ChazP:”The present Family Law and the legal system are condoning and even colluding in such abuses and deaths of children. “

If that’s true it is not in the way you make out. We have already had that argument starting from when YOU referred to two family court cases: Tennison & Gourlay [2010] FamCA 127 and Aligante & Waugh (No. 2) [2010] FamCA 554. Those cases in no way validated your assertions.

Re Tennison & Gourlay case, the mother’s arguments relied solely upon in terms of expert opinion, that given by a proven unprofessional child psychologist (referred to as Ms P) which the mother had shopped around for.

Concluding remarks in judgement were:

“24. I have already said enough about Ms P to make the summary of her evidence that it has been, in my view, totally discredited. I am therefore left with the unchallenged evidence of two paediatricians, Dr S and Dr D, as well as a psychiatrist, the family consultant and the Queensland Department of Child Safety, all of whom have formed the view that there is insufficient evidence to support the allegation of abuse. As already stated, Dr S and Dr D have gone so far as to doubt that the abuse occurred.

25. There are times when people against whom an allegation of abuse has been made are entitled to a positive finding of no abuse rather than the comparatively inconclusive finding of no unacceptable risk. The entirety of the evidence persuades me that it is appropriate to make a positive finding of no abuse on the balance of probabilities.”

ChazP, being the argumentative type that she is, without a shadow of a doubt, will persist with her debunked assertions as she is doing now.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FamCA/

It is known for some people to state that they are against violence of any kind, whether perpetrated by men or by women and whether the victim is male or female.

Sometimes these same people have a problem with people campaigning for equalities in the law, and in the way the law is applied in regard to violence. While proclaiming an attitude to want believe in equality, they have a problem with the statement:
"On White Ribbon Day, we condemn violence against women. We should also condemn it against men."

The reasons put forward are varied and usually motivated by politcal or dogmatic beliefs. Sometimes the beliefs are subconscious, reflecting more a bias that is throughout society rather than directly contributing to it. Sometimes such beliefs are because of stereotypes and the desire to treat all women, or all men, as though they were the same person, rather than considering them as individuals.

This can lead, for example, to ideas that a man is always strong enough to take a beating from a woman (and even that he therefore should never fight back), or that a man always has the upper hand in any fight with a woman, or that a man will only hit a woman because he has been provoked. These gender stereotypes fail to take into account that generalisations are not able to be generally applied. For example, whereas men on average are physically stronger than women, roughly the top 25% of women are stronger than the average man.

In conclusion, applying sweeping generalisations to justify a gender-based approach to Family Violence cannot bring about a just society. Only laws created to be gender-neutral, and then the application of those laws in a gender-neutral manner, can bring about justice for everyone, whether perpetrator or victim.

Suzeonline, you asked:"What does a 'start' constitute in the context of a domestic violence situation?"

You didn't ask "would you hit a person who acted in the following ways. I answered the question you asked, not the one you tried to slip in later. I gues that just goes to prove the truth of my later statement in the post above: "Oh, I'd not hit a woman for lying, it's a normal part of female behaviour from what I've seen." You don't have to go out of your way to demonstrate the worst aspects of entitlement Feminism in action.

You ask: "So it IS ok by you for a woman to have the hell beaten out of her because she screams abuse and throws things?"

What should a man do when a bottle is thrown at his head, or a knife flies past his ear? If he's lucky enough to get out the door and calls the police, who do you reckon they'll believe when she claims he tried to hit her and she was lucky enough to get the first blow in, ["but I forgive him, officer, please don't take this any further, I'm sure he won't do it again"]?

How many times do you reckon that and lesser examples of the same type of thing have to happen before the bloke decides he may as well have a crack if he's going to be accused anyway?

Of course, most men simply "take it like a man", which you take to mean that they're non-existent.

BTW, nice attempted dog-whistle, but I believe the Pomeranian border remains closed.

ChazP’s made the assertion that :”The present Family Law and the legal system are condoning and even colluding in such abuses and deaths of children. “ She attempted to use two family law judgements to validate that assertion no doubt thinking that readers would not go to the trouble of looking closely at what was said in them. In my previous post I referred to the first of those cases; Tennison & Gourlay. Now I’d like to reveal the gem in the second; Aligante & Waugh.

Take notice of what was said in the judgement:

“115. The mother has made serious allegations against the father. As I will discuss in detail below, there are considerable inconsistencies in some of the allegations that she has made. Her most serious allegation was that the father repeatedly raped her after the child’s birth. Because of the inconsistencies in the various versions given by the mother, I will find on the balance of probabilities and having regard to the provisions of s 140 of the Evidence Act, that the version given by the mother cannot be cogently supported. Part of what she has said is in my view inherently unlikely, for example multiple rapes in her parents’ household over a period of seven months in circumstances where three adult members of that household observed and heard nothing.”

Clearly, what ChazP would like is for the Family Court to have no regard, repeat no regard, for provisions of the Evidence Act when it comes to mothers making serious allegations against a father.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FamCA/

Antiseptic, thanks for doing an excellent job in answering Suzieonline for me.

These women (ChazP, Suzieonline et al) will never recognize the gaping flaws in their arguments because they only want to go overboard in their appeal to emotions not reason. I think most blokes would agree that the best interests of the child argument is deceptively used as a Trojan horse for mothers rights.

1/2
@Suzeonline-
“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?”

So you’re criticising Antiseptic for saying this when you said earlier –

“I have no doubt that most female domestic violence victims have tried to defend themselves by 'surprise' attacks, or by using weapons, because they would have a snowball's chance in hell of defending themselves against most males by punching, bashing or kicking, as men tend to do.”

So do you think that a battered woman escalating non-reciprocal male-on-female violence to reciprocal violence is acceptable but a battered man escalating non-reciprocal female-on-male violence to reciprocal violence is unacceptable, because that is exactly what you have said over the course of your arguments.

You talk about the lack of shelters being around for men, however the reality is that the shelter movement is so radically misandrist that they even drove out their founder, Erin Pizzey and continue to send her death threats from time to time because she speaks of the universal nature of abuse.

Furthermore, a couple of years ago when discussing the issue with the secretary of my federal local member of parliament, she told me firsthand that they had been approached by countless battered men looking for some help and have literally had nowhere to send them to.

The reason in short that there are next to no battered men’s shelters around is because radical feminists like yourself have fought tooth and nail to prevent them from eventuating, by perpetuating the myth that female-on-mal non-reciprocal violence is a virtual urban myth.

You ask how many survivors I know, well first and foremost, I know myself of the terror I experienced, of my ex making me pay for it in the worst way possible, if I didn’t do exactly what she wanted or say exactly what she wanted to hear. Abuse is about power. When an abuser has power over you, size doesn’t come into it.
(to be continued)