic violence, whether between women, siblings, partners, children abusing elderly parents, men abusing women, women abusing men, is a negative, detrimental thing to all people involved and close to it. Turning the issue into a competition between victims is dangerous and counter-productive, for this reason I will not add to the arguement. The focus needs to remain firmly on the fact that we want to stop domestic violence in all it's forms.

Another thing that bothered me about this article was the apparent disregard for the impact that non-physical violence can have. Surely we have moved forward from the days of only seeing bruises and legitimate hurt and pain. I do agree that research and the subsequent results need to make it clear what is included as violence - and why.

No matter what we think of how flawed statistics can be, or what number of sufferers there should be before we give money and attention, the fact remains that hundreds of people live with violence, physical and mental / emotional, everyday and we need to ask ourselves if we are content to live in a society that does nothing about it because the surrounding issues are too political, or statistics too flawed.
Posted by Katrina, Thursday, 9 June 2005 11:03:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Katrina
Providing more money or resources may not make much difference in reducing domestic violence. It is noticed that increased money and resources have been given to domestic violence organisations in recent years, but the domestic violence statistics (as reported) seem to be getting worse in time, not better.

This can only mean the following:-
1.The problem of domestic violence is not being overcome.
2.The statistics are being rigged or manipulated so as to get even more money.
3.Both of the above.

But whatever way it is looked at, the people involved in the domestic violence organisations are not doing a very good job.

If family violence is seriously studied, the majority of it occurs in a minority of families (eg. about 80% of child abuse occurs in less than 30% of families), but mentioning this seems too political, as there are certain sections of society who advocate these types of families
Posted by Timkins, Thursday, 9 June 2005 1:10:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Michael

Thank you for your article. It certainly has generated much interest already. I check out the Womens' Safety Survey to which you referred. No wonder your article sounded angry, to say the least.

What an "unsafe" survey tool! It looks as if it was written by a first semester first year student who did not have any experience in writing - let alone research. The Overview was incomplete. What was the Scope really saying? Where is a succinct definition of domestic violence? There is no Conceptual Framework - rather there is a string of words which are not directly linked and which have not been drawn together as a concept - let alone a conceptual framework. Basically the tool is totally disorganised and will do little to add theory to practice, assist further research - and most important of all, it is unlikely to assist any victim of violence.

My gut feeling is that your article will bring the radical leftist feminists running to it - like a red rag to a bull.

Well I hold some strong feminist views and some strong traditional views - both of which I think show a sensible balance.

I was a victim of domestic violence (physical and emotional/mental) by an alcoholic husband for 13 years. Thankfully I finally escaped over the border. I do not regard all men as potential bashers or perpetrators. Rather, I know that all people (male or female) can become victims of another person's emotional, mental, sexual, or physical violence.

I don't think this is a competition as one poster hinted. But I am glad that you have opened the subject for all of us to have a re-think.

Cheers
Kay
Posted by kalweb, Thursday, 9 June 2005 2:53:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I recently worked with NSW Police on a domestic violence communication campaign. In the course of it, I was told, by ordinary cops in an ordinary suburban police station that 40% of their call outs were for domestic violence incidents. They said it was the single most likely incident they were called upon to deal with, not burglary or mugging, but domestic incidents serious enough to cause someone (the victim, a neighbour or other family member) to call the police. They did not specify whether they mostly involved male or female perpetrators, just that dealing with either actually violent or potentially violent incidents in families was, sadly, their most regular work.
And to Timkins point, one of the reasons domestic violence stats may be increasing is because the campaigns by the Police (as much as by anyone else) are working, and more people are reporting something they once used to put up with. Increased reporting may actually mean we are dealing with domestic violence better than we once did.
I believe that the phrase "rule of thumb" originates from the old common law rule that you could beat your wife, as long as you did not use an implement thicker than your thumb.
Hopefully, we've come a long way since then.
Posted by enaj, Thursday, 9 June 2005 3:18:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you Michael, your article was very thought-provoking.

Can anyone offer a working definition of domestic violence, or some kind of accurate statistics?
Posted by ruby, Thursday, 9 June 2005 3:54:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In such surveys it is deliberate policy to conceal the fact that with crime of all kinds, there are "ethnic" clusters - that is most of the crime is committed by a small group of offenders and in this case, there is a huge rate of domestic violence in Gay "families", but it would be 'discriminatory" to reveal this fact, so it is added on and the assumption is made by the Media that crime etc is randomly distributed - that we are all miserable sinners and so should not discriminate against the Crime Families. Keith
Posted by kthrex, Thursday, 9 June 2005 4:21:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ruby, here is a link to a list of 169 scholarly investigations: 133 empirical studies and 36 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners:
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

The reason why the feminazis still rely on the dated 1996 ABS Safety of Women Survey commissioned and controlled by the Office for the Status of Women, is because it was results driven research that misrepresents dynamics and extent of domestic violence in the community as revealed by more scholarly and scientific studies on the issue. This helps to sustain a burgeoning domestic violence industry in which there are many women on fat salaries.

You'll will notice that the mob promoting hysteria over domestic violence never seeks to have courts publish a proper breakdown of domestic violence orders to show where there have been findings of actual domestic violence committed, what the genders are in respect to perpetrators and victims. Most court jurisdictions are shy about revealing domestic violence figures and trends.

My understanding is that there are high levels of domestic violence between lesbians and that children are more likely to experience domestic violence from their mothers than fathers.
Posted by Ros, Thursday, 9 June 2005 4:29:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Enaj,
I am not in the least surprised that you have been assigned to some type of domestic violence public education campaign, when you unquestionably believe myths such as the one about the “rule of thumb”. The idea that a man could beat his wife with something thinner than the width of his thumb has been investigated by numerous people, and proven to be no more than a feminist myth.

Eg
“The expression rule of thumb has been recorded since 1692 and probably wasn’t new then. It meant then what it means now—some method or procedure that comes from practice or experience, without any formal basis. “http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-rul1.htm

"So the "rule" referred to in "rule of thumb" isn't an edict so much as a measurement. Evan Morris, known in some circles as the Word Detective, concurs. He goes on to cast aspersions on the mythic sexist derivation, stating: "So I guess the first 'rule of thumb' in these cases is 'Check your sources, lest they be hokum.'"http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20030411.html

“It is often claimed that the term originally referred to the maximum size of a stick with which it was permissible for a man to beat his wife. This claim has been debunked, for instance by Christina Hoff Sommers in her book Who Stole Feminism? (1994 ISBN 0684801566). In particular Sommers notes that there is no mention of this in the legal commentaries of William Blackstone. “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thumb

However the “rule of thumb” myth is a very good example of how feminist myth so easily establishes itself, (similar to “one in four”), and how so many people are willing to believe it without a second thought.

So this is where domestic violence campaigns are presently at. These campaigns are now a mixture of myth, propaganda, brainwashing, biased research, anecdotal evidence and of course continuous attempts to demonise males as much as possible.

We’ve certainly come along way in Social Science.
Posted by Timkins, Thursday, 9 June 2005 9:16:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
katrina, I appreciate your point about the lack of focus on non-physical DV and at the same time see some benefit in seperating the two.

Physical DV is a lot easier to draw a line around and say "NO". Any hitting (apart from the mutual consent type and that thread would be on a different web site I think) in an adult relationship is not OK. Things like nagging, prying, control and a lot of the other aspects of emotional/psychological abuse are more an issue of degree. It is OK to ask a partner to empty the rubbish bin, doing so over and over is not. Withholding sex in a monogamous relationship because your partner does not want to take on a bigger mortgage - OK or not?

I saw Russell Crowe talking about his wifes need to know where he is and who he is with every day (on the Letterman interview). Is her insistance on knowing that stuff DV? It certainly fits within the kind of descriptions I have seen some places. I can't call it either way for them but would not personally like to have a partner who exercised that level of suspicion in a relationship.

Non physical DV is not OK, it may even be more damaging in a lot of cases than the physical stuff but it is a lot harder to define in a meaningful manner and is much more situation dependant.

I have posted a quote from Qld Health previously which horrifies me and which I strongly suspect is a massive abuse of statistics. Anybody believe this combination of definition and statistic?

"DOMESTIC VIOLENCE is the physical, sexual, emotional or psychological abuse of trust and power between partners in a spousal relationship.

Most (85% to 98%) domestic violence is perpetrated by men against women." http://www.health.qld.gov.au/violence/domestic/default.asp
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 10 June 2005 9:04:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert you inserted this in your post:

"Most (85% to 98%) domestic violence is perpetrated by men against women." http://www.health.qld.gov.au/violence/domestic/default.asp

What readers should come to understand in respect to domestic violence is that the government has no compunction whatssoever, in exaggerating, telling lies and cherry picking research etc, for the purpose of misleading the public on this issue. This area of government is normally poorly taken care of, by femocrats who have very low ethics.

I noticed, on the referred to webpage, the only reference is to the dated 1996 ABS Womens Safety Survey which was a results driven exercise commissioned by the Office for the Status of Women. Once again, why is a dated survey relied upon. The answer is the mass of research, conducted in a more scholarly scientific manner, tells a different story which is closer to the truth.
Posted by Ros, Friday, 10 June 2005 10:23:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ros, I am hoping that the blatent nature of this particular combination of definition and "statistic" will wake some of the doubters up. The combination is in my view indefensible - does anybody really believe that men are responsible for up to 98% of all abuse including the various types of emotional abuse within spousal relationships? Yet we have a government funded web site publishing this kind of stuff. It is an eye opener as to how far some of the extremists are willing to go and the sad fact of a culture that lets them get away with it.

I wrote to Qld Health and complained early this year and to date have only recieved an acknowledgement of my complaint and no further correspondance. I have also passed my concerns onto the Morris enquiry ("Dr Death" etc) as they appear to be looking into issues of villification and the abuse of statistics within Qld Health.
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 10 June 2005 12:07:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RObert, enjoying the reasonable tone of your posts. I agree with the definition ""DOMESTIC VIOLENCE is the physical, sexual, emotional or psychological abuse of trust and power between partners in a spousal relationship"" and take your point in questioning whether the male perpetrated stats are accurate.

We still have this 'madonna/whore' view of women, when in fact women are just as human as men as just as capable of inflicting pain as we are capable of demonstrating any other so-called male characteristic.

I also appreciate your use of the word 'extremists' rather than terms such as 'feminazis' and 'femocrats' which are offensive and divisive to meaningful communication. Just because one is a feminist doesn't mean that one is out to rid the world of men - far from it.

Interesting about the 'rule of thumb' which timkins dismissed as a myth - my ex use to quote this and similar before thumping into me - he really believed he had a right to hit me if I disagreed with him. I imagine that just as many men believed this 'myth' as women and used it to justify their actions.

Having less physical strength, women are more likely to resort to psychological methods of control and manipulation rather than physical intimidation, however, both methods are used by both sexes. I wish it was possible to gain some accurate information regarding the extent of DV perpetrated by both sexes. I am suspicious of stats offered by the posters who use derogatory descriptions of feminists just as I am suspicious of those who use derogatory descriptions of men.

Are the facts being manipulated? The posts to this forum would indicate that this is true. So where do we go from here?
Posted by Ringtail, Saturday, 11 June 2005 7:44:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ringtail,
“Where do we go from here?”

Downhill I would think, if the biased surveys and draconian laws pertaining to domestic violence continue.

The domestic violence laws as presently established in states such as WA, TAS and probably in VIC in the future, are mostly based on biased and highly unethical surveys. However those laws will mean that someone can be removed from their home and their children based on allegations only, or put in jail with no bail granted unless they pass a Risk Assessment, but few people seem to know what is contained in these Risk Assessments.

This is not something out of a Kafka novel, but something that is very real and very much occurring in Australia. What it will likely mean in the future is the formation of more de facto relationships, as few males will be willing to risk their lives by getting married. The formation of often temporary de facto relationships has been the goal of feminists for many years, but the statistics of what generally occurs in de facto relationships is not often talked about by these same feminists.

So we are about to see the decline in society that will probably occur at an increasing rate.

A well known female ABC radio announcer recently said the following “I love Samuel Jackson, but I want to slap him”. If Samuel Jackson said the same about the female ABC radio announcer, he would obviously not have a career, but to my knowledge no female, (feminist or otherwise), has made a complaint about the ABC radio announcer. I think such things are now very representative of where feminism and the thinking of the modern woman is presently at
Posted by Timkins, Saturday, 11 June 2005 11:52:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would love to be able to hold some meaningful dialogue with you timkins, however with spurious statements like;

"The formation of often temporary de facto relationships has been the goal of feminists for many years, but the statistics of what generally occurs in de facto relationships is not often talked about by these same feminists"

I know that you will continue to push your agenda regardless of anything feminists like myself say. It is comments like the above that prompts posters to ask if you actually DO 'get out and meet people' much.

Having been married and bashed, single mother and successful and currently de facto and successful - I can only say that my experience does not match up with any of your anti feminist rant. My now teenage kids are confident and independent - I am proud of them both. BTW I have nothing against marriage - in fact I may choose to marry again some day.

I don't believe it is all downhill - with the amount of communication that we enter into these days, I believe we are experiencing painful growth and will eventually find that there is not one ideal solution for everyone - that is marriage will work for some and not others - it is not all a feminist plot. We will not be returning to the brief 50's ideal of nuclear family - I had that - married with 2 kids and I was beaten up both physically and psychologically.

So instead of blaming feminists for everything what are you doing to help other men (and women) who have suffered from DV?

I assist with a lot of volunteer work in addition to running my business - consequently I don't get much time for this forum so I like to make a point when I can.
Posted by Ringtail, Saturday, 11 June 2005 12:27:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I admit I have not read much of the study and statistical data your article contains. I don’t have time when I am working in a Women’s Shelter where 4 out of 4 women are victims of Domestic Violence. True the women we house are not always immediate victims but have found themselves homeless (often with children) because of drug, alcohol and/or mental health issues. It doesn’t take much exploratory work to find that these women did not find themselves in this life situation because they thought it a good career and could get “world to open like an oyster” to them. They were often introduced to drugs by their partners or were abused as children/young adults and chose to suppress the pain using drugs and then found themselves in dysfunctional relationships, some not recent but an “event far off in both time and in memory” but still the effects are there.
The money you mention that is poured into programs (particularly educational) are to educate the public so that when they see statistics pertaining to domestic violence they do not have images “of black eyes and bruises occurring on an appalling scale” but view it as including verbal, sexual and financial abuse. Obviously this money has been mis-spent on the closed minded. In an ideal world the legal system would be as supportive of women applying for intervention orders as you suggest. Current regulations are that women must ‘prove’ incidents of domestic violence and have at least 3 police reports against the perpetrator before the court will consider an order. Verbal abuse is not as easy to prove and takes a lot longer to heal. When a woman is granted an order the order goes out to the alleged perpetrator in the form of a summons. He is then given the opportunity to say why he does not believe the order should be in place. If he chooses to take the case to trial he can represent himself and therefore no cost is incurred
Posted by Erica, Saturday, 11 June 2005 1:05:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I find the example of two brothers fighting as family violence interesting, here the fight may be on an equal level but if not I am sure the law would step in to protect the weaker of the two. I agree that there are many men who are victims of domestic violence, but few are murdered by their partners in comparison to male to female homicides (sorry don’t know the stats I only watch the news and personally know 3 women murdered in the last 2 years), the rate of female to male rape is very low and few men attend the emergency room of the local hospital with injuries sustained from the assault (once again no stats just talk to people involved).
The saddest part of my job is when women enter the shelter with children in tow and one bag of belongings. More often than not the perpetrator gets to stay in the house with all the goods and the woman has to start again, she knows and we know that she is at high risk if she returns home and he leaves. Therefore more money is put into this social issue than many others and if money is denied then these victims (men and women) with children in tow are forced to live with the threat of injury daily.
Women who can afford independent private rental housing rarely access SAAP services so to claim that they are “encouraged to falsely claim they were fleeing family violence, or indeed what the nature of the "violence" was, so that they could receive priority treatment” is false and insulting of these families. They are homeless through no fault of their own, do they need to falsify a reason? Somehow they were made homeless and this sort of propaganda you are writing only re-victimises the homeless whether through DV or any other reason. Have you seen the car sticker for disabled parking ‘look at the sticker not the person’? I invite you put down your studies and statistics, surveys and pre-conceived ideas and spend some time with victims and their children.
Posted by Erica, Saturday, 11 June 2005 1:07:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ringtail,
You can try and find the data that shows that de facto relationships are generally beneficial to society and should be encouraged, because I haven’t been able to find it

Eg from http://www.family.org.au/update/2004/u20040502.htm

“The Birrell researchers talk about the "ominous divide" between children born in married-couple households and lone-parent households: "Those growing up in couple families have the advantage of both higher family income and the presence of two parents. Those raised in lone-parent families must cope with the disadvantage of low family income and the absence (at least in the household) of one parent (usually the father)." Sadly, most children in de facto families also fall into the higher risk category, with many more low-income fathers and unstable parental partnerships.

The "M" word remains a taboo topic among the bureaucrats and academics who determine social policy. “

I could only add to this by stating that many of these bureaucrats and academics often declare themselves as being feminist, but with de facto relationships also comes increased poverty, increased DV, increased child abuse, increased drug taking, increased STD etc.

However as stated previously, these de facto or temporary relationships will likely occur more often, as fewer males become willing to commit to a longer term marriage when so many of the laws including Family Law and domestic violence laws view males as being automatically guilty, until they can somehow prove themselves innocent.

Those laws are now in TAS and WA, and likely in VIC shortly.
Posted by Timkins, Saturday, 11 June 2005 2:15:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Michael and all previous posters:

I can find something of value in all postings. I can feel the hurt and I can feel the anger - from a range of viewpoints. This is good. It is not a black and white issue. There is far more grey.

I have had extensive professional experience regarding domestic violence of women - and interestingly - the majority was mental abuse perpetrated by males (I worked in community mental health [mental health nurse] NSW for 5 years).

