Dear Robert,

I agree with you that there should be zero
tolerance of violence, regardless whether
it's against women, men, or children.
It is distressing that the extent of
violence in groups whose members are
supposed to love and care for one
another is not easily explained. It suggests
that the modern family may sometimes be under
greater pressures than it can easily bear.

Tension over gender roles is only one aspect of
conflict in the family. The sociological research of
the past two decades has revealed an astonishing amount
of family violence - between spouses, parents and
offspring, and among the offspring themselves.

Surveys suggest that each year so many
couples go through a violent episode in which one
spouse tries to cause the other serious pain or injury.

Wives assault their husbands as often as husbands assault
their wives, and spouses are equally likely to kill
each other. The police detest "disturbance calls"
usually family fights because of the vicious and
dangerous nature of so many of these conflicts.

Why the PM focused only on women could possibly be
due to the fact that wife-beating is considered
by our society as a very serious problem because
its reported more often than the abuse of men,
and therefore it's considered more widespread.
I don't know the statistics.

It could also be due to the fact that the
violence between spouses takes place in a general
social context that has traditionally emphasised
male dominance and female subservience. But,
I am just guessing.

Today, there is a strong trend
towards greater equality between the spouses.
Hopefully this will bring about changes for the
better.

One can only hope.

Sofisu,

'When will men stand up with Mr Rudd on this issue without trying to defend what well may be their own actions.'

I hope you're not implying anyone who wants a gender neutral approach to violence is just a woman basher?

'These women need public figures to stand up and decry violence against women...'

So if someone stands up and decry's violence full stop, are they somehow not decrying violence against women?

This is what I am interested in, this response from you. How is the message weakened by including all violence? Or are women just more precious than men and children?

'In a domestic violence situation, before a woman is physically assaulted, she will be subject to often hours and hours built up over time'
Not ALWAYS. That might be the majority, I don't know the figures though. But what about the case of a woman getting increasingly hysterical, pushing emotional buttons, throwing things, slapping, kicking and punching until the man finally loses his temper and lashes out? You might not care at all for the man in this situation, but what about the increased risk to the woman?

Why are you not concerned in decreasing the cycle of violence when women have had a hand in it. The scenario you talk of is very common, but it isn't the only way things happen. Don't you think if women were also encouraged not to instigate violence, which then could get out of hand if the man doesn't keep a cool head and retaliate, that would save a lot more women from being in a violent situation?

In a case such as I pondered in the Greg Bird example, don't you see that if the woman was also taught not to be violent, the chance of the injury she suffered from the retaliatory actions of the man dissappears? Or do you think we should just focus on the men, and give them sole responsibility for all domestic disputes.

'Violence is unacceptable!'
Yes, it is. But we are teaching our children only violence against women is unacceptable.

It's because feminism and the sexism and destruction it casues in society is now institutional. There are studies and courses being funded in universities to "prove" injustices against women and that men are to blame for something (rather than women themselves). It's disgraceful and extremely corrupt. Even something like the United Nations has an institution *dedicated* to active discrimination of this kind.

In other words, it's extremely profitable to be a feminist, call yourself a feminist as you will receive money from supplicants and support by the feminist extremists who drive all the policy. If you say otherwise you will likely be demoted from your position and the main political parties will not promote you (you will be discriminated against if you do not "believe" in feminism, or it's continued relevance)

I agree with you Robert

US “I think we just have to accept that the perception in society is that it's ok for women to hit men,”

I recall someone’s estranged wife jumping him and attacking him until he pushed her off. Then she said to him, where upon she declared she now had the bruises she needed to support her separation demands.

It is no more acceptable for women to hit men than it is for men to hit women and no different to excuse children who hits teachers whilst castigating teachers who hit children.

I all comes down to what sort of society do you want to foster,

one where violence against the person is selectively excused or

one where violence against the person is CONSISTENTLY condemned.

I find “consistency” far easier to understand and legislate for than subjective “selectivity” especially when our legal processes are supposed to be “blind” and non-discriminatory.

I can't believe the posts on this topic.

Do a body count.

Reflect on how many men are killed by women,
and how many women are killed by men.

I think you've all become desentitized to
violence against women. Hardly a day goes by
(I can't even think of the last day that went
by) that the news doesn't report a woman, if not
a whole family, murdered by a male.

Also - Anita Cobby style cruelty by gangs of
men. How often do women organize into groups
to hurt, humiliate, torture and murder men ?
Sometimes, no doubt - but at the rate men do
these things to women ? No.