The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Government deception won't reduce family violence > Comments

Government deception won't reduce family violence : Comments

By Greg Andresen, published 9/6/2011

The truth is that violence in families is an equal opportunity crime.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 19
  7. 20
  8. 21
  9. All
Minister Elis rationally indisputably lied to parliament when she
said that making false allegations of family violence and using family violence as a weapon in the courts is a myth (she MUST know that is false; hence she lied).

Yet when George Christensen, MP for Dawson made the mild (by parliamentary standards) comment in relation to that lie, "Do some homework, Minister. The fact that this minister has told a lie to this parliament-", the Deputy Speaker made him withdraw his remark!

So Elis is allowed to lie; Christensen not allowed to truthfully call her to account for lying.
Posted by L.B.Loveday, Thursday, 9 June 2011 8:05:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A great article.

It is possible that the minister is so immersed in propaganda that she does not realise that her comments were false. The lie is built on other lies and dodgy definitions and widely supported by vested interests. The minister may be negligent rather than lying.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 9 June 2011 8:37:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'The resulting clogging up of the court system will mean that cases of serious violence and abuse will not be given the time, attention and resources they deserve.'

This is the most important bit. In fact it will also lead to an exacerbation of the problem of abuse of the court system due to longer waiting times.

'As anyone who has been on the receiving end of false allegations can attest, the impacts are utterly devastating.'

Yes, but for fathers mostly. The governmnet leans more to protecting children. This is understandable. Ethically and politically.

I see legislation in this area swinging back and forth, back and forth, and really, this is how I see it panning out.

Whoever is the primary carer of the children is in pole position.

There will continue to be abuses of process, lawyers using dirty tactics, and fathers losing contact, and this is inevitable when one party in proceedings gets a leg up, but in the end this isn't such a bad result for the children. They get continuity in their lives and their primary carer has a huge advantage in remaining so.

But the trouble is when the primary carer is emotionally or mentally unstable, and the secondary carer isn't allowed to balance this out and be some kind of relief valve and ameliorate the damage.

So, sure we are leaning towards shutting out fathers if there is a sniff of abuse regardless of the veracity with the aim of protecting children, but what about the opposite problem when the 100% custody goes to an emotional terrorist who just happened to be in the pole position of primary carer, and what you're effectively doing is throwing out possibly the only stabilising influence in the children's lives.

The law will only ever be fair when men and women are equally primary carers and primary earners.

Actually maybe not even then. People are more readily willing to believe a man is abusive than a woman. Statements by Ms Ellis don't help in this area. Neither do does this constant misinformation about domestic violence...

http://www.oneinthree.com.au/misinformation/
Posted by Houellebecq, Thursday, 9 June 2011 9:17:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A comment on (1) men's and women's experiences of family violence.

Just as the Minister noted, among men and women who are physically assaulted, women are far more likely than men to be assaulted by someone known to them. Among the men physically assaulted each year, in the most recent incident close to 70% were assaulted by a stranger. In contrast, among the female victims of physical assault, 24% were assaulted by a stranger (ABS 2006: 30). Using the raw numbers in Table 2, among men, about 330,000 of the most recent incidents involved a perpetrator who was a stranger. Among women in contrast, about 57,000 of the most recent incidents involved a stranger.

Thus, women are more likely than men to be assaulted by persons known to them than by strangers. Indeed, women are more likely than men to be assaulted by a partner or ex-partner than by any other category of perpetrator. Among female victims of assault, the category of perpetrator most likely to have inflicted the assault is male current or previous partners (31%). In contrast, among men, less than 5% were assaulted by a female partner or ex-partner, and men are most likely to be assaulted by male strangers.

Andresen stresses that among all men and women, roughly similar numbers experienced physical assault in the last year by someone known to them. This is true. However, for male victims of assault, ‘persons known to them’ largely comprise men they know and male family members or friends.

Andresen fails to acknowledge that when men are assaulted by someone they know, this is most likely to be a *male* acquaintance. Among men assaulted by someone they know who was other than a partner or ex-partner, in 142,100 of the most recent incidents this involved a male acquaintance (summing the figures for male family members or friends and male other known persons), while in 45,300 of the most recent incidents it involved a female acquaintance.

In writing about “family violence”, Andresen hides the fact that men’s experiences of ‘family violence’ are still largely experiences of violence by *other men*.
Posted by MichaelGFlood, Thursday, 9 June 2011 9:33:02 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A comment on (2) false allegations of abuse.

Andresen cites evidence only that people in Australia, and various categories of professionals, *believe* that false allegations of violence and abuse are common. However, the actual evidence says otherwise. I’ve summarised the research evidence in two fact sheets, available online:

http://xyonline.net/content/fact-sheet-2-myth-women%E2%80%99s-false-accusations-domestic-violence-and-misuse-protection-orders

http://www.xyonline.net/content/fact-sheet-1-myth-false-accusations-child-abuse

There is no credible evidence that false allegations of violence or abuse are routine in family law proceedings. As the fact sheets state in relation to child abuse for example, allegations of child abuse are rare; false allegations are rare; false allegations are made by fathers and mothers at equal rates; the child abuse often takes place in families where there is also domestic violence; and allegations of child abuse rarely result in the denial of parental contact.

I provide a more scholarly assessment of these and other issues in this published journal article: http://www.xyonline.net/content/fathers-rights-and-defence-paternal-authority-australia.

Sincerely,

Dr Michael Flood.
Posted by MichaelGFlood, Thursday, 9 June 2011 9:41:34 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'In writing about “family violence”, Andresen hides the fact that men’s experiences of ‘family violence’ are still largely experiences of violence by *other men*'

Oh, well that makes it ok then. They had it coming.

Each man is responsible for the violence of other individual men.

Good to see you still pedalling that stuff Michael.

I wonder if sexual abuse by men of little boys counts in Michael's eyes. I wonder at what age male victims of violence start to become responsible for that violence due to their gender.
Posted by Houellebecq, Thursday, 9 June 2011 9:52:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perhaps Ellis was not lying and believes it. I think there are women (some with help from lawyers) that make false claims during custody hearings but I reckon they are a very small minority. The mythology is about exaggerating the extent of the problem to make a gender political point in the same way victim blaming occurs in rape cases.

Ignoring domestic violence, rape or child abuse claims also has a negative impact.

The 1 in 3 figure seems a bit high to me I can't believe there are one in three families regardless of the gender issue, experiencing DV. If 1 in 3 families are experiencing a violent female partner then 2 in 3 families are experiencing violence by men - that seems too high and suggests no family is violence free.

Fact is DV services are available to men and women but I don't believe more women are violent in society than men. The figures speak for themselves. Either way, victims should be supported regardless of gender. Male victims of rape (by other men) are provided support if they seek it, but like women many victims of rape are not reported so the statistics are not often accurate.

People will need convincing that the 1 in 3 figure is real and not a segue to minimising the impact of violence by men which seems to be an issue in today's modern gender vs gender world.
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 9 June 2011 9:57:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Much of the Flood/feminist efforts to exclude fathers from children's lives has money at heart - CS, which has become defacto alimony since that was largely abolished with no-fault divorce, and a larger property settlement for the parent "winning" residency/custody.

So they, and the FCA, do not take into account that the major perpetrators of child abuse, on a proportionate basis, are mother's boyfriends (so often referred to as "stepfathers" and far too often as "fathers" which should only be used if adopted). It is violence towards the CHILDREN, not mothers, that should be the primary consideration in residency cases.

"Stepfathers" abuse children at a far greater rate than biological fathers, particularly sexual abuse of girls, and having the biological father still involved gives the children someone to talk to, to take action, to protect. And gives the "stepfather" a break, quality time with his lover.

Yet this fact is not considered by the FCA when making its decisions, nor parliament in making its laws; before my trial in the FCA, in which the allegations against me of violence were proven to be perjury, my lawyer warned me against telling the court the statistics on violence by mothers' boyfriends as it would be held against ME!

Shared residency was awarded, and during a time with her mother, my daughter was bashed by mother's boyfriend - just the most serious assault, by no means the only one. I got a restraining order against him physically disciplining her or being with her without another adult.

Yet prior to that assault a FCA Registrar refused to hear my tape of my daughter screaming in pain while being belted - I illegally and unrepentantly taped a phone conversation - so the thug continued his abuse.

The police took no action as mother had authorised boyfriend to physically "discipline" my daughter.

"Stepmothers" do not abuse children at the rate of "stepfathers"; fathers generally are less likely to allow it than mothers.

Fathers need to be encouraged to stay involved in their children's lives, not excluded based on the predudices of Flood et al
Posted by L.B.Loveday, Thursday, 9 June 2011 10:38:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As a school principal, I am regularly in the middle of custody disputes as they flow over into the school. While many are handled appropriately and well by the parents, there are a small percentage (5-10% I would estimate) that get pretty ugly.

I have seen 2 cases where false accusations were made by one partner against the other, with one resulting in an ADVO which was later shown to be based on false testimony. The other resulted in the children not seeing one parent for over 2 years, despite court rulings to the contrary. In both instances, the claims were made by the mother.

Mind you, I have also sat through parents of both genders making all sorts of wild statements about their ex partners. You can only say, "I am here to help the children" so many times before actually asking them to leave...

So it does happen, but, in my experience, not often. I do not present this as evidence of any sort, just a brief outline of my experience.
Posted by rational-debate, Thursday, 9 June 2011 10:38:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
pelican,

'The mythology is about exaggerating the extent of the problem to make a gender political point in the same way victim blaming occurs in rape cases. '
So, when a feminist advocacy group exagerates, it's to help the cause of victims, when a male advocacy group does, it's to blame the 'victims' (ie women) of the cause. That's warped man. All advocacy groups exaggerate and twist statistics.

'The 1 in 3 figure seems a bit high to me I '
Ya think!? I think it's low. You forget it is 'In their lifetime'. That's a bloody long time. I'm surprised that 100% of male and females haven't experienced violence (Let's not forget this includes shouting these days). Simple trick pelican, surprised you missed it. Par for the course in advocacy spin.

'suggests no family is violence free.'
I would say this is accurate. Did your parents never raise their voices or ever put each other down in an argument.

'Fact is DV services are available to men and women but I don't believe more women are violent in society than men. '
Agreed.

But, with the propaganda around DV (That it is exclusively something men do to women), and run by raving feminists who see any man in a relationship where violence occurs as more than likely to be the problem (The majority of violent relationships both partners are violent) then what guy is going to turn up to a witch hunt with a pointy hat on?

See, with that Australia says no, I would have been happy with even 4 depictions of male partner violent, and 1, just 1 token violent female partner. Even an equally violent couple.

A bit of reality wouldn't go astray.

'People will need convincing that the 1 in 3 figure is real and not a segue to minimising the impact of violence by men '

Tell me pelican, do you see the WRF as 'a segue to minimising the impact of violence by women'?