On a personal level, for 13 years I was bashed by my ex alcoholic husband. As a mental health professional, my shame was profound. I thought that people would denigrate me because of my theoretical knowledge base - and they did. So I "hung in there". When finally the knife came out and I went to grab a knife to kill him in retaliation, I guess it was a blessing in disguise. A shot of insight. Off to the solicitor and over the border.

My legacy is panic anxiety. But I am able to help others - although I would NEVER work in the DV field as a specialty. I think that there are far too many "battered and bruised" women with unresolved issues working in the field.

And get this. The Family Law Court ordered me to pay him maintenance until he reached 65 years of age - on the grounds that he had a disability! He did not have a disability - he was the best con artist and psychopath of all time.

I do not hate men.

Cheers\Kay
Posted by kalweb, Saturday, 11 June 2005 7:01:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timkins
read the posts by women who have first hand experience of DV. Erica and Kalweb have very good points to make. They know what they are talking about, as do I.

When will you realise that a hyperlink doesn't prove anything? Your links are often to conservative/religious sites expounding a particular POV and are frequently anti female.

I know what happened to me. For example I couldn't even get a hair cut without being beaten up for daring to wear my hair too short! I still have the mental and physical scars from what I suffered. I know what I saw at the women's refuge - terrified and utterly demoralised women.

I currently have a successful de facto relationship and your anti female posts prove absolutely nothing. As I stated previously it is impossible to engage you in any meaningful discussion. Read RObert's posts - he has been through very difficult times yet he is still open to talk to women. Why aren't you?
Posted by Ringtail, Sunday, 12 June 2005 9:44:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh come on... all you women who claim to have experienced violence and intimidation at the hands of men are clearly part of a fiendish feminist plot and are therefore manipulating the statistics. If you were real women you'd just cop it sweet while realising that you obviously deserve to be treated that way - owing to your manipulative feminine wiles and outright recalcitrance.

And clearly the worst offenders are those women who squander money that is rightfully men's on such extravagances as women's shelters and children. Think of how many guns and Harley-Davidsons this wasted money could buy, or how many pubs and brothels it could build.

You feminazis should stop bashing men and just let us do what we want, just like we imagine that it used to be in the good old days.
Posted by garra, Sunday, 12 June 2005 10:16:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh lordy, lordy, Garra you have helped me see the light. I'm unlacing my blundstones and heading for the kitchen to beg my man to make an honest woman of me.

I promise to be good and obey my man because he always knows best - doesn't he?
Posted by Ringtail, Sunday, 12 June 2005 1:13:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ringtail
I thought the article was on domestic violence surveys, and the misrepresentation of the true situation of domestic violence in Australia. It was not on anecdotal evidence of domestic violence, as anecdotal evidence can be easily made up, and become a part of misrepresentation of the true situation of domestic violence in Australia.

However you don’t seem to like my reference links, so could you please supply a list of web-sites that I can reference.

And also a list of the domestic violence surveys that I should unquestioningly believe, so I will not have to look through a wide variety of data before I form my opinions.

And also a list of the non-anecdotal surveys that show that cohabitation or de facto relationships are generally best for society, and do not lead to increased rates of poverty, increased rates of domestic violence, increased rates of drug taking, increased rates of child abuse, increased rates of STD’s, increased rates of abortion etc.
Posted by Timkins, Monday, 13 June 2005 10:41:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timkins

I have better things to do than respond to your obsession with hyperlinks. I have had first hand experience and other posters have had first hand professional experience.

I have not denied the obfuscation of stats - rather I question where they are from and how they are used.

I will not debate you on YOUR terms.

This is an opinion forum - I have intelligence, experience and maturity and regularly contribute worthy comment.

If you are incapable of debate and so reliant on your hyperlinks to prove a point - then that is something I cannot help you with.

I find it highly pertinent that you and other extremists claim 50% of DV is perpetrated by women, yet in every other facet of society men contribute, overwhelmingly, to the bulk of violence in our world; be it from sports, to road rage, rape and criminal behaviour.

Most importantly, I would also like to point out that men have more to fear from other men than they will ever have to fear from women.

I don't deny that some women are quite capable of violence, I DO question the stats bandied about by male supremists whose agenda is the denial of equal opportunity for ALL people. Men still hold the balance of power in this world and are easily threatened by any change to that fact. The only women to achieve such power (Maggie Thatcher for example) have played by the men's rules and maintained the status quo.

I would happily engage you in effective discussion - but a clash of the hyperlinks is for juveniles with too much time on their hands.
Posted by Ringtail, Monday, 13 June 2005 11:25:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ringtail
“The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan.” http://fcit.coedu.usf.edu/holocaust/resource/document/DocPropa.htm

The above seems very much like the “one in four”, which is a phrase or slogan that has been repeated over and over by certain domestic violence organisations, and also by certain Social Scientists involved in domestic violence research.

Your use of shouting, your opinions that others should “get out more” or that they are “juvenile”, or “supremists” etc all constitute forms of abuse, or emotional manipulation, or emotional violence.

You are quite free to recommend the deletion of your own posts:- for your abuse and unsubstantiated and unproven comments towards others who have posted.
Posted by Timkins, Monday, 13 June 2005 12:56:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timkin,

Please don't feel that you have to respond to gutter level comments from aggressive personalities that get their kicks lurking forums and oppressing informed debate.

I have found that you supply a good range of references and I am aware of the research and commentary that confirms most of what you write about.

It is easy to supply a large range of research and expert opinion that expose a gender bias perception of DV. I lack time at the moment, and am reluctant to give it when rational debate is hijacked by personal attack.

Keep up the good effort
Posted by silversurfer, Monday, 13 June 2005 5:58:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You guys have to be joking - how on earth you can somehow try and twist the (obviously heartfelt but admirably restrained) words of a domestic violence victim into constituting some kind of equivalent abuse is beyond me.

Timkins wrote:

"all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan"

Yup. Certainly brings to mind the repetitive and excessive bleating of certain 'men's rights' advocates who infest these forums.

Get real, guys. It's men like you, who deny our overwhelming responsibility for the violence in our families, society and planet, that are the problem.

Please feel free to delete your own posts, which amount to little more than repetitive propaganda from the pathetic 'men's rights' lobby.
Posted by garra, Monday, 13 June 2005 6:24:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Garra,

You say: "It's men like you, who deny our overwhelming responsibility for the violence in our families"

So you want to take responsibility for men's violence in the community. Please do so, as I don't. I feel no responsibility whatsoever for other men's violence just as I don't feel obliged to take responsibility for women's violence. Since you appear to be guilt ridden over men's violence, I suggest you enrol in one of the feminist courses around that can help "you" with "your" violence problem. You will then eventually feel good about yourself. I'm already feeling good about myself having put you in your place.
Posted by Ros, Monday, 13 June 2005 6:57:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To all posters:

On June 9 2005 I suggested that this article would be as if a "red bag to a bull". I think my prediction was correct.

Children are the biggest suffers of domestic violence. All I hear and see on these postings is/are egocentric postings from adult males and females - each and all trying to verbally bash each other!
Posted by kalweb, Monday, 13 June 2005 8:01:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you Garra

It appears that certain posters love to dish it out but can't take it.

kalweb - if I find posters contributions juvenile and insidiously pushing a subversive line I will say so. I have suffered enough from domestic violence I will not tolerate further abuse from the extreme members of this forum.

To tell me how I should write my posts is abuse. To deny my experience is abuse.
Posted by Ringtail, Tuesday, 14 June 2005 7:10:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ringtail,
So now other posters are being subversive are they?. As well as that they have been labelled as being supremists, extreme, insidious, men’s rights activists, and they carry out excessive bleating, and they should “get out more”, “get real” etc.

Anecdotal evidence doesn’t mean much, as it can lead to misrepresentation of the true situation. For example, I used to live next-door to a family where one day I saw the mother whipping one of her children with a piece of broken clothesline wire. The same mother would tie her baby into the pram with a piece of rope when she went to the shops.

Now that family was of a particular ethnic group, and I could write clever propaganda and convince others that this family was representative of all families in that ethnic group, and I could even convince people that all family violence came from this one ethnic group, but all this would be based on anecdotal evidence, and people could justifiably complain about it.

A typical example of a current domestic violence research would be the latest research conducted by the Australian Domestic Violence Clearing House. The research is titled “Staying Home, Leaving Violence” at http://www.austdvclearinghouse.unsw.edu.au/PDF%20files/SHLV.pdf

“The aim of the research is to explore how women leaving a domestic violence
relationship could remain safely in their own homes with their children, with the
violent partner being removed.”

From this research, it makes a number of recommendations. However the research was based on interviews of 29 women only (and not also men who had been victims of domestic violence) and these women had been “nominated” by various organisation (instead of being randomly selected).

Anyone involved in responsible research would immediately have to regard this as being probable “advocacy research”, but that research is highly representative of domestic violence research presently being carried out, and any complaints about that type of taxpayer funded research are highly justifiable.
Posted by Timkins, Tuesday, 14 June 2005 10:50:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timkins:

You love to twist and manipulate the words of other posters, provide vague links to back up your claims and generally avoid actual discourse despite the efforts other posters such as Ringtail.

Fact:
"* In 2000-2001 Victorian Police received 21,622 reports of incidents of family violence. Of victims, 77% were women, while men made up 89% of perpetrators (Victoria Police, 2002).

* In 1998-99 there were 21,817 applications for Intervention Orders in Victorian Magistrates Courts. Of these applications, 70% involved women as the victims of domestic violence, and 78% involved men as alleged offenders. Victims of stalking made up 21% of victims (Department of Justice, 2000)."

Source: http://www.dvirc.org.au/resources/Statistics.htm

As Ringtail said this could turn into a war of hyperlinks - proving nothing.

The above are accurate statistics.

The issue argued by Michael Gray is that DV stats are being manipulated to obscure the true facts, well the above facts are true.

If anyone is doing a spin job on DV it is a rather small and frightened band of pro-male posters who relentlessly verbally bash anyone who dares to proclaim themself a feminist.
Posted by Trinity, Wednesday, 15 June 2005 9:43:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trinity,
“You love to twist and manipulate the words of other posters, provide vague links to back up your claims and generally avoid actual discourse despite the efforts other posters such as Ringtail.”

Is this a fact is it?

You have simply made a statement, but have provided no supporting evidence or examples. Just making statements or providing anecdotal evidence is not debate, it is simply making statements or providing anecdotal evidence. I try and supply supporting evidence to my statements, by linking to other sources, and I look at a wide variety of data and articles, so that I don’t become narrow minded or brainwashed. {NB. This may be coincidental, but I have noticed that if I make a negative comment about the male gender on OLO, there is no complaint}

However you don’t seem to like my reference links, so could you please supply a list of web-sites that I can reference. And also a list of the domestic violence surveys that I should unquestioningly believe, so I will not have to look through a wide variety of data before I form my opinions.

The “facts” about applications for domestic violence intervention orders can be viewed as being rather suspect. If someone does make an applications for a domestic violence intervention order, then a breakdown of the marriage or relationship will likely develop. In a way, the intervention order formalises the breakdown of the marriage or relationship.

However in the present system, 91% of child support payers are the fathers, while about 75% of non-custodial fathers will only see their children every second weekend or less, and about 30% not at all in the future. In such circumstances, few fathers will likely make an application for an intervention order, even if they are victims of domestic violence from their spouse, because the father has too much to loose.

The domestic violence intervention system is a useful system to have if you are not a father. (NB. I don't have a domestic violence intervention order against myself, if someone wants to view my opinions as being biased].
Posted by Timkins, Wednesday, 15 June 2005 10:34:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trinity,

You say: "The issue argued by Michael Gray is that DV stats are being manipulated to obscure the true facts, well the above facts are true."

No! I don't believe they are true. You refer to reporting of domestic violence to police. Sorry the police don't determine actual cases of domestic violence - the courts do. The police only have indications of "alleged" perpetrators of domestic violence. If you looked at those figures closely, you would find that there is double counting of the same individuals, reporting of fathers making minor infringements of the conditions of "ex parte" orders obtained on the basis of uncorroborated evidence, etc etc, rendering the police figure only useful for propaganda purposes.

Further, There are no public wife demonising campaigns funded through an Office for the Status of Men, to encourage men to report even trivial domestic violence incidents. What you also have failed to take into account is that what lack in comparative physical strength they can usually compensate by lying and misleading the police and court
Posted by Ros, Wednesday, 15 June 2005 10:40:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timkins wrote:

"all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan"

At least he practises what he preaches!
Posted by garra, Wednesday, 15 June 2005 10:43:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timkins/Ros clearly didn't read the link I posted.

If the sun was a feminist and I said it would rise tomorrow you guys would find a way to deny this.

As I and others have pointed out providing links proves nothing: either you dispute the facts because they do not fit your pro-male stance or you choose to ignore them completely. You really think that these reports of DV are all lies? Check out a womens refuge on a Saturday night.

The fact is men are generally more violent than women -this is not a figment of anyone's imagination.

All people (women and men) should take responsibility for their violent behaviour.

As a previous respondent asked, what are you doing to help victims of domestic violence instead of bleating how unfair everything is for men - take action, put your money where you mouth is (and other cliches). Stop blaming people for your problems.

BTW I don't give a toss whether Timkins has a restraining order against him or not - sounds very defensive is all.
Posted by Trinity, Wednesday, 15 June 2005 10:58:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trinity,
Thanks for the orders of what I have to do, (Eg “take action, put your money where you mouth is (and other cliches). Stop blaming people for your problems.” Etc)

However I’m not too sure what you mean by “take action”, or what “your problems” means. (ie. no elaboration provided)

To reduce domestic violence, reliable facts have to be first established, otherwise much money and resources can be misspent, and domestic violence will not be decreased. However those facts about domestic violence are now difficult to establish, as so much of it is highly suspect.

Getting data from women’s refuges becomes suspect, as they are women’s only refuges, with no males allowed, (and as I have pointed out earlier, it is unlikely that males would report domestic violence or seek intervention orders, because they have so much to loose). Getting data from domestic violence studies becomes suspect, because so many of those studies exclude males. For example:- the last study released by the Australian Domestic Violence Clearing House http://www.austdvclearinghouse.unsw.edu.au/PDF%20files/SHLV.pdf had a steering committee of 14, 13 of which were female. All the people interviewed in that study were female, and all the interviewers were female. Many domestic violence organisations are made up entirely of females, such as WesNet (http://www.wesnet.org.au/) which acts as an umbrella type organisation for other domestic violence organisations, but will only regard domestic violence as being “gender” violence, and not relationship violence, and it is an organisation with no male representation.

So with such a predominance of females within the domestic violence industry, it is no wonder that the data is so often biased against males, and relies heavily on propaganda slogans that are repeated over and over such as “90% of domestic violence perpetrators are male”, or “one in four women will be the victims of domestic violence” etc.
Posted by Timkins, Wednesday, 15 June 2005 11:56:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There's an old statistical joke that goes like this:

One in four men are misogynists at some point in their lifetime...

I think one's name is Michael Gray.
Posted by ande, Wednesday, 15 June 2005 1:24:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Double standards my little misogynist, Timkins. You ordered me about but you don't like it when Trinity tells you to shut your mouth and actually do something positive. Boo Hoo.

This is what real men are doing:

'Pro-feminist men are men who are actively supportive of feminism and of efforts t o bring about gender justice and equality. Some pro-feminist men are involved in political activism. One of the most common areas of involvement is men's violence, and there are men's groups in Australia, the US , Canada, Europe and elsewhere who have this as their focus. Pro-feminist men do anti-violence work with boys and young men in schools, offer sexual harassment workshops in workplaces, run community education campaigns, and counsel male perpetrators of violence, just to name a few common activities. Pro-feminist men also are involved in men's health, activism on pornography, academic research on masculinity, the development of gender equity curricula in schools, and many other areas. This work is sometimes in collaboration with feminists and women's services (such as domestic violence and rape crisis centres).

Other pro-feminist men are not active in public campaigns. Nevertheless, their commitment to pro-feminism takes the form of trying to live in egalitarian and respectful ways in their daily lives - at home, at work and on the street.'

http://onemansweb.org/jan/men/pro-feminist.htm

BTW, in all your rant about how evil feminists are going to rid the world of men, and how you want to see a future of 'artificial wombs' - nearly choked when I read that one - you have omitted or forgotten one important fact. Bet you can't even think of what that is.
Posted by Ringtail, Wednesday, 15 June 2005 5:02:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
l doubt that any discussions or statistics about domestic violence actually have anything to do with violence and a real concern for addressing and reversing its causes. Its is a euphemism for gender politics and 'men this/women that' venting of deep personal frustrations that men and women have with each other.

The posts so far are littered with this type of thinly vieled vitriol.

If the source of the studies are skewed by women then its called feminazi propaganda. If a man points this out he is a misogonist, which l find tediously predictable, boardering on funny. Misogony and misandry is a PATHOLOGICAL HATE of a particular gender. How one can be characterised as pathalogically hateful for challenging a perspective is beyond the abilities of my simple mind. l suspect that the world may be full of misanthropes. Name calling doesn't work on people who can think and those that resort to it lose any remnants of credibility to which they cling.

This discussion seems to be further pushing of the gender divide. These sorts of discussions are about formenting gender inspired division and it is quite effective in its objective.

l am a man and l am getting very weary of the whole 'woman good / man bad' paradigm of modern life. So much so that l find it easier to disengage and avoid situations that will potentially cast me in that light or have a capacity for exploiting me in view of that perception. Staying sane and actually liking myself is more important to me than these silly gender political debates. Although they do make for entertaining distraction in the spirit of snacking on junk food occassionaly.

l suspect that the majority see statistcs and politics for what they are, namely tools of manipulation. After a while we stop listening to the boys and girls who make careers out of crying wolf and eventually all that they have left to do is... cry.
Posted by trade215, Wednesday, 15 June 2005 5:25:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trade215

I'm sorry if you think I'm some kind of misandrist - I didn't think that I was conveying that. I just am utterly appalled at some of the absurdities regarding women that I read in this forum. I also will not be dictated to as certain posters have tried to do.

If I assert myself I'm regarded as a man-hater and yet, if I don't say anything, then there is no point in me participating in this forum.

