Another to add to the impressive list of excellent articles from this author.

We have had many discussions around this topic here on OLO and we have arrived at a very similar consensus view: violence is violence and if it is bad that women suffer it, it is equally as bad when men do. Also, if a law encourages its own abuse, it's a bad law.

I do have one small quibble though, which is that I think we need LESS advocacy, not more, based on the do-no-harm principle.

The evidence to date is that a proliferation of groups devoted to advocating for a pet cause does not improve the outcomes, but instead muddies the waters and leads to misinformed decision-makers.

Take the profit centres out of the picture and it becomes much easier to see a possible path.

Well blow me down. I must be dreaming, just a moment and I'll pinch myself to make sure I am awake. Yep I'm awake.

Now is this onlineopinion or maybe another website?

This cant be Australian media, after all according to the experts, men dont experience DV, I heard Koshy and all those media type personalities getting on the White Ribbon band wagon.

To be honest I fully expected another male bashing article to be published today, after all white ribbon day is a day to bash all men over the head about violence against women.

One only needs to look at the debacle over the feminist urban myth about grand final domestic violence to realise that a heck of a lot of people are being led up the garden path.

In another forum ChapZ who said she hates gendered biased research is going really hate this article.

She wrote "What you are all so expert at is trying to trash any research which does not support your particular point of view. Can any of you point to any research which you have completed and which has been peer reviewed.?."

Many of the socalled research about DV has been published in peer reviewed journals, that only problem with peer review is that a huge bias can emerge, if it does not support a particular dogma it does not get published or funded.

Yet at the same time ChapZ is critical of articles and criticism put forward, she herself posts research articles that support her own point of view.

Perhaps it was Lenore Weiztman who started the trend
http://www.acbr.com/biglie.htm

Weitzmans research was accepted because it appealed to female bias.

A former feminist friend of mine, would accept any feminist research without question, yet challange extremely severely any research which showed men in a positive light.

Afterall any research that appeals to your beliefs is much easier to accept, than research that is confrontational in challanging beliefs or feminist urban myths.

Anti well said. A good piece.

There is no good reason to run gender specific campaigns and plenty of reasons not to.

It's also interesting in light of the proposal to have DV allegations given greater weight in Family Law.

Having wording such as '"domestic violence is predominantly perpetrated by men against women and children" (eg. s.9 (3) of the NSW Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007). ' in the legislation at the same time as giving greater weight to allegations of DV, broader definitions and an unwillingness to put any protections against abuse of the system through false claims makes those proposals all the more horrifying.

R0bert

<Now, as I’ve said before, Scotland did a study last year that showed that men are about one-sixth as likely as women to view a particular DV incident as a crime and about six times as likely as women to say that an incident is “just something that happens.” My guess is that those figures correlate pretty closely with men’s tendency (or lack thereof) to report DV incidents to the police.>

http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=11213

Battered Men toll trebled
http://www.thesun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/3231822/Battered-men-toll-trebled-in-decade.html

We shouldn't condemn violence against women!

No...we should condemn VIOLENCE!

Violence knows no Gender.

This issue has been EXPLOITED by the 'Critical Theorists' such as Marcuse and his Fabian/Socialist mates from the Frankfurt school as a means of bringing in the 'Revolution' without blood and gore on the streets.

Wiki(Frankfurt School)
//Following Marx, they were concerned by the conditions which allowed for social change and the establishment of rational institutions.[5] Their emphasis on the "critical" component of theory was derived significantly from their attempt to overcome the limits of positivism, materialism and determinism by returning to Kant's critical philosophy and its successors in German idealism, principally Hegel's philosophy, with its emphasis on dialectic and contradiction as inherent properties of reality.//

Feminism and Gender politics is but one of many 'contradictions' that fitted this script.

Rationality tells you that both male and females commit violence. It is thus IRRATIONAL that a pamphlet be offered at local police stations with the title "If there is violence it is always HIS fault"

Equally 'ideology' based is:

Gloria Steinem's assertion that "the patriarchy requires violence or the subliminal threat of violence in order to maintain itself."

AAah..but it fits the 'script' of the critical social theorists eh!

So... in summary a 'Gender' based approach to family violence is irrational, insulting and discriminatory.

"Rationality tells you that both male and females commit violence. It is thus IRRATIONAL that a pamphlet be offered at local police stations with the title "If there is violence it is always HIS fault""

I know of at least one Police station that has several domestic violence posters stuck on walls, (for both public viewing and for police staff veiwing).

Every poster depicts domestic violence carried out by males with women as the victim.

The White Ribbon Day campaign has very little to do with domestic violence. It is a feminist campaign designed to denigrate and criminialize the male gender.

Not surprisingly it is well supported by university academics.

'My guess is that those figures correlate pretty closely with men’s tendency (or lack thereof) to report DV incidents to the police'

Or else they think it's ok to slap their wife around a bit. Just a little bit.

Yes, I agree with the article in the main.
I abhor all violence from anyone.

I believe that the main reason behind white ribbon day is to advertise the undeniable fact that the vast majority of domestic violence in our world is committed by men towards both men and women.

Domestic violence can and does often involve male family members badly wounding or killing each other.

At the end of the day however, given the undeniable fact that male humans are usually physically stronger than most women and children, the cards are well and truly stacked against them in domestic violence.

There is nothing wrong with bringing this domestic violence problem to the fore.

Ok guys, now start yelling at me for daring to tell the truth - I am off to work.... :)

I aren't interested in determining the exact proportion of DV aimed at men or women. That debate mainly interests people who use this issue to claim the high moral ground in the battle of the sexes (hi Suze). As long as it is accepted that DV against men often happens and is unacceptable, male victims will be able to get the help that they need.

The more important point that needs to be made is that most DV is reciprocal. For a generation, we have been told that she is the victim and we cannot blame the victim. A large body of evidence suggests that in the real world, there is rarely a clear distinction between victim and villian, so it makes more sense to discuss participants, not victims. Our society has been told that DV is just something that he decides to do. Therefore, all we need to do is to pressure him not to use violence, eg by wearing white ribbons. In reality, DV occurs in the context of couples with disfunctional ways of resolving arguments. It is simplistic to assume that he can just stop and the problem will go away. The couple both need to change the way they resolve arguments. Certainly, she needs to lose the high moral ground, it is just another weapon.

Every white ribbon is a swipe at blokes he may well be a perpetrator of DV, but is also very likely to be a victim.

Hooray for White Ribbon Day! In my unit block theres plenty ladies who used to get bashed and flogged by theyr ex's. I woudnt do that myself any man who bashes a girl is scum. My exwife used to slap me sometimes when I went to the pub but i deserved it and it never realy hurt. Why do the same fellas coment all the time about ladies here at Onlinopinoin?

Suxanonline,

Something not mentioned in the White Ribbon day campaign, is the statistic that about 70% of domestic violence is actually started by the woman.

The White Ribbon campaign is a feminist campaign that hides a lot of information.

Huggins.

Why did you desrve to be hit by your wife?

Hi vana it was times like when I stayed out late and spent all the money on beer and pokies and stuff or when i was drunk and horny. Stuff like that to be honest I was in the wrong and like i said i deserved a slap.

Thats why I think White Ribbon Day is good because some of us men treat our women bad sometimes and God knows we shouldnt

Benk <" As long as it is accepted that DV against men often happens and is unacceptable, male victims will be able to get the help that they need."

When have men not been able to get the help they need?
What sort of help do you mean?
Physical, social and/or psychological help? Who is telling men they can't get help?

If men are victims of DV by either other male relatives or female relatives, why can't they access the same sort of 'help' as female victims of violence?
It is all out there and available should people choose to look for it.

Huggins, it is never alright for anyone to hit you in anger- you probably deserved a good tongue lashing, but certainly not a slap.

Huggins:”… it was times like when I stayed out late and spent all the money on beer and pokies and stuff or when i was drunk and horny. Stuff like that to be honest I was in the wrong and like i said i deserved a slap.”

Nah you didn’t Huggins. She didn’t have any right to slap you no matter whether she could swing a decent one or not.

But it might answer a previous post you left where you stated you didn’t know why she left you. She may just have been fed up with slapping you. :)

Oh come off it suze, women who slap men and throw plates at them and damage their property are 'spirited', and quirky and cute.

I even sense a smug look of satisfaction from a lot of women when news stories relate women castrating their partners. Especially when it relates to cheating. Women will cheer on all sorts of violence on a cheating partner.

Why cant we all just be honest. It's not as bad for women to be violent towards men as men are expected to handle it. This is a well established societal norm. There is also a well established taboo about men hitting women for the same reasons. IN fact it's often put up as the sign of a real man who will take a womans slaps on the face and not react in any way.

Men are discouraged from even protecting themselves. If they do attempt to protect themselves and the woman gets hurt in the process, they are then the bad guys. That's all there is too it.

Women can attack men with all their might, but men must never attack women, and they must even measure how they defend themselves so nobody gets hurt. Men have a greater responsibility when domestics become violent. We hold them to higher standards of control than we do women because they are physically stronger.

It's not 'fair', but thems the breaks.

What I do object to is when shouting is defined as violence, but only when men do it. Shouting is not violence, and women can give as good as they get. As a female poster said on another thread it's a normal human reaction to emotion. Though she said that only when women do it though, when men do it it's domestic violence.

Huggins,
Considering the definition of domestic violence, you carried out no domestic violence, but she did.

If you want to live in a country where you are regarded as a criminal from the time an M is placed beside your name on a birth certificate, then you can fully accept feminism and feminist campaigns, because that is where the country is heading.

Those ppl who say my ex shouldnt have slapped me are right but I shouldnt have treated her bad either. Also her little slaps were nothing comoared to the black eyes and bruses I see all the time on woman round here.

NOBODY should hit anybody else but when a man does it theres always much more damage than from girly slaps

Often overlooked in these debates is the fact that men between the ages of 18-23 are the most common victims of violence in our society and have been for some considerable time.

White Ribbon in Australia began in the 1990s as a voluntary movement in a number of men’s organisations.
In 2003, it developed as an partnership of several women’s and men’s organisations and has grown, over seven years, to a nation-wide campaign, with 1300 men volunteering as White Ribbon Ambassadors across Australia, to lead and inform community engagement. In 2010, 200 communities held White Ribbon events and many workplaces and organisations are also marking White Ribbon Day.
The Campaign has had the support of the Australian government since 2007, with the objective of achieving change in attitudes and behaviours that perpetuate violence against women.
White Ribbon acknowledges that there many forms of violence; however the causes of the different types of violence are complex and require a range of solutions.
Whilst domestic violence is experienced by both men and women, it is clear that men and women do not assault each other at equal rates or with equal effect. A national survey by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the Personal Safety Survey 2005, established:
• Of the men who experienced violence, only 4% of assaults were by a female current or former partner.
• The majority of perpetrators of violence are men. Around 80% of all violent assaults (including sexual assaults) are carried out by some men against other men and women.
• Male victims are most likely to be assaulted by other men and most assaults are single incidents in public places (such as in a pub). 74% of physical assaults on men were carried out by male strangers.
• In contrast to men’s experience of violence, male violence against women generally takes place within family and other relationships and is often part of a pattern of longer term abuse.
One common cause of men’s violence against both men and women is in the way we express masculinity – rigid masculine norms promote and excuse aggression and this has the potential to damage and limit young men and women.
White Ribbon recognises that the best way to prevent violent assaults on men is to change the behaviour of other men.

Thankyou whiteribbonausalia, its good to see the real FACTS put down for all to see. We men need to stop bashing each other and especally women too, ladies shouldnt comit violnce either BUT they dont do nearly as much harm as we men do.

All lovely examples of selective reportage - hardly surprising from the White Ribbon campaign.

the FACTS, as you put it, huggins are clearly stated in the article. the stuff from white ribbon is simply selective spin.

The vast majority of victims of real violence (not shouting or any of the other normal behaviours that this mob want to pretend are violent) are men.

The only thing that was honest and complete in the whole melange was that when men hit women they hit harder than when women hit men. Does this justify the vilification and demonisation of men that White ribbon perpetrates? In my view, very definitely not.

Furthermore, by ignoring the effect of escalating behaviours from women, these people are basically saying that women can do anything they like to provoke their men and the men must simply accept it passively, since even raising his voice could lead to him being labelled "violent".

Personally, I reckon that's just weak and about as worthy of support as herpes.

Whiteribbon

Your post said, in short, that most violence is by men, aimed at other men. That is well understood.

However, WRD's focus is on DV and you provided no counter-evidence to the claims that between half and a third of DV is aimed at men and that most is reciprocal. You also did little to dispel the idea that a wide range of behaviour is counted as DV to boost statistics.

The author mentioned that not even apartheid South Africa identified specific groups in their criminal laws. The fact that men are explicitly named in the Victorian DV laws as being the major perpetrators is indicative of the extent to which the vast majority of men who are law-abiding are being unfairly demonised. This devlopment is positively chilling and reminds me very much of the Nuremberg laws of the 1930s.

[Previous commentor] "To be honest I fully expected another male bashing article to be published today, after all white ribbon day is a day to bash all men over the head about violence against women."

I agree with the point above that the WRD campaign seems to indiscriminately targets ALL males. Such stereotyping is shameful. The White Ribbon Campaign actively malignes ALL males as probable perpetrators of thuggery torward women. This inadequate gendered approach to violence is, to any thinking person, narrow and patently misandric. Our young boys in particular do not need to be sold this negative message about themselves when it does not apply to the vast majority, as it will only lead to self-depreciation about thier gender and therefore depreciation of thier self-identity too. Do boys deserve that?

Any person with insight into the problem of violence will recognise mental health issues over and above gender as the leading cause. And for those who have absorbed the stereotyping and propoganda I ask you to consider the fact that males have no monopoly on mental illness- it includes men and women both.

Lets not only "Say NO" to real violence against women, lets say NO to violence against children and men also. Moreover, lets challenge the male stereotyping we hear the WRD disseminate this year and broaden the campaign's legitimacy, accuracy and effectiveness so that it actually helps people.

Whiteribbonaustralia,

Well I would be absolutely not supporting the White Ribbon campaign, and would regard any man that does as being extremely naive or a sucker for punishment.

I have never once seen a woman with a black eye, out of probably 100,000’s of women I have seen.

However I hear domestic violence everyday, because I hear a number of mothers yelling at their children everyday. If they yell at their husbands, this is acceptable. but if he yells at her, it is now domestic violence.

The White Ribbon campaign does not highlight who is most likely to start the arguments (about 70% of the time the arguments are started by the woman), and the campaign does not state the number of injuries inflicted by women on women (about 30% of injuries received by women are from other women).

I would not be supporting any campaign that tries to hide information, and for that reason I would place the White Ribbon campaign towards the bottom of the list in campaigns worthy of support.

"At the end of the day however, given the undeniable fact that male humans are usually physically stronger than most women and children, the cards are well and truly stacked against them in domestic violence."

That is a common excuse amongst violent females to justify the position w that they can hit men, but men must never fight back.

"When have men not been able to get the help they need?
What sort of help do you mean?
Physical, social and/or psychological help? Who is telling men they can't get help?"

According to our society the problem does not exist. Nobody will listen and men who speak up are treated as freaks. Basically male victims of domestic violence are invisible. Cognitive dissonance demands that we do not exist so therefore we are invisible.

But times are changing. I hope when the invisibility collapses it does not become a 'us and them' issue. All victims should be treated equally, and all perpetrators should be treated equally under the law.

As an embassador for the WRD campaign I am concerned to learn 30% of injuries women receive from domestic violence are from other women. Or rather my concern is that I was not informed of women's role in hurting other women when I was approached to be an embassador for this event. In fact I was led to believe that all violence against women was perpetrated by males alone. On account of this omission I rescind my title of WRD embassador and will reserve my decision to endorse a more candid campaign against violence against women. Violence against women is a problem which must be addressed with a factual analysis of the perpetrator profiles as opposed to misleading simplification.

Typically again, after the definition of domestic violence gets expanded, the same tired old fall back position happens.

Men cause more injury, that is true. But what most seem to miss is that physical violence tends to be associated with the use and abuse of chemical substances and physical violence is the end result of a whole host of other factors.

Ever dealt with some one with a head injury? Or a person who is recovering from an acquired head injury?

Research tends not to include the examination of such factors, even though males are much more likely to experience a head injury through contact sports, or other risky behaviour.

there has been a distinct failure of researchers to examine human relationships as a binary system, where certain catalysts will determine how that binary system operates.

Many of the catalysts are subconscious, It is easy just to examine the overt behaviours, but the hidden convert behaviours can and do influence the over behaviours.

Erin Pizzey wrote that out of the first 100 women to seek her refuge, 60 were as violent, if not more violent than the men that they had left.

My ”female” neighbor kicked her hubby down two flights of concrete stairs. 40 odd years of marriage had ended months earlier and she had decided to be a man and began having testosterone injections. Next minute s/he’s beating the living tar outta him when he drops by to say gidday. I thought maybe the injections were the wrong dose? Or James could be right, maybe her/his head had an injury at some point?

Atman: “Often overlooked in these debates is the fact that men between the ages of 18-23 are the most common victims of violence in our society and have been for some considerable time.”

Transsexuals again?

Piper, I wouldn't give up my day job just yet!

Good on you PaulG for standing up.

The Pied Piper, "Transsexuals again?"

Nonetheless you raise a very good point that through its focus solely on heterosexual violence WRD discriminates against LGBT victims who already face an uphill battle in getting authorities, especially the police, to accept and investigate violence in their communities.

This fact sheet (excerpt) regarding lesbians indicates the prevalence of the problem, stating that violence was as common among lesbian couples as among heterosexual couples,

"Lesbian Partner Violence Fact Sheet

Suzana Rose, Ph.D.
National Violence Against Women Prevention Research Center
University of Missouri at St. Louis

What is lesbian partner violence?
Partner violence in lesbian (and gay) relationships recently has been identified as an important social problem. Partner or domestic violence among lesbians has been defined as including physical, sexual and psychological abuse, although researchers have most often studied physical violence.

How common is lesbian partner violence?
About 17-45% of lesbians report having been the victim of a least one act of physical violence perpetrated by a lesbian partner (1,5,6,13). Types of physical abuse named by more than 10% of participants in one study included:

-Disrupting other’s eating or sleeping habits
-Pushing or shoving, driving recklessly to punish, and slapping, kicking, hitting, or biting.
-Sexual abuse by a woman partner has been reported by up to 50% of lesbians.
-Psychological abuse has been reported as occurring at least one time by 24% to 90% of lesbians

The research usually has been done with mostly white, middle-class lesbians who are sufficiently open about their sexual orientation to have met researchers seeking participants in the lesbian community. Subsequently, these findings may not apply to women who are less open, less educated, or of other ethnic backgrounds."
http://www.musc.edu/vawprevention/lesbianrx/factsheet.shtml

It would also be a good idea to find out what cultural groups contain the highest percentages of violence and target them to be ambassadors.

I have a concern about the over use and indiscriminate use of the word “DOMESTIC”

Excerpt from whiteribbonaustralia’s post –

“Whilst domestic violence is experienced by both men and women, it is clear that men and women do not assault each other at equal rates or with equal effect. A national survey by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the Personal Safety Survey 2005, established: …”

I’d like people to note two things:

A. PSS respondents were asked about their experiences of the different types of violence, since the age of 15, by different types of male and female perpetrators (including current partner, previous partner, boyfriend/girlfriend or date, other known man or woman, and stranger).

B. do•mes•tic [ d&#601; méstik ]

adjective

Definition:

1. relating to home: relating to or used in the home or everyday life within a household

2. relating to family: relating to or involving a family or the people living together within a household

I’ve done a search of the body of the Personal Safety Survey, Australia, 2005 (Reissue) and can’t find the word “DOMESTIC mentioned once.

I believe the indiscriminate use of the word DOMESTIC, as used by whiteribbonaustralia and others in the game when referring to the PSS in the same paragraph, is intended to implant the idea that we should be associating what is being said in the latter, with fathers/husbands(including ex).

http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/056A404DAA576AE6CA2571D00080E985/$File/49060_2005%20(reissue).pdf

A well written and truthful response above, whiteribbonaustralia.

However, with the usual anti-feminine, 'old-boys-club', Neanderthal mentality of several of our male contributors on this thread, you will never change their archaic views.

White ribbon day would never have had to be created if there was no problem with male violence in our society.

No one has ever said females can't be violent against others, but it is predominantly males who commit the most violence in our society, so why not ask men to take a more proactive role in stopping it?

I would suggest that many of the contributors who are against white ribbon day are still mourning the 'good old days' when men were men, and women never complained, and a good thump would surely put them in their place if they did-- right boys?

Suze, what is so different between the problem with male violence and the problem with female violence that requires action with respect to the former but not the latter? I think predominance is hardly a good answer particularly when a greater percentage of men under report violence perpetrated by women.

Re your comment "...contributors ...are still mourning the 'good old days' when men were men, and women never complained,... ". Complained about what? ...the violence they the women started?

Do you know how long ago the phrase "nagging housewife" was coined? Obviously not.

BTW I am like Vanna, I also have never seen a woman with a black eye and I've spent a lot time in doctors/hospital emergency waiting areas over the years.

Suzeonline,I seem to remember Hillary Clinton saying in one of her speeches for election to president that "Women are incapable of commiting crime"I presume you would agree with that given your obvious distaste of everything male.
You say that there are avenues for men out there,just go look for them!
Where is the department for mens affairs?
Where is the minister for mens affairs?
Where are the mens` refuges?
Why do we no longer have spokesmen,but spokespersons or spokeswomen?
Well,Mz,I rest my case on the subject of gender bias from government downwards in our society.could you posibly be honest and admit that male-bashing is rampant yet there are some men out here who are not violent.

Ros:”BTW I am like Vanna, I also have never seen a woman with a black eye and I've spent a lot time in doctors/hospital emergency waiting areas over the years.”

They don’t go to hospital for black eyes, neither do the menfolk. You sit at home with a bag of frozen peas on them, same with fat lips and a variety of cuts and scrapes. Everyone in the DV game knows you don’t go near mandatory reporters in this country.

I’m not sure why the conversation turned to lesbians.

We’re going to end up with IRA maybe - Inter-Relationship Abuse rather than DV? Or violence is violence and we get rid of the word domestic because it takes away how society sees that violence?

Paul I don’t see Suze as having distaste for everything male. The male group just seems to outnumber the female group on OLO. You can’t say women are mistreated in any way without 5 messages coming back going on about how men are too or women hit men more these days or lesbo’s are doing it for themselves. Read and sigh, read and sigh.

Disrupting sleep or disturbing sleeping habits is abuse? HOUEL!

'Disrupting sleep or disturbing sleeping habits is abuse? HOUEL!'

That's it! I'm taking my 5 month old to the police station for domestic violence upon me.

Some years ago I was the victim of both actual and threatened violence (it's not fun have a large knife waved in front of you, with threats to the privates). The ex claimed violence against her- never substantiated and as I said to the coppers she'd phoned (while drunk) "look at the size of me compared to her- if I'd hit her, she'd be in hospital, and where are the marks?". Yet I endured 3 years (after she left) of AVO court cases (which require only allegations, not evidence) none of which had orders made (only interim orders until the next appearance). Who ended up with a suspended sentence for assault? The EX!! Support for the ex from feminist, man-hating "counselors" was easy for her to find, and obtain. For me? Nothing, just a never-ending round of court appearances, some many hours from home. I believe the system has changed to punish those who bring vexatious AVOs, and so it should've- they clog up the system when there are those ACTUALLY in need of protection, female and male.

viking13, your experience is very typical. I was also forced through the same process, but in the end I accepted without admission since it was taking too mnay resources from the main issue, which was a custody matter. Funny how the DVO application arrived the day before the custody application...

It was that abuse of process that first made me aware of the gross bias in the system.

Each time I attended court there were a dozen or so men lined up on a bench in the corridor, while the "victims" were taken into "protection" rooms and given cups of tea and bikkies, escorted all the way by a couple of burly police women, each about 6 foot tall and outweighing me by several stone.

In all the visits I saw only one woman with any kind of marks on her and the bloke who hit her was already in custody.

It was a witchhunt, nothing more.

Any violence is abhorrent but there is no point in denying the fact that more men commit violent acts than women. On this I agree with Suzeonline.

There is no doubt there are double standards. When a woman slaps a man, it is not perceived so much as a violent act, while the opposite is true when a man slaps a woman - it comes across as being a much harsher action. Probably very simply due to the fact men are stronger and able to wield more damage with their hands; and old fashioned ideas about men being able to 'take' a certain amount of physical punishment.

The fact is more women are injured through DV than men and the little I have been exposed to it via work, mostly unprovoked and usually fuelled by alcohol or other substances.

Men are more likely to be attacked by other men and that sort of violence should not be tolerated.

However, WRD does not accuse all men of being guilty or potentially guilty of DV. The campaign targets violent men, and is organised by men and women.

Equally comments like "nagging housewife" might be perceived as a dig at women but should only affect someone if they were in fact a "nagging housewife".

Personally I think, while well intentioned to reduce DV, campaigns like WRD are already talking to the converted for the most part. Although, there may be some value in WRD raising this issue in the public domain, I don't know whether it aids in reducing the incidence of DV through changing the psyche of those who are more apt to commit it. Perhaps bringing shame on violence may lead a violent person to seek help but I am no expert.

It might be helpful to include in WRD a general intolerance for violence overall and some emphasis on where perpetrators might seek assistance with drug and/or relationship counselling as well as the obvious resources for victims.

Reducing or preventing the cause of violence will also go a long way in reducing DV.

Pied Piper is right. On no occasion have I ever said I dislike men.
On the contrary, I am fairly keen on all the men in my life :)

Pied Piper hit the nail on the head though by saying women are vastly outnumbered on this website though...I hope it doesn't end up becoming a Male Online Opinion, because who would they then argue with?

All you guys that carry on about never seeing women with signs of abuse must live very sheltered lives. Pied Piper has seen it, and so have I - far more often than I care to think of.

As a hospital and community nurse, I have seen literally hundreds of bashed women over the years- mostly hiding themselves away in their homes if they weren't needing emergency treatment.

These women are ashamed of their injuries because most believe they 'deserved' it because they 'upset' their partners.

I believe the vast majority of AVO's are taken out correctly, but naturally the abusive men they are taken out against are in denial.
More women need to be encouraged to report domestic violence.

