Bowspearer – You do not set my agenda with your questions, as they are invariably an attempt to divert and distract the discussion when you are required to face an inconvenient truth. Your anger and distress was at learning that decent and good men are opposed to your views and find Father’s Rights supporters a distasteful group and a disgrace to manhood and fatherhood.?.
My priorities in this thread have been abundantly clear that this society has to take extensive legal measures to protect children from abuse, because so many children are suffering abuses, some resulting in death, in Australian society . The present Family Law and the legal system are condoning and even colluding in such abuses and deaths of children, and that is why it is so essential that the law is changed. Your priorities appear to be to make known to the world your allegations of personal abuse and demanding to be believed when you are constantly claiming that allegations by children and mothers are always false. Why should you be believed when you cannot extend such belief to them?.
Here’s another little gem from the NOMAS group of men opposed to sexism. This is their views about domestic violence and its underlying causation. It is equally applicable in Australia
“The NY Model does not define domestic violence as an individual pathology but rather as a manifestation of sexism, deeply rooted in the history, law and culture of the US. Furthermore, centuries of patriarchy have defined men’s relationship to women in terms of ownership and entitlement, making it men’s right and responsibility to control the woman who is “his,” and to use a wide array of strategies to do so.”
I have now read the submissions of four FR groups on the FL amendments, and, surprise surprise, not one mentions any concern for children, except of course to suit their own selfish agenda, that "they need their Dads". They don't!. They need a male role model who is caring,supportive and takes an active interest in them, whether that is a step-father, or even a live-in lover.

ChazP:"Bowspearer--I can't answer your questions"

Yes, we know, dear. You do struggle with rationality. Being compassionate people, we make allowances...

Effects on children of Domestic Violence and why they must be protected by the Family Laws:
"Obviously it is very upsetting for children to see one of their parents (or their partners) abusing or attacking the other. They often show signs of great distress.
Younger children may become anxious, complain of tummy-aches or start to wet their bed. They may find it difficult to sleep, have
temper tantrums and start to behave as if they are much younger than they are.
Older children react differently. Boys seem to express their distress much more outwardly. They may become aggressive and disobedient.
Sometimes, they start to use violence to try and solve problems, as if they have learnt to do this from the way that adults behave in their family.Older boys may play truant and may start to use
alcohol or drugs.
Girls are more likely to keep their distress inside. They may withdraw from other people and become anxious or depressed. They may think badly of themselves and complain of vague physical symptoms. They are more likely to have an eating disorder, or to harm themselves by taking overdoses or cutting themselves.
Children with these problems often do badly at school. They may also get symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder, for example have
nightmares and flashbacks, and be easily startled.
Children who have witnessed violence are more likely to be either abusers or victims themselves. Children tend to copy the behaviour
of their parents. Boys learn from their fathers to be violent to women. Girls learn from their mothers that violence is to be expected, and something you just have to put up with.
Children don’t always repeat the same pattern when they grow up. Many children don’t like what they see, and try very hard not to make the same mistakes as their parents. Even so, children from violent families often grow up feeling anxious and depressed, and find it difficult to get on with other people." - Royal College of Psychiatrists - 2004

1/2
@Suzeonline- you are missing the point (quite possibly deliberately). Social attitudes towards child abuse where the abuser is a woman, especially in cases like child sex abuse, are completely relevent to this discussion because the very same attitudes which protect female abusers while dminimishing, trivialising and even villainising male victims are the very same attitudes which underpin the very stereotypes you refer to. As such the fact that such stereotypes could even extend to child abuse should demonstrate just how deeply entrenched in the social psyche they truly are.

Secondly, you claim that you have worked in hospitals and in doing so, if your claims are true, have proven my point in spades. Where men don't face ridicule for being abused at the hands of traditionalist attitudes, and even in some cases where they do, they experience villainisation as the assumed perpetrator due to the feminist stereotype of "women exclusively as victims; men exclusively as abusers".

Your entire response there was that if a woman attacked a man, she MUST have been defending herself. Nevermind the fact that studies by experts such as Richard Gelles have found that abuse is a 50/50 split between the genders in heterosexual relationships, nevermind the fact that he and numerous others who have done studies into domestic violence actually found that female abusers stalk out moments of opportunity and almost always attack with a weapon- no, according to you, he MUST have had it coming to him as he MUST have been the attacker.

Gee where have I heard that before, oh yes the old sick stereotypical "knowing her place" justification for male-on-female non-reciprocal violence. Then again considering that feminists have sent Erin Pizzey and Richard Gelles countless death threats for exposing the genderless nature of domestic violence, we all know how hypocritical the feminist opposition to violence truly is.
(to be continued)

2/2 (continued)
Let's try and use some logic for a minute here- as those attitudes are so rife in society, that men know they are going to be not just ridiculed but accused of being the abuser if they were honest about the nature of their injuries, then logically the vast majority of abused men are going to lie about the nature of their injuries to avoid being victimised by the system as well as their partners. Additionally with those attitudes being so rife, abusive women know they can use the system as a weapon if a man speaks up in the form of false allegations, and the system will most likely believe her.

You claim that you acknowledge that women commit violence, but as you have just proven, it is only to the level of a pseudo urban myth and only within the context of it being self-defense on the part of the woman, regardless of how reciprocal or non-reciprocal the abuse might actually be.

@Douglas- you're "ignoring the elephant in the room" by addressing that last part of your last post at me. I completely agree that all abuse needs to be recognised, however society cannot do that when it cover up for half of all abusers on the grounds of gender.

@ChazP- On the contrary, my questions have exposed you as a fraud. You claim to want to help children even when I have demonstrated that “the best interests of the child” is a staple copout for judges who legally sanction child abuse by putting children in the sole care of abusive parents, making your entire argument moot.
Secondly I would seriously question whether the prevalence of both reciprocal and non-reciprocal female-on-male IPV was factored into that conclusion.
Richard Gelles was actually interviewed on Christmas Day and his response regarding advocacy based research, is extremely telling (that it is academically worthless), as seen here:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2013743521_domesticviolence26.html?prmid=obinsite
Furthermore, your “beloved” NOMAS have been proven to be nothing but a festering cauldron of misandry, as seen here:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/2010/06/15/michael-kimmel-defends-nomas-misandry-and-the-promotion-of-bigotry/

Douglas <"What is important here? Dealing only with the perpetrators of one gender or dealing with all perpetrators?"

I totally agree it is the perpetrator, regardless of gender, that should be the most important consideration in domestic violence issues.

I have said this many times on this forum, but still the anti-female tirades continue from the resident 'good-old-boys-club" members who try to dominate this forum.

So I answer them back - because this is an opinion forum.

Antiseptic >"Suzeonline:"Is it when she doesn't do what she is told?
Is it when she answers back?"
No, but it is when she screams abuse and throws things"

Oh finally, the truth from you Antiseptic. So it IS ok by you for a woman to have the hell beaten out of her because she screams abuse and throws things?

NO IT IS NOT OK!

Any other men on this forum want to dispute Antiseptic's argument, or is it all up to the women and police?

Bowspearer, where are all the men's refuges in our community?
Not many aye?

Why would that be? Because they were all too manly to own up to getting bashed by women in their own home?

I don't think so. Most men can and do physically stand up to any violence shown by women- usually, ultimately, to the woman's detriment.

I have seen it all far too often.
Have you?