On the subject of manipulation, distortion of stats and diversion, there are posters (I'm not sure if they are all male) who have displayed a great deal of skill in obfuscation thus proving Gray's point in ways I don't think he intended. These posters appear to want a return to man = breadwinner, wife = housekeeper. As a successful and independent business woman I find the idea of the man as lord and master utterly repugnant.

I asked Timkins what he has forgotten in all this vitriol and I'll ask you, trade, if you can think of the most important thing about men and women that has not thus far been mentioned?
Posted by Ringtail, Wednesday, 15 June 2005 5:46:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ringtail, thanks for your kind words. I hope I am not about to blow it :( . Before I proceed can I make it clear that I recognise and sympathise with you for the violence you and others have suffered. It is inexcusable.

Where to from here. I'd like to see a removal of gender from a lot of the family violence material. Lets condem all family violence and make it clear that it is never acceptable.

I'm one of those "extremists" who can see the possibility that family violence may not actually be divided on a gender basis. Once you see how the stats are being misused and look at some of the alternative info there is plenty to support the possibility. Family violence is difference to community violence.

For everybody.
Timkins appears to be copping a caning for using links to reports and stats. Whilst I don't share his love of christian sites I do believe that in the current topic stats are very relevant. Anecdotal evidence does not cut it when you are talking about the misuse of stats. Working at a womens shelter will not tell you about the men who suffer from DV nor will it give you a realistic impression of the percentage of families where women are abused. It will show you the pain of a proportion of victims.

I've previously posted links and excepts from what I hope are independent sources (abused child trust, child abuse clearing house, etc) dealing with rates of child abuse as well as some info from a study into the rates of DV. No-body has ever come back with any attempt to show the material was flawed or biased. Likewise I have refered to a book by feminist author "Patricia Pearson". Again no attempt to deny the validity of the material. At the same time posters continue to claim that DV and child abuse are overwhelmingly committed by men.

Anybody want the links again and then try and show where the material is flawed (apart from disagreeing with your perceptions)?
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 15 June 2005 6:37:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ringtail,

the most important thing between men, women and humanity, is love and respect. Mutually inclusive and one cannot exist without the other (l think that may be a tautology ).

However, within the context of the article, l think that focus may be an attempt to change the subject. That's ok by me, afterall its what l did in my previous post.

Your view about being independent is, in my experience, quite a rarity amongst women (and not that common amongst men either). Its usually just hype.

If l can find a woman who is happy to be the bread winner, have a child and ALLOW me to stay home and raise that child, whilst l run my home based business (its the type of business that can withstand many interruptions), then l certainly won't let her pass me by without a considerable effort on my part.

:) trade
Posted by trade215, Wednesday, 15 June 2005 8:08:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Feminism Vs Science and the Law

There is much confusion about whom to believe in the debate about spousal violence. On one side we have gender activists who rely on law enforcement statistics. On the other side we have social scientists who rely on scientifically structured studies.

Unfortunately, the results of scientific studies do not receive media attention. America’s press is seemingly more interested in political correctness than scientific accuracy. Therefore, the public perception, and the perception of many well-intentioned domestic violence activists, is radically skewed away from the more balanced perception of social scientists.

Here is a comment on the subject from a judge who asked for our report.

Dear Revs. Sewell

Thanks for the interesting information. I am a judge in xxxxx who regularly hears requests for domestic violence orders of protection. The DV issue has been politicized big time in our area. We judges are ordered to attend "consciousness raising" seminars where we are harangued by feminist "experts". Supervising judges have been courted and won over, and now we have annual breakfasts honoring judges who cooperate with the feminist "agenda".

As a former prosecutor and divorce lawyer I know that the best deterrent to violence by human beings is arrest, prosecution and appropriate consequences. With well-prepared cases, vigorous prosecution, and no nonsense consequences the cycle of abuse can be broken, no matter who the abuser is. Humans become habitual abusers because they get away with it. It is impossible to make progress in reducing domestic violence until we recognize that women are violent.

As a member of an advisory committee for the local shelter I was shocked at the attitudes of the ladies who ran the center: The ONLY solution championed by the shelter was to get free from that big bad male. The committee expressed concern about the underlying anti-male bias which even showed up in the name of the shelter and recommended that the name be changed to The Center for Victims of Abuse - rather than Women’s Strength.

....

Judge xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx
Posted by Ros, Wednesday, 15 June 2005 9:35:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ringtail,
You have told me what I should do (eg. “shut your mouth” and “do something positive”), and you have also labelled me a “little misogynist”, and inferred that I am not a “real” man. That goes along with calling me “juvenile” “subversive”, “extremist” etc. This is verbal abuse, and if this was a domestic situation, it could be classified as domestic violence.

You were not ordered to do anything, but because you have not liked my previous reference links, I asked you to provide links that I should reference, and also said please:- (eg .”so could you please supply a list of web-sites that I can reference.”)

Robert,
From the article at http://ssl.capwiz.com/usatoday/bio/userletter/?letter_id=340501246&content_dir=y

"usually judges are not required to make a finding of domestic violence in
civil protection order cases."In other words, judges saddle fathers with restraining orders
on the wife's say-so without any investigation as to whether it is true or false.

This "game" is based on the presumption (popularized by VAWA and
the domestic-violence lobby) that fathers are inherently guilty and dangerous.”

The domestic violence order helps ensure the mother will get custody of the children, plus more of the property settlement, but there need not be any physical evidence provided that domestic violence has actually occurred. It appears the same situation is quite common in Australia also, although less reported.

I would think that the rates of domestic violence are exaggerated, but where it occurs it should be regarded as relationship violence, and in some cases associated with mental illness. Once domestic violence is regarded as “gendered” violence, all types of bias and discrimination can be incorporated.

However organisations such as the taxpayer funded Australian Domestic Violence Clearing House (http://www.austdvclearinghouse.unsw.edu.au/) are filled with people who regard domestic violence as being “gendered” violence, and also filled with people who carry out highly biased and unethical research studies. It is not surprising that their recent studies will often refer to previous studies that are over a decade old, but will routinely ignore more recent studies, such as recent studies into de facto relationships, child abuse etc.
Posted by Timkins, Thursday, 16 June 2005 10:51:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trade215

Really appreciated your response. Yes, love and respect are important sentiments, however I was thinking of something far more fundamental and basic. The one thing that grinds men and women together and tears us apart – luscious, libidinous lust. Our basic physical attraction for each other. Our fundamental need for each other has perpetuated the species homo sapiens and will continue to do so. So much for the separatists.

As little as ten years ago we would not have been discussing issues like DV with strangers from a safe distance as in this forum. True, things can get heated but the important thing is we are communicating like never before – this can only be a good thing. I don’t let the extremists get to me. They don’t know me. I really enjoy the variety of perspectives that dialogue with people like yourself has given me.

Your comment about dependant women; there are a lot more women like me who are self-reliant (maybe you have been seeing the wrong women ;-)). I am fiercely independent and for good reason. If my current partner leaves me, I still have my own home, my own source of income – I can stand on my own two feet no matter what happens.

An antidote to DV is financial independence – women are often trapped and at the mercy of their partner if they are not working and have children. Parents male and female should not be dependent on their partners for every little thing – such situations are too easy to exploit by the control freaks of this world.

Cheers
Posted by Ringtail, Thursday, 16 June 2005 5:21:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ringtail and others

I have been sitting quietly reading the posts and "listening" to the emotion that this article has generated. I have not responded recently for fear of "ad hom ... " criticism that has been levelled at me in the past in another article post (on an equally emotive subject). I thought it best to keep my mouth shut and try to critically reflect upon different viewpoints. I have done this. I acknowledge all viewpoints - no matter how over the top they may seem to me at times.

I would like to be concrete for a while. I think the notion of domestic violence is filled with stereotyping, vis a vis: heterosexual marriage, subservient female, working class, poverty line, and some children. Surely we all know that is not true.

I think some new definitions need to come into play (I am not saying I have them). Domestic = ? in the home, around the family home. Violence usually connotes some form of physical aggression. The notion that there is DV in this room is rather over the top for me - as some posters have suggested. Clearly, there is no doubt that there is evidence of verbal abuse between posters - which in itself says a lot about the posters and the emotive aspects of this subject.

For me it is not a gender issue. I just like people. And yes, I have been a victim of violence perpetrated by ex husband of 13 years. I was the breadwinner. The Family Law Court has me paying him maintenance until he is 65 years of age.

I hold both feminist and traditional values - and I am definitely not a man hater - far from it.

I think we need to examine the notion of "abuse" as opposed to violence, for example: elder abuse. I think if we do this - then the male versus female battering debate might take on a different light. Just a thought.

Cheers
Kay
Posted by kalweb, Thursday, 16 June 2005 6:05:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timkins, I largely agree with your comments in the recent post. There are certainly some governments stats out there which support the view that family violence may not be inherently genderised (maybe it is in some cultural groupings). In particular child abuse and child death stats (which I guess are more difficult to doctor) paint a very clear picture that child abuse and neglect is not genderised overall (some categories are eg fathers rarely kill their own kids as a consequence of mental illness). I suspect that rates of DV have more to do with social and cultural issues rather than chromozones.

I still think you don't get what the honest feminists are about. Stop for a bit and listen to what Ringtail and others are saying. They are intelligent caring people who accept the responsibilities of adulthood. Lumping all feminists in the same basket does not help your cause. The same kind of issues exist for the mens movement, there are extremists who want women back in their place and who dream of a world where men have special plivilige. Men who are unwilling to take any kind of financial responsibility for their children. I certainly don't support those male biggots just as I don't see many of the feminists on this site supporting the man haters. Give understanding a try, it can be fun.
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 16 June 2005 6:10:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RObert

I don’t think you’re an extremist – we may disagree but you aren’t rude, condescending or deliberately antagonistic. You don’t advocate a male supremist POV – eg promoting the use of artificial wombs and fathers-only parenting. Your posts are thoughtful and presented in a mature rather than hysterical fashion.

I understand your questioning of the predominance of male DV – I was shell-shocked the first time my ex struck me – I thought it was my fault. It was a long time before I understood that his violence was his problem.

I surmise from your posts that you are essentially a gentle soul – this makes you an easy target for someone who is manipulative and controlling. I hope you can move on from what your ex did to you. It is anecdotes like these that prove their value. Many a scientific study commenced with anecdotal evidence.

I can’t find any stats that show women as being as physically violent as men – nor does my life experience support this. However, the worst boss I ever had was a woman – a true psychopath; manipulative and remorseless. I believe that there are many women who use psychological methods of abuse and control as do men. As to numbers I have no idea – data on psychological abuse is very difficult to obtain – on both sexes.

I have provided a couple of links you may find informative. One is dry data but very comprehensive and the other is an article from the Guardian about male victims.

“Domestic violence is an issue which many Australians would prefer not to think or talk about” http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/vt/vt2-text.html#5

“ we believe society discriminates against men in the field of domestic violence. They need just as much help as women to come to terms with domestic violence and rebuild their lives.”

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1101674,00.html

I would also like to reiterate that men are more likely to be victims of violence from other men than they are from women.

Finally, forums like this are an important part of the solution – we can talk at a safe distance!
Posted by Ringtail, Thursday, 16 June 2005 6:14:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Excellent posts kalweb, robert and ringtail. This topic really gets the emotions running high. I don't know too many people who haven't experienced some form of abuse/intimidation or even violence - it appears to be the nature of our species.

RObert your plea to Timkins will fall on deaf ears - there is not a single thread he has posted on this forum which indicates that he has any love or respect for women. He will deny this. But he never ever reponds to female posters when they (rarely) agree with him. And he only responds politely to male posters such as yourself. He is not about working with women, only against them. If you feel like bashing your brains about just read through all his posts - you'll see what I mean.
Posted by Trinity, Thursday, 16 June 2005 6:27:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trinity,
Thanks for the unsubstantiated inferences and innuendo. It is also a form of abuse.

However the topic is on bias in domestic violence studies, and there is much evidence to say that there is.

The Australian Domestic Violence Clearing House contains most of the recent studies into domestic violence in Australia. Almost all studies will only consider domestic violence carried out by men on women or children, and not domestic violence carried out by women on men or children. That is bias straight out, as it is like carrying out studies on traffic accidents, but only considering traffic accidents involving trucks or buses, and not cars also.

When such domestic violence studies are continuously produced, it eventually leads to discrimination, but unfortunately I have not noticed one feminist organisation that has come out and publicly opposed such biased studies.

I reach my own conclusions regards that.
Posted by Timkins, Thursday, 16 June 2005 11:38:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some forum contributors have suggested that there is little research on male victims. There is actually quite a bit, and some great papers that have addressed why the DV industry will continue to fail.

I can only present a few at a time - for those who are interested…

Jodie Leonard, was a final year law student when she won second place in an international award for research into victimology in 2003.

Her paper "THE HIDDEN VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE" can be downloaded at: www.victimology.co.za/new%20papers/leonard.pdf

Her paper addresses male victims and female perpetrators.
Jodie is now doing an honours degree on the topic.

Jodie Leonard said statistics on male victims of domestic violence ranged widely. For example, a 1994 University of Western Australia Crime Research Centre study found men made up nearly nine per cent of victims. Meanwhile a book 'The New Science of Intimate Relationships', by NZ academic Garth Fletcher, said males made up 50 per cent of victims, based on 70 studies worldwide

… One man suffered daily to weekly abuse, psychological and physical, including being punched and kicked, for eight years from his wife.

"Most of the men said the abuse continued once they separated or divorced because of the need to have contact with their ex-partners in order to see their children," she said.

Several reforms are recommended to improve the situation, including changing negative community attitudes through public education, and establishing support services similar to those available for women. They also expressed a need simply to be believed and treated favourably by the criminal justice system and support services.

I personally think that it is pointless and divisive to fix a blanket rate of male versus female DV. Throughout the research on DV the figures vary considerably, depending on the location, target issue, and the gender bias inherent in the research methodology. What is significant, is that our culture has swallowed the 'men are pathologically violent' message without critical analysis of the dissenting research, and has conformed to a politically driven hysteria that will never help to end DV.

More papers to come …
Posted by silversurfer, Friday, 17 June 2005 8:39:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Papers by sociologists about failed DV policies.

"Domestic Violence Policies: Where Did We Go Wrong?"
Sotirios Sarantakos, Associate Prof. of Sociology, Charles Sturt University.

Download: www.nuancejournal.com.au/documents/three/saran2.pdf

Also by Ann Lewis and Dr Sotirios Sarantakos,

"Domestic Violence and the Male Victim"
download from the UWS at: http://menshealth.uws.edu.au/publications.html

The MHIRC site has other papers on the issue of DV.

Sarantakos says,

"It is imperative that we accept the fact that not only men but also women can be violent and abusive. Admitting the presence of abusive females does not negate the presence of abusive males; and caring for the victims of wife abuse does not imply that the victims of husband abuse should be neglected.

Hence, it is important that we integrate our efforts to combat DV by joining efforts and by focusing on the family as a whole, rather than by resorting to divisive and vindictive means. It is imperative that we continue to express a serious concern for and commitment to abused persons, regardless of their gender, age or background. Policies must be based on equity and justice, on understanding and compassion, on empirical evidence and scientific truth, and on a full understanding of the nature of the problem. It is important that we set aside vested interests, 'political correctness', personal ideologies and gender bias, and realise that the only remedy to domestic violence will be achieved when policy makers rest their judgment on empirical evidence, and are committed to the truth and to healthy family relationships. Public concern must shift its focus from the protection of the female victims and feminist interests to the protection of all victims and of all families.

We should be cognisant of the fact that, as the former Governor General of Australia, Bill Hayden, noted in his opening speech to the Second National Conference on Violence of 1993, "to see violence in the home ... as a war against women is to distort reality. Men too are victims. Women too are perpetrators... Neither sex has a monopoly of vice or virtue" (Hawes, 1993). This is a true reflection of reality in this country."
Posted by silversurfer, Friday, 17 June 2005 8:53:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
timkins said

" Trinity,
Thanks for the unsubstantiated inferences and innuendo. It is also a form of abuse."

you poor man, are all these nasty women ganging up on you?

are you seriously placing someones differing opinion on the same level as the physical and psycological abuse that some of the women in this forum have experienced?

i realise this is not the most constructive post and you may well take this as abuse.

but get some perspective man. this is not a competition to find out who has been abused the most, because whether its 1 in 4 or 1 in 3.142.... its still terrible.
Posted by its not easy being, Friday, 17 June 2005 1:31:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As per the English case of Davis v Johnson [1979] AC 264 at 270-271, Lord Denning (quoting the jurist Blackstone)discusses the common law 'rule of thumb', that morally obliged and legally legitimised the use of force for 'moderate correction' by a husband against all other members of the household. In effect, it was a leftover from the Roman Law which described the 'pater familias' as the juridical head of the household, entitling the father to use force against his family, to take their property for his own use, and to convert them into property by selling them into slavery.

I hope that clears things up.

I don't know about this 'one in four' business - but in my experience as a 28 y/o single mother of two who has lived with violence from the womb right through to adult life, it never ceases to amaze me that whenever victims are willing to break the silence and talk about the violence perpetrated against them, there are always plenty of others who are prepared to claim its all hogwash (as well as those who claim it was their fault to begin with - now where have I heard that before?)

Regardless, when my mother was being kicked and punched around the kitchen and being told that she was a stupid s@#t because the lamb chops weren't cooked through, it was not the done thing to talk about being victimised at home by people that love you, let alone talking about family violence in the wider community.

Isn't it great that women and men can now talk this issue through, because, afterall, those who forget the past, are condemned to repeat it.
Posted by Ashley, Friday, 17 June 2005 1:31:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Its not easy being,
Thankyou for your unsubstantiated abuse and name calling (Eg “you poor man” etc)

Your order that I should “get some perspective man” is interesting, and also fundamental as to whether or not there is bias incorporated into current domestic violence surveys (which is the topic we are suppossed to be discussing). I have previously given evidence in posts that there most likely is bias, as well as anecdotal evidence (which has minimal place in scientific surveys), advocacy research, propaganda etc.