Luckily, very few men are violent to their partners like this.
However, we can be sure there are far more injuries caused by men against other men and women, so we need to work at stopping the violence- not arguing about gender issues.

We at Men's Health Australia are fully supportive of all attempts to reduce violence against women. However it is essential that a high-profile organisation such as the White Ribbon Foundation provides the general public with an accurate picture of violence in Australian society, especially when in receipt of substantial Federal funding ($1 million over 4 years).

The White Ribbon Foundation recently provided its Ambassadors with a resource document containing numerous serious statistical errors and unreferenced claims about gender and violence which downplay the incidence and impacts of violence upon men and boys. The statistics cited above by whiteribbonaustralia seem to be following the same pattern.

A coalition of domestic violence researchers, counsellors, psychologists and men's health workers two days ago asked the Minister for Women Kate Ellis to investigate the possible misuse of Federal anti-violence funding by the White Ribbon Foundation. See http://www.newsmaker.com.au/news/6144.

This is not the first time the White Ribbon Foundation has been caught using incorrect and misleading statistics. In 2008 the Foundation released "An Assault on our Future: the impact of violence on young people and their relationships." This report was responsible for creating news headlines across the country exclaiming "Boys think it's OK to hit girls!" when the actual data showed that 25% of young people agreed with the statement "when a girl hits a guy it's not really a big deal."

It isn't necessary for the White Ribbon Foundation to report incorrectly about male victims of violence in order to highlight the tragedy of female victims of violence. The horrific statistics about violence against women speak for themselves.

It might be useful to analyse some of the claims made above by whiteribbonaustralia. As this forum limits posts to 350 words, I have posted an analysis at http://www.menshealthaustralia.net/files/whiteribbonaustralia.pdf.

'it is predominantly males who commit the most violence in our society, so why not ask men to take a more proactive role in stopping it?'

There you have it. That sums up White Ribbon Day.

I don't feel any more kinship with, responsibility for, or influence over violent men than I expect most women do. Why is it that because I am male, I must therefore hold some responsibility for what other men do.

Do women feel more responsible than men for bad things other women do because they are women?

To me, that statement basically boils down to all men are guilty for the acts of a few men.

Or are you saying, secretly, most men are currently supporting the violence from other men. Which brings visions of a witch hunt where men have to prove their bona fides and prove they're not abusers or supportive of it. So unless you make a big song and dance about it, you are by default, one of those abusive men. I resent that.

I will continue to do what I've always done, which is never hit women, and do something if I see other women being hit. But I don't dance for nobody, and I refuse to be emotionally manipulated and shamed, and assumed to be the keeper of other men or be held more responsible for the wrongs of the world due to my gender.

"All you guys that carry on about never seeing women with signs of abuse must live very sheltered lives. Pied Piper has seen it, and so have I - far more often than I care to think of."

I've seen it to and had that discussion with runner before. Not often and only once where I was clearly told that it was the result of DV.

It is there and to try and pretend otherwise does not help.

My guess is that minimisation like that creates a similar impact to the one that's evoked for me with gender-based campaigns that pretend that DV is a male perpetrator only issues.

R0bert

Are there others out there like me who are fed up with TV ads and posters in public places like buses, trains, hospital emergency rooms and elsewhere that tell the viewers that in any relationship altercation the villain is always the male?

R0bert, I didn't say it wasn't there, just that when it occurs the DVO is often applied to a man who is already being charged with assault. Perhaps I was being specifically allocated mention dates when the matters were mostly associated with Family Law matters?

Men's Health Australia:"It isn't necessary for the White Ribbon Foundation to report incorrectly about male victims of violence in order to highlight the tragedy of female victims of violence"

Exacly right, but the people involved are professional advocates and they follow Alinsky's rules, not those set by the ethics committee for anybody serious.

I recommend David Burchell's article in The Australian

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/radicals-get-rich-while-truth-begs/story-e6frg6zo-1225957983565

Like I said I been slapped by my exmissus but what I dont get is why so many ""Men"" at this sight want to just make excuses for bashing their Woman. Havent they ever heard about Turning The Other Cheek when their wifes nag them?

Nobody should bash anybody but Men do it a lot more and worse than Woman do.

huggins, nobody is making excuses for anything. The problems with the White Ribbon campaign have been very clearly explained.

Are you unable to understand what is being said, or are you simply trying to be a troll?

Huggins "what I dont get is why so many ""Men"" at this sight want to just make excuses for bashing their Woman"

Just where have any of the men on this site made an excuse for bashing women?

If you don't already know the little blue symbol under each post will copy the link so that you can post links in your response. If you use Firefox you may need to use a right mouse button click and select "copy link location" eg http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11280#190568

The closest I can think of is pointing out that men who are being assaulted by their partners are more likely to hit especially if they can't get any real support and in the face of gendered campaigns that refuse to condemn all initiation of violence.

R0bert

Huggins, I have constantly promoted the fact that dealing with violence against women, is only dealing with a part of the problem, and a much more holistic approach should be taken.

However, as previously stated, the definition of DV gets expanded and then people argue over the fall back position of physical violence and who does the most physical damage.

And making false accusations that people are making excuses for hitting their women, does nothing for this forum.

Me I haven't hit anyone for at least 30 years, and the last person I hit was a bloke.

ROBert, thanks for the tip.

Hollebeqc, ""Or else they think it's ok to slap their wife around a bit. Just a little bit."" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11280#190349

Antispitec, "" these people are basically saying that women can do anything they like to provoke their men and the men must simply accept it passively, since even raising his voice could lead to him being labelled "violent"."" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11280#190434

benk, ""between half and a third of DV is aimed at men and that most is reciprocal."" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11280#190440

vana, ""The White Ribbon campaign does not highlight who is most likely to start the arguments (about 70% of the time the arguments are started by the woman)"" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11280#190460

Roscop, ""Complained about what? ...the violence they the women started?

Do you know how long ago the phrase "nagging housewife" was coined? Obviously not."" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11280#190502

Sounds like making excuses to me, ""she started it"", ""she nagged me"" yadayada.

Antispetic, is it trolling to point out that you fellas seem to be trying to hidebehind excuses like ""nagging"" and ""she started it"". Whats next, ""I was drunk so its not realy my fault""?? No wonder we need White Ribon Day.

@WHITERIBBONAUSTRALIA....you say:

//White Ribbon recognises that the best way to prevent violent assaults on men is to change the behaviour of other men//

In which case you must start at the deepest levels of the human being.

THE PROBLEM....DEFINED:

19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. (Gal 5:19ff)

THE SOLUTION:

3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again." (John 3:3)

That experience,change of direction leads to....

THE NEW LIFE.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control.
(Gal 5:22ff)

Problem...solved.

Huggin's I've checked those links and non are as far as I can tell making excuses for hitting women. Have another read of them and try to do it starting without the assumption that the posters are violent towards women.

What is being pointing out is the double standards about violence and occasionally pointing out that if you push someone hard enough some will crack. I don't think that excuses the violence rather it's a reminder of human frailty and the dangers of treating people as disposable.

You have made a fairly nasty claim about other male posters and the evidence that you provided to back it up does not say what you claim.

R0bert

Huggins

Lets keep this a discussion about a problem and it's solutions, rather than an excuse for the gutless to take swipes at people who you don't think anyone will defend.

Solving the problem includes fully understanding it. It is now comprehensively proven that most DV is reciprocal, meaning that it occurs as a part of arguments between couples that become over-heated. Therefore, simply asking him to stop being violent will achieve little. Both participants need to learn skills to resolve conflicts more peacefully. Furthermore, the tendency of the mob to rush to the defence of female participants and to gang-up on him also becomes a weapon that many women will misuse.

Twenty years ago, discussion of racial issues in Australia was polluted by people who wanted to misinterpret the opinions of others. in order to look down upon them. What a shame some people haven't moved so far on gendered debates.

Haha Huggins you're getting pretty silly. The quote from me is actually on your side. A sarcastic smart ass comment to James.

I don't know what women are whingeing about i get a fair flogging pretty often.

Thanks Holy I didnt realize you were being a ""sarcastic smartass"", very helpful. All I can say from the coments from Men here is that Im glad White Ribbon Day is here for the good Men to support.

Of course we shoud work together to stamp out ALL violence BUT stopping lowlifes bashing Woman would be a great start. Its only my opinon I know but thats what this sights about, isnt it?

With respect to the efforts of the WRD mob in trying to engage males, I reckon it is a complete waste of bloody time. Really, in the 1980’s it was said that 1 in 3 females would experience violence from a male in their lifetime; in the 1990’s the same; in the past decade the same and all through the next decade it will be the same. This is despite squillions of taxpayer dollars being spent on campaigns and violence industry conferences at holiday locations on the international circuit, with the stated purpose of reducing violence against women.

Frankly, I can’t see the point of telling me mates to stop battering their missusus. It is not going to change anything. With the current trend things will still be the same in the year 3000. It will still be “1 in 3 women…” printed on the posters produced for the Office for the Status of Women even after squillions more have been spent. I in 3 seems to be a constant that not even Einstein could explain if he was still around.

One thing that isn’t constant is the cost of domestic violence to the community. The direction that is going in is always up. A couple of years ago Access Economics calculated it at $8 billion dollars per annum. Now I hear a guy on radio (named Dr Washer) telling us that it is costing us $13billion dollars per annum. I guess at that rate a push or shove has got to be worth a least a few grand…a raised voice, does anybody know?

roscop,

more jobs for the girls...

Huggin's there is almost no chance that the lowlives you are thinking of will be influenced by white ribbon's. That's not the way things work.

What WRD does achieve is reinforce the message that bashing women is something men do. It builds on the work my tax dollars have been doing for years which has spend many millions of dollars on anti-DV campaigns but which still left you thinking it was Ok for your ex to hit you when she was unhappy with you.

You were not alone in that view, the same message continues to be reinforced in television advertising, by omission in public anti-DV policy and by tactic acceptance of that view by many who should know better.

WRD and the like are part of the problem because of their deliberate unwillingness to speak clearly against all intimate partner violence.

R0bert

Violence, rape, both could be hearsay, More power for women.
Any one in that situation does not belong there. 'get out'
I recon there would have to be a cause for violence.
What we need is a test case examined independently.
You may find the skeketal remains of several misdeminers.

Well youse guys are entiteled to your oppinions of course and Im not going to try and change them BUT I hope its guys like you who see the big White Ribbon sticker I put on my ute when Im driving round. Maybe at least SOME of you might stop and think about why you want to make excuses for Men who bash Women.

"Maybe at least SOME of you might stop and think about why you want to make excuses for Men who bash Women."

Its called empathy. Anyone who is being attacked deserves it.

It's interesting that the only person who has defended relationship violence on this thread is the one with the big WRD sticker on his car.

R0bert

R0bert:"It's interesting that the only person who has defended relationship violence on this thread is the one with the big WRD sticker on his car."

And isn't it interesting that he thinks it's OK for women to hit men and control who they see and how they spend their time and money?

It's a perfect summation of the White Ribbon message.

Time for a rethink, WRD. Do some research, read the facts, ask around among men in the real world, not just those who do social studies at the Wollongong CAE.

Or alternatively, whither away like weeds sprayed with roundup. That sounds much better.

This organisation exists to allow a few people to feel good about themselves and gain some kudos with the missus. It does not do a thing to reduce violence of any kind. It's a sick joke.

Let's face it, any organisation that has as its chair a TV game show host is hardly top shelf in the credibility stakes.

Women emerge as aggressors in Alberta survey
67% of women questioned say they started severe conflicts

http://www.franks.org/fr01060.htm

<"Furthermore, the failure to acknowledge the possibility of women's violence . . . jeopardizes the credibility of all theory and research directed toward ending violence against women."

The study shows roughly that 10.8% of men in the survey pushed, grabbed or threw objects at their spouses in the previous year, while 2.5% committed more severe acts, such as choking, kicking or using a weapon.

By contrast, 12.4% of women committed acts of minor violence and 4.7% committed severe violence.

The violence is seldom one-sided. Of those surveyed, 52% of women and 62% of men reported that both partners were violent.

When questioned about who initiated the most severe conflicts, 67% of women believed they had started it; only 26% believed it was their male spouse.>

<Publication of the "other side" of the violence study provides a sharp illustration of how social science is manipulated to fit a particular agenda.

"It happens all the time. People only tell one half of the story," says Eugen Lupri, a University of Calgary sociologist whose research shows similar patterns of violence against men.

"Feminists themselves use our studies, but they only publish what they like.>

Nobody is making excuses for violence, unless it is violence against men perpetrated by women.

Then the big question is Why? Why is violence against men when perpetrated by women acceptable, when violence against women is not acceptable.

To deal with violence, we need to understand what are the triggers. In order to reduce the level of physical violence, we need to examine and understand what the triggers are.

There has been more than 4 decades (that is 40 years) of attempts at reducing violence against one gender and one gender only, so why have not the attempts at reducing this violence been successful?

I would put it to you that there are other factors involved that have not been identified or addressed.

JamesG:"why have not the attempts at reducing this violence been successful?"

They have been, James. They've created a world in which women can do what trhey like to men and men must never respond with anger - ever.
Does anyone else find it interesting that all of the "events" publicised on the WRD website are opportunities for self-promotion for the attendees, rather than having anything to do with the people who might actually be the victims of violence?

http://www.whiteribbonday.org.au/Events--Activities-36.aspx

NSW

Not Violent, Not Silent Art Exhibition

Public Swearing Ceremony
Where: NSW Parliament House
When: 7:30am – 7:45am
Cost: Absolutely free. Just bring your best voice to say, “I swear. Never to commit, never to excuse, and never to remain silent about violence against women.”

Parliamentary Breakfast

VIC

Town Hall Luncheon

Not One More
Come along to Federation Square 10:30am to 8pm to take part in a huge variety of White Ribbon activities for the Not One More event! At the event there will be music, a swearing ceremony, a loudest shout competition, a walk, and lots more fun!

QLD

One Just World Forum

ACT

Parliamentarian’s Breakfast

Police Commissioners’ Lunch

SA

Adelaide White Ribbon Breakfast

I'm sure the common people are very glad that the hoi-polloi are so concerned about their welfare that they're prepared to go to breakfast on the taxpayer.

What a sick joke.

The self-promotional theme continues with the "ambassadors".

http://www.whiteribbonday.org.au/Ambassadors-33.aspx

Have a look at the "ambassador of the year" finalists. yep, every one is employed by a public entity, except the guy from Heritag Building society. I bet the fiorat thing each of them did was to race home and ypdate the CV. After all, it's a feminist world in the public service and one can't afford to miss any chance to omprove ones credentials, especially if one has the wrong sort of gonads.

the point of all this, of course, is that as with Fabian Feminism of all sorts, it's not about the victims, it's about the ones who ride on their backs. If a few of the plebs have to suffer, that's life - as long as they're the sort of plebs the elite can make a pretence of a fuss about to improve their own social credentials.

Does anyone really think that WRD and the people associated with the campaign are interested in anything but their own careers?

To you guys who want to draw atention away from Men who bash Woman what is it with you? I already said its wrong for Woman to slap Men but Blind Freddy knows that its Men who do most of the bashing. Also it seems rediculous to claim that the WRD Organizers are just blowin theyr own trumpets, they seemed like very decent people to me when I brought my sticker. As oposed to Men who make excuses for Bashing Woman.

huggins:"To you guys who want to draw atention away from Men who bash Woman what is it with you?"

Ah, so you are a simple troll, with the emphasis on simple. Thanks for pointing that out.

[Deleted for abuse. Commenter suspended.]

Huggins, I don't know what you wrote to get yourself suspended.

Expanding the debate about domestic violence, to include the fact that men also experience violence perpetrated by women, has nothing to do with shifting the focus away from female victims of violence.

Alot of reseach points to incidences of mutual violence between male and females.

If we really want to end violence then it must be gender inclusive not exclusive.

Most of the feminist research pre dates the mens rights or fathers rights groups and as such the research conducted by those groups is in response to "Confimation bias"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

of feminist research tactics.

<Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true.[Note 1][1] As a result, people gather evidence and recall information from memory selectively, and interpret it in a biased way. The biases appear in particular for emotionally significant issues and for established beliefs.>

I note with interest White Ribbon Day Foundation chairman Andrew O’Keefe’s use of sexist jokes demeaning fathers and men over child custody on live TV this morning.
On Weekend Sunrise, O’Keefe joked: “Before getting married, women should look at the guy and ask themselves ‘Do I really want the kids spending every second Sunday with him?’ “
I suggest he would have been screamed off morning television if the gender roles of his joke had been reversed.
The WRD Foundation claims to not be biased against men, but rarely acknowledges that men suffer from high levels of abuse also, despite overwhelming statistical evidence. It is a shame that O’Keefe, as the head of an organisation promoting a message of respect for women, uses his powerful position as a presenter on national media to actively promote the disrespect, abuse and demeaning of men and fathers with crass jokes over child custody.
I note the majority of domestic violence legislation includes “put-downs” and “demeaning comments” as recognised forms of domestic abuse.
The proposed changes to domestic violence legislation currently recommended by the Australian Law Reform Commission includes any form of “taunts” being regarded as grounds for legal action against men.
Despite the publicity given to the need to respect women, Mr O’Keefe seems to believe it is still perfectly acceptable to promote an attitude amongst women and girls that demeaning men and fathers is okay, and not covered by the proposed or any legislation.
Is this really a mindset that serves the encouragement of family values and the building of respect between men and women that will ultimately lead to preventing abuse against both genders?
Is Mr O’Keefe a public role model we really want for our children if he actively promotes values of disrespect towards men and boys? Again, if the gender roles of his jokes were reversed, he would be decried for promoting attitudes of disrespect towards women, the very values WRD purports to stand for.
Is this not a double standard – one law for women and a different law for men?

I question also why the WRD campaign does not have the integrity to promote the full statistics on all violence, including the well-researched government statistics that at least 25 per cent of all violence against women is perpetrated by other women? Where are the women or men speaking out about this?

And also the statistics released last year under Freedom of Information by the West Australian Government Department of Child Protection, showing women perpetrate THREE TIMES more verified cases of child abuse than men.

Academic researchers pointed out that these statistics were accurately indicative of the child abuse situation nation-wide, yet all other State Governments have refused to release their child abuse perpetrator statistics by gender. Why not break ALL silences if we are genuinely concerned about children's safety? Or are some silences sacrosanct and permanently protected?

Why does WRD not have the chivalry to speak out also about the violence perpetrated on these children overwhelmingly by women? Does that not count? Does Breaking the Silence not extend to protecting our children also?

Below are some qaulified links to video interviews.

The first is an interview of Dr Erin Pizzey, original founder of the women's shelter movement and now a men's services advocate, talking about how the Domestic Violence Industry has become a multi-million dollar business based on distorted statistics and cover-ups.

Second is how men's issues are seriously ignored in favour of women's.

Third is an interesting public TV experiment on how people react completely differently to violence by women or men. This demonstrates clearly why men are so reluctant to report violence by women.

http://www.youtube.com/user/trueswordsexpert0909#p/f/0/Kccm4KbQtrU
http://www.youtube.com/user/trueswordsexpert0909
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlFAd4YdQks&feature=related

Oh well done boys! You have now started alienating the guys on this subject too.

I have changed my mind about white ribbon day now. I agree it is a waste of money when the domestic violence issue has not improved at all.

I say we spend more money on educating victims of any sort of domestic violence(male or female of course) to immediately have the violent offenders removed from the home and taken to government funded 'aggression houses',
where they are to be forced to remain until they have either the help they need to calm down, or else sent to prison.

Now that I have come to my own comfortable conclusion, I will leave you boys to hold hands together and sing about nasty women....

I think you should be exploring what makes men do this to women.
I can't imagine anyone abusing women because they wanted something to do. If you find out what triggers this, a solution should be at hand.
I don't think just talk will do a thing,
'the help they need to calm down' Why are they in a state that needs to be calmed down.
There is something missing from the discussion.

"Now that I have come to my own comfortable conclusion, I will leave you boys to hold hands together and sing about nasty women...."

Suzie that's about as honest a representation of our views as Huggin's little game was.

Let me guess, you like the men in your life so that means that your support for things anti-male is not really anti-male but any male who tries to reform a corrupt and dishonest portrayal of DV obviously dislikes women not matter how much they happen to love the women in their own lives.

You can do a lot better, get over your own bias's start thinking about the issue in realistic terms rather than along gender party lines.

If your comment "You have now started alienating the guys on this subject too." referred to Huggin's, GrahamY has come to the conclusion that Huggins was CJM. If so his defense of WRD fit's in really well, all based on lies, false accusations and misrepresentation.

Your plan for having the offenders relies on the assumption that there is an adult victim most of the time rather than two parties playing the same game. The evidence shows that all too often the violence is mutual. Not always but often enough to rule out simplistic solutions.

If your plan relies on having the physically stronger one removed for physical violence will it also see the verbally stronger one removed when it comes to verbal abuse?

As you may notice I'm getting pretty annoyed at the continuing lie that our opposition to gendered anti-DV campaigns is about nasty women. It's dishonest and pathetic.

R0bert

Violence, whether it is on the street or in the home is an issue about excessive aggression badly handled to the point of becoming damaging behaviour. There are many triggers of aggression including low emotional intelligence, socio-economic conditions, socialisation, psychopathology and so on.

It becomes a gender issue because men are naturally more aggressive and violent than women, although, there will always be women who cross over the defining boundaries to be as males in this.

It is interesting you claim men are naturally more aggressive than women George.

National Crime Authority statistics from the last few years show violent crimes amongst young men are actually reducing, yet violent crimes amongst young women have increased by over a third in the same period.

One of the most pressing social problems at present is the increasing level of violence at schools by girls against girls.

I suggest you do some simple Google research on this, or even a search on "Girl Fights" to see the staggering volume of pages showing girls beating the daylights out of each other.

There is a current wave of study and academic research also on "Emotional Terrorism" or Intimate Terrorism, also known as the psychological violence women use in relationships.

Our culture has built up a glamourised beauty persona of women that makes it incredibly difficult for many people to perceive that women can be capable of any form of violence. It does not fit with the widely-marketed "Goddess" persona we are supposed to accept.

Women are human just as men are, and have their shadow side just as men do, as much as it enrages some people to point it out.

We have a nation of men standing up and saying yes, let's take responsibility for our violence against women. They are taking ownership and responsibility for it.

Yet when we suggest women might also like to take responsibility and ownership of their aspects of violence, it promotes the sort of indignant response some people show above.

It means children continue to suffer because we are too indignant to accept that women might abuse them also. It seems protecting the image of women has become more important than protecting the wellbeing of our children.

Men can admit their violence and do something about it. Women seemingly do not yet have the integrity or courage to self-examine and act, and provide help for the women who do abuse children.

For anyone interested, I suggest looking at the website www.oneinthree.com.au

It has a large volume of validated academic research showing that men make up at least a third of domestic violence victims. Yet most state governments refuse to provide help or services for them.

The idea there are lots of services available for fathers or male victims of DV is a complete myth. Maybe if anybody knows of any, lets post them all here.

Another website worth looking at for valid, uncompromised research is www.cafcusa.org

This is the California Alliance For Families and Children, which holds a major domestic violence conference in the USA every year amongst many of the world's leading researchers, many of them women academics.

The focus of their last two annual conferences (all paper synopses are on the website)is that the biggest issue preventing progress in resolving domestic violence is the failure of governments to recognise the equal female propensity for violence in relationships.

This prevents women who need help for "rage" issues getting the help they need.

They also advocate looking from a counseling perspective at the dynamic between men and women in relationships, rather than just criminalising the men and throwing them in prison as a quick and easy solution.

What a fun game this is - not.

One the one hand the proponents of gendered anti-violence campaigns dig out claims, stat's, stereotypes and sometimes plain lies to support their approach. Those who don't agree are then attacked if they produce evidence which conflicts with the preferred dogma as being anti-women or it all being about nasty women.

Some people just can't seem to deal with the idea that women are full human beings capable of great actions and horrible actions. That whole idea is just too confronting.

Some of that is mirrored in the CK Billboard discussion where the idea that enough women might enjoy a fantasy image of multiple partners to make it a viable component of an advertising campaign is beyond belief for some. It's much easier to assume that CK spend their advertising budget image for young women's jeans on male sexual gratification.

Women may not generally be as physically strong as men but they are just as capable of a range of emotions and behaviors as men.

Men may not generally be as skilled as women verbally but that does not make us incapable of hurting our partners with words or being the aggressor in a verbal conflict.

R0bert

Hello Paul,

Nothing you say actually counters my point because my point was modified to include.... "although, there will always be women who cross over the defining boundaries to be as males in this."

When it is that violence punished sees the figures of incarceration reverse so that more or an equal number of women are in gaol for violent crimes, then you may actually have a point.

With regard to 'emotional terrorism' could you give me a link to that study please as I was of a mind that females and males are equally capable of 'emotional terrorism' as well as 'financial terrorism'.

With regard to 'child abuse', whilst I suspect that this kind of abuse is dominantly perpetrated by women, on many levels, I have no study to support this. But agree that it is an issue for women to own and address.

George I've posted links to a variety of material on substantiated child abuse on one of the other threads recently.

Technically women do more child abuse but they tend to have more care of the children. I've not seen the detail breakdown for single parent households recently but it used to be that the rate of child abuse was marginally lower for male lead SPH's than female lead SPH's but that was at a time when male lead SPH's were rare.

My impression is that there are too many other factors at play to try and come to real conclusions other that child abuse is a human issue not a gender issue.

Two parts of your earlier comment are concerning.
"men are naturally more aggressive and violent than women"
Aggressiveness does not always end in actions that result in jail. It can be a constant pushing of someone else and bullying behaviors which don't have legal consequences. Socialisation also plays into this and gender perceptions.

"cross over the defining boundaries to be as males in this" - possibly in the context of the rest of your comment not to far out there but I'm very over what seems to be a tenancy to equate alpha behaviors with male behaviors. When a female rises to power and acts as people with power tend to do we are told she acted in a masculine manner. Feminist literature seems to treat co-operation and working together as feminine and aggressive dominant behavior as male ignoring how often males co-operate and how much as a society we reward the other behaviors.

R0bert

Suze

The evidence suggests that the vast majority of DV is over-heated arguments, where both parties cross the line. Sending either participant away for counselling will achieve little if the other participant still wants to resolve disputes in the same disfunctional way. Only family therapy has any chance of success.