Double standards man. As I said, just 1, would that hurt them? Who is minimising again?
Posted by Houellebecq, Thursday, 9 June 2011 10:40:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Family Law Legislation amendment Bill 2011 has been drafted on the basis that the proposed amendments will reduce child homicides. The reverse is actually the case. Statistics show that the 2006 Family Law Reforms helped save the lives of many children. The threatened rollback is likely to increase child homicides to pre-2006 levels which negate the purpose of the proposed Family Law Reforms.

Over the last few years a well orchestrated campaign has been mounted to make the claim that children are more at risk from violent fathers and that there has been an increase in child homicides at the hands of biological fathers.

It is often presumed that fathers are the main offenders in child homicide cases. This is not the truth the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) showed in its 2006-2007 annual report there were eleven homicides involving a mother and eleven homicides involving a male family member. However, when the ‘male family member’ category was broken down, five perpetrators were biological fathers and five were de-facto partners of the mother who lived with the child.

A study in the Medical Journal of Australia found similar results. They stated that fatal child abuse was the most common cause of death and the offender was most commonly the child’s mother or her de-facto partner.

It might be noted that child homicide has reduced by almost 50% since the introduction of the much fairer 2006 reforms according to NSW figures. The NSW Child Death Team Annual Reports stated:
• In 2005, twelve children aged between 0-17 died by fatal assault
• In 2007, nine children aged between 0-17 died by fatal assault. 2007 had the lowest child mortality rate observed over 1996-2007. This is the year directly after the reforms were instigated.
• In 2009, seven children aged between 0-17 died in six incidents.
These results indicate the 2006 reforms reduced the lethal danger to children. The new proposed reforms could well see child homicides go back to their pre 2006 levels. This would be an appalling outcome for our children. Greg is right to point out the weakness.
Posted by Warwick Marsh, Thursday, 9 June 2011 11:57:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is all about money, power and control and because parents no longer have any legal parenting right to parent their own biological children. It is therefore a complete waste of time for parents to seek perceived parenting rights in our Family Courts, when they don't exist!

If the following initiatives were adopted by Governments and enshrined into legislation, most of the gender divisive community conflict, would slow to a trickle and people like DR. Flood who fuel the debate, would lose their taxpayer funded powerbase.

As a result, the nation's children would be better protected and the concerns that are the subject of this debate would become irrelevant when:

• The ‘sole parent physical custody’ model is abolished and BOTH responsible, biological parents, are legally recognized as equal primary care parents.

• Each parent is awarded a legal equal parenting right, to share a meaningful, near equal percentage of physical primary care parenting time, following separation.

• Withholding of contact by either parent invokes a criminal charge of Kidnapping.

• Violence and abuse allegations are only dealt with in the criminal justice system, providing due process of law and harsh penalties for perjury. Such allegations are to be accompanied by immediate court ordered protection of responsible parent/child relationships, in order to prevent an accusing parent taking advantage of false allegations.
Posted by EmilyG, Thursday, 9 June 2011 12:15:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Right on Greg. We all know that the family court is hopelessly biased against men and Labor's new laws will just bring back the bad old days...

BTW I am happily married with 3 litties, but I know enough from mates to know the truth...
Posted by cmpmal, Thursday, 9 June 2011 12:41:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A follow on from Warwicks comments. Late last year I posted a fair bit of material on fatal assault of children in NSW and substantiated abuse in Australia in response to claims that the changes to custody arrangements had caused increased child abuse and death

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11234#190097
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11234#190099

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11234#189900
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11234#189901
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11234#189902

None of that proves that the changes to family law were responsible for the changes in child deaths or child abuse substantiations but they do show the lie involved in the campaign to reverse the changes.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 9 June 2011 1:04:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"So, when a feminist advocacy group exagerates, it's to help the cause of victims, when a male advocacy group does, it's to blame the 'victims' (ie women) of the cause. That's warped man. All advocacy groups exaggerate and twist statistics'

Houlley
If you think that was my meaning then we are speaking two different languages. I can't see where my comments support any form of exaggeration. Truth should be sought as it gets the best outcomes (if one can ever be lucky enough to ascertain truth among the chaff that gets lobbed around by most interest groups).
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 9 June 2011 1:10:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A point made in the article which I think should be discussed:

“It is possible to draft balanced laws designed to both protect people from violence and from false allegations of violence – both cause immeasurable harm to the lives of victims. The current Family Law Act already does this very well.”

I strongly disagree with the last sentence. It is already far too easy for mothers to obtain an AVO in a state or territory court separating children from their fathers. Quotes from Prof. Patrick Parkinson’s submission to a Senate Committee:

1. “Prof. Rosemary Hunter, ~, found that the median hearing time for each application was only about three minutes. Applications were typically dealt with in a bureaucratic manner, with magistrates being distant and emotionally disengaged. To the extent that applicants were asked to give oral evidence,~ very little exploration of the grounds for the application took place.

Dr Jane Wangmann, ~ . In her observations of AVO matters in 2006–7, she found, like Hunter, that cases were dealt with in three minutes or less. She also noted that the information provided in written complaints was brief and sometimes vague.”

2 .” Family violence orders have absolutely no evidential value in the vast majority of cases. Family violence orders have absolutely no evidential value in the vast majority of cases. This is because, in the vast majority of cases, they are consented to without admissions.”

The non-uniform Family Violence laws, secretive court processes and protocols should be taken out of the hands of the states and territories which operate star chamber courts. The Constitution gives the federal government the power to do that ie make laws in respect to the family. I belief one of the big benefits would be, inter alia, that the community would get a clearer view of what is going on in respect to custody cases right across the country. The federal court could be directed to produce annually far more meaningful statistics than those peddled by the Office of Status of Woman and feminist academics. Anybody else agree with this?”
Posted by Roscop, Thursday, 9 June 2011 4:57:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Transparency should always be the goal, that is not in dispute.

The AVOs are only half the battle, many women have been killed or seriously injured after protesting to police that their partner has made threats to them or the children. An AVO is only a bit of paper, in some cases (thankfully few) more than this is needed to protect some families. Sadly police are poorly resourced to be able to provide a closer eye over these more serious cases. The difficulty is in getting anyone to take these threats seriously, often it is too late and wisdom in hindsight.

Let us not lose focus of what AVOs are for - to prevent harm. There certainly should be stronger repercussions over false reporting, this is as much of a crime and also has a great impact on families and individuals.
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 9 June 2011 5:36:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perceptions are not facts
http://web.archive.org/web/20050313222509/http://www.nojustice.info/PerceptionsarenotFacts.htm

<Having read the article called "Sentencing Outcomes: A comparison of family violence and non-family violence cases" in the latest issue (no. 12, [Jan. 2005]) of Justice Canada’s periodical called "JustResearch", which, issue by issue, may or may not be “just”, as in "barely", but which definitely is not “just”, such as in fair, I queried one of the authors about the custom of using only percentages as I did not find any reference to relevant numbers on which these percentages were based on.>

http://web.archive.org/web/20050310093735/http://www.nojustice.info/ManufacturingPercentages.htm

I don't know if anyone has noticed, but the propaganda script often gets replayed in many of the US crime shows. These claims are often stated as fact, so anyone who is not going to question what they are being told, will believe it.
Posted by JamesH, Thursday, 9 June 2011 8:31:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here's what I think Michael Flood ignores:

Women are more likely to commit major physical abuse of their children than are men: 56.8 percent to 43.2 percent. [Source: Fire With Fire, by feminist Naomi Wolf, p. 221, hardcover]

Women are more likely to kill their children than are men: 55 percent to 45 percent. [Source: “Women and Violent Crime,” a paper by Prof. Rita J. Simon, Department of Justice, Law and Society and Washington College of Law, American University, Washington, D.C]

Women commit almost all of the murders of newborns. In Dade County, Fla., between 1956 and 1986, according to the June 1990 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 5:2, mothers accounted for 86 percent of newborn deaths. [Source: "When She Was Bad", by Patricia Pearson, p. 255, note 71.] (According to the Dept. of Health and Human Services, in 2003, nearly 60 percent of child abusers and neglect perpetrators were female.)

Thus, if women, without provocation, batter and kill children, whom they've supposedly been socialized to love, they can, without provocation, batter and kill men, whom they've been socialized -- by the media, feminist literature, and VAWA-type legislation -- to distrust, fear, and hate.

If feminists such as Michael Flood don't take women's violence and abuse as seriously as they take men's, why should men take women's opinions as seriously as they take men's? After all, according to ideological feminists' own -- and correct -- definition of hate crimes, an act of violence is merely an opinion acted out, a view transformed into behavior.

See "An Open Letter to the Judiciary Committees on the Violence Against Women Act" at http://tinyurl.com/czeulo
Posted by MaleMatters, Friday, 10 June 2011 12:43:27 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MaleMatters, it seems to me that all your 'statistics' are about American incidences? Do they have the same Family Court laws in America as they do in Australia?
If not, then I fail to see what relevance they have in this debate about changing the Family Court laws here in Australia.

What I don't understand about this current gender-based fight about who is more violent than who in Family Court matters, is why a predominantly male Government would apparently change the laws to the detriment of Fathers?

Aren't there just as many vocal, militant, misogynistic men's groups out there as there are feminist women's groups?
Why, unless the evidence is overwhelming, isn't this Government listening to the Men's groups then?

As someone who has worked in many family homes in the community over many years, I have failed to notice this terrible female against all-else violence that is being advocated by some men's groups.

I am not suggesting that it doesn't exist, as I have certainly seen some violent women, but their numbers pale into insignificance, and the injuries they get from men are far more serious, and in greater numbers, when perpetrated by men.

The most terrible injuries I have seen with male patients have been from male on male violence- both in and out of the home.

The Family Court must be given even stronger powers in keeping children safe from anyone out to harm them, regardless of gender.
The problems that come before the family court system must be dealt with on a case by case basis, with no blanket statement that is supposed to cover all scenarios.
Posted by suzeonline, Friday, 10 June 2011 1:09:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Regarding statements made by Michael Flood as usual he is cherry picking through the data and forgets for example the campaign put out by the Office of the Status of Women in 1986 claiming that one in three women had experience of domestic violence but it forgot to say that in half the cases it was as perpetrator. Back then DV included all family violence including against children, the weakest and most vulnerable members of a family. Now we have been trained to equate it, at best with partner to partner violence or more commonly violence against women but of course not by women
Posted by Abu Famir, Friday, 10 June 2011 6:14:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suzie much as I hate to fuel the fires a big part of the problem is the issue that vanna is constantly on about.

The government tends to get it's research via gender studies departments and others who see their role as advocacy rather than genuine research. I think vanna takes it too far in attacking almost all educators but in relation to the gender studies groups a lot of people don't seem to be able or willing to make the connection.

There are men involved in that as well, some may just be driven by ideology, others by a desire to keep their jobs and some I'd have to suspect some by a big dose of self loathing.

I don't think that there is any good reason to think either gender won't make choices which disadvantage others of their own gender especially if they think that they are safe themselves.

Our predominately male governments have sent enough men off to war over the years and made other choices which mostly harm men. Women seem to have been at the forefront of applying pressure to other women to comply with restrictive life choices, in cultures where FGM is practised I get the impression that it's mostly done and encouraged by older women.