There is a considerable selection of articles and studies on domestic violence at http://www.dvmen.org/dv-186.htm#lauritsen if you wish to establish greater perspective.
Posted by Timkins, Friday, 17 June 2005 2:07:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Forgive me for introducing the real world into the fantasies of the 'men as domestic violence victims' activists, but I don't suppose any of them heard today's news item about the bloke in Newcastle last night who stabbed his ex-partner and her father to death, and also stabbed his daughter and ex-partner's mother, who remain seriously injured in hospital?

The dead woman had apparently taken out an AVO against the alleged perpetrator in April.
Posted by garra, Friday, 17 June 2005 3:19:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Garra, the AVO probably directly contributed to the murders. AVO's are only paper so they offer no physical protection whatsoever. It would be interesting to look at the number of murders that have happened after the serving of an "ex parte" AVO on the person who has become the murderer.

In the Newcastle case the AVO probably separated the father from his child. It looks like the grandmother may have been interfering in the relationship. If you know anything about AVO's you will know that they are extremely easy to get on basis of uncorroborated oral evidence and in the absence of the alleged perpetrator. The process by which they are got has no regard for natural justice or due process. The corrupt secretive court practices currently in affect, have come about from hysteria from the feminist lobby pushing propaganda on domestic violence. Their primary purpose is to breakup relationships not to try and assist the parties.
Posted by Ros, Friday, 17 June 2005 4:12:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Garra,

It is always tragic when these horrific events occur. But is it domestic violence or something else? Did the woman who shot dead her husband, two children and then herself a couple of months ago commit domestic violence or had she left the realms of rational thinking? Did the woman last year who tried to run over her former partner with a 4 wheel drive and the pram containing his baby from a new relationship, commit domestic violence or was she driven by a jealous rage that had driven her into insanity.

We can't know the inner thought processes that cause such insane acts. But to lump everything under one heading of 'domestic violence' where murder is at one end of the spectrum and mere verbal argument at the other, to ignore the existence of victims because they aren't of the politically correct gender, to overlay it all with faked stats and to create legal 'solutions' e.g. DVOs which are wide open to abuse (and self-evidently do not protect from murder or serious violence) is not going to help society find a better way.

This is what I think Michael Gray’s article was really pointing to.

We need far better statistics and more realistic definitions e.g. “Physical violence” as opposed to “partner trauma” caused by non-physical behaviours (e.g. emotional abuse, controlling behaviours) and their existence needs to be properly established as opposed to merely alleged.

In NSW over the Xmas holidays a mere phone call is all that is required to get a DVO. In Tasmania, this now results in automatic jailing because of a presumption against bail. In WA a respondent cannot cross-examine his accuser and thus has to pay $000’s for a lawyer. When a relationship ends and love turns to hate, and women are routinely advised to take out DVOs to ensure they get the kids and the house etc, and the systems that are supposed to separate fact from fiction do not work because society has been lulled into believing that male perpetrators are under every bed, then it is a recipe for tragedy
Posted by Feenix, Saturday, 18 June 2005 8:15:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That has to be some of the most dangerously warped thinking I've seen expressed here. This guy has just gone and stabbed his ex-partner and her father to death, and seriously injured his daughter and her grandmother.

I know enough about AVOs to know that they are issued when one party (usually the woman) can demonstrate to a police officer that they have a plausible apprehension that the other party (usually the man) is going to be violent towards them.

Without wandering into Ros's fantasy land of spurious conjecture, I think that it is quite clear in this case that the AVO was definitely warranted.

Any thug who could do that to his family forfeits any 'rights' he may have had with respect to them, in my book.

Once again, get real.
Posted by garra, Saturday, 18 June 2005 8:19:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ros, I do not agree that RVO's are 'extremely easy' to obtain. Women/Men need at least 3 incidents of violence reported to police over the previous 6 months and this is not always possible. They are granted in the absence of the alleged perpetrator but as I said in an earlier posting a court appearance is offered for him/her to give thier side of the story. Rvo's are effective if the alleged perpetrator has a fear of the law, if not then they are only a peice of paper. I disagree strongly that RVO's are a tool of radical femininsts to separate families. They are there to protect women/men and children from harm and perhaps murder. Unfortunatley people who are at the other extreme of radical feminism pick out isolated cases of possible misuse and put genuine cases in jeopardy. There are a lot of myths around about us 'ball breaking feminazis' who work in shelters. I have yet to meet one.
Posted by Erica, Saturday, 18 June 2005 8:40:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Domestic Violence: Views of Queensland Magistrates

Belinda Carpenter, Sue Currie, Rachael Field

Paper presented to the Australian and New Zealand Society of Criminology Annual Conference, 2001.

Download: http://www.nuancejournal.com.au/documents/three/abstr3.html

A survey was conducted of Queensland Magistrates’ views on issues concerning domestic violence. This was a replication of the NSW Judicial Commission’s survey of magistrates conducted in 1999. Within both surveys, Magistrates were asked to engage with issues of domestic violence in general as well as specific issues relating to the administration and enforcement.

The conclusion states,
"The majority of magistrates in both Queensland and New South Wales agreed that sometimes, domestic violence matters are best worked out between the two parties. They were more equally divided on whether or not it takes two to tango.

A large majority of magistrates in both states believed that DV orders were used as a tactic in family court proceedings."

Yet, "the majority of magistrates in New South Wales and Queensland believed that domestic violence procedures were fair to men".

Seems like a contradiction?

I know from personal experience and from the stories of many men and women that solicitors often influence their clients to fabricate DV orders to gain advantage in custody disputes. This is common knowledge among lawyers - if you’re their client they tell you so. This appears to be verified by this research of Queensland Magistrates.

From memory, I read that the rate of DV jumps 80 times greater during divorce proceedings.

Has anyone had false DV orders taken against them.
Posted by silversurfer, Saturday, 18 June 2005 8:55:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Erica, you say inter alia that "Women/Men need at least 3 incidents of violence reported to police over the previous 6 months". I have been following this issue for a number of years and this is news to me. Can you tell me what jurisdiction that is in and point me to a court/police/ministry of justice or other authority website where it states that that is a condition for getting an AVO/RVO/DVO or whatever you call it in the state or territory where you reside?

Further you say: "They are granted in the absence of the "alleged" perpetrator but as I said in an earlier posting a court appearance is offered for him/her to give thier side of the story." This is not before the magistrate is it? Is not the court hearing where the "alleged" perpertrator is ordered to attend arranged so as to get him to agree to an extention of the "ex parte" order on the basis of making no admissions? If he fails to agree another hearing is arranged further down the track at which the court will confirm the order on the basis of "balance of probabilities"?
Posted by Ros, Saturday, 18 June 2005 9:16:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wow emotions running hot here. I can't believe those nasty feminazis abusing sweet helpless Timkins - he is never rude or provocative (I mean provocative in a non sexual sort of way, then again may be not).

Anyway I think I have a handle on what the situation is as follows:

1. Men are the innocent victims of domestic violence perpetrated by women who want divorce.

2. Women lie about domestic violence in order to get intervention orders.

3. The reason they (women) want intervention orders is so that they can force men to cough up mega amounts of maintenance.

4. Feminazis want men and marriage eliminated from the surface of the earth.

5. Men just want to be married to women who never ever question them or have the temerity to disagree with them.

6. Because of all the above this is why DV statistics obscure the true facts.
Posted by Xena, Saturday, 18 June 2005 1:05:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is my experience of the RVO procedure in SA. A person attends a local police station to apply request and RVO. They will be asked if there are any police reports, incidents of police attending the premises the DV is occurring. If there are no reports on the system they may just be told they do not have enough ‘evidence’ to apply. If a person wants to pursue even though the police do not believe she/he has enough for Court they can apply direct to the Magistrates Court at a cost of $150. If the police believe there is enough a statement will be taken and goes to the Magistrates Court. The Magistrate will read the statement and decide if there is ‘reason to believe that if the protection order is not granted violence may occur’ or may decide against granting it. If granted a Court date will be set for one week hence as an opportunity for the alleged perpetrator to give their side of the story and argue as to why the Order should not proceed. If the magistrate still believes the order should remain the matter can be put to trial. If the alleged perpetrator does not have a lawyer to represent them they have the opportunity to cross examine the other party themselves. The order is not enforceable until it has been served on the offender which can also be difficult for police and does not give the offender an opportunity to attend court if the week passes and yes it is before the Magistrate that granted it. And no it is not to get him to agree to an extension. If an extension is required it can be granted by the Magistrate without the offenders permission.
Posted by Erica, Saturday, 18 June 2005 2:01:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Xena,
Thankyou for your unsubstantiated name calling (eg “sweet helpless Timkins” etc)

It is noticed that certain people will continuously attempt to discredit myself individually, but present no real examples or attempt to substainate what they say. I thought this would be considered a form of domestic violence, if it was a domestic environment.

However the topic is on bias in domestic violence surveys. Do you have any evidence to say that they are not (without useing anecdotal evidence, stereotyping etc).
Posted by Timkins, Saturday, 18 June 2005 2:05:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timkins

Violence: Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing: crimes of violence. Source Macquarie Dictionary.

I would capitalise the word physical but then you would claim that it is shouting and therefore abuse.

You over react to any disagreement to your POV - I interpreted this as a cetain helplessness on your part as you find it so difficult to accept that others do not hold the same opinion as you.

You constantly denigrate female posters to this forum - yet complain if anyone (male or female) criticises male behaviour. These same posters have also criticised female behaviour - yet you deliberately ignore this.

You selectively respond to other posters often ignoring reasonable questions.

You manipulate statistics and provide often vague and questionable hyperlinks - this proves Michael Gray's argument - but not in the way he was trying to prove.

The fact that you react so aggresively to any disagreement to your POV indicates a lack of maturity hence Ringtail's description of you as being juvenile. That is not abuse it is an opinion derived from the nature of your posts.

Many posters here disagree with each other but still manage to pleasantly engage in discourse with one another.
Posted by Xena, Sunday, 19 June 2005 9:09:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
garra, you might also want to consider the woman who shot husband and kids in NSW a few months ago.

It's easy to look at isolated incidents and if you ignore the ones which don't suit your perceptions then the picture can look very bleak. Men women and children all suffer from DV regardless of what you want to believe. Women are more likley to be killed by a man than men by women but children are more likely to be killed by mum than dad. There are no clear cut answers. Continuing to deny the complexity of the problem does not help resolve it, instead some of the underlying problems are left in place.

Even if there were a significant gender differentiation in DV few would deny that some men suffer as a result of DV, why deny their pain and opportunity to stop it. It's much easier and healthier to speak out against all DV regardless of who does it.

Ringtail, thanks again for you comments. Very nicely said.

For the rest. I have enough agreement with Timkins (quite different interpretations of some issues though) that I have an interest in his role in discussions on this site. I'm guessing that he has been hurt more deeply by family law drama's than I have and that his approach is a reflection of that.
Posted by R0bert, Sunday, 19 June 2005 9:12:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Xena,
Thankyou for your generalised name calling and comments reagards myself (EG “you over react”, “you constantly denigrate”, “you selectively respond” etc)

However none of your comments provides even one specific example, so they are generalised, maligning comments, and if this was a domestic environment, it would be regarded as verbal abuse, which is now classified as a form of domestic violence.

The topic is not Timkins, but whether or not domestic violence statistics are biased. You have had made many comments about Timkins, but nothing to say that domestic violence surveys, (such as the 1996 ABS survey), are not biased.

[NB. You will find that the majority of my reference links are written by female authors, so I can hardly be biased against females]
Posted by Timkins, Sunday, 19 June 2005 10:36:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timkins

"Thankyou for your generalised name calling and comments reagards myself (EG “you over react”, “you constantly denigrate”, “you selectively respond” etc)"

This is not name calling this is an interpretation of your posts.

"[NB. You will find that the majority of my reference links are written by female authors, so I can hardly be biased against females]"

Women hold a diversity of opinions - to claim that you are not biased flies in the face of every denigrating thing you claim about feminists and women in general.

"The topic is not Timkins" No it is about debate and the criticism of your myopic view of DV and relentless denigration of women.

As proof of this I offer another quote from your post in 'Devaluing children in their best interests' as follows:

"Males pre-dominate in domestic violence - appears to be a myth" - Show me the stats on this one - not one of your vague and open to interpretation links. This statement reveals your true agenda.

I can show you the x-rays of my fractured skull, I can provide testimonies from many damaged women. I have provided government statistical summaries of DV perpetuated against women by men.

Now instead of bleating that you are being picked on whenever any one offers critical analysis of your dissertations, how about some substantive discussion?
Posted by Ringtail, Sunday, 19 June 2005 11:08:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ros this is a continuation of yesterdays post... RVO’s are usually granted for two years in SA but I have known some to be one month to life. It does not affect the access to children as Family Court Orders overrule Magistrates and permission for contact for the purposes of access arrangements but if harassment occurs during these calls a third party is requested and arranged and granted by the Family Court. RVO’s can also be varied to include contact only for access arrangements by the Magistrate in the District Court and/or contact can occur as long as there is no bullying or harassment. This allows couples to have counselling and family contact with the protection of the law. I know some time ago a current affairs program ran a story on how women were being encouraged to take out RVO’s as they would help her in Court. The only impact I have seen them have on Family Court is that mediation can take place in separate interview rooms.

Violence against anyone by anyone is not acceptable and find it interesting that such organisations as Amnesty International and World Council of Churches have 'Decade against Violence Against Women' on statistics that are not 'proven facts'. Please Timkins remove yourself from stats and hyperlinks for a little while and get out there.
Posted by Erica, Sunday, 19 June 2005 12:20:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ringtail,
Thankyou for your maligning comments regards my posts (eg “bleating”, “myopic view” etc). Also thankyou for your previous name calling (eg” juvenile”,” subversive” etc.)

I think you are trying to deny me voice, although I thought feminists were extremely adamant that people should have voice.

I have previously provided evidence in this discussion that many domestic violence studies are biased. For example the Domestic Violence Clearing House (which I have previously referred to) has the contract to gather data relating to domestic violence in Australia. However it is closely associated with organisations such as the Centre for Gender-Related Violence Studies at the UNSW.

So their belief is that domestic violence is “gendered violence”, and studies are conducted accordingly. These studies become very narrow and myopic, as they will often leave out many issues that can affect domestic violence, such as age, type of relationship, levels of poverty, mental and health issues (eg. stress, depression, adverse affects of menopause, drug abuse etc)

I have previously provided a link to a bibliography that has hundreds of studies and articles on domestic violence, and not all view domestic violence as being “gendered violence”. You might find some interesting reading there. When someone only looks at domestic violence as being “gendered violence”, it becomes a very narrow viewpoint, and can lead to a great deal of gender discrimination, and I am sure feminists would not want that type of discrimination.

Erica,
Thankyou for telling me to “get out there”. However no elaboration provided.

I am certainly not going to start knocking on neighbourhood doors, asking people if they have had any experiences of domestic violence. That would be gathering data from a very small sample of people, (on a nationwide basis), and much of it would be anecdotal data also. Neither would have any real place in reliable, representative surveys.
Posted by Timkins, Sunday, 19 June 2005 3:59:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To all Posters

I think that we would all probably all agree that any "rats 'n stats" can be manipulated, no matter what the issue.

I think that we would all probably agree that investigating anything in the affective domain is often frought with: biases, prejudices, stereotyping, xenophobia, value judgements, over valued ideas, feminist debate vs traditional debate.

There is no longer an intellectual debate regarding Michael Gray's assertion and the contents of his article. It has become a verbal slinging match between some of the major posters (players in a new scenario).

Extreme differences of opinion is not violence. It is about people who hold highly emotive experiences projecting their stuff onto others - even though the target has little or nothing to do with the poster's or the recipient's past or present life.

I stand by my previous postings on the issue.
Posted by kalweb, Sunday, 19 June 2005 5:19:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kalweb,
Most domestic violence research has become “feminist research” which is a unique type of research, that is taught in many feminist university courses.

This research is political, but not necessarily scientific. EG:- “The commitment to feminism as the underlying motivation to feminist research means that research and action can not be separated.” http://www.unb.ca/web/PAR-L/win/feminmethod.htm

For the most part, “feminist research” emphasises that women are oppressed by male patriarchy, so males are excluded from the research. The researcher is also encouraged to become a part of the research, and not remain neutral.

Now all this goes against most other types of research, which generally emphasise that the sample being studied should be representative of the population, and the researcher should remain neutral, so that the researcher does not influence the results.

The proof is in the pudding. The Australian Domestic Violence Clearing House now has a large collection of studies on domestic violence, nearly all of which exclude males, and nearly all of which have been influenced by the researcher who has not remained neutral during the research.

The end result is a large collection of highly biased and unreliable “junk science”, that has also cost the taxpayer a lot of money.
Posted by Timkins, Monday, 20 June 2005 10:40:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ringtail, I'm scaring myself by doing multiple posts containing hyperlinks. In regards to your comments about lack of evidence for the propostion that DV may not be especially gender related I will toss a link in to the study by Heady, Scott and De-Vauss which I have referenced previously. http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/dom/heady99.htm

To the best of my knowledge this is legit and as independant as research gets. Please feel free to let me know if you know otherwise as I have no love for biased material.

I would also recommend a read of Patricia Pearson's book "When She was Bad" which looks at female violence and the social issues around the reporting of it as well as the impacts on feminism of misrepresentation of female violence. To the best of my knowledge Patricia Pearson is a feminist so while some feminists may disagree with her the bias in her work should not be anti female.

You might also have a look at the child abuse and neglect stats I've referenced elsewhere.

I will have a look through the material you referenced in an earlier post as soon as practical.

