CJMorgan:"there's little point in trying to reason with losers"

Which is why nooone bothers trying to reason with you, little fella, you're just not equipped.

I do hope that was "abusive enough for you, little fella, we wouldn't want you feeling as though you'd answered the whistle for nothing.

Severin:"they insist on placing ALL the blame on women. "

you just don't get it, do you? ALL the blame has been placed on ALL men while the greater part of child abuse and neglect is carried out by women. When that is pointed out, one of the grrrls brigade, usually pynchme, will jump in with a 20 year old statistic that's supposed to show that women have good reason to abuse their kids and that all men are bastards anyway, so it's men's fault, so there.

When that is shown to be the rubbish it always was, it's time for the "anti-anti"posts. If only they weren't so devoid of either content, intelligence or humour...

My aim is and always has been to point out that the focus on "male abuser/female victim" is at best a sop to the weak-minded female sheep who infest the bureacracies and some of the less rigorous corners of academia. It helps to make them feel as though they're actually not the waste of space they so obviously are.

As for your whinge about my wanting male victims of abuse recognised, you show yourself to be a stereotypical manhater by immediately trying to turn the discussion back to perpetrators, whereas you'll focus interminably on any woman who mught claim victimhood.

You don't even realise you're doing it, because you have been indoctrinated so thoroughly. Years of unchallenged propaganda have left you unable to think beyond the approved paradigm, if you were ever up to the task in the first place. To try to do so probably gives you a "migraine" or "chronic fatigue" or some other untestable and hence unchallengeable excuse for lying around doing bugger all.

Anti

You continue to selectively read posts made by those with whom you disagree. And reading in meanings that simply aren't there at all. You are so completely unable to deal with contrary opinion that you have to convince yourself that others are "programmed" or mere sheep. Sheep do not sit at their computers attempting to communicate with people who loathe being crossed.

No-one is saying that women do not abuse children - not I nor others - it is an appalling fact.

That the bulk of crime is committed by men to other men is also a fact - as unpalatable as that may be for you.

Continually insulting me and others derails any chance of arriving at solutions. There is no chance of reasoning with you, no matter what anyone tries to say. No wonder you still are unable to move on from your marriage while you remain trapped in such rage. Before you hurl another insult, take a good hard look at yourself.

Severin:"you have to convince yourself that others are "programmed" or mere sheep."

And then of course, there are the ones like you, who make an excellent case for the affirmative on their own behalf.

Now, let's talk indoctrination, shall we?

Firstly, let's look at a definition (from wikipasdia):"Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology. It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned"

Sounds pretty damned close to the mark, wouldn't you agree?

Now, given that there has been a consistent effort by professional feminists over at least 40 years to inculcate certain attitudes and ideas within the population at large; and given that these efforts have been made government policy since the early 80s thanks to UN treaty obligations taken on by the Hawke government; and given that you have spent most, if not all of your life in a world in which those efforts have been in place, it's a bit rich to claim that you're immune thanks to your great force of mind.

It's also a bit insulting to all those people who worked so hard to make you think the way you do. Of course, their job was easier because they were saying what you wanted to hear.

I only broke out of the mould because I experienced first-hand the abuses and bias of the system. I and my children were nothing more than a means for a group of scum-of-the-earth ambulance-chasers to milk the State. The ex was just a stooge for the turds who make their living off the breakdown of other people's relationships. She just did as she was told.

Severin:"That the bulk of crime is committed by men to other men is also a fact"

Well, yes, it is, but some crimes, like child abuse and neglect, are perpetrated far more often by women. About 6 times more often when care ratios are taken into account. Thanks for letting me clear that up for you.

Antiwomen: << ...little fella, you're just not equipped >>

QED.

'wikipasdia'site Anti?

People are gulled by the law, bureaucrats and services, not just men. My concern here on topic is when it affects kids by bad shared care decisions.

I do not know who killed the 8 year old child in Queensland or why, but I do know there were probably signs to be seen in the perp (male or female)prior to the killing. A background of violence and abuse - probably. Which if someone is 'caught' will be used as their excuse in the criminal system, and to reduce culpability and sentence. It's a predictable cycle.

I couldn't really care less whether stats show this or that. I've been here long enough to learn there really are stats, selective stats and damn lies. At best, limited scope questions on limited scope topics selectively chosen to push a point. No thanks..

I'm more of an idealist/realist who would seek for every person (boy, girl, man or woman - why even the gender neutrals) to be entitled to get quality assistance as required and a fair go before the law.
So to me, your abusive posts (if one chose to be offended by such expressively illuminating feedback) are simply a common tactic standing in the way of progress to a safer society.

If I have been indoctinated to a different place than you, perhaps my life's journey has taught me different things. Which is why this 'the feminists are in charge' diatribe is so laughable.

anti, you asked earlier 'how dangerous' but danger means exposure to harm or injury. An instant or cause of peril (according to Macq). Hazardous, unsafe.

I would prefer that any person who had access to my child, whose behaviour took them into this arena, resisted 'dangerous'.

I do not mean slippery dips, riding a bike, or other activities that could see them injured in an accident, but I would expect supervision, bike-helmets, seatbelts, allowing psychological care if necessary. I much prefer the dad model where the children are not used as pawns, or abused or harmed. Funnily enough, I really prefer the same model for mothers.

And why is the behaviour of the absent dad always missing from your posts? You know, the ones who set up the kids for a visit, then dont turn up, call to the house and create havoc when drunk or abusive and demanding, who spend their minimal (by choice) access time denigrating the mother, dont feed the kids etc. Who take the missus thru court because they can, then still dont bother turning up, or actually take the kids to share care - so its to reduce child support / or Centrelink it seems. I'm sure you could find a case where a mum did similar things - but why no men? Why are jails full of men, yet you cant see their violence?