Actually I write non-fiction ChazP only after thoroughly researched.

Continue with your assumptions.

@Liz45 For someone who talks about creibiity let's look at your own words here.

6th post, page 47 "I do NOT condone violence perpetrated towards anyone."

Yet in 6th post page 45 "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?"

Followed by "How do I know that your comments aren't mischievously a lie?"

Which actually goes beyond condoning it to ACTIVELY contributing to the perpetuation of stereotypes in this world which allow it to flourish- stereotypes on the same level as those which link rape directly to how a woman dresses. In other words, the uncredible liar here is you.

Furthermore, as I pointed out, the study you referred to was the basis of a campaign ("Don't cross the line") which the SA Ombudsmen found was riddled with false information- I never said you had written it personally.

Funny thing about liars like you- your lies always catch up to you.

Roscop,
I largely agree with you. However, you are to some extent making the same error as Liz45.

Although these issues can be illustrated to hold gender bias THEY SHOULD NOT. So I would find better accord with:

The default situation should be that if a A PARENT unilaterally decides to walk out of a relationship THAT PARENT does not take off with the children. The REMAINING PARENT if innocent of any offence, should have the say as to what access/custody the DEPARTING PARENT has.

However, I don't fully agree because this can completely block a relationship between a child and their parent, which is not usually justifiable just because one of the parents walked out the home. Default custody with the parent that wants to keep the family together makes absolute sense for the best interest of the child and the best long-term structure of a stable society. It is rarely in a child's interest to block access or in any way damage the relationship with the departing parent any more than that parent has done already by departing.

Liz45:
You continue to show your feministic anti-male bias, the prevalence of which is harming society currently and needs to be eradicated.

When society is egalitarian, it will stop people like you perpetuating a gender war on the basis that women (all of whom have had the vote in this country for all their lives, and been the majority gender during that time) are victimised by the government they have voted for.

You are cherry-picking a report that you believe proves it right to be biased against men, rather than considering all reports, many of which show a different picture. According to you, in talking of domestic violence incidents "males being the perpetrators in at least 80% of them." OK, just for the moment, let's say this is true. Let's pretend that it really is the case that only 20% of the perpetrators are female. So what? Why should there by any gender bias in the law or in the way the law is implemented? If the incidence was only 1%, so what? Why should the law not be as equal for the 1% as it is for the 99%.

You can rant and rave as much as you like pretending that men are nasty violent creatures rather than the peace-making protectors that society actually witnesses but you will NEVER convince me, nor any reasonable person, that it is right to discriminate on race, colour, religion, gender, weight, height, orientation, IQ, or anything else when it comes to drawing up and implementing the law.

On the contrary Chaz, you are entirely talking in THEORY as opposed to practice.

The problem you keep missing is that it is currently a criminal offense to name and shame the very judges you accuse of getting things so wrong.

Furthermore, while the law states that shared parenting should be what judges adhere to, a recent case had a mother who had psychologically abused her children to the point of self harm at the thought of seeing their father, was awarded sole custody of her children while the non-abussive father was banned from seeing his two children. The judgement was justified as being "in the best interests of the child" (oh the irony). In short, the judge legally sanctioned the continuation of severe child abuse by the mother and is able to do so with complete impunity- while the mother was neither charged with nor sentenced for a crime.

This was with shared parenting laws in place laws allowing the prosecution of perjury (which almost never happens). What you wish to propose removes repercussions for perjury and opens up the floodgates even more to abusive parents as it does not bother fixing up the core problem, which is the proper accountability and and where necessary, prosecution, of judges who make rulings which are in cases like this, blatantly illegal.

But hey, go on accusing me of lying about my abuse, it seems you have a reputation on here for doing just that based on what has been said.

@Douglas - In your view, what does "feminism" mean?

I did not cherry pick. I chose some excerpts that were directed at the rubbish assertions already posted by men before you. I have no issue with men who recognise the discrimination that went on for decades/centuries against women - rules/legislation etc made mainly by men to reinforce the ingrained stereotyping of women and girls, in every facet of their lives. No reasonable man objects to these injustices being addressed. Only those men who resent any sharing of their rights, privileges, education, occupations etc. By your comments, it's obvious that you find equality confronting! Sad about you - tough luck!Feminism is striving for equality and justice for women and girls.

I added the site where you are more than welcome to read the whole 80 page report. As I indicated, it's the most recent investigation into DV. Just because you disagree with the findings doesn't mean that they're incorrect or biased against men. They just reinforce what is recognised around the world.

There are always exceptions to all rules - DV is no different. If you read the part about 'mischief' reporting etc, you'd have read the comments re this assertion.

May I also suggest that you read Anne Summer's book, 'The End of Equality'? Interesting reading by a woman who's done a lot of research into these issues. Unlike your good self, may I suggest!