Cheers
R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 20 June 2005 11:05:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timkins

Thanks for the reference. I found it interesting reading. I have studied feminism as a philosophy but I have not undertaken feminist research methodologies. I take on board the points that you are making in relation to feminist research.
Posted by kalweb, Monday, 20 June 2005 1:25:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Working with Violent Women

Copyright © 1997 by Erin Pizzey

Erin Pizzey was the founder of a women's shelter in Chiswick, England, the first modern battered women's shelter in the world. She found that of the first 100 women who came to her shelter, 62 were as or more violent than the partners they tried to escape from -- only to return to their partners time and again because of their addiction to pain and violence, violence that they persistently did their best to bring about. Over a period of ten years, Erin Pizzey became involved with about 5,000 women and their children who came through her shelter. She has written a number of books on domestic violence, one of which, Prone to Violence, addresses the issue of women's abuse and violence.
Posted by sparticusss, Monday, 20 June 2005 7:29:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ringtail, I’ve had a read of the articles you referred to in an earlier post. No significant issues with the MFCC stuff other than different views on the proportion of DV committed by men.

The AIC article is another matter. Most of the specific research appears too been conducted for “The Office of the Status of Women” so I am guessing that the inbuilt bias is justified on the basis that their concern is with women not men. A lot of the Govt bias in DV management appears to be justified on this basis.
- The report appears to work from the assumption that DV is seriously genderised and never seriously questions this assumption. Despite a reference to the Straus and Gelles work the idea that “within the family women are about as violent as men” is pretty much ignored for the rest of the report. The view that wife to husband violence is defensible is put along with the idea that women generally suffer far more serious injury (stats I have seen provide some support for the latter but also suggest that the gender divide for serious injury is one of degree not an overwhelming majority).
- Every example used where genders are specified involved male perpetrators and female victims. Even at 85% there should be some examples with male victims and female perpetrators.
- They continue to mix physical and non physical DV. Fine if the research is clear about this but it all looks pretty muddy. Is there any research which suggests that men an overwhelming proportion of non-physical DV?

Some other topics are missing, eg
. Where are the questions about withholding sex within a monogamous marriage to force an issue?

. Where are the questions about overspending to go with the questions about withholding money?

. Where are the questions about nagging?

. What about putting down a male partners dress sense (one for Di with her love of Safari Suits – friendly dig Di)?
etc

Please have a look at the Heady, Scott and De-Vauss study. Word limit.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 20 June 2005 7:48:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Darebin Domestic Violence Network, very much your typical

network, lists ALL of the following as signs of domestic violence.

• Do you feel like you are walking on eggshells?

• Are you told what to do, when to do it, what to wear?

• Do you have to account for your time?

• Are you forced to have sex when you don't want to?

• Are you made to feel scared?

• Are you hit, kicked or pushed around? Do you have things thrown at, or near you?
• Are you cut off from family and friends?

• Is your partner possessive or jealous?

• Does your partner control you and the money?

Typical examples of wife bashing? Think again.

- The average husband DOES feel as if he’s walking on eggshells every time he walks from the garden to the toilet with anything on his boots.

- The average husband is told what to do by his wife absolutely all the time. Including how to do things that she has no knowledge of. Something goes wrong and the average wife is promptly screaming at her husband “DO SOMETHING” That’s domestic violence! That’s husband bashing!

- The average husband has to account for every time he works back late. He’s routinely accused of infidelity even though he’s got the overtime money to prove otherwise.

- The average husband is hit, kicked, and pushed around. The shelters and the law list every angry shove, by a short tempered husband, as wife bashing. Is there a single female reader here who as NEVER, given her man an impatient shove? Yes! You are a husband basher!

- The average husband is cut off from family and friends. Her family is welcome in the home, his are not.

The only thing really known about husband bashing is that it is the only form of domestic violence which remains socially acceptable in large areas of the community.
Posted by sparticusss, Monday, 20 June 2005 9:04:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Erica,

There is no provision in SA DV legislation that there need be ' 3 police reports' in order for a woman to obtain a DVRO (AVO/DVO etc- or that she has to 'prove' domestic violence to the police before she is able to go before a Magistrate - as you have suggested. (In any event the role of police is to investigate or to assist - not to 'rule on evidence' - that is a judicial function only that is authorised by Parliament through the approval of statutory legislation.

You may have been mis-informed. There is a provision that SA police may assist in obtaining a DVRO (Domestic Violence Act 1994)

( http://www.parliament.sa.gov.au/Catalog/legislation/Acts/d/1994.22.un.htm ) by

helping to type up a 'statement of evidence', but their role goes no further than that.

As in all other jurisdictions, all that is really required is to go before a Magistrate, on an 'ex parte' basis and state reasons for apprehended fear (or to lie unequivocally, as the case may be).

The police may assist in obtaining an order by telephone but again their role is limited to identifying themselves as an officer and giving a badge number and reciting the allegations that have been made.

This provision is no doubt aimed at assisting women who live in remote localities where there is no ready access to a Magistrates Court.

Ultimately however, Magistrates are the only one’s legally authorised to grant an order.

As to the 'Family' Court (when it finally gets around to having the case listed for hearing some two years later) it most certainly does have it's thinking coloured by the existence of a DV order.

Sadly the FC too often presumes the violence as proven by the mere existence of the order whilst simultaneously failing to investigate whether the order was based on actual evidence presented to the Magistrates Court or whether the interim order was merely granted Ex-Parte and then subsequently signed up on a 'By Consent by Without Admissions' basis by the respondent.
Posted by Feenix, Monday, 20 June 2005 11:16:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Great posts everyone!

Thanks for reinforcing my views on DV. Seems there’s only one sure-fire way of avoiding it - and marriage aint it.

Has anyone ever wondered why children are dragged into witnessing seemingly staged bouts? Such as the ones that seem all about the quality or availability of dinner?

Picking a fight is easy. The look on her face, on his refusal to participate? Priceless!
Posted by Seeker, Tuesday, 21 June 2005 10:47:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
sparticusss, I hope the situation is not that bad for "the average husband".

My concern in this topic is with stats gathering which is very one sided. Stats which assume that issues impacting on women are important and at the same time ignore issues relevant to men.

I tend to think that many of the non-physical issues are situational. Concepts such as intent become relevant. The act of binding with another human being in a spousal relationship is not an easy one for most of us. It involves a complex rearrangement of boundaries, some surrender of autonomy (by both parties), a willingness to seek the well being of the other above your own etc. The mix will be different for each couple doing so and relect their own values, hopes, dreams and baggage. If the relationship survives the process will be ongoing as they learn about each other and themselves.

One parties actions can have a massive impact on the other and there is a legitimate place for behaviours which respect the other persons needs. There is some legitimacy to not wanting garden dirt trudged through the house (speaking as a keen gardener myself). There is a corresponding legitimacy to arranging things to make it as easy as possible for the gardener to access a toilet.

When needs become a control mechanism it becomes a form of abuse. Outside of that it is a necessary part of two people living together.

When one party insists on their own autonomy and refuses to respect the other party having any autonomy there is a problem.

I'm not sure how any outside body can determine the boundary between the realities of life and abuse for most of these issues. I really would like to see physical and non-physical abuse treated differently in the DV debate.

Physical DV is relatively easy to draw a line around identify. The other stuff needs serious thinking about the nature of spousal relationships and I suspect a lot of research.

People are different, staying together involves lots of give and take and love.
R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 21 June 2005 5:41:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spot on post RObert, have trekked in dirt myself being more interested in gardens than indoors. But that is all about learning to live together as you said.

Men practice the same psychological tactics as women - I most certainly felt like I was walking on eggshells when living with my ex - anything could set him off.

Have read your link - but am not convinced that women are as physically violent as men - just doesn't ring true (life experience, police stats, hospital stats etc) and also this physical violence doesn't manifest itself in female behaviour in other areas of life to the same extent as men - so why now?. Also your comments about nagging, criticism of appearance etc are tactics used by both sexes

However, (and I have said this before) I have no doubt that women indulge in psychological abuse as much as men. And men really do need understanding and support as much as women.

I also wish this forum hadn't become such a bun-fight about who is worse than the other. The way I see it both men and women are pretty flawed - I don't see where this blame game and manipulation of facts is getting us. It makes me sad that I can't express an opinion without being totally vilified and I have felt this alot from certain pro male posters.

Anyway, RObert thanks for your POV and to the others who work hard to understand and try to see other's POV's.
Posted by Ringtail, Tuesday, 21 June 2005 6:07:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey I might as well contribute another link - everybody else does, this discusses the myth of male violence.

Have a read

http://www.xyonline.net/Maleviolence.shtml

Cheers
Posted by Ringtail, Tuesday, 21 June 2005 6:11:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ringtail,
The Xyonline web-site has slogans such as “Riot, not Diet”, but this would encourage obesity, as well as anarchy.

I have read a number of articles on that web-site, but I couldn’t find anything positive being said about the male gender (other than “males must change their ways”), and I understand how the author is one of the very few males accepted or quoted by various Domestic Violence organisations, most of whom are made up entirely of females.

So Domestic Violence organisations and research has much more to do with male-hate and demonization of the male gender, than it has to do with actual domestic violence. Consider the following section of an interview, that came from a recent domestic violence study at http://www.austdvclearinghouse.unsw.edu.au/PDF%20files/SHLV.pdf

Interviewer: Did he have a weapon at all?
Marilyn: No just his fists.
Interviewer: That’s a weapon isn’t it?
Marilyn: Yeah, and their mouths are weapons, they’re out to hurt you and they’ll do it.

The interviewer came from UNSW, but the second question asked by the interviewer, (with “isn’t it” added onto the end), is an example of a leading question, which is supposed to be a "No, No" within research. So every male is now a potential domestic violence perpetrator, because they have fists and mouths.

Consider the following:-

Interviewer: Did she have a weapon at all?
Mark: No just her fists.
Interviewer: That’s a weapon isn’t it?
Mark: Yeah, and their mouths are weapons, they’re out to hurt you and they’ll do it.

Would the above interview ever take place. Highly unlikely, as nearly all domestic violence studies do not include males. However I have never heard of any feminists complain that so few males are incorporated into domestic violence studies, or even complain about the way domestic violence study interviews take place.
How odd.
Posted by Timkins, Wednesday, 22 June 2005 7:09:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ringtail, I'm going to head into some murky unsubstantiated waters waith this post and attempt to outline my thinking on some of the issues you have raised. Our struggle as human beings to live together is both a challenge and part of the wonder of who we are.

"Men practice the same psychological tactics as women."
- No proof to the contrary but I do have some suspicion that just as serious violence in the family may be tilted by men's physical strength this one may be tilted by women's strength in this area. Women may be better at this stuff than men.

"but am not convinced that women are as physically violent as men - just doesn't ring true (life experience, police stats, hospital stats etc) "
- I am of the view that the kind of issues we have been discussing are skewing the stats which create the perception of males committing the overwhelming majority of family violence. You might recall the Qld Health definition and stats I posted early in this discussion and how little relationship they bear to reality. You might also think about the experience of the MFCC in the Observer article in terms of threats to funding, abuse etc. That scenario appears to be pretty common. There appears to be substantial statistical evidence that the rates of DV (leaving out severity) are not significantly genderised and yet the Qld Health stuff fails to ring alarm bells for most people.

"also this physical violence doesn't manifest itself in female behaviour in other areas of life to the same extent as men "
- I suspect that this is a reflection of differing roles inside and outside the home for men throughout human history. Historically men have been the providers for and protectors of their families, there is some deep seated stuff there. Outside the family we have been expected to compete with others to provide for our families. Some of that stuff is still in social values and upbringing regardless of how much we try and move on from it.

Cheers
R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 22 June 2005 11:27:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The amount of research and report of DV gender neutrality is too great to ignore unless you have an agenda to do so...

Just another drop in the ocean of reports below;

"Women are at least as violent as men,
but the evidence everywhere is being dismissed or ignored"

http://www.travel-net.com/~retap/DV-1.htm

By Melanie Phillips
The Sunday Times, 24 October 1999
NEWS REVIEW
Posted by silversurfer, Wednesday, 22 June 2005 12:31:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The amount of research and reports that actual violence of all kinds (including but not limited to DV) is overwhelmingly perpetrated by men is too great to ignore unless you have an agenda to do so.

I think that those men who are obsessed with trying to prove the ludicrous assertion that men are victims of DV at anything like the levels experienced by women are victims of what is known in the research trade as 'confirmation bias'.

Timkins' avoidance of the content of the excellent article to which Ringtail directed us is a case in point.

For those who aren't suffering from confirmation bias or vagina envy, go to http://www.xyonline.net/Maleviolence.shtml for a sensible article on this subject. Not only is it clearly and reasonably argued, but it references real research articles from respectable sources that can be verified.
Posted by garra, Wednesday, 22 June 2005 1:04:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Garra, it is just possible that I am a victim of "conformational bias". I'm fairly confident that I’m not suffering from “vaginal envy” (much though I like themthe ones I prefer are attached to friendly women).

On the other hand it is remotely possible that you have a dose of "conformational bias". Stuff like that gets around on the trains in winter.

I’ve posted a number of links to resources which I believe to be as independent as exist in this debate. Are you aware of bias in the material referenced? From my perspective the authors appear to take pains to be impartial, the xyonline article interesting though it is appears to have made no attempt to seriously consider idea’s which don’t support the view that men are substantially more violent in the home than women.

It did not mention any of the reasons men might stay in a relationship with a violent partner. It did not consider any of the reasons why men might report DV less frequently than women. It did not consider the concept that harm does not only relate to ability but also to the willingness to do harm. Confirmational bias, you bet.

My reasons for being so concerned about this issue.
Firstly the impression that it impacts on peoples attitudes to reform in Family Law. Have a look at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3578. This kind of comment seems to be common in public debate when changes to family law are discussed. Regardless of what you want to believe about DV the substantiated child abuse and neglect stats are clear cut. Child abuse is relevant to specific individual’s and is not a reason to support maternal bias in family law.

Secondly and of less personal concern - I think the climate of fear being generated by the way this topic is handled is hurting relationships between men and women. Most men and women have little to fear from each other by way of serious physical harm. A small number of violent individuals should not set the tone for the rest of us.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 22 June 2005 5:59:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Garra,
Exactly, in that Xyonline article, Dr Flood argues that other social scientists are wrong in their conclusions regards domestic violence. The reason for this is that domestic violence studies are carried out differently. But these studies give such widely different results, it must mean that there must be some type of bias somewhere in the system, to give these widely different results.

So we have studies such as the latest study from the Domestic Violence Clearing House that involved 47 people, but only one was male. This is gender bias within Social Science research, and nearly all the studies that they archive into their database do not contain males also, or they only refer to males as being the perpetrators of domestic violence.

Other organisations, (including government departments), then refer to these biased archived studies, and the bias becomes ingrained throughout the system and institutionalised.

I would think that the eventual aim is to replicate the Canadian system which is “Shout at your Spouse, Lose your House”, but of course this will only apply to the husbands, as shouting is domestic violence, and of course all domestic violence is carried out by males, and of course no woman would ever shout at her husband, or even her children
Posted by Timkins, Wednesday, 22 June 2005 8:48:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert,

I know you mean well and undoubtedly have been hardly done by, but I think that your experience has led to you seeking out only those studies that confirm your personal theory that women perpetrate as much domestic violence as men do. That's what is meant by 'confirmation bias' (I have no idea what constitutes 'conformational bias'). The 'men as DV victims' claptrap/propaganda that some people post here is invariably full of it.

Timkins,

By the spurious nature of most of the hyperlinks that you post here, it's been obvious for some time that you haven't a clue as to what constitutes reliable and authoritative research. Here's a clue: most of it isn't yet available on the web, unless you have academic affiliation to the full-text journal databases.

And you guys ought to pay closer attention to what you read, instead of trying to cherrypick snippets that confirm your fantasies. The article I directed you to was written by Ben Wadham, not Michael Flood.
Posted by garra, Wednesday, 22 June 2005 10:06:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Garra,
Thankyou for your attempts to stereotype myself (“spurious hyperlinks” “haven’t a clue” etc). However that could be regarded as verbal abuse, which is now regarded as a form of domestic violence.

Stereotyping would be an aspect of Dr Flood’s website, (as there is hardly one positive comment made about the male gender on that website) and also much of the research carried out by Social Science, and as pointed out, organisations such as the Australian Domestic Violence Clearing House (which is the main database of information on domestic violence in Australia) are filled with studies that will only portray domestic violence as being “gendered violence”, but most of those studies do not involve males, or those studies will only portray males as being domestic violence perpetrators.

Their studies are no better than an organisation that studies crime, but only crime committed by blacks, or by whites, (and not both combined), and then they do not look for the reasons for the crime, but treat crime very superficially.

However I can remember reading one study into domestic violence, where it was found that it was much more likely to occur in some post code areas in Australia and not others. If domestic violence was “gendered violence”, then it should occur uniformly throughout Australia. But perhaps those post code areas had many more males, so there would be more domestic violence.
Posted by Timkins, Thursday, 23 June 2005 9:20:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Try watching the TV news, (hardly a feminist bastion); every night some disgruntled man kills/injures his partner/expartner (and sometimes the kids too). In my personal life nearly every single one of my female friends/aquaintances has been physically hit, assaulted, and or raped by a man. I am just an average suburban mum. This is reality, and it is an ugly one that men must face up to. Statistics mean nothing to you when you havent experienced them; most women have direct, painful experience of this. I point my broken finger at you, men. Grow up and accept responsibility for yourselves, your actions, your children. There is a new feminist movement building, and its not made of lesbians and academics this time; its us mums and we've had enough. The Mothers are coming, and we're pissed off.
Posted by subversity, Thursday, 23 June 2005 12:19:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry Snuffkin, seems like your contribution to the discussion is full of lies and exaggerations.

First lie/exaggeration: It is not every night that on TV news some man kill/injures his partner/expartner. Yes there are some fathers who when the law drives a wedge between them and their children, who loose it. You're obviously not so charitable mention that this is a common factor. You have to understand (probably too big an ask in your case) that the father/child bond is one can be immeasurably strong.

Second lie/exaggeration: “In my personal life nearly every single one of my female friends/aquaintances has been physically hit, assaulted, and or raped by a man. I am just an average suburban mum.” Sorry you’re not average since not every female is physically hit, assaulted, and or raped by a man – not by a long shot. Maybe it is something about you that puts you in violent surroundings.
Third lie/exaggeration: “This is reality”. It may be your reality but it is not my reality and I suggest it is not most men’s reality.

