ChazP I'm guessing you are well versed in advocacy research but not so good on truth. You float a perception, when material that shows that to be wrong is produced you move onto the next one.

They won't need to put the gender part in these proposed amendments if they put in the other acts relevant to family law.

How do you feel about profiling in legislation such as the piece from NSW in the quote I supplied earlier or the proposal to include similar in the Family Law act?

You seem to take great delight in suggesting that I'd be keeping the lights on at night out of fear of mum's from around the country but that's pretty much you seem to be taking regarding all the decent dad's from around the country who don't abuse others.

R0bert

'You know you get slammed here if you get into your own personal experiences that are bad and suggest a female ever did something wrong'Posted by Houellebecq, Thursday, 25 November 2010 8:39:12 AM

Houlle, take care mate, I know what you are talking about thats why I try really hard not to give any personal details out, because it will be used against you.

I think you have been holding a mirror up to them and they do not like the reflection they are seeing.

ChapZ wrote ;"What you are all so expert at is trying to trash any research which does not support your particular point of view."

Yet that is exactly what she does. ChapZ said she does not like gendered biased research, yet by her own actions, she show that she will support gendered biased research that only supports her point of view.

As someone point out before, if you try to develope a valid arguement the general tactic is the label the poster as being a misogynist.

Chaz...

“The Bill broadens the definition of "family violence" in tune with community perceptions and understanding to include not just actual or threatened physical or sexual assault but harassment, emotional manipulation, financial abuse, cultural, familial and friendship isolation and a range of dominating and controlling behaviours. "Abuse" will now include "serious psychological harm" including harm caused by exposure to family violence.”

Shouting could come under controlling or dominating behaviors yeah?

I’m as bothered by expanding definitions as Houel is, my concerns are more focused elsewhere but I refuse to annoy R0bert with them at this time.

James it's all quite equal as far as being labeled here goes. Point out a flaw on one side you get accused of hating the other. I'm sure a lot of us read then sigh read then sigh.

Robert : “I think that the child safety aspect of the push for these changes has been adequately exposed for the sham it is.” -
Please explain how the deaths of Darcey Freeman, Farguharson children, 3 Osborne children, Dominic Xuan Yu, Imran Zilic and many other children who have died or been abused following custody and contact decisions by Family Courts can in any way be construed as a “Sham”. Is the fact that children have been given into the custody of convicted paedophiles a `Sham'. Or that a three year old has to travel back and forth alone between Sydney and Dubai, a `Sham'. Or that there are so many other `Ping-Pong' children having to live week about in different homes, or have to travel hundreds of miles across the country for two hour contact visits a `Sham'.?
Or that children scream in distress when forced into contact visits or return from contact visits with a parent who has self-induced alienation by their abuse of them, a `Sham'. Or that children erupt in anger when their attempts to make their views known to Courts and they are refused, a `Sham'?. Or that children return from shared care visits, dirty, unfed, poorly clothed and having spent the week left to watch television alone with no parent present, a `Sham'.
These are the frequent scenarios from children forced into shared care arrangments. But then, those things don't happen in your world, because you don't know about them and don't see them and don't understand them, and if anyone tries to tell you that these things are happening, you don't believe them. Isn't it all a Sham RObert in your cosy isolated world..

ChazP, I suspect the difference between you and I is that what you call research, I call advocacy. What I call research is something you simply have no capacity to grasp, due to inadequate training and I suspect, an innate lack of ability. As I said, read my thread on professorial integrity.

Frankly, I don't care what you think about UWS - nothing to do with me.I know only of Peter West from UWS, who has always struck me as thoughtful and balanced in his output. A strong contrast to McInnes, et al. Another strong contrast is the amoujnt of funding provided to Dr West and the Bagshaw factory, which is dedicated to giving Offices for Women everywhere exactly waht they want to hear - at a price.

Your response to R0bert:"I just simply will not follow your pathetic attempts to control" is standard Radfem polemic, usually dragged out when the Radfem is losing the argument. Nice of you to conform so closely to stereotypes - it saves the rest of us having to do much thinking to respond to you.

ChazP:"Can you explain to me how working class Mums in North Sydney suburbs, Townsville, Adelaide Toowoomba etc be the fire-breathing Feminist Dragons which you all fear so much "

Oh dear, now you're trying to drape yourself in the cloak of the working poor. Another standard tactic to try to derail the discussion into emotionality and away from the rational discussion of the subject.

I suggest you go and have a long look at www.nizkor.ord/fallacies. Perhaps print a copy and stick it on the Bagshaw factory noticeboard. No doubt you'll be accused of "trying to control" or something equally fatuous.

You go grrrrl...

'working class Mums in North Sydney suburbs'

Not many of them! You don't know Sydney very well. North Sydney is full of doctor's wives.

Aw, I have to pipe into the pissing contest, I have a Science degree with a major in statistics. Lots of Physics involved too. Appeals to authority don't really impress me though.

'trying to control'? r0bert that falls under 'manipulative behaviour'. I think you will have DOCs at your door pretty soon. Hang on easier than that, 'controlling behaviour'.

Who would have thought all the hen-pecked men of the world were actually victims of domestic violence. Manipulative and controlling behaviour? How many wives have manipulated and controlled their partner not to spend as much time down the pub as he wants to or visit his friends and relatives. Every group of friends has one or two guys that 'aren't allowed' to come to the pub.

Piper, I'll take that,

'Shouting could come under controlling or dominating behaviours yeah?'

There is also 'shouting' in the DV campaign... To violence against women, Australia says No.'

It is pretty cute I agree James that chaz is allowed to pick apart r0berts stats, but he's not allowed to question anything she comes up with. And he's the controlling one to boot!

In the end, I'm bored with all this. I just wanted to correct the information about the 'working class' North Sydney suburbs. I suppose it's all relative though, that lot probably think they're working class as if their home is worth less than 1.5 million.