George

I think that you will find that police tend to go easy on women. This attitude that blokes need to be kept in line but women are intrinsically good natured has many manifestations.

I am a male who has been offered the assistance of the local police 'Domestic Violence Officer', but also a male who has been refused assistance when I have sought help.

I have been attacked by my wife twice with a large kitchen knife (I managed to disarm her without injury to either of us), and have had to deal with her several times trying to grab the steering wheel of our car whilst driving, trying to force us to have an accident.

My wife has been diagnosed with borderline personality disorder. She is currently receiving worthwhile treatment for that, but it has been a long and hard road. She particularly get violent when she has been drinking heavily.

I have attended part of an anger management course with Relationships Australia, but did not conntinue when I was told that my anger was not the problem. I use the standard methods to avoid violence - including going for a walk just to get out of the house when she gets violent.

We had a seige situation (I was not at home) early last year when the police Public Order Squad (the guys in black with helmets and body armour) broke down our door because she had made certain violent threats, including saying that she had a gun (she hadn't). The block of units was evacuated, and the street blocked off. She was not charged (as a male would have been) but spent just two nights in hospital being assessed and then released.

As a senior police sgt once told me, no magistrate is going to punish a 'mad woman' or try to deal with her behaviour the same way that they would deal with a male.

So here is the rub - 'violent male = BAD male'. 'Violent female = MAD female".

So do you expect male victims to get help?

Doug, you probably heard the advice about removing yourself from the situation, but the situation follows you. This is from my understanding a rather common problem.

Erin Pizzey wrote about the family terrorist, and there is a book I think titled, The Dark side of Venus.

From my understanding there is no effective treatment for borderline personality disorders.

Thanks James, yes, in many ways you are correct.

But dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) is showing encouraging signs as a viable treatment option.

@benk

I've been attacked in public by a female.

Me standing with a sign at a demo in Melbourne (Flinders st) blaming China for our lack of economic competitiveness.

She (a commy) came up and at all of 5 foot nothing, looked up nose to navel and said "I want to smash your face in". No one heard that except yours truly..and I just did the quick 'me big..she small' calculation and dismissed it.

A bit later she came at me like a thrashing machine using a weapon :) her little flag thingy.

I restrained her.. hammer locked her (lawful restraint) and marched her off to the nearest cop to charge her with assault.

He told me cut your losses before they arrest 'me'.

Innnnnnteresting :)

This morning I had another 'encounter' but this time TWO women and 3 dogs. The one dog not leashed happened to be a GREAT DANE! and it came a rushin at me... sniff/growl/taste...at which point I actually didn't do anything much...just walked on..waiting for it to bite...it had a few nibbles but as passing the owners I told them "You are this close to a lawsuit"! (holding pointer and thumb about a mm apart)

Of course they blamed ME.... but after his 'nibbles' became more of a 'yum yum..I must have more of this' -I shaped up...and told the women that I can break bones with my rather well trained feet and they told me I was inciting their pooch :) I reminded them they had walked past more than one clear sign "all dogs must be on a leash" and huffed off.

I suspect that 'people' see things in very self centric terms, which it comes to DV also.

Dougthebear, I wish you the very best of luck. Those suffering personality disorders can be terribly frustrating to deal with. BPD can be especially confronting.

I've been dealing for years with an ex who has Narcisistic personality disorder. The passive-aggression, the constant demands for attention, the expectation that someone MUST do something to make it right if she's not happy, the inability to empathise, the 25 years of bi-weekly "counselling" (paying someone to hear her talk and nod approvingly), the sense of entitlement.

I've had to basically avoid her at all costs, which is a shame, but self-protective.

Pbviously the White Ribbon people would be better accepted in India, where it is apparently acceptable for women to gang up and hit men for the crime of riding in the wrong train carriage.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/men-in-womenonly-metro-forced-to-sit--up-20101129-18cn3.html

Hold on, I thought that women in the "third world" were all down-trodden victims of violent men?

What's all that about?

Lesson in logic:
All humans are capable of violence and all violence is to be condemned.
War, crime, morbidity and mortality statistics indicate that men are more likely to experience violence against them than are women.
War, crime, morbidity and mortality statistics indicate that men are more likely to perpetrate violence against others than are women.
Reducing men's use of violence against all other people would reduce wars, and the majority of homicides, assaults, rapes and death-threats. Reducing women's use of violence against all other people would have virtually no impact on war, and relatively minimal impact on the incidence of homicides, assaults, rapes and death-threats.
A focus on violence reduction and prevention means a focus on the majority of serious perpetrators, who are overwhelmingly men. Men will benefit enormously from reducing men's violence. Men will benefit relatively minimally from reducing women's violence. The hilarious illogic of debates like this is that men imagine that screaming 'women are violent too' is supposed to somehow make men less violent??

Mog, you are absolutely correct, in that a focus on violence reduction and prevention OVERALL means a focus on the majority of serious perpetrators, who are overwhelmingly men. This is something that the White Ribbon Campaign fails to do. The White Ribbon Campaign does NOT advocate for reducing men's (overall) use of violence. It advocates for reducing men's violence against WOMEN ONLY (when, as you correctly state, most violence by men is against other men).

However, there is always room for targeting sub-groups in any public health or social change campaign. For example, instead of targeting all cancer sufferers there are legitimate campaigns and support groups for breast cancer, prostate cancer, bowel cancer, etc.

There is a genuine need to prevent relationship violence (also called family violence, domestic violence, or intimate partner violence). This violence makes up just a small percentage of violence overall but it is important because of the severe impacts on the physical and mental health of victims, and because it is often hidden behind closed doors. When it comes to this form of violence, men make up one third to one half of victims. And the perpetrators of this form of violence against men are one-half to two-thirds female. Reducing relationship violence by women will have the biggest impact upon male victims of relationship violence.

Likewise, there is a genuine need to prevent violence against children (also called child abuse and neglect). This violence is important because the victims are in most cases vulnerable and unable to protect themselves. The perpetrators of this form of violence are also one-half to two-thirds female. Reducing violence by women will have the biggest impact upon child victims of violence.

Another part of the White Ribbon Campaign's message - as well as violence reduction and prevention - is that victims of violence need support. A focus on supporting victims of violence means a focus on the majority of victims, who are overwhelmingly men. This is something that the White Ribbon Campaign also fails to do.

Reducing men's use of violence against all other people will not reduce wars until women are allowed to serve in all combat roles alongside men, and until all voters (equally male and female) who vote to send armies off to war stop doing so. You will note that in societies that have no external threat of invasion (like some islander communities), both men and women are peaceful and non-violent. Men don't create wars. The need for survival creates the need for protection, and society has deemed men to be the protectors for obvious reasons (sending women to war would have more negative impacts on children than sending men to war). Once a society socialises one gender (men) to be more violent than the other (women) in order to protect it, of course such violence spills over into other social arenas such as those you have outlined above.

@vanna-That is just rubbish.IN his speech on WRD last year, Kevid Rudd then PM stated REAL statistics via the Time For Action report;

"Over their lifetimes,almost one in five Australian women will be sexually assaulted, almost one in three will be physically assaulted. Almost 1 in 4 chilren in Australia will witness violence against their mother or stepmother, Less than one third of victims will report it."
In the previous 12 months,women who experienced physical assault, ABS stats showed that;
31% were attacked by a current or former male partner;
28% by a male family member or friend; and
15% by a male stranger.

I suggest that all people read the results of a survey, The National Community Attitudes Towards Violence against Women - 2009. It was conducted by VicHealth, in partnership with the Australian Insitute of Criminology and Social Research Centre. 10,000 Australians were surveyed:women and men in equal numbers.
The facts are, that women suffer violence almost always by their intimate partner, as opposed to men who suffer violence usually by other men, including strangers.The injuries sustained by women in dv assaults are of a more serious nature than those of men. In fact, the greatest threat to the health and safety of women from 18-49 are from their partner/husband.
In the broad sense,the authority in our society is held by men. It is safer for men to walk the streets alone than it is for women. There are over 20 million slaves in the world, most are women and kids. Women do a large part of the work, but only have less than 2% of the world's wealth. When you have such descepancies such as these,oppression is the result. We have an ingrained culture of violence of all types in this country; much of it results in physical and sexual violence towards women and their children.There have been too many incidents of male sportspeople's assault on women, and yet they are too frequently defended by their peers, officials and sadly mainstream media!

It is also mindful to realise,that there's a tendancy of ownership by males over females that very rarely is shown by women.Domestic Violence is not just phsyical or sexual.It involves refusing to allow a woman to seek employment;to visit family members or friends; destroying or threatening to destroy her belongings including family pets(who are frequently attacked as 'punishment'). In many cases,the woman is incapable of doing any physical(without a weapon) harm due to her size. I tried to retaliate a couple of times, but that only resulted in such a whack around the head that it either precipitated a migraine or a really painful head, or me ending up flat on my back with a painful thud(as long as nobody could see him do it?). He was much bigger and stronger than I.Strictly speaking I assaulted him, but only to defend myself.I learnt pretty quickly,that it was futile and only put me at risk of serious injury or death.
In company of friends etc he was a calm, rational person. House a**e-hole street angel!A coward and a bully!

Liz you seem to be a font of sexist statistics and anecdotal views convenient to women but lacking in balance.

"that there's a tendancy of ownership by males over females that very rarely is shown by women." - I wonder how many men would agree with that one. Possibly relevant in some other cultures but certainly a big whopper in modern western culture.

Did Rudd happen to mention how many men were assaulted by intimate partners during that period? Did he happen to mention how many had been so socialised to accept being assaulted or controlled by their partner's that they considered it normal? Did he happen to mention how often intimate partner violence is mutual? Did he happen to spend any time discussing how often women assault men and their children?

Your script so far looks like the standard approach of start with feminist/paternalistic assumptions about power in the home, ask questions which will confirm those assumptions and don't worry about the ones which don't fit. Treat the results as facts and as though they are the whole picture.

Few modern families actually fit the 1950's stereotypes.

The gendered approach to family violence perpetuates violence and in some cases worsens it by denying around half the physical violence (and I've not seen any serious work on who does what in controlling behavior's) . If you are a male with a violent spouse the official message still seems to be that it's Ok, you probably deserve it anyway or you should be big enough to sort it out.

R0bert

Liz45, I think you make a mistake when you ask people to believe that statistics derived from results driven surveys on highly politicized matters like violence against women, are facts.

FACT noun
Definition:
1. something known to be true: something that can be shown to be true, to exist, or to have happened
2. truth or reality of something: the truth or actual existence of something, as opposed to the supposition of something or a belief about something
based on fact
3. piece of information: a piece of information, e.g. a statistic or a statement of the truth
4. law actual course of events: the circumstances of an event or state of affairs, rather than an interpretation of its significance
Matters of fact are issues for a jury, while matters of law are issues for the court.
5. law something based on evidence: something that is based on or concerned with the evidence presented in a legal case

So you got hit around the head when you tried to retaliate. Where were you hit before you tried to retaliate? Wouldn’t it have been easier just to have his still hot dinner on the table when he got home from work?

" Wouldn’t it have been easier just to have
his still hot dinner on the table when he got home from work?"

What?

Surely this is a troll.
If it's not, Roscop has in one fell swoop undone
the good work in this thread by those who have
presented reasonable arguments against White Ribbon Day's
exclusive focus on male violence against women.

"Strictly speaking I assaulted him, but only to defend myself."

Defend yourself from what? If it was physical assault then you probably were not the assailant. If you threw the first blows then you were not defending yourself.

If you did in fact assault him and he had been one of the vast majority of men who will either never hit back or not hit back until all other avenues of stopping an assault by a female have been exhausted then the cowardly act would most definitely have been yours.

It's just as cowardly and low to assault someone who is not allowed to return in kind as it is to assault someone who is physically incapable of doing so.

R0bert

Liz

Of course you don't notice controlling behavior from men. The behaviour that gets men labelled controlling earns women praise for their "assertiveness".

You have gotta love those surveys (sarcasm)

With question like:

'When was the last time HE hit you?'

and

'When was the last time YOU hit her?'

Basically in a court of law, those questions are leading questions. The screening questions they ask pregnant women are like that, pregnant women are never asked if they actually instigate violence.

Like the rule is, if never ask, you'll never know,

Interesting. I've never thought of myself as a feminist,
but didn't anybody else find Roscop's comment appalling?

If other men are willing to acquiesce to such an attitude,
it seems to me that the White Ribbon Day organisers
probably have a point. I can't think of any more
controlling behaviour than the potential of violence by
a man towards his wife because she didn't "have
his still hot dinner on the table when he got home from work".

Absolutely. An appalling comment. I can only assume it was meant as some kind of bad taste "joke" or the poster is a troll. Perhaps he would like to explain himself?

talisman I'd gone with the assumption that it was a bad taste joke.

R0bert

Frankly, I can’t see what is so wrong with my comment. My mother invariably had my father’s dinner on the table when he got home from a hard days work. My parents always greeted each other with affection and I know it gave us kids warm feelings. It could be seen from their behavior that they were a partnership and their individual efforts were seen to be for the good of the family. It was not about “me” as seems these days to be the way with TOO MANY women whose more selfish interests clash with rather than complement the interests of the main/other breadwinner and the rest of the family resulting in disharmony within it. With Liz45’s view of the world and manifest bitterness issuing from her anecdote and comments, I can’t image her ever being in a relationship where there was even a hint of affection.

Roscop, I see what you're getting at and I do agree to a large extent. Feminism has devalued the roles of wife and especially husband. Instead of aspiring to be the best partner to our spouses that we can, feminism wants us merely to aspire to be non-violent. The brave new Fabian Feminiat world is a very dreary, grey place with no room for personal variations or dissent.

I have been gradually coming to the view that Australia is a basket case socially. Basic human drives are not catered for in our social policy while social constructionalists of all stripes do their best to remake the place in their own (inevitably astigmatic) vision. We have little social cohesion and no sense of shared purpose.

Women attack men as violent and men eschew women as irrational and dangerous to know. Marriage and birth rates keep falling. Material wealth has never been higher, but personal happiness has rarely been lower.

We need to move from the current divisive approach which can never deliver a good social outcome to an inclusive one.

We need to recapture our humanity.

As that is unlikely to happen in my lifetime, I suspect I'll be leaving this country when my kids are old enough to look after themselves.

You're welcome to it, grrrrls.

Roscop your comment about the hot dinner reads as though you are suggesting that a women who did not get the hot dinner on the table on time deserve a thump.

A view of "male control" and DV that those determined to pretend that DV and control are male issues rather than human issues have been pushing for a long time.

"It could be seen from their behavior that they were a partnership and their individual efforts were seen to be for the good of the family." - I grew up in a home like that. Both parents worked together for us all.

I don't think women have a monopoly on being selfish in relationship's, men are quite capable of doing the same things.

R0bert

R0bert:"I don't think women have a monopoly on being selfish in relationship's, men are quite capable of doing the same things."

Of course you're right. What's different today is that women seem to be demanding the exclusive right to behave badly, even demading that if they do behave badly and a man reacts, it must be his fault.

There is no incentive for a man to be in a committed relationship unless he wants shildren and even that is becoming a marginal justification given the likely outcome of marriages and the consequences that will flow if children are involved.

My sense is that roscop was merely expressing his own frustration with the social disaster that Feminism has created.

How many of you who laugh at the stats I've given read any? I suggest none to a few. Watch/listen to the news for just one week, and you'll see very clearly who the most violent people in the community are.
Regardless of the individual cases of women's violence against men, the violence by men toward their wives/partners has been accepted for too long as just being 'family business'?
Finally, the violence towards women doesn't stop when women reach senior years. Sadly, much of this is from their own kids, who try and steal money, property etc, usually by their widowed or single aged mothers.
The Attorney's General around the country agree that crimes of violence against women are perpetrated mainly by men, cover all types of assaults; that govts must intervene to remove women and kids from the violence, and to bring the perpetrators to justice.
In my case, I put up with it for over 20 yrs as there were no family benefits; no areas of support for women and kids; women were not encouraged to be in the workforce or education, and my kids deserved some form of security, education etc.In short, out of love for my kids, I had to put up with it - there was also the hope for change? None arrived!
So, those who say that there's been no progress are ill-informed. I hope, that one day, to hit a woman, denigrate her; belittle her and threaten her with the loss of her kids, or to kill her pets etc will be treated with the same disgust as driving a car while drunk!
If men resent the money spent by govts; support groups etc, do what us women had to do for over 30 years - get off your bum and start your own - we did!
People who are genuinely against violence would support these 16 days awareness on the prevention of violence against their mothers, daughters, sisters and wives and girlfriends. Those who are ardently against; who try and 'muddy' the waters with unsubstantiated 'stories' are losing ground.

Antiseptic "My sense is that roscop was merely expressing his own frustration with the social disaster that Feminism has created."

That's about where I got to which is why I ignored it earlier.
Unfortunately those kind of comments play to the stereotypes which the gender warriors so love.

Liz I think most of us are already way too familiar with the advocacy stats supporting a genderised view of DV and the dishonest tricks used to create them. We are also familiar with the trick of discussing DV in the broadest possible terms then when pressed falling back to the small portion of DV at the extreme end of the scale where women do suffer more than men.

A simple rewording of part of your post say's it much better than your sexist rant.

"I hope, that one day, to hit a partner, denigrate them; belittle them and threaten them with the loss of their kids, or to kill their pets etc will be treated with the same disgust as driving a car while drunk!"

R0bert

"I hope, that one day, to hit a partner, denigrate them; belittle them and threaten them with the loss of their kids, or to kill their pets etc will be treated with the same disgust as driving a car while drunk!"

Luckily we have already reached that day! In Australia, representative community surveys show that most people in the community have a broad understanding of domestic and sexual violence and its impacts, and do not condone it (VicHealth 2010). The majority of respondents also consider violence against women to be a serious issue. It is true that a small minority of people in the community hold attitudes supportive of violence against women, but a similar minority also hold attitudes supportive of violence against men (VicHealth 2010, National Crime Prevention 2001).

References:

Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (VicHealth) (2010, March). National survey on community attitudes to violence against women 2009. Carlton: Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (VicHealth). Retrieved September 20, 2010, from http://www.vichealth.vic.gov.au/~/media/ResourceCentre/PublicationsandResources/ NCAS_CommunityAttitudes_report_2010.ashx

National Crime Prevention (2001). Young people and domestic violence: National research on young people's attitudes to and experiences of domestic violence. Barton: Attorney-General's Dept. Retrieved September 21, 2009, from http://www.crimeprevention.gov.au/agd/WWW/ncphome.nsf/Page/Publications

@Antiseptic - What is your view of feminism? Mine is the struggle to achieve justice and equality for women. Nobody can argue that it exists now. If you follow the news for just one week, you'll learn who are worse at committing crimes of violence - they're men!I challenge you to follow the media for a week and keep a record.

The changes brought about by feminists have all been positive and just, regardless of what area of life you want to mention - but it's only the beginning. My frustration is often at young women who think the need to be vigilant, let alone continue the struggle is no long er required - not true. While women are depicted as sex objects;while women are kept or sold for slavery, sexual and other; while violence is the greatest threat to womens' lives, and while men think that they have a divine right to 'take sex' or diminish women and girls, feminism has still got a long way to go.
Some men feel threatened by any progress made by women. Some men think, that if women are treated as equal human beings, they'll lose something valuable to them. Nobody has come up with just one good example where this has happened.
I raised my 3 sons with the belief, that women were not put on this planet for their use and benefit. That it's OK, desirable even, to have women as friends, and that violence has never resolved anything!

"If you follow the news for just one week, you'll learn who are worse at committing crimes of violence - they're men!" Strangely enough when you consider other demographics over represented in crime figures we that seems to be seen as a symptom of disadvantage.

"The changes brought about by feminists have all been positive and just" - spoken like a true believer. No possibility that the changes have ever gone to far? Those women who have been harrassed by feminists over choices to be full time parents deserved everything they got did they?

"that violence has never resolved anything!" - me I'm rather glad that our side were willing to use violence to stand against Nazi Germany. I'm rather glad that the police use violence at times to stop those who would otherwise dominate the rest of us. Maybe some word play around the term resolved but as an absolute it does not stand up to well.

"with the belief, that women were not put on this planet for their use and benefit. That it's OK, desirable even, to have women as friends" - I'm working on instilling those values in my son as well.

"and while men think that they have a divine right to 'take sex' or diminish women and girls" - which men? I don't personally know any men who think that they have a divine right to 'take sex'. Maybe some who might be accussed of diminishing women by those women who don't want to be treated as equal's but expect to be treated as better than others and beyond challenge.

And maybe
"Some women think, that if women are treated as equal human beings, they'll lose something valuable to them."

percusso, I don't think that we have reached that day. It's still widely accepted that it's not so bad to hit a male partner.

R0bert

@robert-Feminism is making your own decisions. Being seen by others as having that right. I don't recall 'feminists' castigating women who want to be full time parents. In fact, it's a female Minister who's furthering the cause, that it's important for men to bond with their babies/kids. You take the view of some women, some of them may or may not be feminists, and then tell me, that they were all the same. Tell me, if 100 men think it's OK to steal something from their workplace, does that mean that the other 900,000 believe it too? Your arguments don't have any reason, logic or reality.
In what other areas has 'feminism' gone too far? Demanding equal pay? The right to tertiary education? The right over their bodies?
What else. Don't make wide sweeping statements lumbering all feminists in the same boat. One in 4 men bash their parners/wives. Do you want me to lumber you in with them? You'd be outraged and rightly so!
It is not widely accepted to hit a male partner, or any one else for that matter. However, nobody would insist, that a woman being bashed doesn't have the right to defend herself, or retaliate - usually to her detriment.
Have you read any of the millions of articles about domestic violence?

Too many men think it's OK to speak in a derogatory manner about women. Over 180,000 women(at least)in this country who are raped each year - this is not the total number. The male perpetrators of those rapes think it's OK to use their power to violate women - that's what rape is about, power and control - not about sexual pleasure! You don't think that way, and you don't know men who've behaved this way - great - but they're out there! A male bashed a great-grandmother yesterday - a male?
Follow the news for just one week, on the ABC not channel?

As I've said on earlier posts, I was exposed to domestic violence for over 20 years. It's not just the violence, although that's horrific, it's not knowing when he'll 'erupt'? It could be because you were late home - no excuse is good enough. Or, the meal is late, again, no excuse. Or it's the time taken to care for my Mum before my father died - 3 years.I was treated as though I'd deliberately brought this scourge into the family and mucked up the daily routine(only his was important). It could be anything of such a trivial nature, that you could never pre-empt it. I slowly realised, that not only could I not win, I was never meant to. It was my friends - his home his castle, and he'd embarras my friends by stating this and asking them to leave. Being accused of being a lesbian because I liked to spend time with women friends. You name it he did it. Clothes for the kids. He could spend a week of 'avoidal programming' to let me know how he felt about my unrealistic demands - shoes, underclothes etc for his kids. On and on it went, to the point, where I seriously thought I was going mad. I'd lie awake for hours (on the other side of my head that he'd wacked, as it hurt so much I couldn't use a comb for several) days thinking of ways to avoid these 'situations'? Never worked, was never meant to!
These people are sociopaths. The whole of their life must be focused on them, regardless of if their child has a life threatening illness or their wife is in extreme pain or a car accident was the reason why I was late home. It's a psychiatric problem that doesn't change unless they acknowledge its existence and seek to change it - he hasn't done that as far as I'm aware, and his behaviour today doesn't exhibit this self analysis, let alone any remorse!They're either amazingly arrogant or psychiatrically devoid of any form of understanding, compassion or fairness. None!

Liz "Don't make wide sweeping statements lumbering all feminists in the same boat." I've never lumped all feminists in the same boat, that's your misrepresentation of what I'm saying.

"Over 180,000 women(at least)in this country who are raped each year - this is not the total number" - You might care to check that number again and possibly ask about the difference between assault and rape. The real figures are way too high but again you have misrepresented it to make it seem even worse. FYI the 2005 Personal Safety Survey put the total of women experiencing sexual assault at 101,600
(http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/056A404DAA576AE6CA2571D00080E985/$File/49060_2005%20%28reissue%29.pdf)

"One in 4 men bash their parners/wives." The same survey puts the total proportion of women who had experienced physical assault in the previous 12 months at 3.1% (almost 1/3 of those by a stranger). Around 800,000 women have experienced some form of physical violence from a current or former male partner since the age of 15 - the estimated population of Australia in June 2005 was just over 20 million (that 1 in 4 is looking a bit shaky).

The real figures are horrible but the propensity of some feminists to misrepresent and exaggerate them is also disgusting.

I'd suggest that you check the numbers I've mentioned and if they are valid (I hope so) have a think about what that tells you about how you see the world.

R0bert

Liz just after I posted my previous post I spotted yours.

It does sound like you had a horrific time and I don't want to appear dismissive of your pain. I can relate to some parts of what you describe although not to the same extreme's. A shorter marriage and probably a more decent ex.

Most of what you describe are issues experienced to differing degrees by people of bother genders. About the only real difference is at the extreme end of the violence range, women come off worse there.

Not all men from bad marriages are like your ex, the behaviors you describe are not male attributes, they are human failure.

R0bert

RObert-If you put Domestic Violence into your search engine, you'll come up with millions of articles - some are surveys. I believe,that the 1 in 3 stats for physical abuse,and the 1 in 4 for girls and 1-5 for boys(by age 18)sexual abuse are correct.
The stats I gave were part of a speech by Nicola Roxon a couple of yrs ago-she stated that the reported crimes were only 10% of reality-at least.Only 10% go to court,and only a small number are the perps convicted.We recently had a case,where due to the young woman wearing skinny jeans,and the Judge admitting that he couldn't have removed them without assistance, showed her consent. She was 43 Kgs. No witnesses to explain the issue - just appalling.Another, was due to victim being 'unconscious' she hadn't refused, so it was only a 'technical rape'? whatever that is. Thankfully, in NSW consent has to be given,and people have the right to change their mind at ANY stage.
There still exists the view,that men can't stop - that is rubbish and a 'good excuse' that just doesn't wash anymore.
It's been my experience over 40+ yrs,that when 4 or 6 women are in a group and feel safe, at least one of them will reveal either sexual or physical abuse either as kids or adults, or both. This fits with most investigations into both types of abuse.
As a woman, I'd be more likely for other women to confide in than you'd experience. The stats made by Kevin Rudd in '09, plus the Vic Health stats, together with those in other states and countries uphold these assertions.

