Oh Severin!

How stupid are you! You and your type can just NEVER blame a woman, ever , no matter what they do! Can you! The boys say so so it must be right! When they gave you TWO sides to your brain, you have the secret weapon they hate.

Why there was a case last week that one on the nongs used to show our bias because it hadn't been introduced to the list - where a mother killed her family. You cannot be female and anti violence, because that is translated to female = antimale. And 'septic is in charge of thinking so I'm glad you've 'accepted' that.

You are going to be called an apologist for women's violence, no matter the circumstances - yet these same nongs can't imagine how the criminal system actually works - talk about apologists for violence! -cos they read it in a newspaper, or sat on one trial (and obviously are far more knowing than we plebs. They know - ignorant as little piggies. Can't get them to comprehend that false denials = much of criminal law and Family Law, plus the completely out-of-balance victim-offender rights. Because they know! They are all-knowing. Why they manipulate stats as good as anyone (with half a brain)

That then apparently proves The Family Courts are wickedly anti male (sigh) and no one will believe you because you are a wikkid, feminist, female,

So I'm glad you have admitted your flaws. Mea Culpa
Lets get out of here - looking for a teat - OMG what an indicator of the depths of nongness.

Cotter:"There are more male victims of violence - by males."

And there are more child victims of violence - by females. Glad to clear that up for you.

Cotter:"is placing a boy-child with a dangerous, abusive, drug-using, alcoholic PARENT OK?"

Quantify the question? How dangerous, abusive in what way, what sort of drug and how much and how dependent, alcoholic by whos definition?

What actual evidence is there of any of those things? What is the nature of the evidence? Is there prior "form" for any of the allegations, such as assault charges, arrests for drug offences, drink driving record?

Is it just Mum claiming these things about Dad in the context of a divorce, with no evidence? How do the kids feel about it? How do we know? What does the accuser stand to gain, if anything?

It's not as cut and dried as the "women with testosterone" would like to make it. Statistically, children are much safer with their father close to them and involved than if Mum is given sole and exclusive custody. when Dads have the kids by themselves, they are much less likely to harm them than Mum is: about 6 times less likely, according to the ABS.

IOW, if the Court is to err on the side of caution, it should give majority care of the children to their father, with their mother kept on a short leash.

cotter:"I'm not going to quote the studies "

Well that's hardly surprising: they don't support your claim. i have read them and they all recognise that shared care works well and that there is less violence reported in shared care situations than otherwise.

Where they don't work is where one parent, usually the mother, sabotages them.

Severin:"Baa baaa antiseptic baaaaaa"

Cotter:"baaaaa baaaa grrrrl"

Good to see the standard being maintained, ladies.

Antiseptic is restating the same completely unfounded 'information' that he has constructed before.

Women are responsible for about 3/4 or more of child care. Here is some data on who has done what circa 2005:

http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/sheets/rs7/rs7.html

In one of my main occupations, I work with people - male and female at approximately 55/45 - about 75% of whom have suffered serious childhood abuse. Many are victims of more recent abuse - for example, male on male rape. By far and away males (often but not always biological fathers) are the most frequent perpetrators. I also meet a fair share of dysfunctional mothers, but (except for a couple over more than a decade) they are not identified as perpetrators by my clients.

I have no trouble with believing that there are female abusers but it just so happens they are fewer or most of the abuse they do perpetrate results in less severe long term pathology. There are exceptions of course - women are capable of great evil; there is no doubt of it. However, the statistics demonstrate that the more lethal the abuse, the more likely it is that the perpetrator is male.

That's just how it is.

One thing I don't understand is why saying that men commit more violence than women is taken as a sign of hating all men. How is it that men are apparently unable (at least on this forum) to distance themselves from men who are abusive ? How is that men on this forum are unable to express disapproval of any male abusers ?

Pynchme

<<< One thing I don't understand is why saying that men commit more violence than women is taken as a sign of hating all men. How is it that men are apparently unable (at least on this forum) to distance themselves from men who are abusive ? How is that men on this forum are unable to express disapproval of any male abusers ? >>>

A few men do (express disapproval), but most of the reasonable stay clear of these threads - for good reason - there is no reasoning with someone who resorts to bleating like a sheep when cornered into an inarguable position.

I find it interesting that, as in the past (prior to the 50/50 custody requirement), the same percentage (80%) of separations and divorce amicably and parents manage to move on with their lives.

Also interesting is that Antiseptic himself makes the point that overall in crime statistics, men are more likely to be victims - yet fails to acknowledge that men are also more likely to be the perpetrators.

Finally, however, none of this mudslinging achieves anything positive for abused children or other victims of crime. I am not sure how the likes of Anti, Formsnag or even Benk hope to achieve a good outcome for the lives of children and other victims of abuse, while they insist on placing ALL the blame on women.

A couple of years ago I was having the same argument with Anti (under a different moniker - OLO not capable of resurrecting a previous incarnation) and he has not managed to progress. Still bitter.

Part of the problems for Family Law (and they are legion) is that one cannot legislate against antipathy and vengeance. So for the 20% of cases that wind up battling over the well-being of their children, it is tragic when people cannot put their differences aside and work on what is best for the children which may or may not be a 50/50 custody arrangement.

pynchme,

' How is it that men are apparently unable (at least on this forum) to distance themselves from men who are abusive ? How is that men on this forum are unable to express disapproval of any male abusers ?'

I just think it is something you'll never understand as you're female. You'll never understand what it's like to be constantly under suspicion, why men are reticent to be primary school teachers, what it feels like to be the victim of domestic violence in a world that says just for being in that situation you must have been the aggressor. To understand the 'best thing for the children' so neatly corresponds with business as usual for a woman (Same house, little less income) and a world turned upside down for a man (1 bed flat, see kids every other weekend, double the bills) after marriage breakup.

I sum it up the way I heard a black person once say on TV. 'Acting your color'. Well men are quite often thought to be 'acting your gender'.

I think most men on here just want to have the male abuser/ female victim dichotomy broken down. To have men abusers treated as someone who needs help like a female abuser is treated, rather than the lowest of the low needing punishment. People like you are so threatened by that happening. I wonder why that is.

The tactics you use are commonplace.

Misogynist Male Abuser: Wants recognition that the majority of violent domestic disputes involve two violent partners, and want the subject tackled in a way that doesn't make it always the mans fault, as portrayed in every domestic violence campaign.

Sweetness and light pynchme: 'You are minimising violence against women! You are pro-violence! Hell, since you are rude on an internet forum, I think you're probably a wife beater! What have you got to hide? If you're conscience is clear you wouldn't be so defensive! In fact you're male, denounce violence at once, just like all Muslims should denounce Terrorism.

Pynchme: << How is it that men are apparently unable (at least on this forum) to distance themselves from men who are abusive ? How is that men on this forum are unable to express disapproval of any male abusers ? >>

Yeah well, some of us do. However, I usually tend to point out the most egregious examples of misogynist drivel that emanates from the B&T sad sack brigade, and then leave them to hurl abuse at me. As Severin says, there's little point in trying to reason with losers who can only resort to animal metaphors and other puerile insults.

In any case, I think it's mostly troll-feeding when it comes to the gender wars that these inadequate men insist on perpetuating any time a gender-related issue comes up at OLO. They wouldn't carry on in real life the way they do here anonymously because most men and women would just laugh at them, so any response at all to their online whingeing and moaning just encourages them.