Yes, statistics mean a lot to mean to me, particularly the ones that show women are good at lying and exaggerating. It looks like you have a few serious character flaws. Your comment exudes resentment towards men. It seems you would not be a pleasant person to be with.

So there is a new feminist movement building – the pissed off mothers are coming. Bring em on!
Posted by Ros, Thursday, 23 June 2005 5:39:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Seems to me, from the outrageously misogynist garbage that he posts here, that Ros is exactly the kind of bloke at whom current laws designed to protect women and children from male violence are aimed.

"Bring them on" indeed.

Tell us Ros, when were you most recently the subject of an AVO/RVO or similar? I won't be gobsmacked if it's recent or current.
Posted by garra, Friday, 24 June 2005 8:22:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
garra, 'conformational bias' is what you get when you inadvertently 'conform' to to the changes MS Word makes if you are silly enough to compose a post in that product. I spotted the error after the post has gone in.

Nothing you have said so far has given me reason to think the confirmational bias rests with me. I've outlined some of my concerns about the material being discussed. I have posted links to what I believe to be independant material which supports my viewpoint in relation to rates of physical violence and child abuse. So far nobody has bothered to come back with any material detailing problems with the material I have referenced.

Not a single proof that the "Abused Child Trust" or the "NSW Child Death Review team" are fronts for extremist men's groups.

Not a single comment about flaws in the methodology used by Headey, Scott and de Vauss (or by Straus and Gelles who are referenced in other material). The Headey, Scott and de Vauss document appear to go to great pains to ensure that bias is not introduced into the discussion. Material supporting the view that men do the bulk of Child abuse and or DV does not appear to make any such attempt.

Please point me to a study which supports your view which has made clear and reasonable attempts to remove bias in both the collection methods and in the analysis.
R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 24 June 2005 9:46:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hear Hear! , RObert
Posted by silversurfer, Friday, 24 June 2005 10:05:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Snuffkin, you must be watching a different news broadcast to me. It is true that such murders are too common but no way are they an every day event. It is also true that women are more likely to be killed by a spouse or former spouse than visa versa but the reverse happens often enough to be relevant.

In a three year study http://www.kids.nsw.gov.au/publications/fatalneglect.html the NSW Child Death Review Team found that 5 children died in the context of parental dispute and family breakdown (in this study - two families and both the killers were the fathers). In the same period the deaths of 6 children were precipited by either their mother(4) or their mother's de facto's(2) mental illness (0 from a fathers mental illness).

In a previous study more kids were killed by mothers than fathers in the family breakdown category.

How many of your friends have hit or assaulted a man or consider it OK to do so? You might like to look at that finger pointing at men and check where the other fingers are pointing.

How many seperated or divorced dads are in your group of friends? Have you talked to many about their expecience of DV and the pain of having kids removed from their care regardless of how good a job they do as fathers. Stats are relevant because they help us see beyond our own experience and the experience of those who confide in us. The world is bigger than that and much more diverse (also friends don't always tell us the whole truth).

Lets stop the gender blame game, and get on with fixing the problem of violence regardless of who is doing it. It is a problem for men and women, not just men and the continual insistance that it is a male problem is hindering us from moving forwards to a safer society.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 24 June 2005 10:12:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Garra, Are “women” and “liars and exaggerators” in the one sentence too much for you to accept? It seems so, since you want to describe my reasonable arguments as “outrageously misogynist garbage”. If you read the full discussion that is going on here, it is easy for all to see what coloured glasses you are wearing. Extremely pink, I’d say. You don’t think Snuffkin making sweeping statements like “In my personal life nearly every single one of my female friends/aquaintances has been physically hit, assaulted, and or raped by a man. I am just an average suburban mum. This is reality, and it is an ugly one that men must face up to.”, is a wee bit of misandrist garbage?

If Snuffkin’s partner broke her finger as she has implied then she should not have just obtained an AVO/RVO, she should have pressed for assault charges to be laid. But the domestic violence industry mob don’t want women to do things like that, because if women had to prove their case “beyond reasonable” doubt then the whole farce that is the situation today, would be exposed bigtime and they would have to go and get meaningful jobs that contribute to society; not help to destroy it.

You say “Tell us Ros, when were you most recently the subject of an AVO/RVO or similar?” I see what you are trying to say ie AVO/RVO=violent man, and attach that label to me because I responded in kind to Snuffkin’s firey comments.

Sorry, having an AVO/RVO taken out against you, is a very poor indicator of whether anyone is violent or not, as you should know. Most are obtained though a sausage machine like process where the substance of allegations is rarely properly tested. And in any case, I have never been found guilty of any offence, so Garra and Snuffkin, stick that up you misandrist jumpers.
Posted by Ros, Friday, 24 June 2005 10:45:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wow, I am a woman, just an middle class suburban mum and I have never experienced being physically hit, assaulted, and or raped by a man. I don’t think it is a reality across the board!.

However, I have witnessed situations where I would have to give the man a medal for not reacting violently to the situation. And situations where I don’t know why the woman would want to continue living and accepting the conditions and circumstances that she is living in.

I think that Robert is right, people need to stop pointing the finger, both males and females are capable of negative and violent behavior and they are both more than capable of lying, exagerrating and presenting a situation to suit. What really needs to be considered is the children as they are the innocent victims and they are the ones that not only suffer, they learn by their parents example and the cycle continues.

Adults need to learn to put the children wellbeing first and, they need to learn when its in everybody's best interest to keep their mouth shut.
Posted by Jolanda, Friday, 24 June 2005 11:12:02 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Most of the forum comments would agree that domestic violence against any gender is bad.

None of the comments that support Michael's account of gender bias in DV reports discount the trauma that women experience in DV situations. But they do try to identify that men also experience traumatic DV situations - yet these remain largely unrecognised and certainly un-supported.

Sarantakos, the Sociologists referenced earlier agrees that we need to get away from the genderised description of DV policies if social support is to succeed.

"Domestic Violence Policies: Where Did We Go Wrong?"
Download: www.nuancejournal.com.au/documents/three/saran2.pdf

The situation for women, men, and children can only get worst until this failure in DV policy is addressed.

I have counselled numerous men who have called the police for repeated acts of violence by their wife only to be told that the man will have to leave the house.

One man, removed his children to the safety of the street for fear of injury while waiting for the police. When they arrive they told him that their policy is to remove the male (this is very common). The children were sent back into the house with the female. When he rang me he was suicidal - mainly because the experience reinforced his realisation that society views him second class and offers no support when a male suffers a crisis (an tries to protect his children from the violence).

When DV shelters have opened in Australia they were full of such men and their children, but they have been closed down - no doubt because of gender policies.

A read of Sarantakos' paper will reveal just how gender based policy defeats attempts to end DV or support victims.
Posted by silversurfer, Friday, 24 June 2005 2:19:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
From Erin Pizzey, Founder Of The Movement And Author Of The First Modern Book About Domestic Violence

http://www.familytx.org/research/articles/PizzyLetter.html

An Open Letter To Women In The Domestic Violence Movement
excerpt

There is now an established domestic violence industry which fears any acknowledgment of the well established scientific fact (my own research and many many others) that women can be as violent as men with their intimate partners and are not always the victim or acting only in self-defense.

After all, not only is it our brothers, fathers, and friends who are being abused, by not helping men, we're not helping women who are having trouble dealing with their own violence against their partners and against their children. Because we too easily accept such violence against men, we are not dealing as effectively as we could with child abuse, where women constitute the primary perpetrators. Our acceptance of womens' violence against men increase [s] the chances of both boys and girls being involved with domestic violence in their later adult lives. I've seen that scenario happen time and time again.

Women have the power in the established domestic violence movement now. We should take the lead in taking the movement to the next step. … Besides, we should now be ready to accept what the researchers are all telling us...there are many many violent women. As women, we can not claim perfection and ask to be put on a pedestal any longer, and most women no longer desire that, but to make that change, we must also accept responsibility for our own actions or lack of action.

Because of these views, and daring to speak out, I've been vilified, and physically threatened many times by women in the domestic violence movement. Don't tell me that women can't be violent! … we'll never break the chain of domestic violence until we accept the truth, … no one sex, just because of their sex, is less capable of it.

Erin Pizzey, Author, Scream Quietly or the Neighbors Will Hear Founder of the world's first shelter and crisis line for battered women, Chiswick Womens' Refuge
Posted by silversurfer, Saturday, 25 June 2005 10:30:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Silversurfer. I would have to say that I totally agree with you. I am a female and I am so tired of this idea that women are vulnerable and that they are all victims. Rubbish. Women can be and are just as aggressive and violent as men.

There are just as many male victims of female abuse than female victims of male abuse. Only difference is that not to many people have sympathy, believe, or care about the men.

It should be equal.
Posted by Jolanda, Saturday, 25 June 2005 10:43:25 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ros:

"Sorry, having an AVO/RVO taken out against you, is a very poor indicator of whether anyone is violent or not, as you should know. Most are obtained though a sausage machine like process where the substance of allegations is rarely properly tested. And in any case, I have never been found guilty of any offence, so Garra and Snuffkin, stick that up you misandrist jumpers."

I note you didn't answer the question. Not guilty because you haven't committed offences or because you haven't been caught? Your posts seethe with aggro, mate.

Silversurfer:

I read Sarantakos' article, and while he does indeed point to some inherent biases in some DV research, he falls foul of his own argument by cherrypicking examples from the vast bulk of DV research to support his own spurious agenda. Further, he simply ignores the huge corpus of anthropological, sociological, psychological, historical and even biological research that clearly demonstrates the masculine tendency to violence in all cultures and throughout history.

While I'm not arguing that female violence does not exist, I reject strongly the patently false claims made by those who try and make the case that men and women suffer from domestic violence equally. This pretence is offensive and dangerous because it represents an organised effort by a small minority of men to deny our gender's overwhelming collective responsibility for human violence, whether it be in the home, on the football field or in warfare.

Also, you make the claim that "When DV shelters have opened in Australia they were full of such men and their children, but they have been closed down - no doubt because of gender policies." Evidence, please?

Jolanda:

"There are just as many male victims of female abuse than female victims of male abuse. Only difference is that not to many people have sympathy, believe, or care about the men."

This is just plain incorrect. Yes, there is a small percentage of DV victims who are men, but this doesn't discount the unfortunate fact that in terms of incidence, prevalence and degree, DV is overwhelmingly perpetrated by men against women.
Posted by garra, Saturday, 25 June 2005 12:09:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Garra. Domestive Violence is one type of abuse. There are many ways to abuse!. We shouldn't just focus on physical abuse. Psychological abuse is just as damaging, some even believe more damaging as nobody can see the damage. Often those being psychologically abused can snap and become physical.

I dont believe too many men are going to go out to get a domestic violence order against a woman even if they are in a violent relationship with a woman because of the fact that chances are nobody will believe him and he will be seen as being weak and "not a man".

Maybe men do resort to physical violence more than women, maybe not. Both men and women are good at justifying their actions. It really doesn't matter. Whilst so much attention is being spent pointing the finger, nothing positive happens.

Lets stop this blame game and agree that both men and women can suffer from abuse and depending on the situation both men and women can become violent. The problem has to be addressed as adult relationship and behavioural problem - not just a "male violence problem".
Posted by Jolanda, Saturday, 25 June 2005 12:59:32 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is my story – if I am to believe some of the posts to this forum my ex husband was only acting in self defence when I committed the following heinous crimes of violence:

Cutting my hair too short. This infraction led to my fractured skull. The rest are in no particular order;
.
Not washing his favourite clothes when he demanded.

Not paying him enough attention when bathing, feeding, dressing or generally caring for my children or performing domestic chores.

Wanting to go out with my girlfriends from work.

Talking to other people (male or female) at social functions.

If I did manage to go out with my friends; returning 10 whole minutes after midnight – never mind that he went out whenever and for as long as he liked.

Not cooking his food to his exact specifications.

Buying food instead of his cigarettes/alcohol.

Not wanting to have sex after he had struck or verbally abused me. (I believe this is referred to as ‘withholding sex’ and is apparently a form of abuse).

I could recall more but this is very regressive and painful for me to recount.

I would like to point out that I worked full time and contributed equally to the family income. Not that any of the above behaviour is justifiable even if I was a house wife.

I am only 165 cm tall and of slim build - an open-handed slap from my EX would knock me to the ground. Yes, he liked to lecture me on how he used an open hand as opposed to his fist. This made it all right apparently.

I have never hit or struck anyone – least of all my children - in my entire life. Neither did my parents strike each other or me or my sister. My experience with my ex husband was a chilling shock to me. He wanted total control over me.

I am describing a man who believed he had a right to dominance over me because I was his wife. I don’t believe that his views are unusual among certain men.
Posted by Ringtail, Saturday, 25 June 2005 1:55:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part 2

It is 15 years since I escaped. This society is still male dominated. If separatist feminists are a great threat to our society – where are they? Why don’t they dominate the stock market/corporations/government/military?
Yes there is DV and yes there are as many female bullies as there are male. But women use different tactics and for obvious physical limitations more likely to use verbal abuse. I certainly agree that we need to broaden the definition of domestic abuse. However, I am not buying those links I have read. Every one on this forum can find a link to ‘prove’ whatever cause they are on about.

More men suffer from violence committed by other men than ever at the hands of women.

If the men, who have accused me of lying and misandry (for the crime of criticising men - I note that no one accuses me of being a misogynist when I describe women in a negative light), all you have achieved is to increase my distrust of men in general.

Instead of rallying together and discussing solutions all you have achieved is furthering the abuse women who have suffered by your hostile responses.

Robert if you continue your search for bad female behaviour you will find it – it won’t lessen your pain nor help you to move on with your life. But go ahead if that is what you really want.

Jolanda – I know you mean well however, I suspect you have led a very protected life – may you always be safe.

My thanks to Garra - a shining light in the darkness.

I am moving on now myself, I wish healing for all those who have needlessly suffered.

:-)
Posted by Ringtail, Saturday, 25 June 2005 1:57:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ringtail

Thank you for sharing your very sad account. It brought many horrendous images of violence by my ex flooding in on me. I too escaped - some 18 years ago now.

But I guess that I am lucky. I did not allow my 13 years of DV to permeate my life after separation/divorce and I have not felt the need to generalise my experience across to all males (I am not saying that you have). I have a wonderful husband now and many of my dearest friends are male.

I am also saddened that a large percentage of posts in response to the article seem to have become quite abusive personal attacks on the opposite sex - both male and female.

I am wary of stats on Web Sites. Let's face it - any one of us can set up a Web Site and claim expertise in an area. I am very careful about what I read and what I believe (on Web Sites I mean).

Cheers
Posted by kalweb, Saturday, 25 June 2005 4:23:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ringtail, just in case it has been missed I don't believe that any posters are justifying male violence. I have made clear statements against all DV as have many other posters.

You should never have been hit. You should certainly never have suffered serious harm as a result of physical violence. There is no excuse for that.

My posts on this type of topic are a response to the continued finger pointing of those who continue to assert that this is a male problem rather than a human problem. It is a response to those who make this claim as justification for opposing changes to family law. To those who make the utterly unsupportable claim that maternal bias in family law protects children. It is not about saying women are bad, rather that women are human just as men are human. We have our good points and our bad points. Our genders both contain great individuals and individuals who we could wish had never been born.

Those who knowlingly use false statistics about DV and false claims about child abuse to support gender bias in family law are making a difficult situation much worse. They are contributing to thousands of kids growing up without their fathers. They are contributing to kids being abused by parents who should not have prime care. They are adding to (but not responsible for) the small number of cases where some parents cornered by a corrupt and biased system crack and harm others and themselves. They are contributing to the pain of the thousands of men who reportedly take their own lives each year due in part to the damage done by that family law system.

I don't think you fit in that category, rather your own experience has made it difficult for you to see the other side of this issue.

Again nobody has made any effort to critique the material I referenced. I believe it to be legit and independent. Not material driven by a gender agenda.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Saturday, 25 June 2005 6:40:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Congradulations Michael Gray for standing up to be counted.

For those of you that dont beleive that the statistics are manufactured!
http://www.nojustice.info/Research/ManufacturingResearch.htm

A flood of garbage
http://www.kittennews.com/kn_mag/2004mag/02_feb04mag/jamesh_09.htm

For men who have experienced domestic violence there are two good articles.

The Anatomy of Abuse by George Rolph
Working with Violent women by Erin Pizzey

The RAPE of justice
http://www.kittennews.com/cgi-bin/kn_opinion/opinion.pl?topic=999913
Posted by Captain Moonlite, Saturday, 25 June 2005 10:36:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ringtail,
I can't find any contributer references in the thread to DV as a result of "self defence", nor accusations that you lie. I also see only few hostile responses from the supporters of Michaels paper on bias DV reporting. I do see a lot of hostility from those who are unwilling to acknowledge male victims of DV.

I agree that "more men suffer from violence committed by other men than ever at the hands of women". I have read that men are the victims of 80% of all violence. Those victims need support.

Garra said that this is "an organised effort by a small minority of men to deny our gender's overwhelming collective responsibility for human violence. "

Erin Pizzey, Founder Of The DV Movement is not a man. There are many women who research male victimes of DV. I have quoted 2 and can provide others. Women are also the losers when DV policy fails through gender blindness.

But Garra's comment highlights the real agenda behind this DV blind spot - a commitment to ideolgies that rienforce the belief in pathalogical male deficiency - this is a political act.

An article from the UK ...
Still suffering in silence
PAUL BOWEN
http://news.scotsman.com/features.cfm?id=1455622004

Most may be too humiliated to report it, but PAUL BOWEN bears testimony to the fact that men endure domestic abuse at the hands of their female partners
Posted by silversurfer, Sunday, 26 June 2005 9:05:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My ex was violent and abusive, but I never saw myself as a victim until the very end. It didn’t take me long to decide there was no merit in remaining one. There were fleeting moments where I felt sorry for myself, but this was insignificant to the deep feelings of sympathy and sadness I held for my children.

