@bowspear - "she'll" claim this and "she'll claim" something else. Go back and read your posts and you'll find, if you're capable of being honest, that you are everything you accuse me of being. You hate women(perhaps with good reason - but be honest?) and you only ASSUME what I think and feel.

The study out of VICTORIA not SA is just ONE OF MANY with the same or similar outcomes. Go and take a look at the UN or NSW(they have a new website) and read some others. Actually re men and women and equality etc, what sort of a moron are you that you don't recognise or admit, that even in relation to education, women WERE PREVENTED from being doctors for example. Women didn't HAVE THE RIGHT to vote? And there's heaps more! The catholic church's attitudes to women are appalling, and some others aren't much better! The Anglicans are discriminatory to women also, and both are homophobic also! As I said, anyone who doesn't acknolwledge these facts just DON'T WANT TO! You don't WANT TO!

Years ago my boss, an infant's headmistress advised me to read a book called, 'The Natural Superiority of Women' which pointed to all the medical reasons why women were superior - not in an arrogant sense. For example, only boys are hemophiliacs - women are carriers but don't suffer from this awful condition. There were others. I've also read a book that was about why men hate women. Can't recall the title, but it was very interesting.

You never refer to the stats re sexual assault. That the MAJORITY (overwhelmingly so) of offenders are male. The same with child sexual abuse - same stats - usually father, step father, grandfather, uncle or family friend - or the local priest?

Finally, if you read your FIRST post in response to my comments, you called me a liar straight off - not in so many words of course, but you didn't believe me, so get off your high horse, and face some home truths. I questioned whether you were fair dinkum or just trolling!

So tell me Liz, if you never said what I claimed you said, then why were those exact quotes? Furthermore if you go back to my first post you'll find that I completely acknowledged your abuse- what I said was that I have little sympathy for you because it's made you into an abussive individual obsessed with revenge on everyone with a y chromosome because of the men who hurt you in the past. Oh and FYI Valentines Day marks my girlfriend's and my 18 month anniversary and she's made me one of the happiest men alive. Now we've proven that my presumed misogyny is in reality, you deflecting your own sociopathic misandry, we'll deal with the study you linked to.

I'm well aware that your link was to Vic Health- to the exact same study which heavily oformed the basis of the officially criticised "don't cross the line" campaign. Furthermpre the study was focused on community attitudes towards violence specifically against women. And you're right, there are numerous studies which are equally driven by politics and radicalism than good academic practice, and that's the problem. You claim to not condone violence against men or boys yet oppose efforts to uncover all abusers and victims in society on those very gender lines. Either you condone female abusers being able to hide behind female victims, and society trivialising male victims while tarring them with the same brush as male abusers. Now which is it?

There can be no good reason to create a law, nor to have a law enacted, in a manner that discriminates against any one group of people.

Even if a law normally affects 99% of a specific group and only 1% everyone outside that group, there is no reason to not apply the same legal privileges, rights and responsibilities to all 100%.

Even some social problem can be found to only 100% affect a specific group SO FAR, there is no reason to assume this will always be the case and only apply the law to that one group.

Whether studies find that domestic violence against men is 99% of all domestic violence, or 1% or all domestic violence is not relevant in how a law should be drawn up, nor in how that law should be applied.

If only the majority group is to be protected against domestic violence then what if that group is defined as, for example, brunettes over 5'3". Does anyone seriously think that blondes, or those under 5'3" should not be protected? That's absolute and obvious rubbish.

Even though some people like to define the majority group as being all women, that is just as much rubbish to only afford women the privileges, rights and responsibilities under domestic violence law.

(cont)When you call the articles biased or sarcastically infer, that it's all been a 'feminist plot' that the stats point to a reality that you refuse to acknowledge, you just sound like a kid who stamps their foot when they don't get their own way. The stats are as they are - FACT. The police acknowledge the reality, the Attorney's General do too; govts do, the United Nations does; different countries around the world, for instance El Salvador(put that country into Google and have a read?)you and some other people, usually men are the ones who insist on at best equality and even that women are the violent ones and men aren't? This is rubbish! Look at other crimes of violence. Follow news articles for just one week! The reality is not as you WISH it to be!
Have you contacted any police stations? Read the local stats re crimes? You just live in your little 'bubble world' as you want it to be - not as it is! Doesn't work!Then, because women like me insist on the reality, I'm the enemy now! You're too stupid to realise, that if you weren't so arrogant, you'd have more people on your side.

The world isn't as it is due to me being a feminist - I'm a feminist because how the world was/is - unequal, violent and unjust!Now because govts are being pro-active against the scourge of abuse, men like you scream! Most interesting! I bet you didn't speak up while women suffered silently, and as in too many cases of sexual abuse, we were blamed for the perp's crime! How just is that? Our skirts were too high or we'd been drinking or??Anything but call it like it was - a violent crime.

In most States and Terrirories in Australia, rape by a husband of his wife only became a crime 20-30 yrs ago! Prior to that, he could do as he pleased. His wife was his property - like the chair or the family car! You don't like it, that justice is now dictating,that women are not chattells!Tough!

Liz, can you see that wanting to punish men (and children) for things done before they were adults or quite often before they were even born, makes you lose all credibility?

FYI, no, I did nothing about the laws about the relationship between men and women before I was born. Did you? If you didn't, then it's as equally your fault as mine.

Don't you see that your gender bias and hatred based on things you believe about the past (sometimes with much justification, sometimes with very little) shows a damaging social outlook that is unhelpful to the society around you.

I understand that you were personally abused in some way and that was by a man. Was it also by a person with two legs? Was it also by someone over 5 foot tall? Choosing to take your anguish out on all people who are male is as senseless as taking it out on all people with two legs or all people over 5 foot tall. I won't apologise for your abuse because I had nothing to do with it but - like all people abused, wherever they live, whatever their weight, height, colour, race, gender, religion, etc. - I feel for you and would look to help ALL people abused.

@Liz45 you say to Bowspear: "In most States and Terrirories in Australia, rape by a husband of his wife only became a crime 20-30 yrs ago! Prior to that, he could do as he pleased. His wife was his property - like the chair or the family car! You don't like it, that justice is now dictating,that women are not chattells!"

Why wouldn't Bowspear like it? Are you suggesting it is because he likes to treat a woman who he has a relationship with, as his property? That seems to be rather presumptuous of you, then again you seem to be presumptuous about a lot of things.