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 > 'Reasonable fear of violence' unreasonable > Comments

'Reasonable fear of violence' unreasonable : Comments

By Patricia Merkin, published 30/3/2006

The family law amendment changing from “fear” of violence to a “reasonable fear” of violence, is more than just sematics.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 16
  11. 17
  12. 18
  13. All
An excellent case study Opinionated2. I feel deeply for your loss in this matter. Good friends are difficult to find and are even harder to find again.

I believe the inclusion of the word reasonable to the legislation is just and prudent. Fears are often unfounded and unreasonable, like simply going to the dentist, or even knowing that there are one-eyed zealots like Patricia Merkin, who wrote this article, getting about in the world advocating hatred towards men. Overwhelmingly, she says, that the victims of family violence are women and children. Simply not true. Everybody becomes a victim of family violence wherever it occurs. It is a social problem, not a sexist one.

This woman lives in denial of the reality of family violence and uses off-the-shelf rhetoric to make her argument. The rest of the article thereby becomes degraded and worthless. Where is the evidence of this overwhelmingly sweeping statement? There isn't any. But there is a plethora of evidence to the contrary available, had she cared to look with both eyes for once.

Family violence is a real and tragic dilemma of modern Western society and won't be solved while advocates like Merkin spin their sexist hate. Indeed, it can be argued that organisations like the National Coalition of Mothers Against Child Abuse can be seen to gain advantage by escalating unreasonable fears and promoting family violence by denigrating men, fathers and husbands to women and the broader community. If they genuinely cared about fixing child abuse, family violence, they'd welcome the inclusion of the word reasonable to the legislation as it is a modifier that in itself promotes reflection and reason. The very things most often missing from family violence cases.

What this article is really about is that Patricia Merkin and the National Coalition of Mothers Against Child Abuse are complaining about losing the tool of irrational fear, which, I suggest, is how they go about promoting their own business and industry, creating sexist hysteria and unreasonable fears.
Posted by Maximus, Friday, 31 March 2006 10:36:49 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
Scout, thanks. I’ll attempt to address the points you raised.

I think the difference in behaviour inside the home and outside is explainable through perceptions of roles in western culture (I’m not sure about other cultures) and maybe some hard wiring. A lot of stuff is built into our culture for men to see themselves as providers and protectors for their families whereas outside the family we are supposed to compete for status and to provide for the family. Remember the old “women and children first” adage for seats in the lifeboat. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of aspects of this we are all to some extent products of our makeup and the cultures we are raised in.

I’ll try and summarise what I understand from the stats I’ve seen on Substantiated child abuse and neglect and also on child deaths. The stats on child deaths refer to the family relationship of the suspect to the child. To simplify the following take that as a given in reference to who kills kids where my phrasing does not put it that way.
- The substantiated child abuse and neglect stats don’t generally say who is hurting the kids but they do list their family situations.
- More kids are harmed by neglect than substantiated abuse.
- Sexual abuse is a very small proportion of the total of substantiated abuse and neglect – I can’t find the figures but I recall seeing claims that natural fathers are responsible for a very small proportion of sexual abuse to their own children.
- I’ve seen various figures suggesting that women commit between 15% and 30% of contact child sexual abuse – I can’t back that up other than by reference to generalised claims by authors such as Patricia Pearson.
- Kids are most at risk in single parent female led households (around 44% of all substantiated abuse and neglect with about 20% of kids living in that situation, a slightly higher rate than single parent male lead households for the number of children living in that type of household).

TBC
R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 31 March 2006 11:52:33 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
Part 2 of 2

- The next most risky living situation for kids after living with a single parent is living with mum and her new partner.
- Mothers kill similar numbers of their own kids to the number killed by fathers and if you add mums new partner to the picture or take out family breakup killings the mums would be kill more.
- Men are less likely to kill a child that they have an ongoing relationship with – more than 6 months contact.
- For almost all child deaths attributed to mental illness on the part of a parent the suspect is the mother.

The figures on substantiated child abuse and neglect and child deaths clearly contradict the idea that fathers pose a greater risk to children than mothers, in some ways it is the reverse but I don’t think the difference is clear enough to be taken seriously.

Regarding paternalism and family law see my comments in http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4198#34285 – I think we hold similar views. Much of the inbalance of power comes in the sheer number of women involved in organisations such as Relationships Australia, the Child Support Agency, shelters, funding for womens groups and departments and the kind of views seemingly held by many of those. They often seem to reflect the views of the author of this article so they think they are protecting kids by promoting single parent residency etc.

Cheers
R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 31 March 2006 11:57:06 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
Nice bit of rationalisation Cotter, but your stereotypes are a long way from the reality. The thumped walls were nowhere near the protagonist. And how do you explain the whispered death threats that were guaranteed to provoke a louder response in kind that the kids could hear?

Is it simply inconceivable for you to comprehend that the system could be abused by the venal and the manipulative? Do you seriously believe that womenkind are incapable of base motives? Are they always the victim?

If "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned", then surely, such a person cannot be regarded as a reasonable person acting in good faith. Nor can those who condone or excuse any excess on their part.
Posted by Perseus, Friday, 31 March 2006 1:17:37 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
RObert, re: earlier post. I just logged on after a fair while. Sorry sir. I picked up on your words "reasonable assumptions" and used those to straighten young Boaz out. Boaz tends to make a lot of unreasonable assumptions. I don't think you, RObert, have ever responded to Rancitas before, and you are one of the more level-headed thinkers - so it is reasonable to assume that I owe you an apology. Once again - I am sorry for unintentionally misrepresenting you. I'll let you get back to it.(Handshake)
Posted by rancitas, Friday, 31 March 2006 3:06:19 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
Incidentally RObert, in your defence of old-mate Boaz, you did say: "rancitas, to misquote a line from a film you may have enjoyed

'He's not the devil incarnate, he's just a very naughty boy.'"

I have not been able to get on line to keep up, so Rancitas was referring to another thread. It is so hard to decide who and what is "reasonable) ahy RObert sir. Ahttp://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4209#34164 Anyway everybody knows there is only one "devil incarnate" on OLO. (Hmmmm. Sulphur).
Posted by rancitas, Friday, 31 March 2006 3:29:44 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 16
  11. 17
  12. 18
  13. All

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