2/2 (continued)
My ex even used to psychologically attack me, using my child abuse as a weapon, amongst other things to rape me, when she wasn’t hurting me in every other manner imaginable. You live in terror of what will happen next, and you feel like there is no way out- and they keep you there by convincing you that no one will ever treat you as well as they do if you leave them, just like battered women do.

I’ve also come across many others through support groups and discussion forums, all of us with very similar stories. A recent qualitative study into domestic violence against men even read scarily like I was actually a participant. Yet according to you and your ilk, that must be impossible because of physical size differences between men and women.

I know there’s a hidden epidemic of silently suffering men out there because I know how the system silences men, as you as a member of the medical profession in Australia, are glaring evidence of. Considering your attitude, I can tell you had I ever had to present to you with injuries, I would have made something up about how they happened because it would be easier than the vilification and double victimisation I’d be facing at the hands of you and those who share your mindset.

The only reason I’m not silent is because I fight on when a cause is just, even when I’m left in emotional agony from doing so- like when I did a reverse intervention at my most suicidal, even though every minute of it was the most publicly humiliating experience of my life.

You claim to want to end all abuse, yet while you continue to see things in such a vilely blind, misandrist and sexist manner, as you have clearly demonstrated that you do; you will only continue to help to perpetuate it along incredibly gendered lines. If you truly want to end all abuse, then it’s time to start looking at things objectively and egalitarianly, rather than only seeing what you want to see.

Roscop, Antiseptic didn't answer me well at all! I suspect that if he had said all women deserved a good belting at times, you would have agreed with him.

Are you agreeing with him then, that a woman screaming abuse or throwing things at her male relative deserves a good belting?
Sorry guys, but the law doesn't agree with you.

A smart man would turn around and run, before calling the police.
The police are not stupid. They can generally work out who is beating who- by seeing the physical damage inflicted at the scene, or talking to witnesses.
If it is not immediately obvious, then the courts can deal with it.

Sometimes both family members can be charged with beating each other!

You can carry on and beat your chests and wish you still lived back in the 'good-old-days' when women did as they were told, or they rightly got a 'clip over the ear', or a 'good swift kick' if they didn't.
Sorry guys, but those days are gone now, thank goodness.

When I see heaps more men coming into emergency departments or doctor's surgeries with domestic violence injuries, then maybe I might agree with your misguided views about all these violent Amazonian women out there.

As it is, far more men beat the hell out of women AND OTHER MEN in family violence situations. We need to address that situation now.

Once some testosterone-fueled men out there get that thought into their thick, Neanderthal skulls, maybe our society could go some way into solving our tragic domestic violence issues.

For the sake of ALL of us.

bowspearer, I'm afraid you made a small mistake in your last. Suzie isn't a member of the medical profession; I understand she's one of those well-meaning ladies who visit elderly people who need sponge bathing and a spare set of colostomy bags once a week.

She's a big fan of tranquilising drugs, as well. I suppose it makes the sponge baths quieter or something.

She's got a heart of gold, bless 'er. As long as you happen to be female...

LOL Antiseptic!
You made a joke..good for you!

When you are trying madly to backpedal about some silly comments on domestic violence issues you made, it is a good avoidance tactic.

I haven't attended to sponge baths for years.
It is quite a common misconception about senior Registered Nurse's duties that ignorant men comment on (fantasize about?).

If you required a sponge bath in any ward that I was working on, I would be sure and order a large MALE nurse to see to you...
lovingly of course! :)

1/2
One 'debating' tactic to indicate to other people that something happened without actually stating it, and therefore without needing proof, is to ask a question based on a fallacy. Possibly the most famous anti-male example of this is "when are you going to stop beating your wife?" which is a question with an assumptive background and any direct answer is likely to imply guilt.

Here's another, milder, example:
"Are you agreeing that a woman screaming abuse or throwing things at her male relative deserves a good belting? Sorry guys, but the law doesn't agree with you."

Here, one can see that a direct answer is possible but difficult without committing to the assumptions. The statement directly after the question discourages the answering, because the implication has already been made that whatever is being thrown is not dangerous, so use of appropriate force (normally allowed in self-defence) is not valid in this case. The "sorry guys" implies an automatic masculine and male-only viewpoint that unreasonable force is somehow acceptable.

Further, this example shows the sexist bias that whereas it might be acceptable for a woman to mentally and physically abuse a man without his right of retaliation, it is not true if the genders are reversed. The emotive term of "a good belting," knowingly used in a discussion with people who have received more than one belting and do not consider it in any way "good," gives further insult which can only lead to raised emotion, not sensible debate.

/cont.

2/2
cont./

If bias were NOT the implication in the question/statement, the genders would not have been mentioned, the implications of imbalanced law acceptable by all males would not have been stated and the question would have been more like:

"Are you saying that, despite the law having NEVER accepted anything beyond reasonable force as a means of defence, you think it is acceptable for someone screaming abuse or throwing things at another person to receive unreasonable force in defence?"

Once we remove all bias and assumption from the question, we arrive at a factually 'flat' question that can either lead to finding common ground or to an understanding of fundamental differences in belief systems.

** Trying to address non-gender specific problems in a gender-specific manner will never lead to justice. **