It's acknowledged that men are stronger and when things get to extremes women are more likely to suffer greater physical harm, on the other hand women tend to have better verbal skills and a lot more men suicide than women.

Do you think it's an accident that the Australia Say's No campaign failed to have any examples of violence by women in a multi-million dollar campaign despite some very vocal complaints?

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 10 June 2011 6:47:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
suzieonline does not see the relevance of American statistics to Australian FL changes.

For a start our societies are fairly homogeneous, the American Way is pretty similar to Oz, and the statistics pretty similar.

But then tell us why suzie, do you at length talk about your experience with adult victims of violence? The changes are mooted to be to protect CHILDREN whose parents are divorced or separated, who will no longer be, with rare criminal exceptions, violent to the other.

Where is the evidence of partner-abusers routinely abusing their children? Of the correlation? Of course some do, but some, particularly women, are only violent towards their children and these are the ones that should be denied residency.

My biological father was a terrible man who beat my mother mercilessly (we left when I was 10, or I would have, I hope, killed him when I was big enough), yet he was patient and loving towards the 4 children - he spanked me just once, a most deserved punishment which made me realise the wrongness of lying and I never did again.
Posted by L.B.Loveday, Friday, 10 June 2011 7:43:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Given that women are still the primary caregivers of young children and I do not believe that one sex is any 'better' than the other, I am not surprised that statistically, children suffer more at the hands of women.

What I do not understand is why more men aren't doing their utmost to prevent the violence they are more likely to experience at the hands of other men. Instead we have these articles that appear intent on maligning women in order to give all responsibility of childcare to men.

I say do it. Take over the bulk of child care guys.
Posted by Ammonite, Friday, 10 June 2011 9:31:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ammonite "Instead we have these articles that appear intent on maligning women in order to give all responsibility of childcare to men."

Where did you get that from? Nothing in this article suggests that.

What most of the men (and women supporting the men's movement) are arguing for is equality, a removal of gender assumptions in the law and the application of the law. There is the odd angry man determined to denigrate all or most women but there is no widespread support for them.

We don't want a return to maternal bias in family law because of a deceptive campaign to overturn changes to family law based on the idea of biological fathers being a greater risk to children than mothers. We don't want it assumed that when there is violence in the home that it's almost always the fault of the male.

The governments anti-violence campaigns of reinforced the idea that it's only male violence that's a problem. The mum's group's have run a very concerted campaign to try and overturn changes to family law based on lies and spin which flies in the face of actual child safety data.

Most of the fathers involved in this are wanting a presumption of shared care and when that's not a good solution then for the arrangements to be based on the actual circumstances not the genitalia of the parents.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 10 June 2011 9:47:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'why a predominantly male Government would apparently change the laws to the detriment of Fathers?'

Ummm, because the voting populace is made of both men and women and there are many feminist lobby groups and a society that values motherhood over fatherhood and mothers are more often the primary carers of children and protecting children by whatever guise is politically popular. Derrr.

'Instead we have these articles that appear intent on maligning women in order to give all responsibility of childcare to men.'

Interesting comprehension. So an article refuting the proposition from politicians that no women are violent is actually in fact maligning women in order to... wait for it... give all responsibility of childcare to men.

Hahahahahaha

You really are the simpleton's simpleton. Good work.

Women are so saintly in Fractelle's eyes even the very mention of women EVER abusing court process is 'maligning women', and campaigning for men to have some expectation of 50% shared custody is 'giving *all* responsibility of childcare to men.'
Posted by Houellebecq, Friday, 10 June 2011 9:59:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert<"Do you think it's an accident that the Australia Say's No campaign failed to have any examples of violence by women in a multi-million dollar campaign despite some very vocal complaints?"

Robert, it is a well known fact, from POLICE reports that men commit the bulk of violence in our society- against other men, women and children.

Forget all the rubbish that Vanna spouts in his vicious vendetta against University people- it will only encourage him more :)

So, no, I have no trouble with the advertisements about domestic violence at all.

It is also a well known fact that before women's groups and women's rights became a force in our society, women WERE second class citizens, and it is just that there are still some neanderthal men still left in our society who resent the fact they are not in control of the women anymore!

Not you of course Robert :)
Posted by suzeonline, Friday, 10 June 2011 10:15:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Women have been the sole carers of children so it is not surprising that child abuse statistics would be higher (excluding sexual abuse). What would the statistics be if men had been the sole providers of child care?

I would imagine that a child seeing dad beat up mum on a consistent basis even if he/she was spared that violence, hardly serves as a good role model nor does it provide a safe and secure home-life. What does it teach young boys and girls about relationships.

Some of you won't be content until you see women being as violent as men just to score a political point. Well be careful what you wish for, it seems with lack of discpline, changes to the way we raise children, less emphasis on the basic tenets of courtesy and manners your self-fulfilling prophecy might yet be realised.

More and more young women are becoming involved in street violence and severe bullying incidents, however male violence (with mainly male victims) is still much higher.

The real questions should centre around what can we do to prevent violence. It seems anytime a possible solution comes up such as early closing hours (among many) the namby pamby lot start whingeing about their rights. God knows how any of us coped when pubs shut at certain times and some did not even open on a Sunday.

The problems are complex and lie with problems of overt consumerism and reliance on capitalist drivers rather than the human. Families are not spending as much time together and the pressure on families is probably no more than years past, just different.

But as soon as any solutions are raised (like early closing) out come the 'reds under the beds' conspiracists, usually those very same people that lament the lack of order in society, but unwilling to see that people are human first and not economic units.
Posted by pelican, Friday, 10 June 2011 10:25:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suze,

'Robert, it is a well known fact, from POLICE reports that men commit the bulk of violence in our society- against other men, women and children. '

But those adverts weren't about that at all. They were only about violence 'against women'.

The actual message is that violence between men is ok (whether perpetrated by other men or women or female partners), but violence against women is not ok.

One could otherwise say they were about domestic violence generally, which would mean they were total misinformation because in most violent relationships, no matter who gets injured more or who the police end up believing when they turn up, both partners are violent at least to some degree. I'm sure it's safer to believe the women as more men are *generally* more often violent and the woman has a physical disadvantage. But the adverts implicitly state (if it's considered a domestic violence ad) Women are NEVER violent or maybe it doesn't matter if they are violent, it's always the man's fault.

The last definition, which I don't buy, is that they are specific adverts about relationships that feature controlling abusive men and helpless women who are totally blameless. All I can say is, if so, then they missed the mark with their message.

'women WERE second class citizens,'

I don't know about that, I think one of the central tenants of Patriarchy was women were to be protected and my Dad specifically told me never to hit a girl, and there are no exceptions. He never mentioned hitting boys. So, the message 'To violence against women, Australia says no' is actually a very pre-feminist argument.

A feminist argument would be 'to perpetrating violence Australia says no'. It wouldn't focus on women and give them some special pedestal. It would focus on the perpetrators.
Posted by Houellebecq, Friday, 10 June 2011 10:39:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suzie before you completely dismiss Vanna's point try his challenge. Go look for some work by feminist academics from Australian uni's that has anything good to say about men or masculinity. I'd got so tired of his constant harping on about it that I gave it a go in the hope of proving him wrong. I failed to find anything that I considered had proven him wrong to my satisfaction.

The closest I could get was muted praise for men considered to be acting in a feminine manner and a piece on the men's sheds movement. The overwhelming theme in the material I could find was extraordinarily negative of men and masculinity. I've not seen anyone else pop in with some references to prove him wrong, I'd be more than pleased if he could be shown to be wrong.

I'll happily remind vanna of the error of his way's when someone proves him wrong especially in regard to the material from gender studies departments. I've made the point fairly regularly to him that he takes it too far but there is an elephant in the room if you start reading what the gender studies mob say about men.

I think that there are some neanderthal women around who resent any sense that they are not completely in charge. They are just as bad as the men wanting women back in their place.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 10 June 2011 10:43:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
pelican,

'It seems anytime a possible solution comes up such as early closing hours (among many) the namby pamby lot start whingeing about their rights.'

namby pamby people do not drink alcohol. Namby pamby people are tea drinking wowsers.

It simply wont work. As with all drugs, it's better to have bouncers around and keep people in a controlled environment. Would you rather young people drinking in the city in pubs with exhorbitant prices, or wandering the streets and parks with cheap pre mix drinks, and having huge house parties because all the pubs close so early?

Do you want people to binge drink even faster to get a fix before closing and then have all the drunk people jettisoned out on the street at the same time with little public transport and the resulting fights?

The only solution to fighting violent drunks is to compete with the alcohol industry by creating an MDMA based drug in drink form and marketing it to be more popular than alcohol. Then your only problem is the dental repercussions and the police getting annoyed at being cuddled so much.
Posted by Houellebecq, Friday, 10 June 2011 10:48:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
R0bert challenges us to find examples in gender studies of work which is positive about men and masculinities. I work in this field, and I've written a whole lot about men's positive roles, e.g. in building cultures of non-violence. I've also highlighted fathers' positive roles in their children's lives, progressive changes in men's sexual relations, and more. See below.

Best wishes,

Michael Flood.

Engaging Men and Boys in Building Gender Equality (Beijing+15, 2010): http://www.xyonline.net/content/engaging-men-and-boys-building-gender-equality-beijing15-2010

Involving Men in Efforts to End Violence Against Women (journal article). URL: http://www.xyonline.net/content/involving-men-efforts-end-violence-against-women-journal-article

Where Men Stand: Men' s roles in ending violence against women (A report released in November 2010). URL: http://www.xyonline.net/content/where-men-stand-men%E2%80%99s-roles-ending-violence-against-women

Men’s positive roles in ending violence against women (a short piece). URL: http://www.xyonline.net/content/men%E2%80%99s-positive-roles-ending-violence-against-women

Promoting the positive roles of fathers: http://www.xyonline.net/content/promoting-positive-roles-fathers

Bent Straights: Diversity and flux among heterosexual men (2008): http://www.xyonline.net/content/bent-straights-diversity-and-flux-among-heterosexual-men
Posted by MichaelGFlood, Friday, 10 June 2011 10:53:55 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RObert
There are not any Men's Groups that I can find that say anything positive about women. According to some of these men women lie about violence in child custody cases, lie about being raped (or they were dressed inappropriately), domestic violence is overplayed, women abuse children, women who have affairs are selfish, men who have affairs do it because of something their wife did wrong, and so it goes on..... If you cannot see the hypocrisy in some of this anti-women guff, well there is no moving forward.

vanna's point is a furphy. Why would feminist groups write about positive aspects of men, there is no need to in the same way there is no need to hark on about the positive aspects of women in 2nd and 3rd wave feminism.

First wave feminism arose as a response to prejudice towards women and that is why early feminist movements pushed the idea of women being as capable as men. Men were already thought to be capable ie. there is no need to acknowledge what is already acknowledged.

There are many feminists who argue that humanist approaches to gender are more productive and achieve more in the long run than narrow approaches to gender.

Most men I know are feminists. That is, they believe in gender equality as regards jobs, home and sharing of responsibilities. Men and women will never be exactly equal - we are different and the same it comes down as always to individuals first.

The trouble with many men who feel threatened by feminism (for some reason I cannot fathom) is they tend to emphasise the extremist versions as the norm. This is a political ploy used by many who wish to push a particular point of view and I don't see many of them say anything positive about women. vanna who believes women to be bad, has never said anything positive about women which is an irony.
Posted by pelican, Friday, 10 June 2011 11:02:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
suzie wrote: Robert, it is a well known fact, from POLICE reports that men commit the bulk of violence in our society- against other men, women and children.

"POLICE reports" reflect what is reported to the police, included in police records and then released (often selectively) in summarised form.

That can, as it does with Domestic Violence, bear little relationship to the facts, and to say "it is a well known fact" based on POLICE reports is unsustainable; to extrapolate to this issue of Domestic Violence would be a nonsense.

Here's an actual "well known fact" - men report violence, especially DV, against them at a far lesser rate than do women
Posted by L.B.Loveday, Friday, 10 June 2011 11:08:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
R0bert I think that bit about gender studies departments is a furphy. The nature of these departments is to analyse social problems, and men responsible for social problems aren't going to have positive things said about them.

What are they going to write books based on how great men are? Where is the problem with that?

I think more the point is that no female behaviour is ever analysed or censured. There is no analysis of any detrimental effects of predominately female behaviour. Perhaps it just doesn't exist. Maybe women just are superior to men in every way. It's the only conclusion one can make.

Any female problems are never analysed through the lens of a problem with women or femininity, but through a lens of 'poor dears, this is the result of their oppression'.

It's why men reject feminism because it never makes women accountable for anything, rather perpetual victims of 'societal expectations'. Men on the other hand are accountable, and are deemed somehow immune from this cop-out.

Feminism is all about men, and what they should do to make the world better for women. Akin to 'why cant you be more like your sister'. It is totally focussed on men, their actions and their supposed motives as imagined by predominately female commentators.

I want a feminism that is focussed on women, and turns that magnifying glass on women's motives and women's actions and assigns women accountability for their own lives and empowers them.

Michael,

Oh dear, you're one of those patronising men by 'engaging' and 'involving' men in their education about their innate abusive ways.

'Reach, engage, and educate men.' about their sole responsibility for violent domestic disputes, and shame them into being responsible for other men's actions.

'In engaging men, several strategies'...

Don't you mean in manipulating men? Into action out of some form of gender guilt for other individual abusive men?
Posted by Houellebecq, Friday, 10 June 2011 11:11:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Houlley
You are younger. I can (just) remember what it was like when there were earlier pub closing times. There was never the problems you have imagined - it was the norm. I agree it would be almost impossible to turn the clock back, people's expectations are different.

"Do you want people to binge drink even faster to get a fix before closing and then have all the drunk people jettisoned out on the street at the same time with little public transport and the resulting fights?"

This is more likely to occur later at night when people have been drinking into the wee hours. As I said namby pambys.

"I think more the point is that no female behaviour is ever analysed or censured. There is no analysis of any detrimental effects of predominately female behaviour."

You reckon. Just drop in some of those male forums and you will get a dose of what some men think about women's behaviours, imagined or real. There certainly has been analysis and comment on 'female behaviour' as proven by all the comments being made about women in the defence forces. Women have been labelled as over-emotional, over-sensitive, over-soft on many fronts in relation to suitability for some tasks, to the point where women were just over it.

Anyway it is not about male behaviour but male patriarchy. There isn't a female equivalent to study in terms of analysis. I don't think men are 'naturally' one thing or another (behaviour-wise), but much depends on cultural norms and how people are raised.

You obviously haven't been reading about the effects of patriarchy on men. For someone who doesn't like victimhood you are certainly comfortable with male victim sydnrome. See men can be victims too. Equality has worked. :P
Posted by pelican, Friday, 10 June 2011 5:28:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Andresen works for men's health. he commercially offers training in supporting men who need to address issues, including violence against them in their families. Since men are his focus, he cant be a feminist, or else his research would be equally pilloried as anything any feminist reported. So is he a masculinist, and why does it matter?

For all who think we should rely on criminal law - the AVO system was introduced for two reasons - one because abused women wouldn't go thru taking their man to court - THEIR men weren't criminal, and the more important reason - the criminal 'justice' system couldn't handle the load. It cant handle what it has now. It hasn't for many years. Now stats. Stats reflect only the samples. Within careful parameters, within ethical guidelines - ergo they are often narrow, and dont get the whole picture by a long shot. snapshots, glimpses.

Then there's anecdote - shunned by the increasingly educated, no matter how closely they might describe what is actually going on.

Then there's mass ignorance and bias.

Fact is, if you think men get a raw deal and women dont, you are mistaken. Many of both get unfairly screwed. all levels of court
Posted by Cotter, Friday, 10 June 2011 6:06:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have very considerable respect for Father’s Rights groups, for their expertise and knowledge in the areas of “Disregard for Truth’, and the making of 'False Statements’.
“Bringing gender politics into a serious debate” is a ploy which they use with frequency, and expertise. Greg Andresen condemns Kate Ellis for using such arguments, and then launches into his own arguments in gender politics, thereby adding his own distractions and diversionary ploys.
The proposed legislation does not `”Purport to reduce such (domestic) violence”, it would take far more legislation and resources to even begin to attempt such an objective. This legislation is so that Courts can evaluate future risks to the safety and welfare of children and young people, where there has been domestic violence in the past. The purpose is the safety and protection of children.
There are no false allegations of domestic violence and the inherent abuse of children made by mothers, only UNPROVEN allegations. For such allegations to be proven as false, would require that they had been subjected to a due process of law, with careful and thorough investigation of such allegations. This does not happen, because, as Chief Justice Diane Bryant has stated, the Family Courts do not have the powers, expertise and resources to carry out such investigations. At best the allegations are subjected to the whimsical conjectures of ICLs and the fanciful speculations of Court Reporters, neither of whom have the statutory powers, qualifications, nor expertise to conduct such investigations. Their evidence in such matters is frequently outside of their area of expertise and as such, should be declared as inadmissible in any competently conducted legal proceedings. So how can allegations be false, when they have never been proven to be untrue?.
The proposed legislation will hopefully protect children and young people from being ordered by Family Courts into contact with and even the custody, of convicted paedophiles, child sex abusers, violent aggressors, and psychopaths. In recent years, some children have paid for such decisions with their lives while many others continue to suffer the abuses which could not be proven in Courts.
Posted by ChazP, Friday, 10 June 2011 8:15:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As Michael mentioned, there probably is more evidence that men are responsible for more DV than women. Having said that, it isn't particularly important to prove which gender is worse than the other. This sort of one-upmanship has polluted discussion of this issue for far too long.

It is useful to note that men are on the receiving end of more DV than is commonly thought and that the most common form of DV is reciprocal or bi-directional. Our society socialises people to see male participants as horrible, horrible wife-beaters and female participants as victims. While an objective judgement might often be that both participants are as bad as each other, our society encourages people to judge him way more harshly than her. This is an appalling double standard and men have every right to complain.

Furthermore, some people want us to believe that some men simply choose to bash-up their partner, because of old fashioned beliefs about gender (the patriachy theory). This is a highly flawed understanding of DV that is not supported by any evidence and gets us nowhere. We need to be talking to boys about how to deal with violent women, not pretending that they don't exist. We need to be using pressure to stop women from being violent towards men, not showering female DV participants with sympathy and treating them as heroes.

Lets solve this problem, not use victims to stake out the high ground in the battle of the sexes.
Posted by benk, Friday, 10 June 2011 8:15:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with Benk in that we need to deal with all forms of violence in our communities, not just with male violence. Obviously, women of today are more publicly and domestically violent than they ever were, most probably due to increased female use of alcohol and drugs.

Women are more likely to initiate violence or to try to fight back if they are intoxicated, as are men. The main problem is that there is no doubt men are usually physically stronger, and thus women come off worse and are more likely to be hospitalised and come to the attention of the police.

Domestic violence, which this thread is mainly concerned about, is of course the same sort of violence exhibited by both men and women in the public arena, except they are usually on their own in the family home, with much less chance of anyone breaking it up, or helping the victims quickly.

Of course, there is also more likely to be children watching this violence in the family home...and kids learn by example.

At the end of the day, it seems to me that the only time AVO's are considered appropriate by some members of society is AFTER someone has already been bashed or physically threatened.

I find this both scary and sad, and I admit to feeling very angry when a friend and her kids were recently barricaded in their home while their estranged Father and husband (an AVO had been taken out) spent the night speeding up and down their street, throwing rocks at their windows and screaming abuse.
When phoned, the police said they would do nothing unless someone was actually hurt!
Posted by suzeonline, Friday, 10 June 2011 10:08:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<Michael,

Oh dear, you're one of those patronising men by 'engaging' and 'involving' men in their education about their innate abusive ways.

'Reach, engage, and educate men.' about their sole responsibility for violent domestic disputes, and shame them into being responsible for other men's actions.

'In engaging men, several strategies'...

Don't you mean in manipulating men? Into action out of some form of gender guilt for other individual abusive men?Posted by Houellebecq, Friday, 10 June 2011 11:11:21 AM>

Spot on and well articulated Houelly, and I second that.

Many of Floods articles, I find to be extremely convoluted and follow the female victim, male perpetrator model, even if the female is the abuser, it is still the males fault.

Men must take responsiblity for their own behaviour and also the consequences of female behaviour is also the responsibility of men.
Posted by JamesH, Saturday, 11 June 2011 5:47:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican, I'm not talking about "feminist groups", I'm talking about publicly funded university departments who are responsible for the bulk of official "gender research". My earlier point is that they are the ones who provide much of the research and stats used by governments at all levels.

They don't need to harp on about how good men are but their overwhelmingly negative view of men becomes a serious issues when the output of their work are the official facts.

Some women do lie about a lot of things in family custody disputes (as do some men). The father's groups are fighting a structure largely built on some very gendered perceptions about that, the kind of perceptions the author is addressing in this article. The response is not always where my preferences lie but I do think that most of the cristicisms of them are done out of context. The behavior of the mothers group's rarely attracts the same criticism. They are different, just concerned mum's trying to protect their kid's from those nasty men.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Saturday, 11 June 2011 12:39:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RObert I think you are tarring all women with the same brush at times.
The very few families that end up fighting in the family court do not represent most of the families in society wouldn't you agree?
Most men and women deal with these issues without involving the family courts at all.

Many families involved with family violence never go through the family court system either. The victims in some of these families are not the sort of people who are empowered enough to deal with the rigors of the court system.
Thank goodness we are now able to have police officers charge domestic violence perpetrators that would otherwise not be charged because the victims are too scared to report them.

With your assertion that it is the militant feminist university staff that produce all the info and figures on family violence etc, what would they have to gain from supposedly falsifying the information?

Do you suppose that just because they are 'educated' women, then they must be rampant men haters?
Why aren't the many male lecturers at universities up in arms about this then? Are educated men so weak that they can't stand up for themselves against these women?

