"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.

Douglas, there's an easy riposte to this furphy- "I never started".

I've been away from this argument for a time, but going back over previous posts, it's obvious that there's a cadre of women who simply hate men. A "domestic violence counsellor" who attended my then partner years ago was a classic example. Had no interest in what I had to say- Ex's drinking? My fault. Her physical abuse? No problem, she's 50kg, I'm 110kg. Funny how it's the ex who ended up with a suspended sentence for assault, and lost licence twice for DUI. And lost custody of our child, when DOCS finally saw what a nutcase she was. Several years of pain (and ripoff child support, and DOCS blind support of ex) preceded my custody award.

Roscop - Such judicial findings and determinations have to be examined against the statements of Chief Justice Diane Bryant and Deputy John Faulkes, that Family Courts do not have the expertise nor resources to competently investigate allegations of domestic violence and child abuse. This case (Aligante & Waugh) appears to be a perfect example of the cause for their concerns.
"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." - When did Family Courts themselves have regard for the Evidence Act, and in particular that expert testimony should be confined within their area of expertise and not outside that?. e.g. Psychologists/ psychiatrists/ ICLs/ Court Reporters giving testimony on domestic violence and child abuse. Its like getting a plumber or a plasterer to explain how the electirical system works in your house.
How can an expert witness whose testimony was thrown out by the Sypreme Court in one State for being an advocate for the father (W and W : (Abuse allegations; Expert evidence] [2001] FamCA 216 (14 March 2001), be allowed to continue to give evidence in Family Courts in other States?. Such a prejudiced and biased mindset would continue and would colour the evidence of such a witness. That clearly illustrates the value the Family Courts give to the Evidence Act.

Douglas <"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?"

Excellent question Douglas!
Antiseptic, Roscop- any answer to this one?

Douglas, I would ask that question in that 'non-gender' specific way myself if we didn't have such blatant misogynists on this site.
These guys put themselves out there to argue with the female posters.
As this is an opinion forum, I like to give my opinion on that.

Viking13, I too had been away from this argument for some time before a couple of days ago but going back over previous posts, it's obvious that there's a posse of men who simply hate women!

As I have said many times before on this forum, I don't hate men at all, I simply intensely dislike men who hate women.
Fair enough?

I see nothing wrong with asking that small minority of men who are in denial, to take ownership of the fact that the majority of domestic violence injuries are caused by men, to men, women and children.

Only then will we start the long process of dealing with ways to stop it. I have never suggested that women don't injure others in the domestic situation, only that we should be concentrating on reasons why, and ways to stop, the bulk of domestic violence being perpetrated by men.

Suze

Smart men never call the police when a woman is attacking them. They know that they are likely to be arrested, regardless of the circumstances.

Smart debaters don't use personal attacks or misrepresent other people's opinions. No-one has suggested that you like to bash your hubby. Nothing that has been posted supports your claim that any male posters here might attack their partners.

Many fights between men occur because of antiquated notions about protecting women. Where a woman has played a role in promoting or rewarding violence against her partner, it should be counted as domestic violence. Some of the men getting attacked might deserve less sympathy than others, depending on the circumstances, but it is still domestic violence.

I think you should stick to the spong bags and colostomy bags, Suzie.

It's pretty obvious you're incapable of reading for comprehension, let alone making an argument that's cogent and rational.

Tell us again why you think a woman should be allowed to throw things at a man with impunity. You might also like to tell us how a "real man" should deal with being doused in petrol and set alight "because his penis belongs to me"...

Oh, hang on, you already have: "A smart man would turn around and run, before calling the police.", presumably after extinguishing the flames so the woman doesn't get burnt as he leaves...

You continue to demonstrate with every utterance the truth of my earlier statement:"Oh, I'd not hit a woman for lying, it's a normal part of female behaviour from what I've seen." At least, it's a standard part of your own behaviour.

1/2
@Suzeonline- yes it was an excellent question, however you have failed to recognise that it was directed squarely at you.

You have clearly said that you quite happily condone violence by women against men. The fact that you refuse to recognise hurling objects at a partner with the intent to do harm as a form of domestic violence, when pioneering experts in the field, such as Richard Gelles and Erin Pizzey, do, proves my point about your blatant misandry. The fact that you would accuse others of misogyny (the feminist equivalent of the "man hating lesbian" slur that chauvinists used to use against all feminists in the 60's and 70's) only further proves that point.

Furthermore, you claim that men should just run away from abuse when you have defended women picking up a weapon in self-defence in the exact same circumstances in previous posts in this thread.

Furthermore you claim that the law must be right because it operates along the lines of sexist stereotypes in this one particular area of law, when in every other area of law, such as in cases like attempted murder, the law recognises intent as criminal, and in cases of assault and Grievous Bodily Harm, that regardless of the level of damage caused by an intent to do harm, that wilfully (and in some cases even negligently) doing harm to another person is completely unacceptable and must be punished.

In fact what Antiseptic was saying is that in a society where a battered man has no legal protection or recourse (in fact vilification, ridicule and possibly even unjust prosecution should he attempt to find it as studies have proven, like one in WA which found that battered men in non-reciprocal IPV scenarios are 3 times more likely to be arrested than be believed), and where said man was living in fear of when he might next be attacked, might defend himself finally one day out of depseration and terror.
(to be continued)