While we were together, she called police several times, and each time I was lucky enough to have been deemed rational and harmless. A couple of times, they took her away with the children, to stay with friends or relatives. I had never called the police until after the split when on one occasion the children called me to tell me that their mother was going nuts, and they were asking for help. One of those children then moved in with me. Later, another.

I still pay significant child support for the youngest. She gets less than a third of what I pay, and this surplus is not being saved for her future. I am resigned to the fact there is nothing more I can do, but remain certain that this is not in her best interest and that at some point in the future she will realise this, and feel even more disappointed.

I’m no super dad (nor was I a battered husband), but do make a better parent than some mothers. Yet, as a man, I have no rights to my children and would be laughed at if I complained about violence and abuse. It seems quite acceptable for her to go psycho every so often because of pressures of motherhood, while fatherhood at best is deemed not only easy, but unnecessary. At worst, it is the accepted source of all abuse and misery.
Posted by Seeker, Sunday, 26 June 2005 12:10:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Seeker, I can really identify with your experience. I did not recognise the presence of DV until released from that nightmare. I share-parent a child with my ex, and now regularly give him support when he comes home from her house traumatised by her aggression. Giving support is tricky as I am committed to never putting her down in front of him.

The following helped me to identify men's experience, and to recover.

An Enquiry Into The Adult Male Experience Of Heterosexual Abuse
Lewis, A. (2000) M.A. thesis, University of Western Sydney.

http://www.familylawreform.com.au/family-advice-wm-1.html

Lewis's conclusion echoes Pizzey's call for women to lead DV policy to the next step.

CONCLUSION

"My hypotheses were confirmed concerning both men's suffering at the hands of their female partners and also the prejudices of society. However I underestimated both the extent of the suffering and the degree of discrimination against men by the police, the courts and child welfare agencies, and in the overall implementation of public policy.

In giving abused men a voice and the opportunity to tell their stories in an atmosphere of trust ... As an abused person, I was giving myself a voice. The men's pain became my pain, their injustice my injustice, their anger my anger. … I freed myself. My inner processes were facilitated by the validation which I as a woman receive from society, and I sought to bring something of that hope and vision to the men whose stories I was privileged to share.

In support groups all over the country, men are learning about their emotional life. They are seeking the kind of inner freedom which women rightly enjoy. But the fight for their emancipation is not theirs alone. Just as men in positions of power originally gave women their social and political rights, so women today must exercise their power in standing for the rights of those men who are struggling against overwhelming odds, and whose pain has no name."

While I understand her recognition of the overwhelming odds, I don't particularly identify with her dramatisation of pain - but I accept her point.
Posted by silversurfer, Sunday, 26 June 2005 2:47:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ringtail, I agree that what happened to you is unforgivable. I can only imagine the pain, anguish and despair that you have suffered. You deserved better.

However, your ex- husband is not your average man!. That type of behaviour is so far from the norm that it isn’t funny!. He has a serious problem.

My heart aches for you but my head cannot help but ask “Why did you stay?” “He shouldn’t have been allowed the opportunity to abuse you so many times!”. What or who stopped you from getting away. I wonder, at which point in the process or in the system were you failed? What would have made the difference?

I don’t have anybody physically protecting me, I am safe because I wont drop my guard. I would never allow a man or woman treat me like that no matter what. Why men and women who are in this type of hostile environment stay for so long, is something that I struggle to get my head around.
Posted by Jolanda, Sunday, 26 June 2005 5:29:25 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Silversurfer,

Keep up the good work and may your surf be always up.

When we criticise societal views and systems, we often fail to recognise our own membership and responsibilities. When we blindly accept the status quo, be it within in our personal lives, or within false and biased stats, we join a conspiracy that threatens our children’s future.

There is no doubt we are in a transitional period. When all societal structures catch up to a current, consistent, and fair view, with gender-neutral rules and criteria, our children may begin to feel secure within such constructs. While we engage in artificial and unsustainable social experimentation/engineering, I remain fearful for those children.
Posted by Seeker, Sunday, 26 June 2005 8:29:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jolanda,

Well said. Nobody is denying the anguish experienced by those like Ringtail and the many other women who have suffered psychological and other abuse at the hands of some very nasty male individuals (I wonder to what extent they were (physical and psychological) school bullies - honing their skills on other male children and then gradually becoming more abusive until it later translated into their domestic relationships - an area for study I think).

The issue is however, how prevalent is domestic violence against women? And as you pointed to, why are the cited figures not fitting our life experiences? The violent and abusive men are not the average men. Are the stats being deliberately manipulated for other reasons. That is the very question Michael is posing, and that demands proper investigation. He is hardly the first to ask this question. For example, this (UK) article by Josie Appleton: http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/000000005423.htm is asking a similar question - why is the experience of so many women not fitting the 'statistical evidence'? She (and Michael) are amongst a small but growing number of (informed) people who are asking the same thing – what the hell is going on here with these faked stats?
Posted by Feenix, Sunday, 26 June 2005 8:36:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Feenix. Do you know why I think they fudge figures?. I think its because those in power want certain people in society to not trust each other!. They want us to believe that we are more violent and aggressive than what we really are so that we harbour ill feelings towards each other and we dont communicate and connect. They worry that if we connnect and are compassionate and caring and understanding that we might join the dots and realise that they are taking us for a ride and feeding us alot of rubbish. So they keep everybody neglected, hostile and aggressive.

Whilst society is destabilised, then the Government bullies are safe from having to answer and being made accountable for the mess that they have created through lack of duty of care and lack of accountability.
Posted by Jolanda, Sunday, 26 June 2005 8:56:08 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jolanda, good observation!

However, it is often not really ‘the Government’, but the next layer down – powerful top level bureaucrats – who are running the agendas and sometimes duping politicians and the Australian public in the process (remember ‘Yes Minister’?).

They have fixed and ‘politically correct’ views based on their life ‘reading material’ (few have ever lived in the ‘real world’ outside of being ‘public' servants) and who have too often done ‘hatchet-jobs’ or otherwise to escalate their way to the very top of their ‘profession’ (bullies?).

Mostly, they are concealed as the grey suited (‘whispering’) men (and increasingly grey skirted women) who, in practicing the art of ‘gentle deceptions’, influence policy and laws at every level of our society. Ultimately, they control, administer and thus direct all public funding. Sometimes well directed. Sometimes badly directed.

Most senior bureaucrats are involved in an endless competition with each other to secure public funding for their own departments. It is a sad case of ‘bigger is better’ because bigger is ‘more powerful’ and Ministers play along because if their portfolio involves a bigger department then it underlines how important they as Ministers must be, within the ‘inner chamber’ of Cabinet (their own 'fishbowl').

Regardless, the end recipients of the funding inevitably must ‘play the game’. That is in part what is happening with the whole DV matrix. And why not? If your own job depended on recurrent government taxpayer funding and you worked in a DV area, then ‘playing up’ the ever increasing need for funding would become part of the ‘end game’. (And if political correctness says there are only female victims and not male victims then so be it).

A typical DV worker always says 'we don’t have enough resources', 'the problem is getting bigger!'. OSW wants more funding to help women (but in fact to increase their status within the bureaucratic ‘power regime’). Ministers play along either because they are being duped or because they need to increase their own political status.

Every need is served except those who are really in need. Truth is the ultimate fatality.
Posted by Feenix, Sunday, 26 June 2005 10:00:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Feenix, great post.

There are also some gender bigots who are so focussed on better outcomes for women that they have given up on concepts like fairplay and truth. Some of these work for groups reliant on government funding but I suspect that for many the driving force is their bigotry rather than government funding.

It is pretty openly acknowledged in the family law "system" that DV claims are widely used as a tool to get better outcomes for women. Apart from the harm done to children and their fathers by this I suspect that the continued cries of "Wolf, wolf" are hurting some of those who really need help and may hurt a lot more unless this issue is addressed sanely and soon.

Do we really want to get to the point where claims of DV and or child abuse are routinely ignored? Where it is assumed that they are a tactic in a struggle for an improved property settlement outcome or welfare benefits or revenge?

I hope that we don't get to that point but rather we reach a point where the public rejection of misuse of DV and child abuse claims is such that only the lowest of the low would try it and where any claim of DV or child abuse is treated seriously because such claims are rarely misused. To bring that about the acceptance of such tactics has to stop.

Thanks again for your great post.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 27 June 2005 11:40:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Its interesting how a matter of violence gets politicised for the purpose of pushing gender inspired political agenda. In my view, that is a very anti-human basis on which to proceed.

Why do women have such a hard time challenging their own gender stereotyping of men as potential victims of female aggression and of women as aggressors? It happens, we know it does, we can see it. We can quibble over degree for the sake of avoiding unpalatable truths, but that just perpetuates it and drives it deeper.

l can tell you of one of those pesky anectodes that the political stasticians despise. A male friend was living with his partner and she was very unbalanced. He was usually quite paranoid around her whilst at home, knowing that she could lash out at any time. He routinely experienced physical violence at her hand, often involving a weapon. It all came to a head when he was watching tv and she snuk on him from behind and hit him over the back of the head with a large pot and stabbed him in the shoulder blade with a steak knife. He experienced the debilitation of dealing with the remanants of concusion for many months. When it happened he called the police, who intervened to his benefit. They emplored him to press charges but he refused because he didn't want the hassle nor the embarassment of owning up, publicly, to being beaten up 'by a chick' (in his words). The police were not impressed with his stance, but they couldn't do anything about it.

l doubt that this is a rare occurence. He told me very casually, over a beer at the local, and he was very dismissive about it. Basically, he laughed it off.

That, to my mind, is the essence of this thing... challenging our own prejudice regarding gender stereotypes and the attendant consequences for how people are treated.
Posted by trade215, Monday, 27 June 2005 2:50:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't know about you others,
but I am really happy that this forum has finally began to share real experiences and support of men who are battling with DV and the implications of societal discrimination.

We had to push through a mine field of male-bashing just to have our voices heard - and that pretty well sums up what the research says.

Some are beginning to ask ... Why?

The following research paper gives a good account of the history of DV research and its gender blinded policy. It is American but similar applies to Oz.

"Disabusing the Definition of Domestic Abuse: How women batter men and the role of the feminist state"
Linda Kelly (I love the female researchers)

download
http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/downloads/304/kelly.pdf

For some Australian research on it, try to find

"he silence of the screams:
female violence in intimate relationships"
Posted by silversurfer, Monday, 27 June 2005 4:19:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some objectivity please.
Violence rarely occurs in a vacuum. None of us live in one.
Violent or abusive behaviour which is non-physical can be as damaging as physical violence and also as powerful....viz Gandhi. That's why they had the ducking stool and the bridle in the Middle Ages. Women drink too. In vino veritas.
Insensitive, immature expectations on an exhausted, vulnerable spouse can be soul destroying.
Women raise most boys and spend most time with them, including teachers (male teachers are an endangered species).
Most boys become men.
Young men have a much higher suicide rate than young girls.
Boys have more learning problems at school.
It is not acceptable for men to cry...viz our politicians.
Most poets and chefs are male.
Men die younger than womeen and far more die violent deaths including accidents in the work place.
The family court system and Child Support arrangements still disadvantage men.
65% of men have no contact with their children 5 years after separation from their spouses.
Men like children.
Not all men are pedophiles. My Scout Master was not.
Role models come from watching adults.
Sexual abuse in childhood begets borderline the personality disorder in women especially and mental disturbance in men.
Sexual abuse occurs in about 1 in 4 girls before they are women...how many men?
He who is without sin, cast the first stone.
Let us all be a bit more honest and objective.
In circula circulorum.
Posted by Odysseus, Tuesday, 28 June 2005 4:51:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I hasten to add, some of the common undiagnosed causes of domestic violence which are especially in males:
depression, sleep deprivation from shift work, sleep apnoea and a wide range of other sleep disorders, socially encouraged alcohol abuse as well as anxiety disorders to name but a few. To overlook the underlying pathology is to take an indifferent look at this problem. Add to this financial and other societal expectations and there is a recipe for a social disaster which will worsen as the conventional family disintegrates.
What proportion of men under 50 visit a family doctor regularly? What proportion of females under this age group do? The ratio is abut ten to one. Ask the HIC.
Posted by Odysseus, Tuesday, 28 June 2005 8:36:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Odysseus,
I would agree that DV is often a symptom of something else, but it is normally studied and researched very superficially because so many of the people who research it are feminists who will research DV according to feminist dogma and notions of patriarchy, or men trying to oppress women etc

For men, DV can be related to sleep disorders or general levels of stress as you have pointed out, although this can occur in women also, together with known increases in DV that are associated with Pre Menstrual Tension, Post Natal Depression, Menopause, Hysterectomy, depression, side effects of depression medication etc.

The types of relationships are also important, with the lowest rates of DV and child abuse occurring in dual-parent married families.
Posted by Timkins, Wednesday, 29 June 2005 5:28:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In case nobody has noticed there has still been no attempt to provide details of research which
- supports the view that men are responsible for the overwhelming majority of DV and or child abuse (as some posters claim)
- has clear indications that it has attempted to address gender bias in the data collection methods (interviewing equal numbers of males and females. Not doing the collection in conjunction with a TV campaign showing all male perpetrators/female victim's etc.)
- shows in it's analysis that there has been a genuine attempt to avoid gender bias. The same kinds of questions/explanations are asked/given for issues impacting on each gender. That is probably not well phrased but some of the previous posts discuss the kind of issues involved.

My summary of research which I have seen which appears to try and be independant is
- DV is not significantly genderised. When collection bias is removed then physical DV of similar intensities is reported by both men and women in about the same numbers.
- There appears to have been little serious work on non physical DV. We don't know much about the impacts of nagging, putdowns, financial pressure, deprivation etc. We also don't know much about how frequent it is or how severe.
- Some evidence exists to suggest that the extreme end of physical DV may involve an over-representation of women. The bit where the additional strength may become a significant factor.
- Women commit more substantiated abuse and neglect of children than men however this may be largely accounted for by the difference in time spent with children.

My own observations suggest that many women still believe that it is OK to hit a man for what they regard as inappropriate behaviour (lewd comments, inappropriate touching, coming home late from the pub etc).

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 30 June 2005 12:20:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert. Have you seen the commercial on TV where the husband put a car part and a tool in the Dishwasher and then the wife goes into the garage to confront her husband about it, he is under the car, she shows him the car parts etc., and then she hits him with the spannner and walks off.

It think it is disgraceful as it is making it as though violence against men is okay if the woman feels he deserves it.

I was not impressed.
Posted by Jolanda, Thursday, 30 June 2005 12:25:28 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jolanda, I had not seen that one.

I did see one recently from The Abused Child Trust done to a theme of a horror movie where every suspicious character appeared to be male (not very representative of their own statistics). There was nothing that I saw which suggested that the add was only about child sexual assault (some of which involves female perpetrators).

I've also seen the cough medicine add where a female office worker drops something on a male co worker for coughing too much. Not DV but relevant.

I saw one of the presenters on the ABC's GlassHouse last night bragging about hitting anybody who touches her breast's. Clearly that is not a place to touch somebody uninvited but is hitting an OK response? At what point do we regard it as acceptable for individuals to physically punish someone else for things vs using the law?

The media is full of examples where female initiated violence is regarded as OK. I'm not aware of any places where male violence against women is portrayed as acceptable but there are plenty of male/male examples. The commentary around "the biff" in football being one case.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 30 June 2005 12:53:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well … this IS on topic… some will state that it is fabricated

http://www.ejfi.org/DV/dv-32.htm

How men get shafted - Confessions of a divorcing wife.

As I write this, I am aware that I am probably going to offend some readers, but, … I cannot apologize … however I can only hope to attempt to undo the wrong that I have done.

Before I was married, I was an extreme feminist, with the hopes and dreams of equality... It is my hope that by posting my story and comments, that it will encourage other women, … to come forward and to tell the truth about themselves and their experience. Here is my story, as shameful as it may be.

When I decided to leave my marriage, (I was bored), I went to three different lawyers for advice. I was asked by all 3 of them if I was ever abused by my husband. My answer was, never in any way shape or form was my husband abusive towards me. To my utter disbelief, all of them told me the same thing. Unless I accused my husband of abuse, I would not gain sole custody of my children. They also told me that by making these allegations against him, that I would get EVERYTHING and more. When I asked them how we would prove the allegations, I was told that the courts don't require proof, and to go to a women's shelter, and that they would help me, and that it would support my allegations of abuse.

… I was very uncomfortable with this advice. I was then told by the lawyers, that if I wanted the full support of legal aid, I had no choice but to make the allegations against my husband. Having no money to pay for legal expenses, I did as I was advised. Reluctantly I took my children to a women's shelter. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. On the outside, it appears as they want the public and their funders to see it. This is however, far from the truth.

To be continued…
Posted by silversurfer, Thursday, 30 June 2005 5:43:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Confessions of a divorcing wife…continued

This place was a form of a cult, (for lack of a better term). Male bashing was a top priority, and the administration was very adamant about recruiting yet another woman (me), to join this man-haters club. They even have a game plan on how to win in court. By following their simple plan step by step, I would not only get sole custody of my children, but also the car, house and land, plus finances for the rest of my life.

However, if I did not follow their game plan, but if I played fairly, I would lose everything, and I would be endangering the lives of other women, and would jeopardize any funding for them.

… Terms such as 'sperm donors', and that all men were abusive and must die, were used on a daily basis. They were very convincing, and not wanting to jeopardize my fellow house mates, I went along with their game plan.

As soon as I said that I would follow their game plan, things moved very quickly. I saw the man that I was once married to destroyed emotionally, financially and physically. I was granted sole custody of our children, and because of a restraining order, I gained the house and car, so that our children wouldn't lose everything that they were used to. Not only was there a restraining order against him, he was also charged with assault. The man who had equally created our children, helped raise them, and who loves them dearly, was ordered to stay away from them, and to pay me, (more than I ever needed), support for them. Like I said, I destroyed him, leaving him with very little to survive.

My brother is now going through a custody battle, where my former sister-in-law is playing exactly the same game that was taught to me by a women's shelter....

