Anti:”It's because many jurisdictions, including all Australia ones as far as I know, have a crime called "infanticide", which is not regarded as seriously as murder. It exists because of the outdated notion that new mothers are not of sound mind and should therefore be excused for killing their child.”

Fair enough, tragic but it must be an unsound mind that does that. Doesn’t sound outdated to me.

I think both men and women that suddenly decide to kill their own offspring must all be mentalcases at the time.

Anti:“The real evidence is that it occurs about equally between men and women, while women form the majority of abusers of children, especially young children who can't fight back.”

Not sure if being able to fight back is where abuse comes from though Anti even if it has the potential to put an abrupt end to it. I know abuse can lead to death but it seems a very different beast from murder, or anything ending in “…side”.

R0bert:”… you have let your own history override any sense of decency and balance because of the scaring from your own life.”

Is there anyone here that has lead a totally abuse free life from the opposite gender?

Because I think the flight back to their home planet is now boarding...

Jewely:"Fair enough, tragic but it must be an unsound mind that does that. Doesn’t sound outdated to me. "

I agree it must be an unsound mind, but if a father does it, he goes to jail as a murderer for 10 years. If a mother does it, she gets a suspended sentence and lots of therapy. That's why it's outdated in the Brave New Feminist World.

Jewely:"Not sure if being able to fight back is where abuse comes from "

The point is that if a row escalates between a man and a woman the woman often ends up worse off. The same thing between a woman and a child means the child cops it. The weaker protagonist bears the greatest consequence of a physical confrontation.

Cotter/Jacksun, I'm more than happy to acknowledge when I'm wrong, but We Are Unique offered to help and you flatly rejected the offer. Why would someone who claims to want to "fight for Adam" reject an offer of assistance?

Frankly, I reckon your story is about as believable as that of the wino who "just wants a dollar for a feed, mister" then spits in you face when you offer him a hamburger.

On the other hand, my own case has been very well described on many occasions. You're welcome to go back over all my posts if you want a full picture. Feel free.

ChazP:"I hate that antiseptic cos he's a man and he's horrid".Yes dear, we know. Surely you should be down at the beach making sure there are no perverts lurking around the change rooms or whatever it is you do to fill your holiday? Just trun up in a bikini - that should do the trick”..
I don’t hate you Antiseptic, I find you a pathetically sad and bitter person over your rejection and that you’ve never given or received love from your children – they simply comply with your demands as their biological parent.
I just don’t accept you as a worthy opponent in debate and dislike your abusive, dummy spitting comments when you are shown to be WRONG and at FAULT and don’t like it when a mirror is put up to your conduct. I guess I really touched a raw nerve. I spend my holidays with my wonderful hubby, a great father who loves and respects his children, a marvellous lover, and most importantly of all, my very best friend. But rather than go to the beaches here at Noosa, I’d be willing to come round to your shed and put some soothing balm and bandages on your sore hands. Or will you be out lurking round the change rooms.?.
Jacksun is perfectly right to be suspicious of `Greeks bearing gifts’. Wee are Unique sounds like one of those hack Sydney psychiatrists who do far more harm than good. A bit like a snake inviting a mouse over for dinner.
As usual, the FR extremists have turned this debate into a Gender Wars battle, when it should be concerned about the safety and protection of children and victims of domestic violence – but then, their concerns have never been about the children only about maintaining power and control over them and of course to evade child support payments..

Anti:”If a mother does it, she gets a suspended sentence and lots of therapy. That's why it's outdated in the Brave New Feminist World.”

Yeah but more and more people in general seem to walk away (after doing bad things) in different ways. I know a bloke sentenced to twenty years, I don’t think he even served a full two… one of those crimes where you are safer in solitary confinement, but if you spend time there it shaves years off your sentence. This world just does not work well for the innocent Anti.

Anti:”...The weaker protagonist bears the greatest consequence of a physical confrontation.”

I had a friend get in lots of trouble in court not because he was the aggressor but he had the something dan (karate?) black belt and the other bloke didn’t. I did have a policemen give me a lecture about fighting... they push you can push back, and if they hit you can hit back in kind (huh?) not break all his windows, every plant pot he owns and kick his balcony apart while he hides in the house after hitting one of your children.

Now kids, yep they are always weaker but the abuse isn’t often extreme and generally parents think they are doing their job same as their own parents did. It isn’t normally a matter of the child being a protagonist – maybe in the parents mind I guess. That would only cover physical abuse then we have all those new definitions. Women who get hit by their partner often lash back at the children – typical cycle in some of our unhappier households.

But help me here… I have dated and lived with men who have gone on to be immediate perpetrators of DV and some of their new partners (chicks I’d lose to in a physical fight). So I don’t believe it is just about size or physical ability, something else is going on as well.

Umm... Chaz? I think you went way too far there, I’d quote it but it was too foul to repeat.

'I am not fooled by my own experiences nor by the ranting of mostly men and some women who are the primary aggressors. '

I think you are fooling yourself.

I suppose it's unavoidable that the 'industry' is full of well meaning people who have a personal interest in helping other people who are in a situation they have been through. But when they kid themselves their attitudes have not been at all skewed by their personal experiences there is a problem.

I'm sure the 'Fathers rights' groups are full of the same sort of people as the White ribbon people and all the other advocates are who commission 'studies' and 'surveys' and interpret them and put out hyperbolic one in 3, 3 in 2 fantastic slogans designed to induce gender-guilt and raise so called 'awareness'.

Well, I'd rather see some more 'awareness' from people about their own bias and some honesty of why they come from the angle they do.

happy,

'I am a woman whom you do not know and have no personal connection with, yet because I don't agree with you, you have attacked me personally and put me down, denigrated me, and insulted me. If you are prepared to do this to me whom you do not know, what did you do to others that were?'

But that's exactly what you're doing to antiseptic. You don't know him and you're deciding based on his manor that he's 'like your father'. In fact it comes across that you are arguing with your father rather than antiseptic.

I find it interesting that people are much more interested in punishing a perpetrator. than actually trying to figure out how too pervent a crime from occuring in the first place.

Punishing someone for a crime that they allegedly committed. For centuries people have been subjected to capital punishment, ie the electric chair or hanging for murder.

The threat of these punishments did not stop these people from committing crimes where they would wind up facing capital punishment.

So anyone with any brains would perhaps look at trying to prevent crimes from occuring, but then to do that would mean looking at ALL the contribuiting factors.

Sure there were factors where someone from the upper class would get off a conviction, when a working class person would be punished.

A catholic might be punished and a protestant would be forgiven.

Scot verses, Irish, verses Taffys, Southerner's and Northerner's. East verses west, League verses Rules, Blondes verses Brunette's. Tall verses short, Highlanders, and lowlanders.

The point is all the above believe that they are right and in the right, and everyone else is wrong.

More importantly is that those who believe strongly that they are in the right WILL not be prepared to listen to alternative points of view, that happen to conflict with their preset ideas.

Labelling any who dare to question or to challange feminist ideology as being misogynists. Hence by doing so makes it much easier to discount and helps to justify behaviour that otherwise would not be acceptable.

I wonder how many of the opposition would have been one of the females who gave white feathers to men, during the second world war. aimed at intimidating men to join the armed services?

I believe many of the women approached the feathering of a male with a great deal of zealotry.