Liz45:"If you put Domestic Violence into your search engine, you'll come up with millions of articles - some are surveys."

If you put Fairies into your search engine, ditto. do you suggest that we base DV policy on the fairies at the bottom of the garden's advice?

All the reputable surveys conducted by non-advocacy "researchers" show that DV is not a gendered issue except insofar as if it escalates to physical violence the greater strength of men means that women may ebd up worse off.

Liz45:"The stats I gave were part of a speech by Nicola Roxon a couple of yrs ago"

Nicola Roxon is a politician and a professional Feminist. Her rise to the Ministry is due entirely to her gender, not her capacity. Her utterances on gender issues are designed as advocacy, not as a considered view of the data.

Citing Roxon on gender issues is like citing George Bush on the Iraq war - it means you have no case and not many brain cells.

Liz45:"We recently had a case,where due to the young woman wearing skinny jeans,and the Judge admitting that he couldn't have removed them without assistance, showed her consent. "

And we have had lots of examples of men being released after being falsely accused. The girl in your example brought no evidence that she had been physically assaulted. She claimed she felt scared, but she didin't claim he made any threats. She claimed he "ripped her jeans off", which is absurd on the face of it. He claimed it was consensual and the judge found that her evidence was not credible.

Why should her word be taken willy-nilly with no judgement applied?

Take your time, it's not going to be an easy one for you.

Liz next time you put Domestic Violence into the search engine try looking for some that actually test their assumptions rather than start out with the usual statement of faith and work from there.

Look for the ones which have explored not only about women's experience of DV but also the ones which have looked at men's experience and at the mutuality of a significant proportion of DV. Try looking for any which explore those factors for the non-physical types of DV, who nags who, who checks messages on their partners mobiles, who find's their social life controlled by a partner etc?

The kind of research you seem to be used to and I suspect which Roxon would favor does not tend to ask those questions. It starts with the assumption that DV is about men controlling women and works from there. Once they have done that then any of the nominated behaviors by men are decreed to be controlling and when done by women get excused as women fighting back.

There appears to have been very little serious work on exploring the prevalence on non-physical controlling behaviors and a consistent pattern for many years that when actual experience of physical assault by a partner is investigated the numbers come up very similar for men and women. The only real difference is at the severe end of the injury range and there is some evidence that mutual assault is a very significant factor at that extreme end.

R0bert

Obviously, for Liz45 it would "have been easier just
to have his still hot dinner on the table when he got
home from work". That way she might have avoided the
violence that evidently was the hallmark of her marriage.

Roscop wasn't joking, apparently. While it's heartening
that some others found his comment as appalling as I did,
the exculpatory comments by some men here are indicative
that White Ribbon Day is still needed. No doubt most
men who act violently towards women are "merely expressing
[their] own frustration", but it seems that it's still not
accepted by a recalcitrant minority that such behaviour
is completely unacceptable, even as a "joke".

What is also quite appalling is the tenor of the snide
comments directed towards a woman whose revelations of
her own experience indicate that criminal violence toward
women in the home still occurs in our society.

"What is also quite appalling is the tenor of the snide comments directed towards a woman whose revelations of her own experience indicate that criminal violence toward women in the home still occurs in our society."

This statement is wonderful as it captures very well the prevailing social attitude to violence across the Western world. The attitude goes something like this:

1. Some women tell true stories about their experience of horrendous criminal violence by men in the home

2. We as a society feel sympathy for these women and want to help them and protect them from further violence

3. These women and their sympathisers, because their only experience has been of male violence towards women, naturally - it's only human nature - look for and provide statistics that show the level of violence against women, but ignore statistics showing the levels of violence against men, thus providing a one-sided and misleading view of the entire picture of violence in society

4. People don't want to challenge these misleading statistics because to do so is (incorrectly) to be seen as somehow attacking those women who have experienced horrendous criminal violence by men in the home (like talisman just claimed)

It should be clear to any rational person, that challenging misleading statistics is not attacking women, or attacking female victims of violence in any way, or denying that male violence towards women exists and should always be challenged. It is merely saying "there is another side to the story that your one-sided statistics aren't showing us".

You can read more about this issue at http://www.oneinthree.com.au/misinformation/

Any discussion on domestic violence would be incomplete without reference to an ideology which specifically advocates it:

"Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and SCOURGE them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great."
Koran 4:34
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO0UaBG1Bsg&feature=related

This is of course just a minor aspect of an ideology which promotes violence toward all those who do not adhere to its worldview:

"Kill the disbelievers wherever you find them."
Koran 2:191

Eliminating Islamic calls to violence would reduce many forms of violence to a fraction of their current level.

Proxy you forgot mention how appallingly homophobic some Muslim's are when you introducing your pet bias to this topic. Go on attack them for homophobes, you know you want to.

On the other hand I've not seen anything to suggest that muslim violence is of itself a significant factor in Australian violence stats.

talisman, if you read Liz's comments at least one of her posts suggests that she may have been the physical aggressor. I don't know if that's what she is saying but Liz has not clarified the comment about her doing the assaulting. When I saw her piece on her experiences I did rethink my response to her somewhat but her own bad experiences with one man don't excuse a determination to believe the worst of men, to use the most loaded phrases to describe male behavior.

R0bert

ROber t - I was not the aggressor.

This comment "Wouldn’t it have been easier just to have his still hot dinner on the table when he got home from work?" clearly shows the attitude some people have towards women. Nowhere in the marriage ceremony does it state,that women are to be slaves. As a human being, I have the same right to personal fulfillment as a male does, that includes education and employment. What utter selfishness. Hopefully,with education, this sexist attitude to girls and women will go, and people who think like that will be 'out of step' with community values.
Will you educate your daughters? Or believe, like the views up to the 1970's, that girls don't need educating to be wives and mothers? I reject that view.
WRD is just the first of 16 days(25Nov-10Dec) set aside by the UNITED NATIONS to raise awareness to eliminate all forms of violence towards girls and women, who are the receivers of the majority of violence - BY THOSE WHO PROFESS TO LOVE THEM!
Do the anti WRD people know how and why this day came about?
If people think it's OK for a bloke who's at least 30 cms taller, over 30 klgs heavier to whack a small woman around the head because she's been sitting with her dying father, or taking her little mum home, or stuck in traffic due to car accident, or doing the shopping, then I have nothing further to add - in fact, it's this sort of attitude that is part of the reason why the situation has escallated to today's stats.
People with attitudes like some presented here, are part of the problem.It's been proven,that men who bash their wives rarely assault their workmates, neighbours or friends? Just their wives/partners? Why?they think they 'own' them! They do not!
If you can show me, that every 7-10 days a man is murdered by his partner, please do so. The fact is, that they are not!

Liz45:"liminate all forms of violence towards girls and women, who are the receivers of the majority of violence -"

I dispute this. Prove your claim.

"If people think it's OK for a bloke who's at least 30 cms taller, over 30 klgs heavier to whack a small woman around the head because she's been sitting with her dying father, or taking her little mum home, or stuck in traffic due to car accident, or doing the shopping"

And just who has suggested that? The closest would be Roscop's comment which I don't recall seeing anybody else supporting. If you check my posting history you will see that I have been critical of Roscop previously for generalised comments about women. I'm getting a bit tired of the men being criticised if we don't police one anothers comments and clearly repudiate any which go to far while the women generally stay silent in the face of similar bitter tactics.

Your dislike of men and willingness to believe the worst of us is disgusting.

Perhaps you could clarify something - who was the first to take arguments to a physical level in your altercations with your ex? Your earlier wording left me with the sense that it might have been you regardless of who you considered was the aggressor. You've still not said why there was you might technically have assaulted him..

R0bert

Liz

"If people think it's OK for a bloke who's at least 30 cms taller, over 30 klgs heavier to whack a small woman around the head because she's been sitting with her dying father, or taking her little mum home, or stuck in traffic due to car accident, or doing the shopping, then I have nothing further to add"

That comment explains why men on this site feel a need to speak out. For a generation, we have been fed unrealistic depictions of DV that are carefully designed to make female participants look as victim-like as possible. The scenarios that you depict bear little resemblence to DV as it happens in the real world and it is of concern that so many people, such as yourself, have such an ignorant view of DV.

In the real world, everyone occasionally has had an argument. Most of us back off when it becomes too heated. Some people won't or cannot de-escelate arguments. These arguments spiral out of control. This depiction may not support the female victim/male agressor (false) dichotomy, but represents all that we understand about how DV occurs in the real world.

Do you want to understand and fix this problem, or just have an excuse to look down on these men?

Some people just don't or don't want to get it. those who do and speak out strongly in support of abused women, thank you. I don't have the time or the inclination to put up all sorts of reports, surveys or UN information. Like my ex-husband, it still would not be sufficient.You don't want to know the reality!
Men like my ex-husband are sociopaths. Did I realise this while I was living the life of one subjected to daily terrorism? No!That is why they're so dangerous and crippling of ones self esteem. They are driven by a need to control - always/everything. Whether it's inflicting fear via physical assault; or removing self esteem by continued humiliation; or embarrassing people in front of others, strangers or friends-no matter; or whether it's using a mother's love to ridicule her for being distressed after a life threatening health crisis over OUR child - day by day, event after event makes you realise, that you are never meant to win-you don't deserve even the most basic concern or compassion, and that his withdrawal is a total lack of real love or empathy. I can not recall one kindness by him?

The more I loved the person in crisis, my parents or my babies, his cruelty was at its extreme. He demanded everything for himself; meals on time(his time)university education(while every hurdle was put in my way,just to do a sewing course) employment; parenting; housework, regardless of whether I was sick or not? He was a Hitler of the home - a worthy community member outside of it?His comment when I asked him why, was 'it's the only language you understand'? Obviously so worthless to warant a semblance of respect or care - forget love!

Liz45, the whole point is that the vast majority of men are not like that, even a little bit. Making laws that treat every man as though he was like that is simply stupid and counter-productive.

He could subject me to 'non-speak' for a week because I hadn't sewn a button on his shirt or forgot that tonight was a meeting(his)uni or??He pulled me by the hair when I was 6 months pregnant, because there was dust on the window sill. He was doing something 'most important' while I was in early labour with that baby (my 2nd)who, after he was born, 'rabbit chopped' me down my spine while I lay on the bed feeding him-if I hadn't turned over??He twisted my ankle around another time while I was doing the same thing.I'll probably need a knee replacement before long - it still pains me. Jealousy? Control?
I often had concussion,and on one occasion was sent for a brain scan by a doctor. He was a bully, a thug and a sociopath - a dangerous person.
I made sure that my three sons did not grow up like him - I taught them that violence is not on, and that women are not men's slaves. I also made sure that they had all the skills to be self sufficient adults - they can cook, wash, iron, do housework, look after their children and treat their wives with love and respect - this gives me much joy and pleasure.
The homicide rate of women in this and every country around the world shows beyond doubt,that the greatest threat to our health and safety is by men who profess to love us! One approx.every 10 days in Australia.
Even after more than 20 yrs, speaking of this is distressing!
WRD was started by men in Canada as a show of outrage on the first anniversary of a lone gunman,who shot dead 14 women students and injured 8 others - it was deliberate female killing?The men wore white ribbons to show their determination to prevent violence to women, and support of the families who lost their loved ones.The UN added further weight by setting aside WRD around the world!
So those who believe it was 'cooked up' by feminists are only showing another ignorance!

Antiseptic - What part of this issue don't you understand. I have never stated, nor has the WRD website or any politician that I've heard of, that ALL men bash women, but the fact is, that 1 in 3 women will experience either physical,sexual,psychological,financial, social or some other abuse in their lifetime - these are crimes in every State and Territory - and it took years of struggle to get here.
Not every person robs or commits fraud - the Laws are there for those who do. The same about this type of violence, which is different and hideous because, those who bash pretend to care and protect their female partner and do not.
IF you have nothing to worry about, you have nothing to worry about. Why are you persisting as though every man is being persecuted. WRD is to raise awareness, like the campaign against contracting HIV/AIDS via use of condons; or not to drink and drive.
Men who get so precious about the annual focus on the elimination of violence towards women and kids concern me. Why do you feel so threatened. Decent men and women, who understand the facts are sympathetic and supportive. You just remind me of the police of 40 yrs ago, and the Chamber Magistrate who I saw over 40 yrs ago-it was due to his attitude and the fact that there was nowhere to go or no financial support,that I waited another 15+ years to leave the violence! Now women have other avenues and support!
I should have protection via the Law if my husband bashes me,the same as I'd have if a stranger in the street did-if you disagree,you're part of the problem, and will only mean,that the solution will take longer, and more women will die!

@Benk@Antiseptic- Go on to some sites in other countries such as the US and Britain. Go to the United Nations web site. Go to Central America, such as El Salvador. This is a world wide campaign as it's a world wide problem. There is something really wrong with too many men's attitudes to their personal relationships. There's other crimes of violence that you obviously don't have a problem with - Laws that punish perpetrators - you just don't think it should be applied for these crimes. Why is that? You are being so argumentative; you don't seem to be able to grasp the horror of having to live like this. You don't seem to think that there's something wrong with a man who'd behave like this.
I haven't accused you of committing these crimes, but others - my ex husband who promised to protect me; who lived a double life - criminal violence towards me, and calm, rational and adult behaviour outside the home.
I should not have to defend my assertions to people, whose ego is so huge, that gee, how dare anyone accuse a man, some men of being criminals.
Show me the stats in Australia that are as damning as the homicide of women by their 'loving' partners - they don't exist. Men are more likely to be killed by a stranger in a pub - by another male. This does not apply to women.
This is really becoming most distressing for me now. It just reminds me of how hard it is for women to be believed. You'd probably have more sympathy for having my car broken into, that by being bashed by my ex husband. Says a lot about you!

Liz

It is quite possible that your story is entirely accurate and you would have all my sympathy if this is true. I want to stop DV as much as anyone.

DV stopped simply being a problem to be solved a long time ago. It has become an avenue for women to claim the high moral ground in the battle of the sexes. Hence, the promotion of an unrealistic mental model of DV where the distinction between victim and villian is greatly exaggerated. I still believe that most DV is reciprocal and escilates in a tit-for-tat fashion. I am not about to ignore a large body of research, anecdotal evidence (ask any police about domestics) and well understood, prominent cases, simply because they differ from your depiction of your case.

Genuine attempts to solve the DV puzzle start with an attempt to really understand DV, including its reciprocal nature. Telling these blokes that everything is their fault and that he needs to do whatever she tells him or else he is labelled "controlling" achieves nothing. We need to acknowledge how selfish and violent some women are and give these blokes need strategies to deal with these dingbat women in a peaceful way.

Telling these women that everything is his fault and that they mustn't blame themselves is also similarly unproductive. Female participants need to learn the same conflict resoution skills that he does. Certainly, others should be reluctant to give her the high moral ground, simply on the basis of her gender. It becomes a weapon for some women to misuse.

Surely someone who has been affected by DV wants to stop it, not simply gain an excuse to feel superior towards male participants.

Liz, you are simply ranting. Constantly regurgitating false "statistics" or "facts" doesn't make your point, it discredits it.

Now, let's start again. You said:"girls and women, who are the receivers of the majority of violence "

I said:"I dispute this. Prove your claim."

You said:"I don't have the time or the inclination to put up all sorts of reports, surveys or UN information."

So why should we bother listening to someone who doesnt have the "inclination" to base her argument on facts? You see, I HAVE looked up all sorts of reports, including UN ones, which are conscientiously biased to exclude reporting issued of violence against men. Even they acknowledge the violence against women and children represents less than 50% of the violence against men.

What you and the rest of the White Ribbon people try to do is pretend that facts don't matter and to cloud the issue in a haze of emotion. I agree it's an emotive subject, but that just means we need to be more careful to keep that emotion out of our responses, not whip it up in an hysterical hatred of men, as you and Flood and the WRD dabacle attempt to do.

I have no idea of your personal circumstances, but I have to say I'm skeptical of the claims of someone who has already acknowledged she was the physical aggressor and who has no "inclination" to use facts in arriving at her position.

As for ElSalvador or wherever you're wanting to discuss, I have no interest. This is Australia and the circumstances of a hypothetical Somalian are not relevant to our society or our laws. If you're concerned about the plight of women in Outer Mongolia, may I suggest you pack your bags?

@Antisept"You see, I HAVE looked up all sorts of reports, including UN ones, which are conscientiously biased to exclude reporting issued of violence against men. Even they acknowledge the violence against women and children represents less than 50% of the violence against men."
I have NEVER said that I instigated any violence -on the contrary.
As you're the one who disagrees with the view of every State & Territory in the country,plus the UN and other countries; the onus is on you to prove it. You're the odd one out, not me.
The reason why I hesitate to go researching is because I've done it before - on many occasions - YOU ARE WRONG!
I do not have to convince you of my truthfulness - once I would've felt quite intimidated by your responses,but not now! I'm a survivor and I survived being almost killed by a violent gutless man who used intimidation and abuse to make him feel in control
There are over 9 million articles, I've read many of them. I'm also on a local committee re this issue.
I am sewing a Christmas gift for a women who has an aquired brain injury caused by her husband's assault - she's the third woman I've known of with similar or worse injuries - I could've been one also! I have more important things to do than argue with a misogynist!

Your call! Put up or?

Liz

So are you saying that you will admit that you are wrong when someone puts up research that suggests that women are responsible for roughly the same amount of DV as men?

@benk - For god's sake! I was violated, bashed and abused. In the 1960's women were not protected by the law - now things have changed - at last! I can not tell you how many articles I've read; how many personal stories I've heard - face to face; how many books,articles, reports etc. The fact is, that domestic violence is a serious issue around the world - the UN acknowledges this,as does the Australian Law authorities - STATE and FEEDERAL! If you or anyone else doesn't agree with the stats etc, show me the articles etc.
Go and take a look at Phil Cleary's website - Read 'Just Another Little Murder'? Go to NSW website or the Australian Attorney General, or the United Nations, or all State govt's Dept of Health webiste!
Fair dinkum! You're fighting against reality!
You have only ranted on in a misogynist manner - go and see a counsellor or someone! Geez!
You have a serious problem with reality!

Anyone interested in looking at the stuff Liz refuses to see could start with the following links. It's not exhaustive but it should be enough to get honest people wondering about those wast numbers of reports which start with a statement of faith along the lines of "Domestic Violence is overwelmingly perpetrated by men against women" and then proceed to only examine evidence that supports that view.

I'm not aware of any links to mens rights advocacy groups especially for the first two.

http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/dom/heady99.htm

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/170018.pdf

http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

There are weaknesses in all the methodologies used to examine DV and this stuff is not perfect either but the reality is that over a sustained period when people are asked similar non-loaded questions about intimate partner violence men and women initiate it and experience it in similar numbers.

The only significant difference is in the severity of injuries at the high end of the scale and there are strong indicators that much of that occurs where the violence is mutual.

If that is all to counter intuitive based on what you have been told for years about DV have a think about child abuse stat's and what they say about violence in the home.

R0bert

@RObert - You are incorrect! Three sites do not an argument finish. The facts around the world, including the incidents of female homicide in Australia counter any claims you or ben or the bloody pope might make. The facts are, that some men use control to intimidate and have power over women. I challenge you to respond to being really hit or bashed that hurt so much that you couldn't bear to even lie on that side of your head. FROM THAT TIME ON the ground rules have been set - the threat? 'Misbehave' again, and this is what will happen.
NOw I don't give a stuff, whether you engage the bloody pope in this discussion - the catholic church are also partly to blame- that women are inferior owned by men, have to submit blah blah!
What is your beef? Go out for a long walk, or kick the back fence, but stop your assault on me! You're the one with the problem - maybe some woman/women did the wrong thing by you - I didn't! I have one more post, then I'm done with you and your misogynist mate!

Liz you do a lot of transference. You come to this thread attacking the idea that anti-family violence campaigns should include violence against men. You say the most derogatory things about men. You use your bad experience as an excuse to continue to make vile comments about men no this thread and others then phrase it as "stop your assault on me!"

While you continue to attack men and make false claims I will continue rebutting those claims. I suspect that you are more used to sites where opposing views can easily be shut down by the administrators but that's not this place. If you stick within the rules you can have your say but those with differing views also get to have their say.

I don't expect three links to make the case, nor to I expect posters to find and review the "275 scholarly investigations: 214 empirical studies and 61 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners" referenced in one of the pieces.

What I expect is for those with any interest in the truth to look at the material, look at some of the material you love and ask themselves why the differences.

R0bert

@RObert - You have not provided any information to uphold your biased views. You can reject reality as much as you like, but it still remains regardless. I am not a man hater, but I do hate men who bash and I also hate other people who, by their anti the victims support the perpetrators - that is what you're doing.
I know my reality,and the reality of hundreds of thousands, no millions of women's reality around the world. The fact is, that in all areas that violence is a part, men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators. As I've said before - watch and listen to or read the news for just one week, and the reality is there.
Just because you will not admit to the reality, doesn't make it dissipate - men need to start telling their mates to stop! That means you! What you are doing to me is reinforce the attitude of the police and the Chamber Magistrate over 40 yrs ago - this is just another form of abuse!
There's over 9 million articles that you can read - you single out a couple that suit your misogynist views!You have a bad case of selective amnesia!
I'm done!

The problems with the advocacy based DV articles have been well covered on OLO numerous times. I don't know if the number is really up to 9 million yet or not but what is clear is that if you go in with the same false assumptions and don't allow those assumptions to be tested you will keep coming up with the same answers.

Again - when researchers try to determine if men and women suffer DV at the same rates they tend to find the answer is yes. When all researchers are interested in is women's subjective experience of DV then that's what they find.

The difference between all those articles Liz refers to and the small sample I've referenced here is that the one's I've tried to reference tried to find the truth rather than just repeat the desired outcomes.

R0bert

The major line of argument that I have consistently pushed is that our society needs to genuinely understand the way that DV really happens in order to stop it. All of the research suggests that DV tends to be reciprocal. Understanding a problem better usually means coming up with better solutions. In short, I believe that simply asking him to stop will achieve little and that both participants need to learn on conflict resolution skills.

Others have found research to support their arguments, I liked this report http://domestic-violence.martinsewell.com/DuttonCorvo2006.pdf
It is quite long, but the introduction gives a good overview and discusses evidence about bidirectional DV. The next two sections discuss current approaches, which they describe as a political solution imposed on a psychological problem. The next section discusses understanding the incidents from his perspective as a basic skill of the counsellor.

Liz claims that her personal experience with DV proves that I am wrong. The fact that she cannot contribute to an internet debate without adopting such an angry tone and resorting to personal attacks only goes further to prove that people who are involved with DV need to learn skills to better resolve conflict.

@benk - The reason I adopt such an angry tone, is because I'm bloody angry! I put up with a life of his violence for over 20 years. I was subjected to having my car tampered with just because I'd done or he decided I'd done something-calm could have been restored,but he'd interfere with my car while I was in the shower - or move it a few streets away; or steal my keys. He took pleasure in me ringing him at work,hanging up on me, loving the fact that I'd ring back, running late for work; all he knew would stress me - he was in control!He made the decision when to tell me where my car was, or where my keys were - he decided when it ended - when I was nearly a nervous wreck - these are not WELL PEOPLE!
You and your mate,who probably have never even spoken to anyone in my position, or the police or counsellor, or rape crisis centres, or other women, or ?No idea!
You refer to me as 'she' not in a direct way. YOu pick and choose what articles you read that uphold your views? You ignore the millions that uphold my experiences and assertions?
Tell me, do you debate, argue, disagree, insult people who've had their house broken into, or their car stolen? No! I'm sure you wouldn't want to sound like a callous brute to them.
How about other crimes? Bank robberies? It's the fault of the workers is it? the bank manager! No, I bet you don't. Why these crimes?
Says more about you - you are part of the problem - you could be an abuser in denial for all I know! You are of concern!

@RObert - How do you treat the women in your life? I have some concerns about you too. Interesting that you are so intent on proving me to be incorrect. Why is that do you think? You don't know me. What are you trying to prove - that your ingrained attitudes to women are being challenged? I've heard and read about men who bash their wives because the creases in their underpants are not exact. I know of a bloke who when he came home late, and his dinner was on the stove, he'd empty it in his wife's shopping bag or handbag. These men are sociopaths, and some go all the way to murder. I was lucky,I could've been dead. the more I learn these days about medical knowledge re the brain and how easily it is to kill someone, I get the shakes - it's a form of PTSD - after all these years! I'm not neurotic or have a mental illness - I'm a person who responds/responded in a normal way to being forced to live in a terrorist environment - never knowing when he'd 'attack'? Don't say why didn't you leave? Or it couldn't have been that bad. The fact is, that most women who end up dead are murdered after they left the perpetrator.
I don't intend to spend too much more time on this site,as you have no idea what you're talking about, and are just talking through a hole in the top of your head. That is, you're an ignorant brute who probably rules those in your life - that is abuse? Why? Because no human being has the right to bring terror into the life of anyone - particularly the person he promised to love and protect!
I'm involved in many areas of women's health, and I do not need an ignoramus telling me what my reality was, or is!

Liz45:"The facts are, that some men use control to intimidate and have power over women. "

Yes indeed and some women use control to exert power over men. I have a very good friend who works as a maintenence palnned for a large food manufacturer. He is responsible for ensuring that the equipment is properly looked after. He has to balance the competing demands of production and safety, as well as considering the implications of sales targets and so on.

His wife won;t allow him to have a card giving access to their joint bank account. She won't allow him to be out past 8:30 at night. she won;t allow him to buy his own clothes or choose his own mobile phone plan or have enough money in his pocket to buy a beer when it's his shout.

He can't protest - the last time he tried she simply told him that if he didn't like it he could lump it. Having seen my experience and that of other friends, he's terrified that if he goes through a divorce he'll be completely ruined, so he puts up with it.

In my own experience, the domineering and controlling wife is a far more common creature than the violent husband, but we never hear about her from the taxpayer-funded mother's rights groups. The shrew and the fishwife are not stereotypes, they are archetypes and well represented in the population. I suspect most of the more strident female posters here would fit the mould.

"How do you treat the women in your life?" - particularly well actually.

"I have some concerns about you too." - Chaz said something about that type of tactic recently.