Knowing how I destroyed my ex, and seeing the wrong that I had committed, I have made it my personal endeavour to help my brother with his fight.
Posted by silversurfer, Thursday, 30 June 2005 5:49:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wife has custody. Husband who does not want a divorce loses his children's affection by constant maternal propaganda and disinformation.

Father sees his children dropped off for school outside his house each day near the school. Watches them...binocularsr...emembering reading bedtime stories and saying prayers. Tears roll down his face..he drives past the school..seesthem playing in the playground where once he was accepted but is now shunned by female friends loyal to the wife..their husbands take the soft option.

Can't afford to fight a costly legal battle to enforce his every access every second weekend The children are used like chessmen, unwitting fools, duped.

He borrows heavily to rebuild his life. His cash flow drops terrribly. The Child Support Agency has set the amount regardless of new realities.

does he become violent or act like a lamb...option....a restraining order.
Suicide becomes a reality. Life cut off from all he has worked for becomes a living hell. Pity help any new woman in his life...she will take the back seat for ever and pity help any children from any other union. He has lost the house and now lives in a flat and can't afford to have the car serviced. Meanwhile his wife goes on as if all is the same and pity help Dad if he doesn't pay the Child Support on time...the evil man.

He goes one Friday night to take them on a holiday with them. They are not there. They have gone unannouced on another "holiday" without notice.

He looks at the moon at night and nows the same moonlight shines on his children's faces and his wife is now "free" of the shackles that tie down modern women...off to Coffee Club, sunglasses on heads to bash men,consider the next university course..or book club.

She remarries and her new husband has a bitch of an ex-wife and plays merry hell with his kids' access. Money is short as it all goes to "her"..

Character is nemesis. The mills of the gods' grind slow but they grind exceeding small.

You have come a long way, Baby.
Posted by Odysseus, Friday, 1 July 2005 1:24:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jolanda,
I saw the add you refered to last night. Perhaps the worst part is the comment by the guy at the end. I think it was "fair enough" or something like that. Hitting a man with an implement is OK if the woman doing so is upset enough apparently. Pretty sad.

That is I suspect a significant problem with a lot of the DV stats, a lot of people appear to believe that female to male violence is justifable and not really DV.

For anybody who cares the product being advertised is a "Morning Fresh " one. Dishwasher pellets I think.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 1 July 2005 3:41:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Robert. The next time I see that add I am going to take down the details and I am going send a formal written complaint about it.

Whether it makes a difference or not I have to say my piece. I hate the way people are being brainwashed and desensitized.

Its not in a womans or mans best interest to promote any kind of violence against the opposite sex as okay. There were so many other ways she could have reacted and still have had the required result and effect.
Posted by Jolanda, Friday, 1 July 2005 7:56:05 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Help Is Available For Abused Men

by Ramonica R. Jones
http://www.ktre.com/Global/story.asp?S=3547876&nav=2FH5bhIt

Lufkin police are still investigating a horrific case of abuse that left two teenage girls beaten, bruised, and malnourished.

What's even more shocking is the girls' father apparently knew about the abuse but never reported it...

Last year, 31 men in Texas were killed by abusive women. For more information, call the Women's Shelter of East Texas at 1-800-828-7233.
Posted by silversurfer, Monday, 4 July 2005 8:16:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GIRL, 11, HELD IN GUN SIEGE

04jul05

http://www.couriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,15808973%255E3102,00.html

A MAN will face court today accused of forcing his way into a Brisbane house and holding his 11-year-old stepdaughter hostage for over 21 hours...
Posted by garra, Monday, 4 July 2005 8:37:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes Garra, we know men are capable of it.

To balance the blinkered gender views, here are a couple of recent examples of what women are capable of. Needless to say, if Family Law matters were allowed greater public scrutiny, if men were to attain gender equality in our justice system in general, our society would be a better and safer place for all of us.

Body in boot case woman jailed - http://smh.com.au/articles/2005/07/01/1119724789159.html
A woman who has been jailed for the attempted murder of her lover's wife will not face a murder charge when the victim dies, crown prosecutors say.

Woman jailed for sexual abuse - http://smh.com.au/articles/2005/06/28/1119724627716.html
Judge Barnett said the crimes appeared to have been an expression of anger, rather than sexual perversion.

Secret of sexual abuse fuels John Irving - http://smh.com.au/articles/2005/06/29/1119724689547.html
Award-winning US writer John Irving's new novel deals, in part, with a secret he has harboured for many years - his sexual abuse at the hands of an older woman when he was just 11 years old. "I was very fond of this woman," he said. "I felt she loved me."
Posted by Seeker, Monday, 4 July 2005 11:57:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My main point of my previous post was to indicate that some overseas shelters had acknowledged female abuse and committed services to helping men and their children. This surprises me because of horrific stories of male abuse victims being turned away from shelters, and of male-hating cultures within.

I'm not interested in comparing male versus female sins - abuse by either gender is traumatic. Most contributors to this debate agree on this.

But also, this type of comparison perpetuates the over indulged victim / perpetrator paradigm. Whereas social researchers and psychologist understand that over 50% of DV is generated by co-dependant partners - in other words they fuel each others anger to satisfy their mutual addiction.

The other -50% that involves a significant perpetrator is relatively gender balanced.
Posted by silversurfer, Monday, 4 July 2005 12:38:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Still no references provided to any studies which support the idea that men do the overwhelming majority of DV and or substantiated child abuse which also show clear signs of attempting to remove bias in the data collection and results analysis.

Why am I not surprised?

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 5 July 2005 9:56:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Men be afraid, be very afraid – your greatest danger is from……….other men. Both in the outside world and on the home front you are more likely to be abused by other men. You have more to fear from your brother/father/son/mate than you do from your sister/mother/daughter/wife. As a paramedic, I see the reality of this every day. I do agree that male victims do not receive enough support. But the fault lies with both men and women.

Michael Gray no doubt has an agenda in his fear mongering, however I fear it is a regressive one.

There is no evidence on this thread or elsewhere that police, government and hospital stats are being manipulated. I submit the following:

“Australia Crime Facts and Figures
In 2002-2003, Victoria, Queensland and South Australia processed a total of 175,872 offenders, of whom 138,232 were male and 37,640 were female. Females made up 22% of all offenders in 1995-1996 and 21% in 2002-2003."

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2004/part4.html

http://www.ntv.net.au/ntv_four.htm

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/vt/vt2-text.html#5

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/vt/vt2-text.html#6

“Women are as Violent as are Men, and Women Initiate Violence as Often as do Men
This factoid cites research by Murray Straus, Suzanne Steinmetz, and Richard Gelles, Those using this factoid tend to conveniently leave out the fact that Straus and his colleague's surveys …… consistently find that no matter WHAT THE RATE OF VIOLENCE OR WHO INITIATES THE VIOLENCE, WOMEN ARE 7 TO 10 TIMES MORE LIKELY TO BE INJURED IN ACTS OF INTIMATE VIOLENCE THAN ARE MEN.”

And following from Richard Gelles himself:

Rhttp://www.thesafetyzone.org/everyone/gelles.html
“To even off the debate playing field it seems one piece of statistical evidence (that women and men hit one another in roughly equal numbers) is hauled out from my 1985 research - and distorted - to “prove” the position on violence against men. ……The statement that men and women hit one another in roughly equal numbers is true, however, it cannot be made in a vacuum without the qualifiers that

a) women are seriously injured at seven times the rate of men and

b) that women are killed by partners at more than two times the rate of men.”
Posted by Ambo, Wednesday, 6 July 2005 7:23:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
continued
“In the majority of cases, the women act in response to physical or psychological provocation or threats. Most use violence as a defensive reaction to violence. Some women initiate violence because they know, or believe, that they are about to be attacked….. are typically smaller than their husbands and less skilled in using weapons.
Thus, when we look at injuries resulting from violence involving male and female partners, IT IS CATEGORICALLY FALSE TO IMPLY THAT THERE ARE THE SAME NUMBER OF “BATTERED” MEN AS THERE ARE BATTERED WOMEN.”

I am not “male bashing” as a man myself I see the raw results of human frailty as a part of my job.

I am “male alerting”.

I do agree that more women are becoming more aggressive in asserting themselves, however as men are predominately more violent than women we only have ourselves to blame if women follow suit.

I agree with others that we shouldn’t just focus on physical DV.

Silversurfer it is appalling that you offer sympathy to male victims of DV who post here, but no sympathy to the female posters who have related their experiences of DV.

R0bert if you think that a woman shouldn’t defend herself by physical means if she is groped by anyone, then you really should be doing another think. You claim to be a DV victim yourself, yet you think that touching breasts – uninvited isn’t all that serious. Try being molested on your personal parts by someone twice as strong and twice your size. How would you react? Just saying ‘no’ doesn’t always work.

I predict vitriol directed towards me from the disenfranchised, however I find the bias here to be untenable and unrealistic. I am divorced – I don’t have custody of my children. But I still adore women and that ain’t gonna change. There are good and bad in both men and women. I don’t believe in feminist plots and am saddened that there are men who would promote such conspiracy theories rather than trying to work with each other to eliminate domestic violence.
Posted by Ambo, Wednesday, 6 July 2005 7:26:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ambo, can you have a look at the Qld Health definition of DV I posted earlier to and relate that to your own admission that the rate of hittig is similar. It does appear that injury levels are higher for women in DV (plenty to suggest it is in degree's not large multiples though). The vast majority of DV does not involve serious physical injury and yet that aspect is being used to dominate the whole debate.

In regards to a woman hitting a man for groping. I'm not OK with the uninvited grope but neither am I of the view that it is appropriate for individuals to hand out physical punishments to others for actions they disaprove of.

If you think that is OK where do you draw the boundary. Is road rage involving hitting OK? Is it OK to beat the crap out of a burglar rather than restraining them until the police arrive? From there it's not to far from hitting the lazy b%#$h because she spilt your beer. How much of an ambo's work is cleaning up after people who thought they had a reason to hit somebody else?

Our society has moved away from corporal punishment, our courts do not hand out floggings as punishments neither should individuals.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 7 July 2005 7:55:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I found this definition

"Family Violence is an abuse of power perpetrated mainly (but not only) by men against women in a relationship or after separation. It occurs when one partner attempts physically or psychologically to dominate and control the other. Family Violence takes a number of forms. The most commonly acknowledged forms are physical and sexual violence, using economic abuse, using coercion and threats, using intimidation, using emotional abuse, using isolation, minimizing/denying abuse and blaming the target, using children to control the other partner, and relationships of mutual obligation and support."

It is all of the above that needs to be recognised in the courts -
Most of the time this all happens behind closed doors and when dealing with sociopathic personalities it is even harder because of their covert behaviour.

The other issue is that we are surrounded by the above behaviour in the media- TV and DVD games.
My 6 year old came to me the other day and stated that there is so much cruelty on TV and in the games.All the games are violent cuz you have to kill punch run over or do something that would hurt in real life.( He was playing SHREK)
I acknowledged his wisdom and we talked about how in real life it is not acceptable behaviour and people do get hurt and that we are all responsible for our actions and their are consequences for those actions.
This is a child who was sexually abused by his father and does not see any consequences for the behaviour he was subjected to.
Posted by Sachiel, Thursday, 7 July 2005 9:58:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sachiel,
It is interesting to see where your definition has come from. In 1975 the definition of family violence was :-

“family violence” means conduct, whether actual or threatened, by a person towards, or towards the property of, a member of the person’s family that causes that or any other member of the person’s family to fear for, or to be apprehensive about, his or her personal well being or safety.

In the report “Children’s Contact Services: Expectations and Experiences” a definition now being advocated is :-

“Family violence is an abuse of power perpetrated mainly (but not only) by men against women in a relationship or after separation. It occurs when one partner attempts physically or psychologically to dominate and control the other. Family violence takes a number of forms. The most commonly acknowledged forms are physical and sexual violence, using economic abuse, using coercion and threats, using intimidation, using emotional abuse, using isolation, minimizing/denying abuse and blaming the target, using children to control the other partner, and
using male privilege. Family violence encompasses all forms of violence in intimate, family and other relationships of mutual obligation and support.”

So the definition has been considerably expanded in time, and now includes terms such as “perpetrated”, “dominate”, “male privilege”. These are all feminist propaganda terms that are widely found throughout feminist indoctrination text.

Feminist research into DV is now characterised by qualitative research, exclusion of males, anecdotal data, appealing to emotions, using leading questions, biased involvement of the researcher etc. In fact all the techniques that are condemned in most other types of research.

Where does it lead to. Feminists in the US aren’t satisfied with 50% of children being removed from their fathers, but want “mandatory arrests” (but this is only for males). Feminists in Canada want “Shout at your spouse, lose your house” (but this is only for males). Feminists in Switzerland want a “man tax” (but this is only for males). Feminists in Australia want imprisonment without bail (but this is only for males). And all this is based on the amazing world of feminist research.
Posted by Timkins, Thursday, 7 July 2005 12:12:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Munchausen Syndrome, and Munchausen Syndrome By Proxy (MSBP), could be as much to blame as feminism and other major causes.

When in domestic situations, all blame is heaped on men alone, we can be certain there are fishmongers in our midst.

The question remains - how do we reduce or eliminate the actual incidence of violence and abuse?
Posted by Seeker, Thursday, 7 July 2005 11:02:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The only solution is to put boy babies on mountains when they are born like they used to with girl babies in Sparta so we can keep down the numbers. lets use more sperm banks, ban men, and let the women fight our wars like Amazons. How about compulsory sterilisation for all males.

Conscript women into armies and let women make everything...bridges etc they can do it. Look out the window and tell me how many things were made by men...roads, houses, cars, factories, bridges, planes etc...all dangerous...hence the appalling death toll still in industry....also delayed deaths like with asbestos..I know there are women in factories too.

We need to even things up a bit...

Now the good thing is that Alzheimer's is 60 times more common in women and most nursing homes are inhabited by old women cared for by younger women. The men are all dead and the women can then have plenty of time to shop and chat unmolested.

An earlier death relative to women is one of the great blessings of being a boy...whether on the battle field or on the road or by a rope in one's bedroom. We men are less often widowers than women are widows.

Depression is also more common in women. God has a sense of humour afterall because He is a male.

I'm off for a sail on the wine-dark sea.
Posted by Odysseus, Friday, 8 July 2005 8:08:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timkins,
Perhaps if you were to read the next page of the report you quoted you would see that they did not adopt your definition but the one I quoted!
The value of this definition for our research is that it explicitly acknowledges a range of controlling behaviours that are likely to become evident from our interviews with family members accessing contact services-
Using contact with the children to control an ex-partner and minimising/ denying or blaming the target of violence were expected to be issues of particular relevance.
Our definition also explicitly acknowledges that merely separating from an abusive partner does not necessarily end the violence.The perpetrator may continue to exercise power and control over the target/s of violence, or attempt to do so, including through the court process and via residence/contact arrangements. etc.
Sachiel
Posted by Sachiel, Wednesday, 13 July 2005 8:47:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sachiel,
I understand that domestic violence definitions are in a state of flux, and gradually being expanded to include issues such as “you make me want to shout”, “close your eyes and I’ll kiss you “, “I saw you peek through your window”, “hold me, love me” etc.

All are now regarded as abuse, control, and perpetration of domestic violence, which is rarely, (or never), carried out by members of the female gender. In fact any type of male / female interaction can now be regarded as male abuse.

However there could be male definitions of abuse that are often carried out by females as detailed in the article at http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2003/0422rolph.html,

I condense some of these acts of female abuse as follows:-

1 The destruction of the reputations of her victims.
This is usually done in the first instance by carrying out a whispering campaign of false and malicious allegations amongst close friends of the perpetrator. This campaign is then broadened to friends of the victim.

2 Vocal attacks.
Having set the scene with the whispering campaign, the abuser and those she has manipulated now begin to vocalise their accusations. Often the stream of accusations will be deeply personal and tailored to create maximum fear in the victim.

3 Violent attacks.
The female abuser will use violence in several different ways. She will often manipulate others to attack the victim on her behalf. This may involve angering other males with false allegations ( "He [the victim] said he wants to have sex with your little daughter.

4 Victims report commonly that they are ambushed by their abusers.
Men are often violently attacked when they are sleeping, sitting on the toilet, have their backs turned to the victim, have children in their arms and are thus rendered powerless to defend themselves. The throwing of hot liquids such as fat, boiling water, coffee and tea etc.., are also reported often.

(Cont)
Posted by Timkins, Wednesday, 13 July 2005 7:04:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
5 Using children to abuse males.
This is by far one of the most common and disgusting forms of abuse there is and it is an almost exclusively female form of abuse.
For female abusers, the bond between a father and his children is a natural target for abuse. It is the one target that can reduce a man to a shadow of his former self within weeks.

6 Manipulation of the authorities.
A sobbing female who appears to be in great distress can have a powerful effect on police officers and judges etc.. Female abusers are very aware of this. They will change from aggressive abusers to helpless looking "victims" at the drop of a hat.

7 Destruction of personal property.
The abuser will empty a bank account or deliberately damage a vehicle so that it cannot be legally driven. Clothing will be destroyed. Spectacles are destroyed. All techniques to prevent the victim being able to escape, or continue working, or socialising.

8 Threats
A common theme that male victims report are when the abuser makes threats to involve them in legal fights that will bankrupt them and cause them to lose their business or home if they do not conform to the abusers wishes.

9 Men's failure to report their abuse.
Most men never report the abuse they are suffering to the police or anyone else in authority and why would they? Those who have tried it before them find themselves subject to a wall of disbelief, incredulity or even, disparaging remarks from whoever answers the telephone at the police station or social services department. “

The above represent a different type of abuse, and could be incorporated into domestic violence studies, but only if males are allowed to participate in those studies.
Posted by Timkins, Wednesday, 13 July 2005 7:07:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
i have supported my son and my 2 grandchildren for 8 years in never
ending court appearances instigated by my daughter in law. the police and magistrates are woeful, as she is a sociopath therefore a very skilled liar. once again the institionalised thinking is "blame the male". we really need to make inroads in the way these professionals are educated. i am a mental health nurse and i see her lies very clearly.
Posted by MATRON, Monday, 21 August 2006 3:40:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 24
  7. 25
  8. 26
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy