Scapegoating or the scarificial lamb from my understanding in ancient cultures was a method used where for example the villagers could project all their evil demons onto another object or perhaps person. and clear the villagers of their sins.

Thus when they project onto another, one can avoid recognising the exact same traits within themselves. Hence the focus their anger carries all the negative traits that they find unacceptable to recognise within themselves.

Take for example the issue of DV, virtually all the feminist advocacy research women are the victim and men are the perpetrators.

Typically much is made of male perpetrators not taking responsibility for their behaviour, there is a huge propaganda program aimed at convincing us of this, yet at the same time women are told that they are not to blame, not responsible.

This matches the earlier (Victorian) position that women were the weaker gender, which suits the purpose of feminists.

Because being the weaker, disadvantaged, oppressed, gender makes it much easier to deny responsibility for personal choices or the effects of ones own behaviour.

We are often told that women have difficulty expressing anger, yet there is perhaps not a single man in this forum, who has not experienced an angry woman.

James:”We are often told that women have difficulty expressing anger, yet there is perhaps not a single man in this forum, who has not experienced an angry woman.”

Or a woman here who has not been physically attacked by a male it seems.

I’ve decided that the men run feminism, telling women they are victims and made oppressed, subservient and controlled by bullying rage filled monsters.

And the women run the fathers rights groups telling the men they are the victims of maternal gatekeeping, manipulative devious lying shrews.

Maybe we should all go back to our respective covens and caves and decide whether we keep letting them use these fear mongering tactics.

This article about safety for children has been corrupted by people with their own narrow agendas where children are not the focus at all.

James, the women's movement focused on women. They were unlikely to focus on men simply because men are not women. Only in recent years has their focus moved a little to include children. The men's rights people focus on men's rights, to the exclusion of even male children. The argument should be stop abuse and violence of any type by any person.
In order to do that one has to admit that anyone can be a victim and anyone a perpetrator. The types of abuse and violence vary.

And septic, Cotter is my mother, Adam is her grandson. Make of that what you will in your narrow world view. I have watched her try to get sanity into the argument for most of my life - for men, for women, for children.

As for the secret squirrer stuff, if there is help to be had, do it publicly. I am not interested in more self-serving 'help' until someone can explain to me why it's OK for a kid who's going off the rails because of his father's behaviour 'will be ok with his dad. That just is too suss.

Jacksun, I understand that there were men who supported the suffragettes, and initially I supported feminism as did other men.

To concentrate on one gender, is perhaps the incorrect approach, simply because females and males exist as a binary system. We interact with each other and some how muddle through most of the time.

Sure there are separatists that would like women only spaces, and to keep men and women separate from each other which goes way back.

Take for example, ChapZ stayin on message about how 1 in 3 or 4 women will experience violence in their lifetime, there seems to be a silence about how many men experience violence in their lifetime. One problem is that men and women tend to take a different view of the same incident. where men may brush off an incident and some women may regard the same incident as a crime.

The mens rights movement I believe was formed in reaction to the excesses of feminism and feminists, if feminism did not exist, then the mens rights movement would not exist. Feminism began in the 1960's and the mens rights did not start until the 1980's.

Me, I have been subjected to violence from both genders, I have never been kneed in the testicles by a male, but have by a female.

Jacksun:”This article about safety for children has been corrupted by people with their own narrow agendas where children are not the focus at all.”

I always consider it a bloody miracle that CS hasn’t swooped on in and taken the children off both parents whenever FC is in session as they are worth so much money to the not-for-profits – the ones I believe have a bigger impact on the laws regarding children here than anyone else. Child threads don’t go anywhere on OLO unless they morph into an adult concern. And those adult concerns are often about an end result of who should be more likely to get custody of children.

Jack:”As for the secret squirrer stuff, if there is help to be had, do it publicly. I am not interested in more self-serving 'help' until someone can explain to me why it's OK for a kid who's going off the rails because of his father's behaviour 'will be ok with his dad. That just is too suss.”

I thought someone offered you help already? You’d reckon if someone offered help publically they’d be potentially embarrassing you so they asked you to contact them privately.

But oki doki then. Having not been in court I’m wondering if court heard that he was violent towards another adult in the home and not children? No, none of it is okay but how do you mean “off the rails”?

What is his dad doing to your nephew on visits then? When you say “beating up on them for leaving” do you mean by using court?

Jewely:"This world just does not work well for the innocent Anti."

That shouldn't mean we give up on trying to make it work better. The greatest triumph of the Westminster system of Laws is that it holds the protection of the innocent very highly. Centuries of common law have supported the idea that it is better for the guilty to go free than the innocent suffer unjustly.

The hysterical victim-centric agitation over the past couple of decades has not succeeded in creating lynching laws as well as its proponents would like, because the protection of the innocent is such a basic function of jurisprudence.

Jewely:"I don’t believe it is just about size or physical ability, something else is going on as well."

Of course there's lots more than just size involved. It's just that when a larger person has a fight with a smaller one, even if the larger one is the "victim" of an assault by the smaller one, if they retaliate just once it can be catastrophic. My children could hit me all day with no significant chance of doing serious harm, but if I hit either one of them with close to full force they'd be in quite serious trouble.

Most men learn this sort of thing very early, so they don't pick on the big bloke, even if he's pretty easy-going. Telling women this doesn't apply to them is simply asking for trouble. My father was contemptuous of men who allowed themselves to be baited by their wives into violence. My Mum was also contemptuous of the women who couldn't hold their tongue.

Her attitude seems to have been lost in the noise from Feminists.