"Interesting that you are so intent on proving me to be incorrect. Why is that do you think?" - because you seem intent on defaming men on this site on a regular basis. You use exaggerated or plain false, one sided stats and claims to try and sustain a gendered understanding of family violence. I've been on the wrong side of that where violence against me was dismissed by those who should have known better. Why are you so intent on trying to stop calls for an end to all family violence rather than just that where the male hits?

"Because no human being has the right to bring terror into the life of anyone - particularly the person he promised to love and protect" - agreed except the "he" should be more generic. All family terrorists should be stopped not just the "he" ones.

"That is, you're an ignorant brute who probably rules those in your life - that is abuse?" - Oh a little bit of flaming. I hope that get's left up.

Strange as it may seem to you this thread was not supposed to be about you specifically, other peoples lives matter as well including the lives of men with abusive spouses. You have persisted with the idea that because you claim to have had an abusive partner that men's experiences as the recipients of abuse don't count and should be silenced.

R0bert

Liz

I am genuinely sorry to hear of your experience. I believe you when you say that you have been in a very troubled relationship. I genuinely hope that posting has helped you.

My issue is that DV is always portrayed as being similar to your case. Please try to understand that many other people's experiences are quite different to yours. Simply wearing little white ribbons that ask him to stop won't stop reciprocal DV any more than they would have stopped your ex.

@benk -There's more to WRD than just wearing 'little white ribbons'?The wearing of the ribbon by men tells other men, that they won't commit violence, won't excuse violence, and won't remain silent about violence towards women.
In my area, we were out there in the public eye in two adjoining cities,followed by a 'get together'in one of the large clubs with speakers etc-the attendance was really great.We have at least two people attached to our police service; a group with a police person as co-ordinator,and guest speakers from places like the rape crisis centre, different community based support networks etc.The atmosphere is quite exciting as the networks are really achieving great things. There's been millions invested by the Rudd govt,the "Staying Home Leaving Violence" program of the NSW govt. Only yesterday,there was a media release re funding for local community centres re educational tools.
The UN has 16 days of awareness program which concludes tomorrow, Human Rights Day. DV is a human rights issue.
Yesterday there was a report released re the profile of rapists-this after following up about 30? rape victims. Today on ABC AM (listen online)was a disturbing report re police attitudes to rape victims - women who are wearing 'skimpy' clothing or affected by alcohol are deemed by detectives to not have the same credibility as those who aren't in this category. IT SHOULDN'T BLOODY WELL MATTER WHAT THE VICTIM WEARS! Elderly women are raped and bashed - in their beds sometimes.
This attitude was prevalent in the 60's - I get despondent when I realise,that to some men, women are just 'commodities' judged on some 'storeroom' mentality.There is a lot more to do!
DV is destructive for victims, sometimes for a life time.
Your view removes the day by day wearing down, the destruction of self esteem and confidence - and that is the perp's intention.
There's a very good book called, 'But He Says He Loves Me' worth a read into the psyche of perps - one side is from their perspective,the other is advice for women-written by a Psychologist who's counselled both!

@RObert-You're the one who's been one sided.I've never said that men are not abused by their partners, but the stats are so one sided,that denying them is both petulant and hurtful. It's not JUST MY experience that has formed my views-I speak to Counsellors,the police people attached to our twin city police command-one is the Co-ordinator of the local COmmittee. There's all the stats on every website of every State's health dept.
The fact that there's a woman murdered approx every 10 days in this country by her partner via DV-show me the comparable men's stats.There's the fact that women who suffer DV are more likely to have an abortion; can suffer a range of medical conditions including migraine, gastrointestinal and gynaecological conditions, stress etc. Midwives speak of women with boot print marks on their pregnant bellies. I have a friend who works in an abortion clinic and the bashed women she sees are horrifying.
Sadly, too many men still believe,that they're the king of their castle;that they're owed sex; that using physical force is a sign of being tough, and that women are inferior anyway, and that they MUST control her and the family to fulfill?Who knows!
Too many don't see they have a problem, and until they do they just go on to the next woman and behave in the same way. Only 7 yrs ago,my ex denied that he'd done those things,why should he tell his chn the truth, and threatened me - again! He could "talk to people"?
Ask yourself how you'd feel, if a bloke much bigger and stronger than you was whacking you, demeaning and embarrassing you in front of your friends etc, and you lived in fear each day. It's called empathy! Have a shot at it!
I'm now going to take my mate shopping!

Ir's now become clear why Liz has no "inclination" to conrtaminate her mind with facts: she's a member of the WRD rabble.

'nuff said, really.

Never let a fact stand in the way of a good bit of self-promoting is the WRD philosophy, as I understand it.

Liz45, in the melange of male misbehaviours you rant on about you haven't mentioned the drink spiking epidemic. I heard them saying on radio not all that long ago, that there were approx 20 women going to the emergency ward of the small local hospital every Thursday night suffering from the effects of having their drinks spiked. The issue seemed to come out of nowhere and not much later disappeared overnight. As a mischievous male I was always waiting for them to convict the first perp. in the jurisdiction but it never happened as far as I know. As an expert on male misbehaviour can you explain to us what happened there?

Liz

It isn't enough for us to express sorrow about what you say happened to you.
It isn't enough for us to search for solutions, abeit different solutions to yours.

You insist that we have to adopt your view of DV, where violent men bash poor innocent women. This discredited view of DV isn't an attempt to understand a problem in order to fix it. It is an attempt by women to use DV as a tool to stake a claim on the high moral ground in the battle of the sexes.

It also represents an attempt to give female DV participants more power. Male participants in DV feel the wrath of public opinion. Female participants are showered with sympathy. Your model of DV represents an attempt to give women the same sort of control over men that you accuse men of wielding.

"Ask yourself how you'd feel, if a bloke much bigger and stronger than you was whacking you, demeaning and embarrassing you in front of your friends etc, and you lived in fear each day. It's called empathy! Have a shot at it!"

Or you could ask yourself how it feels for a bloke having a woman smaller and not as strong being able to hit with impunity safe in the knowledge that the you can't hit back. A woman much stronger with the hurtful words and determined to use you to get the life she wants regardless of what it costs you. Ask yourself what it feels like when you seek assistance for abuse to be told that it does not matter, she's upset with you and you probably deserve it. It's called empathy! Have a shot at it!

I've been pondering what form you think empathy should take. I've never dismissed the hurt of women who have been abused, but you have shown utter contempt for men wanting a change in the way DV is discussed in the public space.

There has been no sign of any empathy from you for male victims of DV in all it's forms. Instead of listening and trying to understand our viewpoint you focus on your own story and that of other women as though that invalidates men's experience of abuse.

I'm guessing that you have made no attempt at any honest evaluation of the material on DV where men are on the receiving end - the piece that James referenced a couple of days ago is a great starting place.

I've taken the time and labored through numerous DV reports which start with the usual statement of faith blaming men. I've read the criticisms of CTS (and the rebuttal). I've read Floods work and tried to understand what he is trying to do.

In any part of this have you ever tried to understand what the experience of having an abuse spouse is like for a man?

R0bert

@Antiseptic@RObert@benk - Let's get one thing clear - again! I have NEVER asserted anywhere that women are entitled to commit crimes of violence, I have however stated,that any person is entitled to defend themselves from harm.
I have NOT said that men are not victims of DV.What I did say,was that the overwhelming number of victims are women - between 85-90%
This is backed up in many countries including Australia and also the UN.
I HAVE said,that men are more likely to commit crimes of violence than women - only a fool would disagree with this. In the last 10 or so days,there's been many violent crimes of robbery both private homes and service stations etc - about 15 males involved - no females. This is not an isolated scenario. There's an ingrained culture of violence in this country, every country, which also includes the use of rape as a weapon of wars - horrific! There's the sex and/or slave trade, the sexual abuse of children in Asian countries etc, all perps are male. I don't hate men, I just hate what too many of them do! I also get angry when people defend them - in this case, three blokes! Says it all really!
IN the last 15 days, two women could have been murdered, as the police stats show.
I have been sexually abused as a child; molested as a young teenager by a radiographer(on the pretence of showing me where to put my arms for a chest x-ray)who groped my breasts, and then 20 yrs of abuse by my ex-he knew about these instances, which is how these bastards operate - they learn your 'weak' points etc. Quite a clever MO.

Liz45:"What I did say,was that the overwhelming number of victims are women - between 85-90%"

And you're still just as wrong about that as ever.

Still no "inclination" to check your facts, eh?

As for the man who's being abused by his wife - I support him 100% and would actively support him if he was a friend of mine. I would make sure that the police paid attention,if that is what he wanted. I'd also support him re counselling etc.

As for making snide comments about WRD - do you feel the same way about the MEN in Canada who started it? I have posters on my wall, where high profile, intelligent Australian men speak out against violence towards women. Just because I support WRD doesn't automatically mean that I condone violence towards men, I do NOT!

I suggest you read the front page story in yesterdays, Illawarra Mercury about a young woman who was bashed in the face, then stabbed 6 times by her drug raging boyfriend - he got 200 hours community service - he'd probably have got a tougher sentence for assaulting a male stranger? This is the type of 'justice' women have had to put up with for decades at least! What sort of message does that send to abusive men?

A recent article in the SMH showed,that many men are being denied leaving Australia as they hadn't lived up to their responsibilities re child support - 90% of those parents re unpaid support are men.
There is a very big problem in our society re the way men are raised. There's too much emphasis on so-called strengths and powers,and not enough about caring and nurturing, not just of women, but each other and their kids. I never condoned my boys fighting - I told them that any fool can use his fists, but it takes a smart and intelligent man to use his head and heart. That violence begets violence.

I was also bashed by a nun at school -aged 10-11. A sister was molested by a priest,a brother by a Brother at his school. You may have lived a sheltered life, that's good, but that's not other peoples' reality!

"I just hate what too many of them do! I also get angry when people defend them - in this case, three blokes"

Care to defend that particularly vile claim? A reference for each of those you are accusing to show where we have defended abusive men should cover it.

R0bert

@RObert -By putting up arguments that just don't comply with the actual history and facts of DV-all the 'yes buts' for example. Would you take that attitude with other crimes of violence, such as break and enter with violence; bashing up an elderly woman in her home; bank robberies, car thefts and break ins. Why so much 'attitude' re DV!Setting aside one day re WRD and and another 15 days in order to change peoples' attitudes to women and stop the violence should be encouraged by all decent people. The 'yes buts' are an attempt to make the issue less serious than it is.
The following was found to be the basis of men's violence towards women.(Vic.Health Dept).
However, researchers have found that men who abuse family members often:

Use violence and emotional abuse to control their families.
Believe that they have the right to behave in whatever way they choose while in their own home.
Think that a ‘real’ man should be tough, powerful and the head of the household. They may believe that they should make most of the decisions, including about how money is spent.
Believe that men are entitled to sex from their partners.
Don’t take responsibility for their behaviour and prefer to think that loved ones or circumstances provoked their behaviour.
Make excuses for their violence: for example, they will blame alcohol or stress.
Report ‘losing control’ when angry around their families, but can control their anger around other people. They don’t tend to use violence in other situations: for example, around friends, bosses, work colleagues or the police.
Try to minimise, blame others for, justify or deny their use of violence, or the impact of their violence towards women and children.

This has been my experience also!

Liz45, it sounds like you're one of those serial "victims" who loves the attention it brings.

Sad. I'd have thought it was easier to just get a life.

In the meantime my children missed over 30 days school each last year, I've just discovered, because their mother was taking them to "counselling", which she never discussed with me. No one thought this strange at the schools apparently, because she okayed it. Nor did they follwo the Education Department guidelines, which define chronic absenteeism as just 10%, while my kids each had over 15%, all on their mother's watch except for 2 days when they had medical appointments while with me.

The real danger to children comes when mothers exclude the children's fathers from their activities. My ex is obviously suffering from some form of impaired judgement to have condoned so much absenteeism, but the school wasn't worried, because she is a white middle-class woman just like the teachers, who knows the right phrases to use and the right forms to fill in. If she were Aboriginal and barely literate, she would be subject to much greater scrutiny.

It's no surprise she's another of those serial attention-seekers.

Liz45:"A recent article in the SMH showed,that many men are being denied leaving Australia as they hadn't lived up to their responsibilities re child support - 90% of those parents re unpaid support are men."

as it happens, the rate of delinquency among female payers is significantly higher than among male ones. Have a look at the CSA's own reports - oh hang on, you don't have the "inclination" to know the facts. As you were, then

I know, you can make up another fairy story about how you were raped by the obstetrician who delivered you, which is so horrendously common and Something Must Be Done.

Actually, come to think of it, Liz, I reckon you're just a simple bullsh1t artist in the pay of the WRD peple. I reckon you know very well that the facts don't support your claims, so you claim to have no "inclination" to examine them. you know that the logical, rational views expressed here on the subject are gaining traction, so you tell porkies to try to confuse the issue.

@Antiseptic - Well, fancy you having coming to that conclusion,rather than acknowledging the facts and showing some sort of sadness about it - it's called 'shoot the messenger'?Of course, your attitudes don't come from your personal experiences/grievances do they? Of course not! Why did your marriage break up?

As I've said before, I'm sure you don't have the same attitude re other crimes of violence, such as robberies with weapons and street violence. Are the ones on the receiving end 'serial victims'? Should the police not charge these criminals, but tell the victims to just "get on with life"? Or, is it because in your view, using force against women is defendable?
This is probably my last post for the next 24 hrs. I'm going to disengage from receiving updates on this topic. It's just going around in circles!

"it's called 'shoot the messenger'?" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11280#192396

There does seem to be a bit of shooting the messenger about. Makes you wonder who was the abuser in someones relationships if the attitudes here are any indication. BTW the following is not an exhaustive list, just a sampling.

"That is, you're an ignorant brute who probably rules those in your life - that is abuse?" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11280#192173

"you are part of the problem - you could be an abuser in denial for all I know! You are of concern!" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11280#192171

"It's called empathy! Have a shot at it!" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11280#192222

"I just hate what too many of them do! I also get angry when people defend them - in this case, three blokes! Says it all really!" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11280#192377

"You have only ranted on in a misogynist manner - go and see a counsellor or someone! Geez!
You have a serious problem with reality!" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11280#191971

"What is your beef? Go out for a long walk, or kick the back fence, but stop your assault on me! You're the one with the problem - maybe some woman/women did the wrong thing by you - I didn't! I have one more post, then I'm done with you and your misogynist mate!" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11280#191973

"That means you! What you are doing to me is reinforce the attitude of the police and the Chamber Magistrate over 40 yrs ago - this is just another form of abuse!" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11280#192002

R0bert

That is a lot of counseling the little Anti’s apparently need. Condolences dude.

“I know, you can make up another fairy story about how you were raped by the obstetrician who delivered you...”

You’ll get an OLO chocolate fish for that one Anti.

I think Liz has gone R0bert. I had to bow out myself, when I am mocked for grammar and being a mum it's time to walk, I’m starting to believe if you aren’t an abused female or a liar no one sees you as any use in any debate. :)

Have to say again thank you and you know I disagree with many tactics I have seen but there is a clear message I am getting about how we treat men in society.

Something is way out of balance although I still suspect other devious motives behind the custody laws, DV laws, broadening abuse definitions etc and any group claiming they’re doing it for the kids

"when I am mocked for grammar and being a mum" yep it's a real crime being a mum and sometimes getting grammar or spelling wrong.

I suspect that Liz will show up again, I also think there is value in pointing out the double standards, Liz won't understand but some others might get it.

That wasn't all Anti BTW, I'm the target of a number of them and Benk was in there somewhere I think as well. My personal favorite was the "ignorant brute" one - that's me apparently.

I doubt that anyone will be convinced of much just on the basis of what's posted here but maybe it's enough to get people to not always rely on what they are told. To ask some questions when something is not quite right.

Anyway I'd best go dominate some women, got to keep my quota up and all that. I wonder if there are any baby seal's around to bash while I'm at it.

R0bert

Her style of posting suggests to me that Liz was pretty vicious to her ex (who may well be just as bad)and is trying to convince her conscience that she was the victim. I would hate to think that I had failed to sympathise with someone who had genuinely been on the recieving end of some pretty nasty treatment but it very hard to imagining Liz as a placid little victim who played no part in the violence and assorted games.

If anything, she has convinced me even more that we need to understand the reciprocal nature of DV, in order to fix it.

R0bert:”Anyway I'd best go dominate some women, got to keep my quota up and all that. I wonder if there are any baby seal's around to bash while I'm at it.”

You do make me laugh but you know what R0bert, I don’t want to be too weird about it but in countries that do consider women as chattels I have seen perfectly normal 'raised in the west blokes' turned into what they are exposed to daily. So if we keep telling our boys that this is what men are in Australia we create the beast. I think that is what you finally got through to me... don’t keep telling our boys this stuff.

Benk babe that was a big jump from an assumed tone to being mean to some poor man out there. I disagree. I have to if Liz aint here to do it.

It was Chaz that had a go at me but fems always have.

@benk-And you've convinced me,that if women stand up for themselves and speak out, we're labelled as agressive man haters. What you do is reinforce the patriarchal attitudes that sadly,too many men exhibit. You don't know me at all, but it's easier for you to put me in the 'she asked for it' category. I'm a very small women. When my two eldest boys were about 10 and 9, they could pick me up and move me across the room. One son's bone structure was bigger than mine at aged 8 or 9. Women have no hope of retaliation unless they attack while the heavier, taller male is asleep. It never occurred to me to engage in such violence. I could get a whack just for speaking up, or not speaking up, it depended on how he felt at the time.
I have said all along, that I abhor violence, regardless of who commits it. You and RObert choose to ignore that. I'd support anyone who was exposed to violence, by whom or when or where - no difference!
You've also omitted to reply to 'curly' questions - such as, how do you react to other crimes? Do you blame the victims? Or do you just choose to discriminate when women are bashed by husbands/partners?
When I explain or defend, I'm questioned, when I'm assertive I 'must have deserved the treatment'? You and RObert find it difficult to realise,that some men just bash and control their way through their lives, particularly if those bashed can't fight back!
What does that say about you pair? Nothing very flattering!
I don't feel so insecure in my skin these days, that I have to take on board your sexist and judgemental attitudes. When I was very young, I didn't say boo! Now, I don't cop that rot anymore!
I'm sorry if either of you have had bad experiences with women, but I'm not one of them! You are both heaping stuff on me that I did not and have not done or said!

I loved my husband when I married him. I wanted to be married to him all my life. I wanted to have a home for my kids to bring their families too - that has been denied to me! I just wanted the violence to stop. I just wanted him to treat me with respect. I just wanted him to sit down and talk issues through - he wouldn't! It was his way or there was trouble. His opinion, wants and needs took precedence over anyone else, always. No compromises, and he never asked me how I felt about anything - EVER! It was not relevant. NOW, if you think that is the way to conduct an adult loving relationship, then no wonder you assume that I deserved his treatment.
Every Attorney General in this country have united re DV-they're all males. Every Premier,Prime Minister, Territory Administrater agree with the seriousness and the work of WRD Committee/Ambassadors etc, they're all men too!
Why would all these men put aside millions of dollars into programs, policies to stamp out violence towards women. Why does the UN do the same. There are reports etc all over the world about family violence, and the overwhelming majority attest to what I have - that the overwhelming majority of perps are men, and women and kids are their victims.
In the last 2 days,two men have been charged with murdering their wives/partners. About 15 blokes(in about 10 days) have engaged in violent crimes of theft, both in businesses and peoples private homes. That is a conservative estimate, as in one case there were 5 and another there were 4. I've forgotten how many individual cases there have been!
It can't be disputed, that the overwhelming perpetrators in crimes of violence are men and boys! Not women and girls! IF YOU DON'T AGREE, PRODUCE THE STATS!

Liz:"IF YOU DON'T AGREE, PRODUCE THE STATS!"

Already been done, but you and the rest of the WRD shills have no "inclination" to look at facts.

BTW, you're wrong, the majority of abuse of children is perpetrated by mothers and DV is about equally split between the genders.

To be honest, if you had been my wife I'd simply have kicked you out. I've no time for the shrillings of shrews.

Liz "You don't know me at all, but it's easier for you to put me in the 'she asked for it' category"

You don't know Antiseptic, Benk or myself at all either but that's not stopped you from making a range of allegations about us and how we might treat others in our lives. See my post at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11280#192399 for a reminder of some of those comments.

R0bert

You are wrong, and you're doing men a dis-service by your aggressive denial of reality. While you choose to ignore the facts, you put people off who'd be on your side. You accuse me of ignoring reports that suit, but then you do worse - because you conveniently read one section of reports that favour your misguided view, that at best, men and women are equally responsible for domestic violence, but also choose NOT to read the rest of that article that points to anomolies or incidents not included.
You omit to mention that the overwhelming majority of the perpetrators of men's violence are other men, frequently strangers, where the overwhelming majority of perpetrators of women's violence are also men, but usually men they know, particularly those they have an intimate/domestic relationship with. So while there are more violent assaults on men, these are either in public places like pubs and clubs, during crimes of violence like robberies etc, or killed and/or injured by police, or as part of 'orientation' practices etc, whereby women's injuries are inflicted in their own home.

Also, women suffer more crimes of sexual abuse than men, and the perpetrator is usually their husband/partner, although there are many by strangers.These women almost always suffer other forms of abuse as well - sexual assaults on men are for example, inflicted as hate crimes by men who are strangers.

Some surveys that assert equal perpetrators don't include sexual violence or the other aspects of domestic violence such as financial, social or more significant, the control and psychological underlying pattern of the relationship. Usually, women's injuries are far more serious than men's and many surveys do not ask whether the injuries attributed by women were in self defence!
Also,many men use their perception of the injustice of the Family Law Court, and frequently take this out by killing all concerned, including their kids! The numbers of kids killed are often hidden due to Laws pertaining to releasing names and particulars of children - even when the perpetrator has been convicted for the murders!

Liz

Why is it so important to for us to decide that men are worse than women? Are you seeing DVs as simply a problem to be fixed or an excuse to look down on men?

Here's a couple of reports that are applicable to this debate. Too many interesting points of clarification! Some people might be interested!

Dobash,%20Myth%20sexual%20Symmetry.pdf

Flood,%Husband%20Battering_O.pdf

I think the first media stuff about the below article came up in this thread awhile ago?

If this is Aussies worst mother I think we’re a bit deluded. Stupid stupid headline.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw-act/is-this-the-worst-mother-in-australia/story-e6freuzi-1225971155157
Is this the worst mother in Australia?
“The woman pleaded guilty to two counts of neglect but a statement tendered to court revealed she showed "no remorse" and at one point even tried blaming her daughter for not wanting to wear a hat, despite later admitting the toddler did not own one.

Some new research coming out of France shows that the rate of mothers killing newborn babies is some 5 times higher than previously thought.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/lifestyle/lifematters/mothers-fear-of-abandonment-motivates-killing-of-newborns-20101214-18wwh.html

"A team of paediatricians examined the court records of known infant homicides in three regions of France between 1996 and 2000 and found almost one third were cases of neonaticide, where the child was killed by their parent, often the mother, during the first day of their life.

The study found an average of 2.1 newborns were killed per 100,000 live births, while the official mortality statistics showed the rate of neonaticide was only 0.39 for the same regions.
Advertisement: Story continues below

Of the 27 cases studied, 18 of the mothers were identified. In cases where the mothers were known, all the women concealed their pregnancy from their friends and family, and all but three gave birth secretly and alone.

Most of the mothers were employed and lived with the child's father. The most common cause of the newborn's death was asphyxiation."

and "''Neonaticide thus appears as a solution when an unwanted pregnancy risks creating a family scandal, or the loss of a satisfying lifestyle.''

Fear of abandonment and immaturity rather than obvious mental illness or social disadvantage were key drivers for neonaticide, said the authors, from France's National Institute of Health and Medical Research."

So basically, the study is saying that lifestyle is such an important consideration for lots of women that they are prepared to kill their babies to maintain it. Does anyone really think they wouldn't also be prepared to lie to a court for the same reason?

Antiseptic you might want to rethink the "lots of women" comment remembering that the numbers quoted are at "2.1 newborns were killed per 100,000 live births".

Across the world that would translate to lot's but as a proportion of the population it's small.

R0bert

R0bert, as a proportion it's small, but if the figures are correct, it still means that at least 6-10 neonates are killed by their mother in Australia each year and that is never recorded or mentioned. The Keli Lane case may be simply the tip of the iceberg.

I do agree with you on the dangers of generalising from extremes. I was simply pointing out that it is rational to expect that there is a spectrum of behaviour with this at the extreme. Where most women would not dream of killing their baby for lifestyle reasons, many would be prepared to commit lesser acts such as lying in court or claiming violence where none exists.

The neonaticide issue is simply illuminating a part of female psychology that is rarely discussed except to accuse anyone suggesting it exists must be misogynist.

Antiseptic I'm in agreement with the point you are making. I might be overly sensitive to that use of wording but as a tactic it's so overused by the "I like men but most of them are viscous ignorant brute's" crowd that I'd hate for those of us pushing for a more honest approach to these issues to get as sloppy with the way things are phrased.

The old 1 in 4 women have experienced some level of violence becoming "One in 4 men bash their parners/wives." approach. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11280#191440

R0bert

“The neonaticide issue is simply illuminating a part of female psychology that is rarely discussed except to accuse anyone suggesting it exists must be misogynist.”

During war time more women kill their new born babies or attempt to abort… so that must mean during wars women are compulsive liars.

Family Court should watch that one… no women should be listened to in court while there is a war on.

Hey watched a good Aussie film the other night. Was called "Shame".

Jewely, the report was not about mothers killing their newborn babies during war, but in normal, affluent France during peace.

From the article:""A team of paediatricians examined the court records of known infant homicides in three regions of France between 1996 and 2000"

Never let a chance to distract pass by, eh?

How much did you say you were being paid to stay home and look after other people's kids again? Good lifestyle, is it?

Anti quit it. I don’t look after other peoples children. Actually my life is crap and it is lying abusive women that made it that way, Ironic eh.

I’m just saying that if killing babies means they are liars (that is what you are saying isn’t it?) then during times when they kill more babies they must be even bigger liars.

Jewely:"I’m just saying that if killing babies means they are liars (that is what you are saying isn’t it?)"

No, I'm saying that if, as the report says, some are prepared to kill their kids to prevent their lifeatyle being disrupted then it is logical to expect that some greater number would be prepared to lie to achieve a similar result or for other reasons.

From the report:"''Neonaticide thus appears as a solution when an unwanted pregnancy risks creating a family scandal, or the loss of a satisfying lifestyle.''"

It has nothing to do with war or whatever you're trying to get at.

I'm sorry to hear your lifestyle isn't all that you wish it to be. Such is life: nor is mine.

Wasn’t a wish, I worked hard for it and it got taken away by liars and grudge bearers. But yep I agree, such is life.

So you jumped on the word “lifestyle”? Could be young women from well off families who can’t be bothered with a child, actually sounds to me more like young teen girls scared of their parents.

France has clinics? You’d expect young women worried about lifestyle to make use of them.

Anti

How could you possibly hold it against Jewely that she was a foster carer? Caring for kids who have had a crap life sounds to me like a fairly worthwhile way to spend one's working life.

Anti I'm with benk on that one.

Jewely is also one of the most willing of the women who post on OLO to try and understand our views on this stuff rather than jumping automatically to the party line. We might not always agree but dig's about foster care are below the belt. Jewely does seem to actually care about kid's rather than use them as cover for other agenda's, something we could use more of around here.

R0bert

Thanks R0bert, Benk. Anti may well point out I don’t have an agenda for various reasons. :) Mostly these things have been happening around me while I raised children. Now that I am taking notice I’d like to understand as many views as possible and I haven’t yet found a direction. Many shades of grey seem to surround everything.

I listened to the radio in the car this morning and the minister for something – equal rights, something - was talking about women in boardrooms (there isn’t many – 8.2% now I heard). She spoke about traditional roles here being of the good worker being the male who is available 24 hours a day and a good mother as being as seen as someone who is always with her children. She spoke about more or longer (not sure) day care being needed and a parental leave thing that is on some agenda somewhere coming soon.

Before that there was a segment on girls are smarter than boys according to exam results. A friend in the car said they had heard that tests are apparently worded in some way that young female brains can better understand than young males. Then someone on the radio said something about male hormones. They serious? Any of them?

Why I never noticed this stuff before I have no idea but I blame NickJr and owning a trampoline. What I do know is that I need a variety of opinions, and facts and stats, and even a damn decent emotional outburst or two - it all helps.

I don't agree that just because there's an isolated case of a mother killing her baby or older child, that there's lots of women doing it out there, and then you lot take those isolated cases and say, 'see, there you go'? The facts don't back up your claims - that's just the reality.
The UN and other countries around the world, all have similar problems re Australia and domestic violence. When you read the articles re the aggressors, stats etc that you blokes claim upholds your views, you don't read or quote all of them - very selective!

Only this morning, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner stated, that 1 in 3 women will suffer abuse IN HER LIFETIME! The article re men's injuries and high numbers in this or that report, usually goes on to prove, that many important aspects weren't included - like choking, hitting, punching, rape and murder? A rather important part of the information I'd suggest.

Just because some men have a bad time or believe they were given a hard time in the Family Court, brings out misogynist attitudes against all women. Some are quite fragile re my comments, but then go on a tiradee of lies about me and all women. Talk about the pot......
Go back and read some of your own comments fellas - misogynist nonsense without fact to back them up!
What about all the blokes who don't support their kids after separation/divorce! Why should the kids pay for your bitterness. According to govt stats, over 90% of those parents behind in their child support are men - the monies amout to millions. I'd suggest you take a very close look at the role/s that men play before rushing to assume rubbish about me - the fact is, that my ex was a thug, a bully and a coward at home, but a model citizen outside - a common trait of blokes with his behaviour pattern - of domination and violence!

"Just because you had a bad time or believe they were given a hard time by your ex, brings out sexist attitudes against all men"

"Talk about the pot......
Go back and read some of your own comments Liz - sexist nonsense without fact to back them up!"

Nuf said really.

R0bert

Jewely

Girls have been advantaged by changes in assessment. Boys tend to like multiple choice, because we are socialised to have a bit of a gambler's mentality. Girls prefer assessment that involves writing and especially prefer assignments where they can "collaborate" with friends. I have never heard claims about wording, except one article (which I cannot now find) about American SAT tests. Apparently, significantly more males could define annihilate and many more females could define infidelity.

The women in boardrooms has been done to death here and elsewhere.

Liz

I hereby condemn men (and women) who underpay their child support. Happy now?

Dear Lizzy, I have some comments with facts to back them up. Yes I heard your namesake, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner ( a more apt title would be the alternate head of the Office for the Status of Women) on ABC Radio this morning being interviewed by Philip Clark. As you know she trotted out the old 1 in 3 will experience in their lifetime dah dah dah. So both you and she are very fond of citing statistics as if they give a realistic picture as to what happens in relationships. But you should know by now that they don't. The one thing you Lizzies don't talk about is the severity of the violence behind those stats. ranging from a push or a shove in the past 12months (thats what gets picked up in ABS stats) to knifings, shootings etc. On that continuum guess where the bulk of the so called violence...yes that's right...up the minor end...knifings, shootings etc are less than 3%. I put it to you that the type of violence that you say you experienced from you husband ie being concussed, is most uncommon.

I suggest you take time out for some introspection and ask why am I one of the very few women who incurred violence up the severe end of the scale.

Oh and BTW you are excused from responding to my comments on drinking spiking because I new you would have nothing intelligent to say with respect to that issue.

Ros - The Laws in this country re domestic violence involve a variety of acts including, physical, sexual, psychological, financial and social abuse. When you read the explanations, they make sense. Nobody has the right to prevent you from seeing family or friends; or to go out to work or humiliate or harass you. These actions are usually part of the history of the abuse of women. My husband prevented me from buying essentials for myself and my kids, but of course, he needed clothes as he went to work etc. I went out to work when my youngest started school, as I just could not stand the days and days of rows, silences, whacks around the head, driving in a manner that terrified mykids etc. On and on it went, over anything and everything! This is psychological abuse that causes so much stress!

My experience involves a myriad of behaviours now recognised as abuse!Thank goodness, about time I say!He was a thug and a coward!Can't stand the truth either. Lies his head off! Threatened me again 7 yrs ago!

I'm sorry for anyone who experiences violence, regardless of what sex they are or what sort of a relationship they're in.
If you want to disregard the stats, particularly the peculiarities of Australia, then go for it - the reality won't change just because you choose to ignore it - or RObert, or benk or anyone else for that matter. I could forgive him for what he did to me, but not the misery he placed on the raising of his children, our children.
I've gone around in circles. I can't see any point in repeating myself. I know my reality. I know he committed crimes of violence against me for over 20 yrs, and no amount of abuse by anyone will change that. I'm not the little scared woman of those years. I have my life back and have had my reality vindicated. What you or anyone else says does not change that!

benk:"How could you possibly hold it against Jewely that she was a foster carer?"

I don't. I hold it against her that she tried to pretend it was all altruistic when it clearly wasn't. As I've said before, I reckon she was doing valuable work, but it was a job, not some kind of higher calling.

Jewely:"They serious? Any of them? "

All too serious, I'm afraid, The world is being remade in the image of the Fabian Feminists and it'll all end in tears, I'm sorry to say. It's all based on the fact that the 20th century was overflowing with cheap power thanks to fossil fuels, thus freeing women from the need to spend all day doing household chores. That won't last and creating expectations in people that require such intensive subsidisation is not going to assist us to arrive at a soft landing.

Liz45:"I don't agree that just because there's an isolated case of a mother killing her baby or older child, that there's lots of women doing it out there,"

Yes Liz, but you are in complete denial of reality, that's clear. Tell us again what a bastard your husband was, that scab hasn't been picked for minutes now.

Liz45:"Only this morning, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner stated, that 1 in 3 women will suffer abuse IN HER LIFETIME!"

And in the meantime, the real figures show that 805 of all violence in Australia is experienced by males. Broderick is an advocate, not an impartial source. She is similarly quoting advocacy groups, not real research. Never mind, she obviously picked a scab you find especially appealling, eh?

Liz45:"According to govt stats, over 90% of those parents behind in their child support are men"

Actually there's another of those little lies, Lizzy. you're not a very honest person are you? It makes me wonder just how much of the claims of violence you make are based on no more than your own lurid fantasies. I suspect that would be most of them.

Liz

"I'm sorry for anyone who experiences violence, regardless of what sex they are or what sort of a relationship they're in."

That is all that we wanted to hear. Our society needs to move away from this ignorant male villian/female victim false dichotomy and accept that all participants are victims to a degree and worthy of empathy.

Your experience tells us nothing about other people's experience.

In public a male is more likely to be physically attacked by another male, in the domestic sphere physical violence is most likely to be committed by men. Our jails are full of them.

Coincidentally, I cannot help but notice that the majority of posters who attempt to belittle female posters' direct experience of male violence are also male.

Just look through this thread as an example the majority are male and few acknowledge the reality of the female experience. The irony is that these same posters such as Antiseptic, Roscop, Robert etc have more to fear from other MEN than they do women. Guys are more likely to be bashed or bullied by other males. Not denying there are some female bullies out there but not likely to be a physical threat. Nor are women brought up with a sense of entitlement that we men are - women are taught to fear men are taught to be tough. I can go anywhere I like at any time (it may be risky) but my partner has to take care when alone, even in the day and she is not watching out for suspicious looking girls - she is always on the alert for men, usually young men when travelling on public transport or walking down a street - things I don't think much about at all.

I have been posting here, on and off, for many years and I notice a decline in female posters, whether this is through natural attrition, say loss of interest or not enough time, I do know that some strong female voices have gone from these pages, Anansi, Yvonne, Cireena, Celivia, Brownyn, Fractelle to name a few. If I have noticed then I am not the only one. The erudite Pelican and Foxy continue but avoid these threads, sad but understandable.

Men have more to fear from other men than women. It is way past time that we joined with women in outing our violent brothers, else you are just part of the problem. You protest so loudly I suspect the latter.

Johnny "The irony is that these same posters such as Antiseptic, Roscop, Robert etc have more to fear from other MEN than they do women."

Quite true but if another male assaults me I can try and defend myself and or expect real help from the authorities. If attacked by a female partner an attempt at defense may well leave me blamed for the incident.

"in the domestic sphere physical violence is most likely to be committed by men." - that particular lie has been exposed and debated endlessly on OLO. My impression is that women suffer greater injuries at the far end of the spectrum of violence than men do, they commit at least as much if not more of the physical violence in the domestic sphere.

"Nor are women brought up with a sense of entitlement that we men are" - probably depends on which women and which men, some women are brought up with a far greater sense of entitlement than than any male I've ever dealt with. Most are not like that just as most men are not violent. The debate is not about the norms but about the impact of those on the extreme's.

"Men have more to fear from other men than women. It is way past time that we joined with women in outing our violent brothers, else you are just part of the problem." - so just what is your objection to having the message being one against all violence rather than selected violence.

Do you think that continuing genderised anti-violence campaigns have any impact on how police and other people who should deal with the issue impartially respond to men and women involved in violence?

I'm getting the impression that most of the objections to the message being against all violence are from those trying to pretend that their own violence against a male partner was justifiable and from those who think that women are less responsible for their own actions than men.

R0bert

Robert

"Do you think that continuing genderised anti-violence campaigns have any impact on how police and other people who should deal with the issue impartially respond to men and women involved in violence?"

While men continue to create most violence, yes I do.

I am man enough to accept this fact.

That you cannot recover from an appalling experience with your ex is sad and reflected in your continued support of male posters who clearly loath women whether they declare themselves to be feminist or not.

"cannot recover from an appalling experience with your ex is sad" - nasty little tactic that. You might consider that it's possible that the experience showed me the massive problems with genderised anti-violence campaigns and those wider problems have not substantially improved despite where I might be in my own life.

I do believe that there is a greater willingness to accept that women can be violent than there was years ago but there is still an ongoing determination by some to dismiss that. Apart from the situation facing those involved there is also the impacts of the mum's lobby trying to get a greater focus on those perceptions in family law. Even if you want to run with the feminist advocacy numbers for proportions of violence committed by the genders those numbers are not reflected in the public advertising.

Of all the government funded ad's on TV, backs of buses, on notice boards etc that you have seen over the last 10 years how many have addressed in any way violence by women? How many have given any comment that physical abuse or "controlling behaviors" are equally wrong when she does it?

"I am man enough to accept this fact." - suggesting what about those men who don't happen to agree with you? No don't answer, I get it, yet another one of those tactics used to try and silence opposing views. Are you "man enough" to accept that women are fully human, able to have pretty much the same range of emotions, decision making choices, good and bad decisions and responsibilities that we expect of adult humans? Are you "man enough" to accept that men are no better or worse than women?

I see a number of posters very critical of men posting on this site who seem utterly unwilling to in any way criticise the extreme comments by some women, is it that you don't think women are as responsible for their actions as men?

R0bert

Robert

When I see a female poster write a comment as extreme as those put forth with nauseating regularity as Proxy et al, I will comment.

For example, nothing Liz45 has written has been an all out attack on all men - just a heart felt description of her own experiences for which she has been pilloried - thus compounding injuries she has already received.

I have never sided with bullies (at my cost) and I never will.

Don't you wonder why some female posters at OLO are rarely seen on these threads?

Go directly to jail: Women are the worst perpetrators of verbal violence against men
http://drhelen.mensnewsdaily.com/2010/01/06/go-directly-to-jail-women-are-the-worst-perpetrators-of-verbal-violence-against-men/

Again I will reiterate, firstly the definition of what is domestic violence gets expanded, to include behaviours, such as manipulation, verbal abuse etc, then people when they argue fall back to arguing about physical violence. Flatly refusing to recognise that by including a whole host of behaviours that the figures get to be inflated.

There is perhaps not a person on this forum who has not seen the situation especially at school or even amongst siblings, where one gets teased, picked on to the point that they crack it and respond in a violent manner, it could be breaking something or hitting back at those who did the teasing.

Whilst we are quick to condem the physical violence, it is oftern ignored that the physical violence can be the result of 'others' pushing their victim over the edge.

Another interesting study in prisons where violent offenders are given anti-depressants has shown a decrease in the level of violence by those offenders.

This would suggest that there is something going on at the neuro-transmitter level that we are not currently aware of.

R0bert, you say: "Do you think that continuing genderised anti-violence campaigns have any impact on how police and other people who should deal with the issue impartially respond to men and women involved in violence?"

Is this a good example?:

'Boo-hoo': judge axes attack case

Author: By BREE FULLER
Date: 04/12/2010
Illawarra Mercury
Section: News
Page: 4

A STRUGGLING single mum who hit her ex with a plastic bottle after he bragged to her about his surfing holiday, while paying her minimal child support, has been vindicated in court.

Office manager Tanya Austin was "at breaking point" when she lashed out and threw a plastic bottle at the face of her ex-partner on September 26.

The Austinmer mum had gone to pick her son up from her ex-partner's flat after a visit when he began telling her about his overseas surfing trip.

It was the final straw for the 36-year-old, who was struggling financially and receiving very little child support from the man.

She threw the plastic tonic water bottle at the man's face, hitting him below the eye.

The man was reportedly shaken up by the incident and suffered some bruising, scratches and tenderness to his face as a result, the court heard previously.

He called police and Ms Austin was charged with, and later pleaded guilty to, one count of common assault.

Yesterday Wollongong District Court Judge Paul Conlon scoffed at the notion the man was "trembling and crying" as a result of being struck by a plastic bottle and said Ms Austin should have never been charged.

"Oh boo-hoo. The bloke should have been told [by police] to man up, quite frankly," he said.

"She has really been left with the total responsibility of bringing up their child. She receives little financial support [from him] ... [and yet] he decided to take himself off on a wonderful surfing holiday and then told her all about it."

cont'd...

...cont'd from above

The fact he had the temerity to even call police after the incident was very telling of his character, Judge Conlon added.

"This is an easy case for me to throw out. All I can do is apologise to you for ever having been brought into the court system."

Judge Conlon granted Ms Austin's appeal against the 12-month good behaviour bond she received for the offence in Wollongong Local Court last month and released her without conviction.

'I am man enough to accept this fact.'

But Fractelle you're not a man.

I bet Graham is laughing his ass off at you and talisman (CJ) and Lexi/Foxi crawling back from Cyberia with your tail between your legs.

Anti:“I don't. I hold it against her that she tried to pretend it was all altruistic when it clearly wasn't. As I've said before, I reckon she was doing valuable work, but it was a job, not some kind of higher calling.”

I never claimed it to be a higher calling or never meant to imply it.

We already know from The Pied Piper if they know who you are and have said anything online about foster care/government you are not allowed to foster children so it is hardly considered valuable work here.

Anti:“That won't last and creating expectations in people that require such intensive subsidisation is not going to assist us to arrive at a soft landing.”

So... with all the child care and parental leave it costs the country too much for both parents to be taking advantage of it? We’ve seen a lot of people wait though and now having children in their 40’s as they put their careers first. Maybe I should be running a 5 day a week babysitting service where the children of working parents only return for weekends at home. I imagine the children would have just as many emotional problems to overcome as any foster children.

JR:”I have been posting here, on and off, for many years and I notice a decline in female posters, whether this is through natural attrition, say loss of interest or not enough time, I do know that some strong female voices have gone from these pages”

I’ve heard from three female (now absent and not on your list) OLO members, not here because of largely what they see as male bullying. I see a female say something supporting females and cringe, several messages will be flung back at them - often rather harsh or mocking. Have seen females banned for replying in similar tone.

Hasn’t affected me yet, although I do miss the females.

Roscop I’m not sure what that article is saying. Judges are mean to men hit with plastic bottles? The poor bloke, he obviously needed a cuddle and a cup of tea.

[Deleted for flaming.]

"just couldn't watch the treatment being meted out to Liz45 any longer" so I'm assuming that the comments Liz dishes out don't bother you all that much. See a selection of them at
"http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11280&page=0#192399" just in case they've escaped your notice.

That seem's to be an ongoing issue, some of the females behave on an ongoing basis with lies, prolific personal attacks, false accusations and that just does not register on some peoples radar. Liz is to you the innocent victim of bullies, not an aggressive bully herslf who will fling whatever she thinks she can get away with at opponents.

Others of you stand on the sidelines pretending to be objective bystanders but only seem to notice the bad behavior by those deemed to be bitter men, the tactics of the bitter women just don't register. It appears that you hold men to a different level of accountability than you hold women.

R0bert

[Deleted for crude language.]

Hey Johnny, I don’t know if you are back.

I was saying my experiences in life as far as violence go were pretty gender balanced then I gave a few examples. Then I said I hated you all equally but then said I was kidding and I used a phrase about groups of men I learnt here on OLO back in the NRL thread.

I suggested the women currently absent could choose to come back and even the numbers up a bit but I wanted to hear what the men had to say whether we feel outnumbered or not, hardly their fault. Oh and that I mostly like Anti’s snide comments and usually find them quite funny. Funnier if not directed at me of course.

I didn’t comment on Liz but I thought she was cruising along okay.

R0bert I hold the genders to different standards, I think most of us do. If society didn’t the male and female rights groups wouldn’t have much to discuss. Somewhere else my online name is Lord Vlad (don’t ask) and it is amazing what Vlad can say without anyone being shocked.

R0bert:”Quite true but if another male assaults me I can try and defend myself and or expect real help from the authorities. If attacked by a female partner an attempt at defense may well leave me blamed for the incident.”

I guess that is a good enough example of it. I’m wondering if we are more shocked when a woman is accused of violent crime and are less taken aback when men are since the common belief is that they are naturally more aggressive. Which actually would work for more tolerance of male violence wouldn’t it?

Completely lost track of what point I was making there. Are we ignoring some real basic stuff about humans?

We have seen that if a female kills her kid she is considered mentally unbalanced where a man hit the child too hard in a rage? Is it wrong though? Equal rights ignore the fact we aren’t equal?

@benk - Your experience tells us nothing about other people's experience.

Do you know what? I couldn't give a fig! My life's experiences are not meant to teach you anything or even "tell" you anything. How can it, when your ears a super-glued? I said from the beginning that I abhor ALL violence. If you didn't read that or work it out,that's not my problem.

I did not instigate violence, and I do not have to justify my existence or my story to you or RObert or Antiseptic(what a laugh). You are exactly what you accuse me of being - you are misogynists due to your dealings in the family court or wherever, and want to blame all women for it. I don't give a fig whether you believe me or not. ONce I would have, but not now! Next yr will be 50 yrs since I met my ex husband. I'm a more aware woman now, with a self belief system that has taken me a while to achieve. People like you are a dime a dozen, and not worth a spit.

If you all collectively want to latch on to surveys or isolated cases that beef up your assertions, bully for you. I choose to read many reports, surveys that are more inclusive, coupled with following news items etc, and what you blokes assert are JUST NOT TRUE!

MY EX THREATENED ME AGAIN, ONLY 7 YEARS AGO. HE COULD "TALK TO PEOPLE"? The inference, tell lies and put them off! He admitted to never telling our children the truth, but his contribution was "get over it" as was his partner's? Great stuff! Upstanding people!She asserted that she knew about our relationship, that she'd "spoken to others"? I didn't ask her what part of the relevant houses she lived in to know so much! Amazing!

Your language and childish protestations mean nothing to me, in fact, they only make me wonder why your relationships broke up in the first place! Where did the fault lie?

Jewely "I hold the genders to different standards, I think most of us do" I think that you are right. It becomes a real problem though when the government start's to do it.

"Equal rights ignore the fact we aren’t equal?" - all right's pretty much have to ignore it, it's very rare for any two people to be so identical that they could be said to be equal, gender is probably the least of it.

There was a great book put out some years ago by a feminist author called "When She Was Bad" ( Patricia Pearson ). She explores societies perceptions about female violence and it's impact on women. It's a worthwhile read if you are interested in an alternative take on the issue (and I don't recall her saying anything bad about stay at home mum's). She makes the point that women are harmed by societies denial of female violence.

"the common belief is that they are naturally more aggressive" - the other part of that is that aggressive get's tied to the physical. The "assertive" ones who use whatever non-physical tactics they can to try and force their views apparently are not aggressive.

BTW I'm not suggesting that Liz is being overly successful at bullying anybody, rather rebutting the idea that it's poor innocent little Liz who's being bullied by those nasty men as both Liz and others seem to want to claim. Liz dishes it out thick and fast, she is not a victim here.

R0bert

@RObert - I see , so because I give it back, put forward my 'case' I'm not a victime(true, I'm not now, but I WAS THEN) but you can put up every bit of nonsense you can muster, and we're supposed to believe you? Why is that? Remind me! Is it because as a bloke, you're automatically deemed to be superior, correct, just, independent and who knows what? Do you even know what truth is? You have no idea about truth or justice, and what's more, you don't give a fig!

If women cry and plead and? we're deemed to be weak and pathetic. If we stand up for ourselves, we're aggressive females; loud and aggressive and of course, non-feminine! Any non-biased person reading these posts would have to come to the conclusion, that due to your misogynist and hateful opinion of women, we're always wrong, and you'll only read information that fits in with your dogma! I know it's bs and so do you!

Go have a cry and then do some serious thinking and analysis!

Roscop:

Your above comments directed to Liz were bullying, designed and implemented to degrade and blame Liz [as a victim in her previous relationship]for the physical violence that Liz endured for many years [according to her experiences].

Your comments during this thread towards Liz are extremely sad [for you], however Liz's courageous participation as a 'past' victim, indicates quite clearly that she is an intelligent, strong, well balanced, and gender fair individual.

Please take note of the term "past" victim.

Liz's postings are indicative of the fact that she is well recovered from all the degradation and violence dished out by her Mysoginist ex husband, a physical and mental Mysoginist [a mental illness within some males who have either endured abuse, assaults or degradation, often as a child or perceived to be significantly let down by a female, a key figure in their lives at some point].

It is common for Mysoginistic traits to be exhibited after 'securing' in their own minds [the Mysoginist], a partner they are able to inflict their misery upon for years in adulthood.

Mysoginists admit this and I know quite a few of these people [two now elderly] who fully admit to the disease readily and sadly. After outbursts, when their loved close ones are reeling from the shock of the attacks, both mentally and physically, these men retreat into another room feeling ashamed, yet 'good about themselves' in another way that is difficult for them to explain. By degrading women or others, they feel better about themselves in self esteem.

Read a few stories and experiences from self proclaimed Mysoginists on the net Roscop, as you are blaming innocent victims of men who are Mysoginists/Abusers.

The facts are: it was irrelevant as to who Liz's ex husband the Mysoginist partnered throughout life. The manipulation, acting and abuse [the circus] was set in full swing [the victim/partner totally unaware] of the years of degradation about to begin.

No male or female EVER deserves being partnered with a 24/7 Abuser/Mysoginist.

Liz45, we are unique and others, note:

There is no form of domestic violence more vile than killing totally defenseless babies.
___________

Angela Shanahan From: The Australian December 18, 2010

"...the notion that a mother could not kill her baby is demonstrably false. Not only do mothers kill their infants, but when an infant is killed it is usually by the mother."

"The findings showed that more than five times the number of French infants are killed by their mothers within 24 hours of birth -- neonaticide -- than the official mortality statistics have indicated..."

"Although there is much more abuse and killing of children by mothers (and boyfriends of mothers) than fathers, we tend to excuse mothers. We may well ask why."

Liz45:"I'm not a victime(true, I'm not now, but I WAS THEN) "

So you say. What is abundantly clear is that you're a strident shrew, and I doubt that has changed since you were a child.

we are unique:"Liz's postings are indicative of the fact that she is well recovered from all the degradation and violence dished out by her Mysoginist ex husband,"

See this is where we differ. I doubt that Liz45's "misogynist husband" actually existed, I'm afraid. In Lizzy's rather weird mind, it seems that every man she's ever had anything to do with has been "misogynist" and "abusive". It seems to me that when people keep seeing others as abusive it says a great deal more about them than the others.

we are unique:"By degrading women or others, they feel better about themselves in self esteem."

You must know some pretty strange people, because I've never met anyone like that at all except a couple of henpecked older relatives, whos role in their household used to be breadwinner but is now reduced to nuisance, while their wives, who will live an extra 6-10 years than them, continue in their lives as they have always done. From your description they must be feeling extremely disempowered within their home environment to feel they need to separate themselves in a different room. I bet their wives "wear the pants".

we are unique:"No male or female EVER deserves being partnered with a 24/7 Abuser/Mysoginist."

Or a misandrist, like Lizzy and my ex.

See there's the problem, right there. You don't even consider the misandric woman. They used to get a giggle out of putting men down in "Mere Male" stories, but then they got told "he isn't allowed to retaliate no matter what you say"...

People like Liz are the result.

"So you say. What is abundantly clear is that you're a strident shrew, and I doubt that has changed since you were a child."

No matter what I say, as far as you're concerned, if I didn't stand up for myself I'd be weak and pathetic, but because I do,and don't bow down to your image of you - superior, arrogant and with a closed mind, then I'm a shrew! Go and get a life mate!

Because our work is never done and underpaid or boring, and we are the first to get the sack and what we look like is more important than what we do, and if we get raped it's our fault, and if we get bashed we must have provoked it and if we raise our voices we're nagging (b)witches, and if we enjoy sex we're nymphos and if we don't we're frigid and if we love women it's because we can't get a man and if we ask our doctor too many questions we're neurotic and if we stand up for our rights we're aggressive and unfeminine and if we don't we're typical weak females and if we want to get married we're out to trap a man, and if we don't we're unnatural and we still can't get adequate safe contraception but men can walk on the moon, and if we can't cope or don't want a pregnancy we're made to feel guilty about abortion, and - for lots and lots of other reasons, we are part of the Women's Liberation Movement!

Amen! Says it all really!

<“In the sea of conflict, men sink and women swim”–Researcher John Gottman

Many of you have been emailing me about France’s new law banning “psychological violence” against one’s spouse (wife is more like it, I’m sure). Apparently, jail time might even be involved for perpetrators who dare to mock their spouse (wife). Fausta emailed me a post she had written on the topic and asked if I thought women were more likely to be the perpetrators of insults against their husbands. My answer, “absolutely.”

The research bears this out. In psychologist Richard Driscoll’s book Opposites as Equals, there is a section called “Women are more confrontive.” Driscoll discusses the work of John Gottman who observed that women are freer and more open in expressing their anger than are men:

While we might expect men to be more forceful than women in marital arguments, the research shows just the opposite, surprising our expectations.

Women tend to be more insistent, according to various researchers including John Gottman [i] at the University of Washington. Women argue more forcefully in almost twice as many marriages as men.

In the most lopsided arguments where only one argues and the other remains silent, by a ratio of 6 to 1, it is the woman who continues to argue and the man who remains silent.>

I guess Liz and ChapZ want us to be quiet, so that they can hear themselves

@We are unique - Thank you, for your support and knowledge!

@Roscop - this topic is not about abortion. Go to the relevant post and discuss that if you wish. The fact about neonaticide is extremely sad and there's a strong need to investigate this further. If you want to quote from that article(Sun Herald,today)then, don't do it selectively just so you can use this awful situation for your anti-choice stance. These deaths are only a very small number of infant deaths and the subject is too sad/important for you to use!I urge people to read it online if they don't have the paper.Also read Leslie Cannold in Extra!
In the US, the second highest cause of maternal deaths(apart from those relating to pregnancy etc)are homicides(murder) by the woman's husband/partner.

The greatest risk to the health and well being of women in Australia is via their husband/partner's abuse. There's been 2 arrests and another death since I started on this post - less than 10 days!Every 10 days, a woman is murdered by her partner in this country. There's no real stats as to the child deaths due to non-disclosure,but I can think of 3 lots of 3 kids who were murdered by their fathers in the last 7? yrs, but only 2 by mothers - one was outright murder,the other was neglect over weeks - both horrific and inexcusable, and both those women are either in jail or will be!

I know of women who present for a termination who have bruises all over them, and others who present to midwives with boot prints on their pregnant bellies! Let's talk about them eh?

I'm currently on the board of a women's health centre. I was also in the late 80'searly 90's. I've been involved in women's health and work safety issues for over 27 yrs. I do know what I'm talking about!
I have been to many seminars about women's and children's health over this time. I'm also aware of the Older Women's Network,NSW, and their brave account of the violence they suffered in DV situations over many years!

Antiseptic I know both male and females who are controlling or attempt to control their partners throughout life. Control freaks are different altogether [if degradation and violence is not involved].

This does not dismiss the symptoms regarding the disease Mysoginists have and for those sufficiently brave and honest about their disease; diagnosed and treated.

Okay, do I really need to spell out my experience with the primary symptoms, common of the disease?

Liz

I believe you when you say that you dislike violence. The big question is whether or not you can resolve conflicts in a way that doesn't damage your relationships. Based on your handling of an internet debate anyone would have doubts. If you want to change, you could start by not seeing all criticism as evidence of sexism.

@Liz45, my last post was not referring to abortion. It was referring to the killing of infants and new born although I regard abortion as killing also. We can define words however we like just as is the practice in the domestic violence industry...that way we can come up whatever stats that we like in this business. Just make society believe that domestic violence is years of repetitive battering of wives with the neigbour's baseball bat, not the rare push or shove or critical comment that gets picked up in the DV industry stats. But one thing is for sure and that is that your gender is not as innocent as you and your ilk would like to have society believe.

Liz45:"I'm currently on the board of a women's health centre."

BINGO!

Liz45:"I was also in the late 80'searly 90's. I've been involved in women's health and work safety issues for over 27 yrs."

And we've hit the trifecta, folks.

I thought you were a poor battered wife, who was powerless in the face of her bullying husband's violent assaults?

You know Liz, I reckon you've never had a husband at all. You're nothing but another parasite with her hand out. I bet you've not done a real day's work in your life, but have spent all your time with your mouth firmly clamped to some form of Government teat or other.

The thing you "know" about is scab-picking as a form of begging. It's as low as it gets.

Liz45:"I have been to many seminars about women's and children's health over this time. "

Yes dear, we know you have: we taxpayers paid for them.

Liz45:"These deaths are only a very small number of infant deaths"

And yet they are babies, murdered because their mother wanted to preserve a lifestyle, according to the research. It's nice to see you support their decision.

On the subjject of numbers, the French study showed that this crime occurs at least 5 times more frequently than previously thought and probably much more frequently than that, because the death of an infant with no onvious injuries is often put down to SIDS or similar. I've often wondered how many women who claim to have had a baby die of SIDS are actually getting away with murder. The French study suggests there may be quite a few, but that's OK, eh, Lizzy? It's just a few, after all and it WAS their Mums, they were probably trying to save them from an abusive father or something...

At least we know now that Lizzy is just another shill with her hand out - it explains a lot

Anti:”And yet they are babies, murdered because their mother wanted to preserve a lifestyle, according to the research. It's nice to see you support their decision.”

That horse is lame Anti, that article didn’t only say lifestyle or even explain what it meant by “lifestyle”.

A scared young female is likely to do the wrong thing. A young woman wanting to carry on with her career or “lifestyle” would make use of an abortion rather than disrupt any lifestyle and go to full term.

“I've often wondered how many women who claim to have had a baby die of SIDS are actually getting away with murder.”

You aren’t the first.

“A former pediatrician, Roy Meadow, from the UK believes that many cases diagnosed as SIDS are really the result of child abuse on the part of a parent displaying Munchausen syndrome by proxy (a condition which he was first to describe, in 1977). During the 1990s and early 2000s, a number of mothers of multiple apparent SIDS victims were convicted of murder, to varying degrees on the basis of Meadow's opinion. In 2003 a number of high-profile acquittals brought Meadow's theories into disrepute. Several hundred murder convictions were reviewed, leading to several high-profile cases being re-opened and convictions overturned. Meadow was struck off in 2005."

@Antiseptic - What a pathetic little person you are. Next year will be 49 yrs since I met my ex.I've been divorced for over 20 years - the said years that I was involved with a women's health centre, that saves womens' lives from breast and cervical cancer, among others!Next yr is a program re diabetes and heart disease - still the greatest killer along with strokes of women in this country.

You have a mother don't you?A sister, perhaps even a daughter? It was women involved in women's health, or women sufferers like Jane McGrath who raised awareness re breast cancer! Who knows,we might save the life of someone close to you? I spent 10 yrs in the workforce until I was forced to leave with a preventable injury/disease!My employer was found to be responsible - twice!By two Judges!They were male as were my barristers!

The seminars etc I go to are run by either federal or state bodies. I went to one this yr which was paid for by the professional woman who couldn't go - she deemed me a suitable person to represent her!

This topic is not about SIDS or neonacide this is about male violence towards women, of which you're engaging at this stage. You misrepresent my anger as "shrill"(usual sexist rubbish)while you engage in direct accusations of fraud and other criminal matters.

Along with your misogynist mates, you deliberately 'cherry pick' your so called modes of proof, with very selective bits of just a few articles. You blame all women with a sense of self and exhibit this right to assert themselves as "shrill" but of course, being a bloke, you're entitled to engage in whatever bits of gutter talk you wish!

What about those women who have male workboot imprints on their pregnant bellies? Or those who present to have a termination covered in bruises! How about those blokes?

Jewely, I've not mentioned Munchausen by proxy, I'm talking about simple suffocation. A baby dead from having a pillow held over its head is pretty hard to distinguish from one that died from burying its head in a blanket or similar.

I'm sure that Munchausen by proxy exists, but I'm also sure it's not a huge problem.

The article mentioned two main reasons - avoiding family disruption and preserving lavish lifestyles, IIRC. It also said most perpetrators were either married or in stable relationships and that their husbands or partners had no knowledge that they were even pregnant. Some women have done it many times.

Liz45:"You have a mother don't you?A sister, perhaps even a daughter?"

Nope, I have a dead mother, four surviving sisters out of six and a daughter. I can't see that anything you've posted here is of any benfit to them or gains any legitimacy by your claims of being involved in women's health. It sounds more to me that you found yourself a nice little bandwagon to ride and rode the life out of it. Now you're trying to ride another one. At least you're consistent.

Liz45:"The seminars etc I go to are run by either federal or state bodies."

Yep, paid for by the taxpayer, as I said. Sweeeet...

Liz45:"you deliberately 'cherry pick' your so called modes of proof, with very selective bits of just a few articles."

I'm surprised you hold the MJA in such contempt, with your vast experience in health matters...

You see, Lizzy, I give references for what I say and I quote from the articles, I don't offer my opinion as though it were gospel from the Mount - no further discussion will be entered into. Nor do I rely on emotionally-loaded and dishonest polemic in preference to evidence-based conclusions.

You might try that sometime.

Liz:”What about those women who have male workboot imprints on their pregnant bellies? Or those who present to have a termination covered in bruises! How about those blokes?”

Mostly I would like to find the woman that raised them and introduce her to my boot but would maybe have made her job easier if society wasn’t there reinforcing what our boys were supposed to grow up to be like.

Having known a few wife beaters it is their mothers that have fascinated me. One son is and one son isn’t but she treats them the same and the fathers of the violent men seem to take a step back. These men were not given a message it wasn’t acceptable by females in their families, quite the opposite, all very strange.

Anti:”It also said most perpetrators were either married or in stable relationships and that their husbands or partners had no knowledge that they were even pregnant. Some women have done it many times.”

Oh... I think I read a different article. How were they getting away with that and remaining outside of prison? What is MJA?

@Antiseptic! You DO NOT supply references for everthing you assert. Where's the references for MJA(I presume that it means, Medical Journal of Australia.) I've read quite a few articles by the MJA re domestic violence and child sexual abuse - overwhelming majority of perpetrators are male I must stress! I suppose you'll ignore this aspect all together as you do anything that gets too close and challenges your misogynist views.ALMOST EVERY COMMENT TO ME ABOUT MY LIFE HAS NO BASIS IN FACT, but you do the "bingo" or "gotcha" rubbish and then go on a diatribe of my motives and life experiences, as though your views have credibility - you do the 'SERMON ON THE MOUNT' every time you post! You do not know how to debate women, due to your ingrained hatred of all women!

This topic is about domestic/family violence, not SIDS or neonatice. The overwhelming body of evidence states that, women make up the overwhelming majority of victims, and men the same re perpetrators. You can quote from a few essays, but that leaves millions of others that differ or critically analyse those views! You don't want to know about them! You adopt the three wise monkeys view - don't see, hear or speak the truth!
This is my 4th post??

Liz45.0, The topic of this discussion is the "Gender-based Approach Misses the Mark in Tackling Family Violence". I would have thought a mother murdering her partner's baby or infant would come under the heading of family violence.

It's just that you want to cherry pick and focus exclusively on mens' violence against women and therefore avoid discussing violence perpetrated by women towards men and children.

I've also read MJA articles re dv in the past. Articles written by feminist doctors wanting doctors to routinely solicit information from their female patients about their partner's treatment of them.

[Deleted for abuse.]

[Deleted for abuse.]

[Deleted for abuse.]

"Go away!"

I don't think so. I rather like OLO and I very much don't like the lies your crowd peddle about men (and women).

I've read enough of Flood's writings to last for a while. He could be quite good if he was in the least bit even handed but that would probably be a really bad career move. When Flood start's subjecting the mothers groups to the same sort of criticism that he gives the fathers groups, when he start's being as concerned about the methodology (or lack of) in the research that underpins the genderised view of DV as he is about minor weaknesses with CTS I'll take him more seriously.

Feel free to stay but if you really want to shut down discussion on this topic you might consider that it's possibly you that's done the most to keep it going. Thanks for that.

R0bert

Liz45, I wasn't lying. There is heaps of stuff on domestic violence on the mja website all conforming to a gender-based approach. This is just a little of it:

http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/173_10_201100/raphael/raphael.html

A high index of suspicion is appropriate if a patient presents with low self-esteem, vague somatic complaints, signs of bruising or other injury and a level of defensiveness. The doctor should question the patient about fear, abuse, depression, and suicidal thoughts.
_____________

Roscop says here is a story about a woman who attends every Country Womens Association tea and scones morning tea with a black eye:

http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/173_10_201100/mazza/mazza.html#box1
Case scenario for dealing with domestic violence in general practice

"Margaret" is a 35-year-old woman who lives on a dairy farm, which she manages with her husband of 10 years. They have three children aged between eight and three years. Over the time that she has been consulting you she has presented repeatedly with soft tissue injuries that she acknowledges have been inflicted by her husband. She believes that her husband only becomes violent when he drinks. She is isolated on the farm and says she is unable to leave her husband or to seek support in the local community because she feels ashamed and because her husband is good friends with the local policeman.
____________
Roscop says why would anyone go to the doctor repeatedly with soft tissue injuries unless requiring stitches, particularly if living on a farm where nicks, cuts and bruises would be the order of the day? Most people on farms take care of their own first aid needs and know that an ice pack is the best thing for soft tissue injuries unless the farmer smacks his fist into his wife's left eye every time then there might a more serious injury.

[Deleted for abuse.]

“Roscop says why would anyone go to the doctor repeatedly with soft tissue injuries unless requiring stitches, particularly if living on a farm where nicks, cuts and bruises would be the order of the day? Most people on farms take care of their own first aid needs and know that an ice pack is the best thing for soft tissue injuries unless the farmer smacks his fist into his wife's left eye every time then there might a more serious injury.”

She might be wanting some occasional sympathy? She’s allowed.

I wonder if leaving the farm would make both of them broke. Finances have a way of keeping people together as well as splitting folks up.

Have most of us have come across women like that? They arrive, they whinge, they have the split lip or black eye – no they don’t want to do anything or accept help. It gets bad, they panic, they scream for help, you help, they get back together and then suddenly her and her partner both hates you for knowing too much. Seems all wrapped up in shame to me and it bores me witless.

Ros the DV is happening everywhere, the women are telling the truth. It is usually kept under wraps and not officially reported. Mostly I am just sick of the whole cycle, pattern, phases they go through, the children witnessing it, what the women are telling themselves, how the men justify it, their families that accept it. I blame everybody.

Anyone imagining that a white ribbon addresses any of it is kidding themselves but makes for a lively debate and here... well, the deleted messages speak for themselves.

If you aren’t back here before Christmas Anti I hope you the kids and the dogs have a good one babe.

The limitations of studying and dealing with violence through gender become very obvious when one realises that child neglect is a common element in violence committed by children and youth.

It should be apparent that a holistic approach is preferable to dealing with violence and that present responses owe more to political populism and the skewing of policy by vested interests - many on the government payroll - than to practical research and recommendations by independent criminologists.

Jewely says inter alia re the female character in my last post "She might be wanting some occasional sympathy? She’s allowed."

With the aid of Alexander Graham Bell’s invention, wouldn't it have been more sensible for “isolated” Margy to contact the domestic violence outreach industry in which all the staff are vicarious trauma sufferers. They'd take care of everything for her including applying for a DVO and victims of crime compensation with no proof required. She wouldn't be thinking about shame or her about to be ex-husbands mate down at the police station. She'd be thinking about getting half the dairy farm which has been passed down through generations on the husband's side.

It doesn't matter that all the heated arguments Margy has been having with her husband are over affairs Margy has been having with the milk collection man and others. The eldest of her three children carries the milk collector's DNA. The family doctor Margy sees knows this because he arranged for the tests to be done after the distressed husband had visited his surgery with a deep gash over his eye where Margy had hit him with a saucepan.

The DVCS would have Margy and the kids extracted from the farm quick smart the next time the farmer took his tractor down town for servicing and she and the kids would be ensconced in a city women’s refuge where they would get a full education on the nastiness of men and the complete innocence of women. If Margy had any reservations about leaving the dairy farm, the ladies at the DVCS and refuge would fix that. She'd just be thinking about moving herself and the kids in with the retired milk collector and what she could do with the money meant for child support. She would then be able to wear a badge with “Domestic Violence Survivor” on it, for the rest of her life and therefore be in the same class as Liz45.

Yes folks, life can be a little more complicated than presented in gender-based scenarios embedded in MJA articles on DV.

http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/173_10_201100/mazza/mazza.html#box1

'I blame everybody'

Ha, so do I. But really what you're supposed to do is identify a victim and not blame the victim. I reckon everyone's a victim and nobody is blameless.

'It gets bad, they panic, they scream for help, you help, they get back together and then suddenly her and her partner both hates you for knowing too much.'

Sounds like my neighbours. He puts holes in walls and calls her a whore, I go over to see if she's ok and they both yell abuse at me. For some reason I'm not scared of him yelling but she scares the hell out of me. In the guys drunken rants he reckons she has ruined his life (got him banned from the local pub) and owes him money. Suuuurreee.

Later I found out it is actually true and she is the one manipulating a guy with cerebral palsy for his pension money as she cant hold down a job now she fell off the wagon. He cant get out of her house because he needs her help to get his wheel chair down the steps, so he smashes it into the walls and rants at her.

There are 2 sides to all domestics. What concerns me about all this vitriol above is that the bitter menz and the white ribbon advocates are two sides to the same coin. It has to be a concern that all the advocates seem to be in the 'industry' and have traumatic experiences that have coloured their attitudes to men.

This has long been my concern about such industries and their commissioning of and interpretation of 'studies' and raising 'awareness'. You cant have gone through what Liz and and that 'happy' chick on the other thread have gone through and kid yourself you aren't carrying round a hell of a lot of bias. So the powers that be are all predisposed, as I was, to see a woman victim and a male abuser in the above scenario. It's the power of DV industry propaganda and gender stereotypes.

Ros:”She'd be thinking about getting half the dairy farm which has been passed down through generations on the husband's side.”

C’mon Ros we know Marg’s dad left her that farm as the female eldest with four male siblings, the youngest of which runs the local police station.

Houel your nieghbours suck man. Mine are two blokes, non gay and lately they’ve been getting drunk every couple of nights and beating the daylights out of each other. Rather than offering any assistance I was kinda hoping they’d eventually kill each other.

Ooo... like these two did.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10695592
“The Auckland couple found dead in their home after a panicked 14-year-old girl called 111 to tell police about a serious domestic argument...”
“When police arrived, they found the bodies of the pair. Both had sustained serious knife wounds. “

Having not been a chronic victim or perp and never having paid child support and my ex died young and I’ve seen men and women do horrid things – I’m fairly balanced.

Today in my local court a dude got adjourned or something like that, beat the Mrs up, she got AVO, he went back and did the job properly. But he musta been a bit odd cause he was in a chair with a metal plate clamped over the top of his handcuffed hands. At the local Xmas Carols on Sunday night 3 chicks pulled a chick out of the backseat of a car and beat the crap out of her… that could have been a Aussie Seasons Greetings custom I was not aware of..?

I propose we start a Black And Blue Ribbon Blame Everybody Equally Movement.

From above, with the controversial bit removed.

“Jewely:"How were they getting away with that and remaining outside of prison?"

It's because many jurisdictions, including Australia, have a crime called "infanticide", which is not regarded as seriously as murder. It exists because of the outdated notion that new mothers are not of sound mind and should therefore be excused for killing their child.

http://www.armstronglegal.com.au/web/page/infanticide

It's gradually being used less and less, thankfully. Think Keli Lane as an example. She won't get more than a couple of years for the murder, I reckon, but she may get additional time for the attempted cover-up.

Liz45:"You DO NOT supply references for everthing you assert. Where's the references for MJA"

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11331#193312

thanks for letting me clear that up for you. Are there any other references you've missed?

Liz45:"overwhelming majority of perpetrators are male I must stress!"

As discussed elsewhere, the report makes clear that mothers are responsible in about 30% of cases of child homicide, biological fathers in about 20% and people unrealted to the child in about 50%. Mostly those people are associates of the mother, including new partners.

See, it's not so hard to understand, is it?

Liz45:"You do not know how to debate women"

Oh, you mean I should leave my logic at the door and simply accept whatever I'm told? Gee, I can't imagine why anyone would have a problem with that...

Liz45:"The overwhelming body of evidence states that, women make up the overwhelming majority of victims,"

The real evidence is that it occurs about equally between men and women, while women form the majority of abusers of children, especially young children who can't fight back. Neglect, physical abuse, emotional abuse are all the virtual sole preserve of women. Of course, in line with our cultural prejudice that such women must be "mad not bad", they aren't treated too harhly, in stark contrast to men who do so.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/6089613/mum-not-dad-more-likely-to-neglect-kids/

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/4906.02005%20(Reissue)?OpenDocument”

Jewely:"I propose we start a Black And Blue Ribbon Blame Everybody Equally Movement."

lol, I like that.

Houellebecq:"It has to be a concern that all the advocates seem to be in the 'industry' and have traumatic experiences that have coloured their attitudes to men."

Yes it is. It creates an altogether misleading impression of both prevalence and seriousness, especially when combined with the attitude that self-reported victims should not be questioned as to the veracity of their claims.

I do wonder how many of the people that form the "industry" are simply cynical self-servers rather than genuine victims.

Nina Funnell, for example, loudly claims "victim" status, yet she was actually the victor in the assault that she claims took place. She fought the attacker off, she wasn't raped. that to me means she isn't a "victim", but to those in the industry, that doesn't matter - she says she is one so she is.

What she has done is to parley that experience and a reasonably photogenic face together with some talent as a writer, into a series of public positions, the latest being the NSW Premier's Council on Preventing Violence Against Women

http://www.women.nsw.gov.au/about_us/premiers_council_on_preventing_violence_against_women

Nina's experience was not domestic, it was in a public place, which makes it atypical, according to the stats. What is typical is the standard rhetoric she churns out and that is what the "industry" wants to hear, so she prospers.

Antiseptic, you say "Nina Funnell, for example, loudly claims "victim" status, yet she was actually the victor in the assault that she claims took place."

Yes, I would have thought so too from reading Ms Funnell's story as she told it in the SMH. But then when checking to see what Ms Funnell has been up to lately, I notice the world is being told in a bio on her, on the "Steps to the Future Foundation" website, that

"...Nina sustained severe injuries and psychological trauma as a result of the assault..."

Strangely she made no mention of "severe injuries" or anything to do with the need for medical treatment in her SMH,2 July 2007, article. Must be just another one of those examples of recovered memory.

With respect to the SMH article it seems Funnell is trying promote the idea that women should fight back against any attack. You would think wouldn't you, that she would have said something about the risks in doing that and the "severe injuries" that she herself experienced when she fought back.


BTW in the same bio it says "She now uses her experience as a platform to speak out publicly against all forms of violence against women."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/how-i-stopped-a-rapist/2007/07/01/1183228954519.html

http://www.steptothefuture.com/page.php?id=30&sid=147&y=

Roscop, the article you linked to was a good example of Nina's graat promise as a writer. She asked interesting questions and she was marching to her own drum, not the beat of someone else's bandwagon.

She wrote:"Why do I cringe when I say he was of Middle Eastern appearance? I wouldn't be shy about stating that he was "Caucasian", had that been the case. Am I being too politically correct in not wanting to talk about the issue of ethnicity? Or am I right to not want to perpetuate a racial stereotype that damages a community already under fire?

I don't have answers to these questions yet."

which is a very good set of questions which I would like to know how she has resolved.

She says: "So far the police have not caught anyone and I've been left frustrated and upset. This frustration is compounded when the police label me a "victim", or worse, a "witness". A witness? I wasn't sitting on the sideline eating popcorn watching this man beat and choke me." No, she was doing what a normal person would do and fighting back, successfully as it turned out. More power to her elbow.

So it's disappointing that she chose to go down the path of the professional victim-Feminist with such promise. She could be so much better than that.

@Antiseptic@Roscop - Read these:-

http://www.xyonline.net/content/claims-about-husband-battering

http://3things.org.au/2010/11/24/mythbusting-on-white-ribbon-day/

http://www.bullyingnoway.com.au/talkout/profiles/researchers/michaelFlood.shtml

http://www.austdvclearinghouse.unsw.edu.au/Conference%20papers/Exp-horiz/Flood.pdf

@liz45 - Sorry, I don't have an "inclination" to watch scabs being picked.

Liz I've seen similar to the stuff by Flood in the first link. As I've said earlier Flood would have a lot more credibility if he applied the same standards to mothers groups and to the type of research which underpins a genderised view of DV. Flood is a player who does not even try to be even handed.

Flood refers to the authors of the CTS studies but in my view is very selective on what he references. One researcher specifically mentioned by Flood is Straus. There is a good piece by him at http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V74-gender-symmetry-with-gramham-Kevan-Method%208-.pdf

Another excellent piece at http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V75-Straus-09.pdf which includes the following "The primary purpose of the article is to suggest explanations for the fact that, despite a large body of high-quality evidence, gender symmetry in the perpetration of physical assault against a partner in a marital, cohabiting, or dating relationship has not been perceived by the public or service providers, moreover, the article also suggests explanations for the fact that research showing symmetry has often been concealed and denied by academics." - not quite the picture Flood tries to paint.

and

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID41E2.pdf

A discussion of the criticism of CTS is at http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CTS4.pdf

I'll have a look at the others but if the first piece by Flood set's the standard Anti may be being a lot smarter than me.

R0bert

@Liz45, how about you reading something that is more up to date:

"Campaign hit by false stats

A domestic violence campaign has been tarnished with twisted crime statistics and a critical Ombudsman's report, amid claims State Minister Gail Gago's Office for Women has been hijacked by "feminists pushing a political agenda". Premier Mike Rann has been asked to shift the Don't Cross the Line domestic violence campaign from Ms Gago's portfolio to the Attorney General's Department, so the campaign takes into account violence in the home against men and children as well as women."

Read more...

http://www.oneinthree.com.au/storage/pdfs/Campaign_Hit_By_False_Stats.pdf

@R0bert, I think we're wasting our time. Liz45 mentioned in one of her posts something about her ex and university but she gives me the impression she herself she has not benefitted from any quality education. It looks to me as though she has been thoroughly indocrinated with feminist rubbish and has the blinkers on fixed fast. Little chance of getting anywhere with her, when she keeps throwing back the same old garbage. She is just incapable of looking at statistics with a critical and impartial eye.

@Antispetic -You obviously missed the bit that states, that the original article was written in the US - there could be a 'local factor'?

Dr Michael Flood is a Dr in Psychology. What qualifications do you have? He has done significant work with the issue of sexual violence etc. Has it ever occurred to you, that he is even handed, but the evidence is so blatantly clear to be ignored. The issue is not about mothers groups or whatever, it's about violence in relationships.

For those who continue to berate anyone they perceive to be a 'victim'? My dictionary states - victim - someone who is injured, killed, robbed etc. Do you denigrate people who have their car stolen? Their house robbed? they're victims too! I was a victim of crime, that doesn't mean that I walk around with a 'victim mentality' now.

Roscop - You must be a hoot at parties, with your perceived superior sense of self. Feminists aren't born or indoctrinated - we're MAN MADE!
There's something terribly lacking in a person, who is incapable of reaching out to someone who speaks of having been horribly abused, for many years. I sympathise with men who get a bad deal in the family law court. I lost my grandson via a woman who was selfish and vindictive. I'll find him again one day, but it hasn't made me so hateful that I've lost my humanity, or the capacity to have empathy! You and the other couple of blokes(mostly)are vindictive, hateful, judgemental and plain anti women, and it shows. Has it ever occurred to you, that you are mentally ill, or at best, incapable of moving past your intractable hatreds?

If JC himself wrote an article like the many I've read, and the views of so many experienced people, you still wouldn't accept it!
You're the ones who show that you lack much education - education of self. Awareness of other peoples' pain, and the ability to show some sort of ordinary human kindness! You're part of the problem!
You'll never be part of the solution!

A ph'd in psychology doesn't mean that a person cannot be biased and prejudiced.

There are members of Mensa who work as labourers and have no formal tertiary education.

Even incredibly smart people can be dumb and a tertiary qualification does not apply to common sense.

Liz45:"Dr Michael Flood is a Dr in Psychology"

Nope, he got his PhD in Gender and Sexuality Studies in the Centre for Women's Studies at ANU. He asked 17 young men about why they may or may not use condoms. Of course, in line with good Women's Studies practise, it was "qualitative" research, so it doesn't have any actual hard stuff in it. From these 17 young university students, he draws 5 stunning conclusions, including that young men don't like wearing condoms because they reduce sensation.

Gee, I'm glad we had you to tell us that, Mick.

Rivetting stuff..

http://thesis.anu.edu.au/public/adt-ANU20011205.151419/
http://thesis.anu.edu.au/uploads/approved/adt-ANU20011205.151419/public/01front.pdf

Liz45:"Has it ever occurred to you, that he is even handed, but the evidence is so blatantly clear to be ignored."

It occurred to me, so I investigated. He's not, nor is the evidence he presents either complete or well-supported by independent data such as that already provided here. He's produced little of value and looks unlikely to do so.

Liz45:"If JC himself wrote an article like the many I've read, and the views of so many experienced people, you still wouldn't accept it!"

Wait, don't tell me, he "is a Dr in Psychology" too? What's he published?

Dr Michael Flood conducted research into what is known as 'Maternal Gatekeeping' his conclusion was that it was infrequent. .

However as any decent and credible researcher knows, one must do a literature search on what you are researching.

He either failed to do this or ignored research findings that showed, up to a third of mothers can behave as a maternal gatekeeper. I did tackle him over this.

Some his papers that I have read are so convoluted and as "Blowing the Whistle into a empty room" says turns evidence into goobly gook.

There are so many disjointed twists and turns that it induces huge headaches trying to interpret and understand the disjointed and convoluted reasoning.

James it is hard to get a good understanding of Flood. Some of the point's in the paper in the last link Liz provided earlier made some sense (within the framework he works with). He does seem to at least be willing to admit that it's not men being bad or controlling by nature but rather go for the societal context approach.

His xyonline stuff does have some positives about men. He comes across as more genuine than someone just trying to keep a job in an area where to challenge the party line is suicide and as to smart not to understand the wider implications of some of the politics.

In my view referencing Flood on gender violence is about as useful as referencing Sheikh Hilaly on women's safety. Great if you happen to share the same version of faith but not so good for others.

I anxiously await Liz's comments on the articles by Murray Straus.
No doubt she is giving them careful consideration.

R0bert

I swear, I'll never hit a woman, nor support WRD until it takes the issue of DV against men seriously.

Hello again. I've had a few years off. Needed to, was getting obsessesed. Not much has changed, still the usual back and forth. I haven't had time to read all 254 comments, just wanted to say a couple of things and give an update.

Firstly, congratulations, and warm thanks, to those still posting and making this an issue. It will take a long time to challenge the misandric nature of DV advertising, but persist, and don't be thrown by the charge "it's always the same old misogynists."

If you haven't come across me, here's a brief summary. Difficult childhood growing up in a fundamentalist christian family. Got to university and was starting to break free, met this girl. In short, she was very, damaged. Held a knife to my throat on our second date. Still, went out with her for 2 and a half years. She completely dominated my life, separated me from family and friends, destroyed my confidence in my abilty and self. Discovered OO when I started to realise that what happened to me was ACTUALLY DV. Argued a lot.

Eventually, I decided I had debated enough, and got on with my life. Started my career. Got out. Met a girl. I have now have a wonderful girlfriend who is nothing like my old partner, and I am well on the way toward healing.

With respect to WRD: Partly, (not wholely,) due to the nature of DV "education," which focuses on male violence against females, I had no idea that what was happening to me was abusive. If I had seen or heard anything about female against male DV, it would have clicked sooner. It shouldn't have taken me 9 years to recover, to be able to trust a woman enough to enter another relationship. I should have had access to this information. Until it is made clear that all violence, regardless of gender, is a serious problem, many more men will suffer in ignorance and silence.

dozer,

What advice would you give to other men who are presently in the situation you found yourself? Who helps them and how do they get on if they have limited funds?

There are always resources for those men with money I imagine, but there doesn't seem to be the array of resources that are available for women. Or is it just that the resources are there but the access isn't obvious?

I was just wondering if Dozer was male or female?

Jewely,

Male.

You're not a friend of Ronnie Peters, by any chance?

Cornflower,

It's not easy. I was only able to start working again on a regular basis once I had done enough work to be able to function enough to keep a job. I spent a lot of time on the dole, wondering why I was always so angry. It was quite debilitating. I was aware that what had happened to me was unfair, I called it bullying, but I spent a lot of time thinking I was alone. But then one night watching "John Safran vs God" I got lucky. He was interviewing Michael Savage, who mentioned a few statistics I had never heard before, and in fact contradicted everything I had ever been told about domestic violence, and it all just went from there.

So in terms of advice;

First of all, you need a little bit of luck, as I had. For this reason it's important that people keep banging on the same message, wherever they can, because I never heard anything about this from a mainstream source.

Secondly, it's ok to accept that what happened to you was bad and it constitutes domestic violence.

Importantly, talk to your friends and your family. Mine were shocked when I told them everything that had happened. It also helped heal my relationships with my family, and it meaned that I got my support network back. Noone ever told me, to my face, that they didn't believe me, or that I was actually the abuser or any of that nonsense. (If they do, tell them to go jump.) When you tell people your story, they listen.

TBC

Psychological counselling is extremely important. I was lucky enough to be able to get 3 batches of 6 sessions with 3 different counsellors, all for free- the first was through university. Most tertiary institutions provide mental health care as part of a free service. The second was through Centrelink- you're allowed 6 free sessions with a psychologist. The third was through Medicare- again you're allowed a number of free sessions with a psychologist if you get a referral from a GP. I cannot tell you how invaluable they were. I probably need to do some more at some stage but I'll chase that up when I have time and money.

Interestingly though, I didn't find anything that was provided specifically for male victims of domestic violence. I just went to the shrinks and told them my story.

Also, there are support networks on the internet, where you don't have to worry about arguing with people who have a different viewpoint, and you don't have to worry that you're hijacking the debate. I was put on to BatteredHusbandsSupport by one of the guys on this forum. Can't remember who, but thanks heaps.

dozer,

Thanks you for your explanation. It is a subject that is often mentioned on OLO, but I don't think I have ever seen any real discussion of it.

From reason alone there would be similar numbers of men and women as persecutors and victims.

You have done well though and good for you.

I googled Ronnie Peters but couldn’t work out which one you might mean Dozer.

Now I am off to begin pre cooking and organizing Christmas. Maternal gatekeeping I’m not sure but I like being the one that sorts it all out for the big day. I will get up hours before everyone else tomorrow morning and sit staring at the tree and the presents and remember other mornings when I did exactly the same thing.

We seem to know a few young men with nowhere to be tomorrow that are coming to ours. I wonder why it is always young fellas who either don’t have a family of their own to be with or don’t want to be with them… never had a young female without a home at Xmas.

Jewely try http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=4553

Not sure but I think that Ronnie might have been tied up with Wendy's organisation.

Have a great Christmas day all.

R0bert

Never mind. Its just i questioned Ronnie Peters' gender in one of my epic battles with him a few years ago. Thanks Cornflower, and merry christmas all.

I'll add my Christmas wished to all. I'll be doing very little other than watching the rain washing the sawdust away.

dozer, nice to see you back. I believe you left just as I joined OLO. I'm glad to hear things are going well for you.

I tried the psychologist business and found it very unsatisfying and unhelpful. That may have been because I was suffering a fairly straightforward situational/reactive depression, but I suspect it also has to do with my own nature. My sense was that the psychologist was not especially interested in my situation and was simply platitudinising in response to my questions. In two sessions I didn't receive a single piece of useful advice.

It's good to know that isn't always the case.

Hi antiseptic. Sorry to hear it didn't work so well. From what i've seen with psychological counselling results can often be mixed. It worked very well for me and was very efficient. Others i know have gone through therapy for years and found it effective but still need more. Others have just gone downhill regardless. You have to be ready for it, and you have to be ready to do most of the work yourself- see the psychologist as a guide- I was able to see a lot of the connections between things that had happened and why i had a certain reaction. The therapist also needs to be switched on and have some empathy. The biggest thing for me was to realise that although many things had been done to me that were unfair, ultimately it was me having to take responsibility for my own life and thought patterns if i were to ever get out of the rut i was in. All the best.

dozer:"The biggest thing for me was to realise that although many things had been done to me that were unfair, ultimately it was me having to take responsibility for my own life and thought patterns if i were to ever get out of the rut i was in"

Now that I agree with 100%. Cognitive awareness of behaviours and conscientious modification of behaviour patterns can be very useful indeed. I must credit the psychologist with pointing out that while I may have a right to be depressed under the circunstances, remaining depressed wasn't going to solve the problem. A lot of personal reading later I worked it out, at least to my own satisfaction. Part of that satisfaction is that I never used the drugs that the medical profession tried to push on me when I turned up saying "I feel depressed".

I also found it very cathartic to "take on" the system that is so unfair, instead of allowing myself to be pushed from pillar to post willy-nilly. My nature is such that I find "turning the other cheek" very difficult, so "keeping the bastards honest" has been very satisfying, especially since it means that some others may not have to go through similar things.

On a side note, though, I have a very good friend who is quite badly bipolar, and he won't under any circumstances try CBT, because he's scared of losing the high of the "ups" even though he's frequently suicidal during the "downs". His impulse control is almost non-existent at the best of times, so this is a big problem for him. He won't take meds either, for the same reason. I expect he'll top himself one day.

1/2 As a 31 year old man who has been the victim of 23 years of what started out as severe child psychological abuse at the hands of predominantly female family members as well as several abusive relationships where in one case I was raped multiple times by the woman I was with; I find myself having little sympathy for Liz45.

What she went through was abhorrent, however her sickening and minimising hypocrisy is completely inexcusible. While she claims one minute that she does not support the abuse of men by women, she almost immediately afterwards, completely diminishes it.

I honestly find it nothing short of vile as I would never invalidate her abuse in such a general manner. Her abuse does not give her the right to treat the abuse of anyone else like an urban myth or trivialise it in any other way shape or form- no matter how much it might fly in the face of the dynamics of the abuse she endured.

I have heard several claims by people about the frequency of reporting, and I apologise for the slur I need to refer to here, however it is necessary to bluntly make this point.

We live in a society where an underage boy is the victim of child sexual abuse and the media class it as assault. Men who speak out about their abuse have it trivialised, jovialised or are lambasted for it by rabid feminists. According to society (including police in general), a man is a joke if he "got beaten up by his woman", "got lucky" if he is raped by a woman and "is in the closet" if homosexually raped".

Let me put it in very visceral and blunt terms. How many women would come forward about being raped if even the police called them "filthy whores"- or told that the only way to stop rape was for women to make sure other women out their keep their legs crossed? Next to none I'd wager, and understandbily so!
(to be continued)

2/2 (continued) This is the very scenario which men face and in its current form (which numerous studies into abuse against men have pointed to rather universally). In this regard, WRD is no better in its treatment towards abused men and boys, than those in the above example would be hypothetically towards a raped woman.

I have no problem with the concept of a day which draws attention to the true nature of domestic violence and which encourages people to take a stand against it. However in its current form, WRD is as much about the enabling of spousal abuse and child abuse in all their forms on gender lines due to the stereotypes it perpetuates; as it is about ending violence against women.

As a battered man and child abuse survivor almost entirely at the hands of women, I think I'm more than entitled to have a significant problem with WRD in its current form.

@bowspearer - As a man whose stronger than almost any woman, unless she towers above you and weighs a lot more, I find your stand rather concerting. My two eldest boys when they were about 9 and 10 could pick me up chair and all? I question your bonafides? I also question the fact that you are a genuine victim of rape? Only you know that. You'd have more chance of being treated with any sort of empathy, sympathy or respect, if you didn't lighten the experience of others who were abused, particularly women!

How do I know that your comments aren't mischievously a lie? I do not condone sexual abuse of anyone, regardless of sex, particularly if they're young, but what you do in your tirade is ignore reality - that is, that around the world, perpetrators of sexual and physical violence are overwhelmingly men. If you disagree with this, prove it!

WRD is a day set aside by the UN to fight against the abuse of women around the world. Why anyone, man or woman would be against this begs belief. If men want to publicise what happens to them, do what women have been doing for centuries - get off your bums and start!Women started all the now govt funded organisations such as rape crisis centres, women's refuge centres and women's health centres because women like me got together and first of all worked tirelessly as volunteers, at the same time as putting in submissions for funding.
Men did zilch! Too lazy, and now that there's focus of woman who are abused, they start whinging! Get off your bums and do something!

Go to Message Stick(ABC)and watch today's repeated program!

Some people on here seem to think that I give a damn whether they believe me or not? Fact is, my self esteem is not that low that it bothers me any more. I know what my truth is, and I know what the statistics clearly show - that overwhelmingly, around the world, the abuse of women by their intimate partner is much higher than the opposite. Insulting me only reinforces my reality. the more men reject my reality; call me a liar, or engage in the sort of language my ex used only adds to my unshaken belief, that men are the perpetrators of most instances of violence(all violence). Rejecting this fact doesn't change it!

For every article put forward against this view, there's probably hundreds if not thousands that insist on the reality, that the abuse of women and kids by men far outweighs the opposite!

so, keep on keeping on with your hateful vitriole, but it won't change a thing! Tell lies and show your personal hatreds, but that won't change reality either. If you weren't so misogynist in your views, you'd probably gain more sympathy and support, but calling me names, and others like me just negates me and others in my position from taking up your cause. That's why you've put yourselves in a difficult position - you put off the very people who'd support you!

What you blokes have done is condone the violence done to me, because you're hateful and just as bad as my ex. Despicable!

1/3 Congratulations Liz for completely proving my point.

Let's break down your post bit by bit shall we.

"@bowspearer - As a man whose stronger than almost any woman, unless she towers above you and weighs a lot more, I find your stand rather concerting. My two eldest boys when they were about 9 and 10 could pick me up chair and all? I question your bonafides? I also question the fact that you are a genuine victim of rape? Only you know that. You'd have more chance of being treated with any sort of empathy, sympathy or respect, if you didn't lighten the experience of others who were abused, particularly women!"

Right so where have I heard such sexist and depraved garbage before- oh yes from radical islamic clerics and chauvanists who claim that it can't be rape. As the mother of 2 boys with your blatant sexism and misandry, I genuinely fear for their psychological well-being.

"How do I know that your comments aren't mischievously a lie? I do not condone sexual abuse of anyone, regardless of sex, particularly if they're young, but what you do in your tirade is ignore reality - that is, that around the world, perpetrators of sexual and physical violence are overwhelmingly men. If you disagree with this, prove it!"

And yet here you are accusing me of lying about my abuse- not only have you condoned abuse against men as your response proves, but you have actively contributed to the perpetuation of social attitudes which foster said abuse. In short you are a domestic and child abuse enabler! Your own words prove as much.

(To be continued)

2/3 (continued)
As for said studies, you mean like the 250 peer reviewed studies with a sampling size of over 115,000 which found abuse to be 50/50? Or maybe you mean the CDC longitudinal study done back in 2002, which found that amongst 18-28 year olds, that 70.3% of non-reciprocal IPV was perpetuated by women against men? That's not even going into recent crime figures in Australia which clearly point to a radical increase in reported female on male IPV contrasted by a radical decrease in reported male on female IPV.

"WRD is a day set aside by the UN to fight against the abuse of women around the world. Why anyone, man or woman would be against this begs belief. If men want to publicise what happens to them, do what women have been doing for centuries - get off your bums and start!Women started all the now govt funded organisations such as rape crisis centres, women's refuge centres and women's health centres because women like me got together and first of all worked tirelessly as volunteers, at the same time as putting in submissions for funding.
Men did zilch! Too lazy, and now that there's focus of woman who are abused, they start whinging! Get off your bums and do something!"

It's not raising awareness of violence against women which battered men such as myself have an issue with- it's the pissing contest it turns into where the myth of men only being abusers and only women are victims- where those of us who are abuse survivors have to endure the pure filth which would send women on the receiving end of it into a violent rage if the roles were reversed. WRD goes beyond a simple violence on females focus (let’s ignore it’s complete dismissal of violence in lesbian relationships for the moment), to crossing this very ugly and vile line. As a men’s advocacy group recently pointed out- the statistics on violence against women in and of themselves speak volumes.

(to be continued)

3/3 (continued)
There is no need to diminish the plight of battered men like myself to try and achieve a reduction in violence against women. Furthermore, as your own response toward me taking the brave step of disclosing my own abuse goes, I have no doubt of just what some of your “work” consisted of- namely playing on traditional male stereotypes and verbalizing and invalidating male victims into silence when you encountered them.

One last thing. I have no doubt of the legitimacy of what you endured Liz. However I also have no doubt of one other fact- people who are abused have two choices; either rise above their abuse, or become their abusers.

It is blatantly clear from the attitudes that you have displayed here that you have chosen the later- out of a sexist sense of hatred and bitterness. While I can understand how such a hatred came about, there is no excuse your indiscriminate usage of it as opposed to rising above it. The fact that you yourself have endured the horrors you have should make you acutely aware of how hellish they are for anyone to endure, regardless of gender.

If a woman came up to me saying they’d been abused, I would be nothing but validating of their experiences, just as I have of yours (which does not mean blindly letting bad behaviour slide).

However that’s the difference between you and I- as your own posts have proven; where I actually care about validating and ending the abuse of all people regardless of their race, creed, age or gender; you clearly only care about misandrist revenge.

Feel free to be prove me wrong and be accountable for your own vile actions here.

@bowspear -If you've bothered to read my earlier posts, which I doubt, you'll not find anywhere where I've condoned the abuse of men - by anyone, male or female. You'd also find, that Antispectic,RObert and others have used vile language and virtually accused me of deserving what happened to me, as early as 12 yrs of age!

You were abused as an adult, I was first abused as a child - a most revealing fact. However, what many people have chosen to do is to imply that I'm almost a 'professional victim'? A accusation that is vile. What sort of a man condones the sexual abuse of girls by adult males? The 2nd assault on me was by a professional person, a radiologist on the pretext of showing me where to put my arms prior to a MANDATORY chest x-ray, ordered by my then employer in order to gain permanent status. I was 16. These so called men used the abuses of adult men, one was old enough to be my father and then some! They were cowardly and depraved men who have no right to be protected by anyone - male or female! To abuse, lighten the impact is to condone the actions of these men. I did not deserve to be bashed by anyone, let alone a man who stood beside me in front of an altar and promised the opposite - I never instigated any forms of violence towards him, in fact, I rarely tried to defend myself, as I learnt very early, that to do so only meant a harder 'whack around my head'? Sometimes I couldn't sleep on that side for days! sometimes I suffered concussion!

I repudiate any suggestion, that by being frank I'm being hateful or bitter! After all, if the person who'd bashed me was a stranger on the street, I wouldn't be the butt of such hateful vitriol by some men, who in my opinion, are no better than the mongrels who abused me!

1/3 Liz,
Stop. With. The pissing contest!

To begin with- you claim you've never condoned the abuse of men and boys, yet when I bravely took the step of being candid, you accused my stating my abuse as "a mischievous lie" and claimed it was impossible for me to be raped. By doing so, you were guilty of displaying child abuse and DV enabling attitudes- pure and simple.

What you did to me is no better than what the mothers of the Lebanese gang rapists did a few years back to their sons' victims. You did it to me, be honest and be accountable for your actions towards me.

Furthermore, I never said I wasn't abused as a child. In fact I was heavily psychologically abused almost entirely by female family members from the age of 6 to the age of 29 where whether I was bullied, voiced an opinion, shared a dream, was badly injured or made any kind of gesture that I even existed, I was cut down with nasty remarks and/or howled down.

It was so severe that when I dislocated my foot after being rolled on by an adult in a soccer game by accident, I was told to sit there and shut up. At the age of 29 when I confronted them about it, most of them turned on me and we're not longer speaking- not to mention the fact that they pushed me the closest to suicide I've ever gotten.

My family not only drove me to the point of suicide (which would have happened before now had it not been for some miraculous part of me which always blocked me right at the point of action) but to silence in other matters. (to be continued)

2/3 (continued)
When I was 16, I was sexually assaulted on multiple occasions on a school camp by a fellow male student and not only did the school sweep it under the carpet, but because of what my family put me through, I was too scared to go to the police- I figured, considering what my family were like, I could expect no different from the police.

As often happens with abusive boys, I attracted abusive women as partners, just as abused girls often attract abusive men. My worst relationship was the one where, besides being sucked dry in every possible way, I was serially raped. She didn't need to physically overpower me or use a physical weapon.

When she wanted sex, she'd simply use my child abuse as a psychological weapon, knowing just what to say to hit me with the most damage, and she'd keep up with that and then accusing me of needing to "be a man" or just needing to "get over it" until I capitulated. You'd be amazed at just how effective psychologically incapacitating a rape victim can be, when the rapist knows just how and where to strike.

It took two years from leaving the relationship until I could admit to what it was and I'm still scarred by it to this day. A recent qualitative study (which I should point out is the type of study which the vast majority of those "thousands of studies" you refer to are) into battered men found my experience to be in the majority.

Liz, let me put something out there which feminists like you cannot seem to get into your tunnel-vision-filled minds (caps for emphasis, not screaming):

VALIDATING MY BEING ABUSED DOES NOT INVALIDATE YOUR BEING ABUSED IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.

None of my hell makes your hell any more or less horrific than mine. None of my hell makes my hell any more or less horrific than your hell. (to be continued)

3/3 (continued)
But you radical feminists don't seem to get that. You're psychotically driven by this vile notion that to be taken seriously and validated, you have to invalidate any male victim out there.

This is the problem with WRD. If it was about solely about male-on-female violence, while still taking the stance of "yes, reciprocal IPV, female-on-female IPV and female-on-male IPV do exist and are serious problems but that does not diminish the severity of the problem of male-on-female IPV in any way shape or form"; I'd not only not have a problem with it, but I'd even actively support it. Heck, if it took that route, not only would it stop obstructing campaigns for other forms of DV, but it would even open up for cooperation and create a united front where nothing was ignored. Furthermore, such an approach would be no less effective with spreading the message that non-reciprocal male-on-female violence (as opposed to reciprocal IPV which while equally wrong, has never been the focus of WRD) is unacceptable for any reason.

So I put it to you, why would WRD taking that route while still having a female-on-male IPV focus, be such a problem to you?

Bowspearer, I don't understand why Liz45 doesn't believe your story. After all the mantra in the DV industry is that you should believe the victim. She is such an expert on domestic violence you'd think she would know that.

Its official:"It is important that you believe what they tell you. They will not exaggerate about the abuse."

http://www.communityservices.qld.gov.au/violenceprevention/aboutdfv/support-victim.html

For your sake Bowspearer I hope the word exaggerate encompasses the word lying.

"For your sake Bowspearer I hope the word exaggerate encompasses the word lying."

Ros, if you're trying to be a troll by acusing me of lying about my abuse, don't bother. I'm used to being acused of making it up by feminists and by traditionalists, and to be honest, after the first attack in a place, the others tend to lose their sting.

I have to say though that I find your post rather ironic. The article was about the evils of gender based approaches, yet this last bit is textbook evidence of what male victims of abuse can typically expect to be on the receiving end of from society. Is it any wonder that the greatest cause of deaths of men in Australia is suicide....