Could it be that some men just don't like the 'truth' in the info brought out by academics, and so deny their content?
Posted by suzeonline, Saturday, 11 June 2011 1:07:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This `Blame Game' which is being fought is totally tiresome, irreconcilable and completely irrelevant. The purpose of this proposed legislation is to protect children and young people, not matter which parent is the perpetrator and which is the victim, and secondly, to give children and young people a much greater say and influence in decision-making which seriously affects their lives. The government and the Courts have a duty and responsibility to protect children from harm and I find it absolutely inexpicable why the Lib/Nats are opposing this legislation and are trying to sabotage it. It can only be assumed from their actions that they are at the least unconcerned about the safety and protection of children, and at worst, are wanting to continue to support a parent's right to custody or contact with their child, no matter how toxic and dangerous that parent may be. The 2006 FLA gave such toxic and danerous parents the right to a `meaningful relationship' with their children and to an equal share in their care, and which they have exploited to their advantage for a variety of reasons because Family Courts don't have the powers or expertise to investigate and thereafter deny them such rights. Is this the situation the Lib/Nats want to continue?. Do they want the abuse of hundreds of children and the deaths of some, to continue because of such inhumane laws and the false premises which underpin those laws.?. I'm sure there are many Lib/Nats MPs who are having many sleepless nights - their conduct in these matters seem to show they have little concern for the safety and protection of children.
Posted by ChazP, Saturday, 11 June 2011 8:55:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<Could it be that some men just don't like the 'truth' in the info brought out by academics, and so deny their content?Posted by suzeonline, Saturday, 11 June 2011 1:07:28 PM>

"Truth" is a rather rubbery concept.

For example, if only specific data is recorded and collected, then is is easy to say that the data supports this, however if certain data is not collected and recorded, then is easy to say that the data does not support that.

In Manufacturing research Eeva Sodhi gives an example where the researchers showed that fathers were happy with their contact with the children, and the reasearchers did this by asking the mothers, not the fathers.

http://web.archive.org/web/20050308115735/http://www.nojustice.info/Research/ManufacturingResearch.htm

<In order to arrive at the conclusion that fathers are perfectly happy with the current custody and access arrangements, Nicole Marcil-Gratton [and] Céline Le Bourdais, in their paper presented to the Child Support Team, Department of Justice Canada in 1999 and called "Custody, Access and Child Support: Findings from the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth”, assert on page 27 that

The survey questionnaire does not include any relevant questions. Much of the information about fathers was gleaned from mothers.>

So to say that academics bring out the 'truth' is the biggest load of hogwash there is.

Suzie you obversely have not read, 'Who Stole feminism', 'Professing Feminism' or 'Heterophobia'. What about 'Lying in a Room of Ones Own'?

http://www.iwf.org/publications/show/18752.html

Errors of fact, Errors of interpretation, and Sins of Omission.
http://www.iwf.org/files/d8dcafa439b9c20386c05f94834460ac.pdf

The usual manipulative juxapossition of minor details occurs over family violence, when it is argued, physical violence is what is referred too, yet researchers and socalled 'academics' expanded the definition to the point that almost any sort of conflict between male and female can be defined as DV, when the woman doesn't get her way.

If for example a father threatens the mother with "You'll never see your kids again" that is manipulation and therefore DV. If a mother threatens the same thing, "Oh! she is protecting the kids."

Female manipulation and violence is rationalized away.
Posted by JamesH, Sunday, 12 June 2011 6:12:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Academics and Truth, in actual fact, academics are as guilty as our politicans of manipulating concepts and facts to suit their own agenda.

Lenore Weitzman published findings that showed;

<In particular, the book's claim that in the year after divorce women's standard of living decreased by a whopping 73 percent while men enjoyed an increase of 43 percent caught the attention of pundits, legislators, and judges. This statistic has become one of the philosophical bases for deciding child custody and property division in divorce cases.>

http://www.acbr.com/biglie.htm

<The only problem with this statistic, in fact, is that it turns out to be wrong.>

However because her research and findings supported certain conceptual biases, it had a certain emotional appeal to specific sectors of society, thus it was accepted as being the 'truth'!

Sure there are as Suzie points out, men who are confronted by the truth, just as there are feminists who cannot deal with anything that challanges their biases and prejudices.

Usually the dead give away is when they start accusing male posters as being misogynistic.
Posted by JamesH, Sunday, 12 June 2011 7:17:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Truth and Academics

Usually research into DV is conducted in the fashion where women are asked;

'when was the last time he hit you?'

men are asked;

'when was the last time you hit her?'

Rarely is research conduct where men and women are asked the same question, and that makes the following research extremely rare

http://www.franks.org/fr01060.htm

<Women are just as violent to their spouses as men, and women are almost three times more likely to initiate violence in a relationship, according to a new Canadian study that deals a blow to the image of the male as the traditional domestic aggressor.

Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the study, however, is the source of the data -- a 1987 survey of 705 Alberta men and women that reported how often males hit their spouses.

Although the original researchers asked women the same questions as men, their answers were never published until now.>

Now researchers will say something like, other studies don't support this or no further studies have been done.

So the question should be asked why are researchers avoiding this? Sure government funding can and does influence what research can and will be conducted.

Also there are a number of reports where researchers who make findings that differ from the feminist perpective, have been threatened with violence, Erin Pizzey had bomb threats made against her.

Researchers such as Murray Straus, Richard Gelles, Suzanne Steinmetz all have been subjected to threats of violence.

Libraries refused to stock Erin Pizzy's book "Prone to Violence".

Academic's 'truthful'?

Another factor is that the media absolutely love research that shows women in the victim role.
Posted by JamesH, Sunday, 12 June 2011 8:08:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Darcey Freeman - Yazmina Acar – 3 Osborne children – 2 Dillon children – Dominic Xuan Yu – Imran Zilic – 10 year old girl bound, brutally raped, and killed by her father on Bribie Island New Year’s Eve 2007.

Just a few of the children who have been killed as a consequence of `Shared Parenting’ laws and of course the many hundreds of children who have and are suffering continuing physical, sexual, and emotional abuses. Children ordered into the custody of or to have contact with paedophiles, convicted child sex abusers, violent offenders, psychopathic monsters and other parents who are toxic and dangerous. And all because the Sharia Parenting Law 2006 says these parents had the right to a `meaningful relationship’ with their children, and the Family Courts and their officials ignored and disregarded the threats and risks to their safety.

A `Meaningful relationship’ meant death for these children as it will for many more in the future, and the continued abuse of many hundreds more.

And the adults here squabble over which parent kills and abuses the most children, and are most dangerous to them – I doubt whether any of these children would care which parent was harming them, they would only care that they were given safety and protection from them.

And this is the law the Lib/Nats want to retain and are attempting to sabotage measures to give children and young people some degree of safety and protection and a direct say in their future lives, which have been denied to them under the Sharia Parenting law 2006.

It can only be assumed that the Lib/Nats are on the side of parents, regardless of whether such parents are killers and abusers.
Posted by ChazP, Sunday, 12 June 2011 9:04:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Some women do lie about a lot of things in family custody disputes (as do some men)"

True RObert, but how many times do any of the usual protesters on OLO ever acknowledge that men lie in child custody cases. If you took on board some of the nonsense on here you would think only women lie in the Court system. Most marriages end with mutual agreements it is only ever the difficult ones that end up in Court.

Do you think an abusive husband (or wife) is going to stand in front of a judge and say "Yes Your Honour, I have beaten my wife and kids" or "Yes Your Honour I have molested my children".

There seems to be a growing trend to put parents' rights before children but the objective should always be children first. They are the most powerless in this relationship. I believe shared parenting should be the standard but where there is any form of abuse from either parent the children should be protected until further investigation can uncover the truth. False claims about violence should also be treated as abuse because the impact is clearly negative for children.

Men also lie to gain custody. I know of one case where during some marital tension a husband threatened his wife with taking the kids if she divorced him because she had just got over an illness and he was going to use that to say she was unfit. The illness had nothing to do with her ability as a mother and she was fully recovered but with ongoing testing to check if the cancer had returned.

Some of the other stories would make your hair stand on end. Fact is the first priority should be children and there should be greater scrutiny of any alleged claims.

Too much violence and abuse is being 'dumbed down' in the interests of gender political correctness.
Posted by pelican, Sunday, 12 June 2011 11:16:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican - that is the most sensible and rational contribution I have read on this thread.
Your comment, "Fact is the first priority should be children and there should be greater scrutiny of any alleged claims" is right on the button.
In addition to this proposed legistation, how can we better ensure that children are protected from abuse and death following Family Court proceedings?. How can allegations of domestic violence and child abuse be competently investigated by the statutory authorities with the powers to do so in every case, rather than merely relying on the lay opinions of proferssionals such as psychiatrists/psychologists who are not empowered to investigate such allegations, nor have they the expertise to do so. What arrangments need to be made for children and young people to give direct evidence orally and/or by statutory declaration to Courts and ensure Family Court judges give due weighting to their views when making decisions regarding their futures?.
How do we stop parents treating their children merely as their property and each fighting for the biggest share when the child is legally chopped-up by the Court?. These are the questions which need to be asked, rather than this petty squabbling over the irreconcilable and irresolvable issue of which parents are most to blame for domestic violence and child abuse. How can politicians, Judges, lawyers, psychiatrists/psychologists be convinced of their primary and paramount duty to protect children and young people from harm and exploitation, rather than expose them to such harm by the laws they pass and the decisions they make.?.
These are the issues which should dominate this debate, and not this petty squabbling about which parents cause most/least harm to their children.
Posted by ChazP, Sunday, 12 June 2011 1:18:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JamesH <"Usually the dead give away is when they start accusing male posters as being misogynistic."

I only ever, rarely, call anyone misogynistic on this forum. It usually follows after someone calls women 'feminazis's', or makes generalised statements about 'all' women.

JamesH <"If for example a father threatens the mother with "You'll never see your kids again" that is manipulation and therefore DV. If a mother threatens the same thing, "Oh! she is protecting the kids." "

I am sorry to sound negative James, but history has shown that if a father says those words, then he often means to physically harm the kids, where if a mother says those words, she is taking the kids and running away with them.

Both cases are legally wrong, but I know which kids I would rather be...

Pelican, you are totally right with your' wise observations.
I too would hate to see the current trend continue, where gender issues over-ride the well-being of the children in the contentious family court arguments.

I am just as angry with a woman who lies in the family court, as I am with a man. The ones that suffer the most in these situations are the children.
Posted by suzeonline, Sunday, 12 June 2011 1:26:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SUZIEONLINE - "The ones that suffer the most in these situations are the children.". Quite correct Suzie, so lets stop arguing about adult's issues and THEIR rights. What more do you feel needs to be done (in addition to the proposed amended legislation) to prevent children suffering and to give them a much greater voice in Family Court proceedings?. Children and young people can't vote, so have no influence with politicians, so how do we as caring, concerned adults, bring pressures to bear on politicians to protect children from the `suffering' you state so forcefully. Instead of arguing about parents RIGHTS to a `Share' in their chopped-up child, talk about how the Needs, Wishes, and Rights of children should be placed front and centre.
There are 270,000 parents in Australia and 25,500 who have fled overseas, and who choose not to have contact with their child or to pay Child Support towards their care. Should those children have the reciprocal right to enforce a contact arrangement through the Family Courts with the absent parent, and the right to take legal proceedings to recover financial contributions towards their care.?. If both parents are toxic and dangerous to their wellbeing, should they have the right to engage legal counsel to legally disengage from both parents and to suggest where they most want to live, perhaps with an aunt or uncle or grandparent?. Should children have the right to appoint their own legal representative in situations where a parent may want to take them to live interstate or abroad?. If a child is taken abroad by a parent against the other parent's wishes, should the child have the right to appoint and instruct legal representation under the Hague Convention, to apply to remain in that country with the absconding parent, rather than be forced to return to the non-caring parent, and rather than it become merely an `ownership' dispute and squabble between the parents?. A lot of questions to address if children's rights under international laws are to be implemented in the spirit and intent of such laws.
Posted by ChazP, Sunday, 12 June 2011 2:32:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, that all sounds good in theory ChazP, but all this would depend on the age of the children of course.

Many children still love and want to be with, what others see as, 'toxic parents.'

I would be hesitant to put the burden on young children, or even young teenagers, to make a 'choice' about whether or not to stay with a 'toxic ' parent.
I agree they should have their own legal representation to help them make the best choice.

In the cases where both parents are suitable for the kids to live with, I believe that the older children, at least, should be given a choice about where they want to live.
Most of the kids with divorced parents that I knew, hated the week on, week off arrangement with each parent.
This arrangement only suited one or both parents, not the kids.

There should be no blanket rule of 50/50 shared care as a starting point. That rule has failed on so many levels.

If there are any proved instances of domestic violence, child abuse or neglect in the past, then I don't think the kids should stay unsupervised with those parents.

I fully endorse the right of the courts to forcefully take financial contributions owed to children by one or both parents, when they refuse to pay for any reason.

I believe that if a family member or child is a proven domestic violence victim in the past, that if an AVO is taken out against the perpetrator again, then they should be jailed until forced to take anger management classes, and that they wear a 'leg bracelet' when they come out of jail so the police know where they are.

The current 'protection' that an AVO is supposed to give is a joke.
Posted by suzeonline, Sunday, 12 June 2011 4:20:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Funny how Suzie and Chapz are sooo concerned about the welfare of the child, as long as the child is at risk from the father.

Yet statistics show that children are at much less risk under their fathers care, than with their mother.

In a discussion paper "Who kills whom and why by Jenny Morgan, Law School, University of Melbourne, she examines the murders of 90 children in Victoria over a ten year period from 1985-95. 58 children were killed either by parents or step-parents. She found that men and women were almost equally responsible for the murder of children, mothers killed 22 and men killed 24.

Of the 24 children who were murdered by men 62.5% were murdered by their step-father.

37 or 80% of children who were murdered, were either murdered by their mother or stepfather.

Fathers who murdered their biological children accounted for just 9 murders or 20%.

Fatal assault is defined as being usually an assault committed with the intention of punishing the child rather than killing them.

Typically they (suzie and Chapz) demonstrate characteristics of what is known to be maternal gatekeeping.

Isn't it amazing how feminist talk about equality, yet when it comes to 'allowing' fathers equal rights it is denied because a very small minority of fathers are not suitable parents.
Posted by JamesH, Sunday, 12 June 2011 7:00:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rubbish JamesH! Suddenly someone is sprouting the virtues of a university employee, only when they write something to prop up your anti-female agenda!

We are talking about family violence here, not child neglect, which of course would be perpetrated more often by women, given that they are with the children more often.

By saying that step-fathers do much of the domestic violence against women and children, I am assuming you think none of them are ever biological fathers as well?

I doubt anything anyone could say would change your mind about who does or doesn't perpetrate family violence, or that children are foremost in the mind of most 'feminists'.
Posted by suzeonline, Sunday, 12 June 2011 7:45:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Come on Suzie, these comparisons are totally unreasonable.

You are comparing the behaviour of wives, who of course live with perfectly reasonable rational men, with that of husbands who live with unreasonable irrational women.

The only fair comparison would be to compare men with lesbian partners who probably suffer similarly to the men, in the irrationality of their partners.

Unfortunately due to our politically correct academia, I don't think there has been a study on this subject. If there were such studies conducted, the results must have been so damming that their publication has been prevented by all those academic womens libbers.
Posted by Hasbeen, Sunday, 12 June 2011 8:21:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes Pelican, many men lie during family court proceedings. Please feel free to shout about this from the rooftops. Only when it is understood that women can also become victims of false allegations that some people will see the need for open-minded investigations of allegations of child-abuse.

Some people lie. You know it, I know it, its only fair that family court proceedings allow for this unfortunate reality.
Posted by benk, Sunday, 12 June 2011 8:53:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"True RObert, but how many times do any of the usual protesters on OLO ever acknowledge that men lie in child custody cases."

Far more often than some of the maternal bias crowd will acknowledge the times that it's women doing the wrong thing.

Again most of the men involved in this want a system that does not pre-judge according to gender. We are honest enough to admit that the adult's needs should be part of the process rather than the pretense used by the maternal bias crowd - "It's all about the children" with the subtext that the childrens needs happen to coincide with the mothers.

I doubt that if looked at honestly you will find a valid case to suggest that most of the male posters in these threads deny that men do the wrong thing, you won't find a denial of male violence. The comments are about a system that is in denial of female wrongdoing in family law.

Some make a lot of noise about taking gender out of the debate but have a look at how often those who bleat the loudest about that attack men and how rarely they acknowledge wrongdoing by women.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Sunday, 12 June 2011 9:24:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I take it JamesH and Hasbeen from your responses that you are uncaring and unconcerned about protecting children from harm consequent to Family Court proceedings, and your only interest is in who to blame when such occurs, your preference being driven by a deeply prejudiced and bigoted hatred of females. How exactly does that protect children?.
If, as you claim, men are the major sufferers of domestic violence and are least to blame for child abuse, then it is logical that men would have most to gain from this legislation and will be welcoming it with open arms to support their position and mothers will have most to lose, if your statistics on domestic violence and child abuse by females hold any validity. The fact that such statistics have no validity is of course, when you lose all confidence in the legislation, because you know the converse to be true.
Why is it that you are completely unable to discuss the needs, wishes, feelings, and rights of children and young people in Family Court proceedings?. Is it because you have no value or respect of children and young people, or that many of them will say they don’t wish to have contact with an abusive parent.?. Why is it you give so little worth to children and young people and see them merely as parental possessions and are quite happy for them to be chopped up so mothers and fathers can have a piece each, dependent on how convincing they are in the degradation of the other in a Court of law?. Maybe you would prefer Solomon’s law in determining how a child should be divided up.?.
Posted by ChazP, Sunday, 12 June 2011 10:40:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Clearly women are utterly useless at caring for children.

We have the technology, lets ensure that males can become pregnant, carry the child to term and be held responsible of all care of children. That is the only solution to halt the actions of these lying conniving women if what JamesH, Chazp, Robert, Benk and others claim is true.

How did such evil, evil people as women wind up as primary care-givers?

Men it is time to take a stand and responsiblity for child care, you still hold the balance of power in government and business - act now before we are all doomed by the harridans of which you speak.
Posted by Ammonite, Monday, 13 June 2011 8:49:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lol Ammonite : )
You're right of course.

I have often wondered what would happen if the family courts suddenly agreed that there has been this massive conspiracy for years against men, and awarded kids full-time to all fathers as a matter of course.

Can you imagine the amazing sudden increase in childcare centres?

The rigours of breastfeeding would be a thing of the past...

Would we then see a massive decrease in domestic violence, child abuse and child neglect?

Oh absolutely.
Posted by suzeonline, Monday, 13 June 2011 10:25:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ammonite, "That is the only solution to halt the actions of these lying conniving women if what JamesH, Chazp, Robert, Benk and others claim is true."

Where have I, James or Benk ever suggested that men are any better than women? What we are quite clearly asking for is equal treatment before the law with an assumption that both genders can be great parents and both are quite capable of being disgusting parents and quite capable of lying, misrepresentation etc.

I get the impression that you know that and your response to this thread is the same old deliberate misrepresention which has been used for years. Sad.

Suzie, you know better as well. Why cheer on that kind of lie?

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 13 June 2011 11:53:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You know, it was worth biting my tongue, [it was so far out in my cheek], to find out just how rabid these attack dog women's libbers really are.

Good on you girls.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 13 June 2011 11:57:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jeez Rob I dunno where I got the idea that a particular coterie of male posters never write anything positive about women. Maybe it was upon reading through the comments on this topic, like the unwarranted attacks on Michael Flood, the faux statistics and so on.

I am sure you are concerned about child welfare and like your fellow posters are putting your money where your mouth is and have applied and qualified as foster parents for abused children.

In which case, once you are in fact caring for these children will have little time left to accuse women as more irresponsible and violent than men.
Posted by Ammonite, Monday, 13 June 2011 12:06:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"will have little time left to accuse women as more irresponsible and violent than men." - yet again another lie.

I certain that I've never done that nor implied it.

I'm honest enough to admit that I think that the adult's needs should be part of the equation. I've been quite clear on that for years. I object to the pretense that it's just about child welfare when that's not the reality. Adult's lives matter and solutions that pretend that's not the case or use a pretense of child welfare as an excuse to be grossly unfair end up hurting everyone involved regardless of the perceived short term gain's.

Frankly I doubt that I'm cut out to do well as a foster carer nor do I see applying and being accepted as a valid prerequisite to having an opinion on the consequences of bias in the family law system.

I am the resident parent for my own son. A job that I mostly do well (but not perfect). I worked hard over the years to try and do so in a co-operative manner with his mother, again not always perfect but as well as I've been able.

I've chosen not to persue child support because I believe that the conflict created from doing so would far outweigh any benefit's that might come from it.

Maybe time to stop telling lies about other posters and start having a think about why you find it necessary to do so.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 13 June 2011 1:06:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
False Allegations Summit conducted May 2-4, 2011 in DC

http://networkedblogs.com/j0Hg3

Survey found tens of millions of Americans have been falsely accused of abuse after the VAWA was introduced. In 81% of the cases the falsely accused person was a male, and in 70% of cases the false alleger was a female. Twenty-six percent of the wrongful accusations were made in the context of a child custody dispute.

These persons were stamped with the scarlet Abuser label, leaving them to wonder whatever happened to the notion of ‘innocent until proven guilty'

The need for a summit shows the immense, often irreparable harm caused to our clients by false allegations, not only to reputation and personal relationships, but often to the accused individual’s livelihood and even heath.
Posted by Howard Beale, Monday, 13 June 2011 2:46:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
1stly men are less likely to report violence against them, 2ndly Kate Ellis lied 3rdly she has no excuse, if she wants a responsible position impacting on women and children she should research properly so she doesnt have a reverse impact on those she represents
Posted by Havenr64, Monday, 13 June 2011 3:25:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh and one other point, I have been ans
Many others, Subjected to false reports, no idea where you get your info from Doctor
Posted by Havenr64, Monday, 13 June 2011 3:29:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert - "I object to the pretense that it's just about child welfare when that's not the reality. Adult's lives matter and solutions that pretend that's not the case or use a pretense of child welfare as an excuse to be grossly unfair end up hurting everyone involved regardless of the perceived short term gain's."
There is no pretence in caring about the safety and protection of children. You have said consistently that you care about the safety and protection of your own child, then why can you not extend that caring to all children whose future care is determined by the Family Courts. Courts which do not have the powers nor expertise to investigate allegations of child abuse.!. Courts which dismiss such allegations because those whose opinions they obtain, do not have the requisite expertise and can offer only whimsical conjectures and speculations. Courts which with increasing frequency are ordering children into contact with and custody of toxic and dangerous parents because a protective parent refuses to comply with orders for their child to be in contact with such a dangerous parent. What would you do to protect your child if the Court ordered your child to have contact with the other parent who you knew to be violent and abusive?. Would you flee interstate or even abroad, as some other parents have done?. Or would you watch your child scream in terror every time you had to deliver her/him into the hands of his/her abuser and then comfort your child every time your child returned screaming in pain from the abuse?. Can you even begin to imagine the pain such a protective parent can suffer?. Or are children totally matterless when it is easier just to engage in a gender battle and score a few embittered pyrrhical points off females and merely dismiss their concerns for children as a pretence, because the rights of adults are so much more important in your view.?.
Too easy a way for you to turn a blind eye Robert. Wake up to the realities of children suffering.
Posted by ChazP, Monday, 13 June 2011 6:14:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The following excerpt from Prof Patrick Parkinson's submission to the Senate Inquiry into the Family Violence Bill provides much interesting data on the prevalence of false allegations of violence and abuse as a legal strategy in Australian Family Courts.

In particular Parkinson questions why interim and uncontested family violence orders are being re-introduced without reasons – after removal by the 2006 shared parenting amendments – as a criteria for determining parenting orders.

Parkinson is on the record as opposing Shared Parenting in the past, so his submission is very interesting indeed, although note his language uses the typical minimising, industry-speak like the public "think", "have a perception" "strongly believe"!

If the community and public at large "believe" false allegations are prevalent, why is this government now selling us snake oil in the form of a Family Violence Bill based upon the disastrous Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) driven by NOW in the USA?
VAWA: “Hate Men” law - Time to defund Feminist Pork
http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/2005/oct05/psroct05.html

Why is the government not hearing the common EXPERIENCE off the public that false allegations are rife and common place largely fuelled (of necessity) by our adversarial legal system which favours a presumption for sole custody in which only one parent is likely to "win"?

Take win/lose out of the equation, bring in zero tolerance for false allegations with strong sanctions, bring in the notion of custody to the "least angry parent", and compulsory mediation and watch the false allegations all but stop!

Excerpt:

“There is now a very widespread view in the community that some family violence orders are sought for tactical or collateral reasons to do with family law disputes. People have become very cynical about them. A national survey conducted in 2009, with over 12,500 respondents, found that 49% of respondents agreed with the proposition that ‘women going through custody battles often make up or exaggerate claims of domestic violence in order to improve their case’, and only 28% disagreed. While it might be expected that men would be inclined to believe this, 42% of women did so as well.
Posted by Howard Beale, Monday, 13 June 2011 6:27:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chaz why does it have to be an either or? Is it so difficult to conceive of both child protection and fair treatment of parents both being legitimate considerations?

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 13 June 2011 6:55:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Doctor this Professor that, look, those who post on here with their titles and rhetoric making claims they know it all being paid most probably by the governement, are full of it, talk to those who have kids, who have been or going through the system, I have crawled through corridors of smoke trying to save lives, I have ridden in the back of ambulances doing it, been on a recuss team, have been commendated for bravery by NSW police, blah blah, so what !
Posted by Havenr64, Monday, 13 June 2011 7:46:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert - How can it be fair to a child who is given into the custody of a parent convicted on multiple occasions of child sex abuse, or to a parent who has violently assaulted the other parent on multiple occasions in the child's presence, or that a child is shuttled back and forth on a week-about basis, living out of suitcases and having no friends in either place?. How can it be fair to a child to be given into the custody of a parent who has sexually abused them, and their pleas for protection are ignored?. If they runaway and refuse to return to such parent, they are seized (bodily) by the Federal Police, and forced to return, or are placed with State Child Protection authorities and imprisoned against their will?. Three children are currently being held in such limbo in WA and others in similar situations elsewhere.
Thats the `fairness' that currently exists Robert, and you and the Lib/Nats want it to continue because parents must be given their `Rights' under the current Family Law.
Posted by ChazP, Monday, 13 June 2011 8:29:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Refer us to a judgement on Austlii in which the Family Court has given custody
1. to a convicted paedophile.
2. to a parent convicted of assault witnessed by the child

Otherwise spare us bald, unsubstantiated attempts to incite public hysteria.

A child needs emotional security more than geographical stability – this means secure to give and receive love from both fit and loving parents and stability derived from those relationships. It seems a selfish argument to deny such bonds on the grounds that it inconveniences a parent packing & transporting a suitcase once a week.

Further the law requires that a parenting arrangement must be practicable, in particular, in regard to distance. Therefore there is no reason why a child cannot be with his/her friends at both homes.

If a parent/child contravenes a court order there must be consequences otherwise there is no point in having the order. Further a parenting order is obtained after evidence is presented and tested usually over 5 days of trial. One cannot be sure, without knowing the circumstances, that if a child refuses contact or runs away that the other parent is not inappropriately influencing, if not psychologically harming, the child into acting to that parents wishes.

The best interests of the child cannot be determined by the accusing parent. Further any parent has the opportunity to go back to the Court if the parenting arrangements are not working.

Parents do not have rights under the existent or proposed law – your argument is nonsense.
Posted by Howard Beale, Tuesday, 14 June 2011 12:36:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chaz in what was does treating parents fairly or taking account of their needs lead to a worsening of the number of kid's who end up in the care of abusive parents?

I've never opposed legitimate investigation of claims of abuse nor of protecting kid's while those claims are investigated.

I have said that mechanisms should be in place to ensure that process does not create advantage to the person making the claim - eg isolate the kid's from the other parent then use that isolation to establish residency patterns etc.

I have said that child protection should be treated the same regardless of the relationship status of the parents. If there is sufficient cause to remove a child from the care of a parent it should apply if the parents are together or apart, not suddenly require a whole lot less evidence because the parents are seperated.

A denial of basic safeguards in a system to protect all involved does not make the most vulnerable any safer, it just makes the system more prone to abuse by those who think that they can get away with it.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 14 June 2011 9:52:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This type of arguement just keeps going around in circles.

To say that the presumption of shared parenting has led to children being harmed is extremely misleading.

Children have been harmed by their parents (carers) since the dawn of time. In the past children were removed from the parents and put into institutions, and still harm happened to them.

Some parents are prepared to set boundaries on behaviour, whilst others do not. there are consquences later on with people who are raised without learning about boundaries, as there are when the boundaries are too strict.

ChapZ is more concerned about the 25,000 odd parents who have fled the country rather pay child support and money they do not pay. My concern is that these children have been denied ongoing relationship with their fathers.

It is highly proabable that if child support was calculated on the basis of 50/50 and that these dads had more contact, there would not be 25,000 parents overseas.

It would appear that certain females regard children as their property, that they are not going to share with anyone.

The arguement they use, is that contact should be based on previous child care. Yet as we all know children do grow up and become less dependent, so as time goes on, the dynamics change. So to only use the basis of previous care as a gauge for future contact, does not recognise that even within intact families the dynamics are fluid and chop and change week to week, year to year.

Even within an intact family children will have conflict with parental authority even if that authority is female.
Posted by JamesH, Tuesday, 14 June 2011 11:05:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yup

The fault is with the women.

Best start working on the technology for men to have babies now.
Posted by Ammonite, Tuesday, 14 June 2011 12:40:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Man abused wife over two decades: court
June 14, 2011 - 1:54PM
AAP
A man allegedly dragged his wife out of their home by her hair, ripped her clothes off, wrapped an electrical lead around her neck and fired two shots when she managed to run away, a Sydney jury has been told. Crown prosecutor Lou Lungo was on Tuesday outlining the first of 10 incidents over which the man is on trial at Sydney's Downing Centre District Court. The man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, has pleaded not guilty to 25 charges - five of them alternatives - relating to his wife and covering incidents between 1977 and 1997. They include attempting to strangle her with intent to murder, raping her and using an electrical cattle prod with intent to cause her actual bodily harm. When he allegedly left the home, she tried to unload his rifle and lock the back door but he was too strong and pushed the door on his return. "The accused grabbed the gun and raised it towards her face," the court was told. "He pushed the muzzle up to her forehead between her eyes." Mr Lungo said the husband later took hold of the woman's hair and dragged her out of the house."I expect (she) will tell you the accused dragged her outside and ripped her clothing off her and was screaming abuse at her."He picked up an electrical extension lead ... she will tell you he wrapped the lead around her neck twice and started shaking her with it. "She was lying on her stomach and he was on top with his knee in her back. "She had her fingers between the cord and her throat to stop herself being strangled.".When the couple's son came outside to ask what was happening, the naked woman managed to run away to a neighbour's house and heard two shots fired coming from her yard.
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/man-abused-wife-over-two-decades-court-20110614-1g1bw.html
I suppose Father's Rights extremists will argue that she must have provoked him.
Posted by ChazP, Tuesday, 14 June 2011 2:22:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ChazP

It was HER fault for marrying him.
Posted by Ammonite, Tuesday, 14 June 2011 2:40:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Taking extreme examples and then trying to extrapolate that to all domestic violence, is highly manipulative and plain propaganda.

I meet a man once whose wife poured petrol on him and set him alight. He suffered from horrendous burns, disfigured face, missing a few fingers, ears.

Yes there some extremely nasty and violent people of both genders.

The question should be asked, if after five decades, that is fifty years, of DV awareness, Erin Pizzey opened her first shelter in the 60's.

Why is it still a problem?

What has been missed?
Posted by JamesH, Tuesday, 14 June 2011 2:41:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Howard Beal - An example is the case of a 8 year old boy living with his grandparents in Tasmania, who was ordered to live with his mother and her de facto partner, who had been convicted of having vast amount of child porn. I don’t have the AustLii references but it was widely reported in the media. In the case of J & W FamCa 1002 where a 5 year old girl was ordered into the custody of a father with HIV/AIDS and it was alleged he had sexually abused another daughter and he had two convictions for child rape and convictions for violence and 20 other offences. The girl was placed in the father’s custody to punish the mother for fleeing interstate with the child. There were then more than forty reports of child abuse made by teachers and police,all ignored. The girl ran away at the age of thirteen and confirmed that she had been sexually abused from the age of seven by her adult half-brother and his mates with father’s knowledge. She was believed by police, the social worker and the court counsellor but the judge accused the mother of training her and ordered her to return to her father. Tasmanian Judge saying that two little girls would be safe staying with their convicted child sex offender father, but they needed to have a lock on their bedroom door and stay together at night. In another case, Judge was reported to have said that an 8 year old boy would be safe because the convicted child sex offender partner of the mother was only sexually attracted to little girls. And recently, Judge gave residence of children to a father who was awaiting sentencing for sexually abusing young children.
Examples of cases where domestic violence, sexual rape, and child abuse were alleged but could not be competently investigated, because Family Courts don’t have the powers expertise and resources, can be found in Aligante & Waugh, Langmeil and Grange, Krach & Krach to name but a few.
Posted by ChazP, Tuesday, 14 June 2011 3:03:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gawd

Women must stop having children immediately.
Posted by Ammonite, Tuesday, 14 June 2011 3:05:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Re J & W [1999] FamCA 1002: This was an interim hearing in which findings of fact cannot be made. The Mother ALLEGED the Father was a paedophile, had incest with his son, sexually abused and raped his 5yo daughter, and would deliberately infect his daughter with AIDS. Importantly she admitted some of her allegations were unfounded. Nevertheless she absconded with child to another state to avoid court ordered supervised contact with the Father. The forensic psychologist appointed by the Court recorded there was significant risk of psychological harm in the mother's care and likely that she would re-abscond. Clearly the Court had little option in the interim.

This interim judgement occurred 7 years before the shared parental responsibility amendments were enacted in 2006. How does this prove shared parenting forces children to live with paedophiles?

Samuels & Eddington was another interim hearing. The Father suffered from schizophrenia, lacked capacity to care for the child and was cared for himself by his parents. The Mother had cared for the child since separation when child was only two months old. The paternal grandparents sought custody when the Mother sought to relocate interstate, after consenting to the Mother living with the boyfriend. The boyfriend had been convicted for possession of child pornography not paedophilia.

“A parenting order depends on a consideration of the relevant section 60CC matters and not popular beliefs or stock standard responses. The Mother has shortcomings and her profession [exotic dancer] raises some questions, but this is not a court of morality”

In short ALLEGATION is not proof – until the family violence amendments are enacted.

This “reform” proposes increasingly loose and subjective definitions of family violence and abuse, dangerous moves to eviscerate the presumption of innocence in custody cases and encourages strategic allegations without penalties that seems to amount to a license to kill off an allegedly abusive spouse.

Public opinion must persuade the Senate to resist such efforts to limit individual rights in the guise of protecting women as a class, and reaffirm the fundamental principle of justice: equality before the law regardless of gender.
Posted by Howard Beale, Tuesday, 14 June 2011 6:17:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Haward thanks for that. It is very concerning that those pushing for the amendments either fail to discuss safeguards or make it clear that they don't think that men deserve any safeguards. I say men because the supporters only seem to list examples of dangerous situations where the dangerous party is male.

It is a difficult situation balancing child protection and burdens of proof. To make changes which improve anything we need way's of better testing allegations and of ensuring that false or unproven allegations don't provide a tactical or material advantage to the person making the allegations.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 14 June 2011 6:33:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I sometimes wonder how many of the abusive people, be they male or female are actually psychopaths or sociopaths?
Posted by JamesH, Tuesday, 14 June 2011 7:07:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert – Refuge shelters are not a solution to the problem, they are only to give victims a sanctuary and protection – the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff to pick up the pieces of people who have been pushed over, when what is needed is a fence at the top of the cliff. DV is still a problem because it is still tolerated by our society and not sufficiently condemned by our society. People find it easier to `go into denial’ that it is occurring to the extent it is, or rationalise it that the victim provoked the attacker, or was in some other way to blame, or that the violent attacker momentarily lost control when in fact it is a continuous pattern of behaviour. What also needs to be considered that perpetrators of DV have Jekyll & Hyde characters, being the friendly outgoing character in social situations and the violent monster in private behind closed doors (see Anti-social Personality Disorder). It also needs allegations of DV to be competently handled by statutory authorities and offenders severely punished by Courts and placed on a National Register of Violent Offenders. Then we may see some beginning to the end of this ugly stain and shame on our society.
Of course parents should be treated equally before the law, but the Needs, Wishes, and Rights of children should be the paramount consideration – that is not happening under the present law nor in the Courts. The major reason for that is that both parents are treated as being on trial and proceedings run as an adversarial contest as in a criminal court, with lawyers creating situations of `High conflict’ with legal tactics and ploys played to ensure one or other side is the winner. Is that the way to determine the future care and safety of children.?. If it is, then we are a far less civilised country than we would claim to be. It is degrading and demeaning to us all that children are treated as mere shared possessions of parents and are given so little regard and value.
Posted by ChazP, Tuesday, 14 June 2011 8:18:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Domestic Violence Claims" can be misused undetected!

I tried to help my wife with her paranoia, fears of persecution, claims that neighbors steal her cloth and so on. Finally I followed our GP's advice to get her assessed by the CAT Team.

After the first assessment she was brought to the hospital as involuntary patient by the police. During the second assessment my wife promised to return for further treatment and she left the hospital as voluntary patient.

She went straight to "Berry Street" and accused me of domestic violence. My agreement to assess her against her will was domestic violence she said later.

With Berry Street's help she disappeared together with the kids.

Then an unknown private DVS helped her which also cancelled my notification to the Child Protection Center that the kids are in danger if she drives them around under the influence of persecution which was the CAT teams reasoning to assess her quickly.

Isn't DHS amazing! One branch expected her to return for medication while another helped her to hide. All efforts to interlink DHS services were blocked with the response: We cannot accept your information without the consent of your wife!

FOI's do not apply for outsourced DHS services and DVS involved kept secter by police and DHS. No complaint can be written to address the problems and to improve the services. Later my wife told me in China: "This DVS is more secret that ASIO" and obviously she is right. Everyone could get ASIO's contact address.

One year later got an apology from the chief psychiatrist because the hospital did not follow his guidelines to work together with families and carers.

Domestic Violence Services should assess their clients claims, need to have staff with psychiatric education and they should contact the accused via a mediator or an ombudsman to make sure that they do the right thing.

I doubt that quality control exists making DHS supported outsourced services use funds correctly and follow guidelines.

Advice: Make a written contract with MHS before ever getting them involved or it may back fire!
DHS sucks.

ChrisH
Posted by chris_ho, Tuesday, 14 June 2011 8:31:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“Clearly the Court had little option in the interim” – Of course the Court had other options. Suspending contact with the father immediately until the allegations were competently investigated. Dismissing the psychologist for advancing unscientific theories and which are not supported by the relevant professional community would be another, and appointing a professional with experience in working with children. But of course, decisions are taken from a legalistic viewpoint, and not from a child safety viewpoint. I suppose you would have been quite happy for your child to be given into the care of this man, and would be unconcerned at what would be likely to transpire, as was later proven.

Shared Parenting had been floated many years before it was put into law, and was implemented by some Judges who did not have the benefit of contrary expert advice from child development experts. The Shared Parenting law was simply an affirmation of what had been happening already.

Keeping and viewing Child pornography is a form of paedophilia. Child protection experts would tell you that it is either a part of paedophiliac behaviour or is a preliminary stage before the actual abuse occurs. This was proven by studies of testamentary evidence of convicted paedophiles.
No the Family Court is not a Court of morality, but it does have to take into account any immoral behaviours of parties to proceedings in determining the future care of children.
The reforms simply extend the definition of domestic violence into those areas of domestic violence which had previously not been considered in law but were well known among professionals working with DV victims and children. It is only recently that research has shown how children suffer severe abuse and trauma during domestic violence, and that they must be provided with protection from such events.
The reforms do not differentiate between the genders of the DV abuser and the victim, it is only FR groups that have distorted it to be prejudicial to men, although they conversely state that just as many men suffer DV so they can use this law accordingly.
Posted by ChazP, Tuesday, 14 June 2011 9:00:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chaz I very much agree with your post of Tuesday, 14 June 2011 8:18:26 PM.

Especially the second paragraph, the adverserial nature of the existing system is rotten to the core. It encourages people to use dishonest tactics, it set's people up for a winner takes all scenario where those who don't want to act fairly and in the best interests of the children need to constantly consider the implications to themselves of decisions.

I don't see how making unsubstantiated allegations more powerfull will in any way reduce that.

We need some fundamental changes to the whole system but that's not what I'm seeing proposed. What I am seeing is claims that children are a lot more at risk under shared care than they were before and call's to act more on unproven allegations. I'm seeing a complete unwillingness to talk about safeguards, rather the "childrens interests" mantra get's gragged out to try and trump any fair treatment of parents concerns as though it had to be an either/or scenario. Both should be accomodated, where there is a genuine conflict with no valid middle ground then it's time to look at who's need is the more important, not as the starting place.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 14 June 2011 10:21:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ChazP: Just to clarify J&W

1. The Father had been under supervised contact for 2 years because of unfounded allegations. The Mother absconded with child interstate rather than allow supervised contact outside her home.

2. The independent child expert opinion was that the Mother’s irrational fears were a risk to the child. There is no mention of PAS and pre-2006 there was no requirement to facilitate a relationship with the other parent

3. Your solution of removing the Father, the court appointed independent psychologist, the law, the unsubstantiated grooming evidence, etc… seems a bit obsessive.

Protecting the child is not leaving that child in the care of the mentally ill, the vindictive or the opportunistic while their allegations are fully investigated as proposed by the “guilty until proven innocent” family violence amendments. It can take years before the allegations can be tested in trial by which time it becomes irrelevant whether they are proved or false. It is not in the child’s interests to destabilize the established living arrangements.

The Family Violence Bill reverts family law back to snatch the child; conceal the child; keep the child away from the other parent as much as possible with the objective to establish for as long as possible the pattern of being the sole caretaker for the children. False allegations guarantee protracted and inflamed litigation with fear and conflict inevitably entrenched thereafter.

Such reform does not protect children it protects the profits of a multi-billion dollar divorce-family violence industry which is channelled back into the ALP/Green re-election campaign. The government poses as champions of motherhood and family for the green female vote while knowing the majority of children will be put at risk.

The re-election contribution is repaid with reform ensuring litigated divorce, reduced funding for mediated settlement, bankruptcy reform and funding to address the increased family violence and child abuse this manufactures. Research grants confirm these problems requiring more reform and assistance for “victims”.
Posted by Howard Beale, Wednesday, 15 June 2011 2:24:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This spiral of more funding to address the "needs" created by the previous funding illustrates how the divorce-family violence juggernaut, and with it the crisis of family dissolution and fatherless children - with all the social devastation this entails - will continue to expand until we learn to ignore hysterical people whom the government pays to cry wolf.

Litigated divorce dropped 22% after the weak shared reform was enacted in 2006. It dropped 50% in countries which have implemented a presumption of equal shared care after divorce. It is clear that strengthening shared parenting reform rather than winding it back with self-perpetuating family violence myth will protect children. It is simply commonsense that it is in a child’s best interests to be protected by two fit and loving parents to the maximum extent practicable. Further there are 20 years of legitimate peer reviewed research supporting shared parenting as the way to go.

There is no point in flogging a dead "family court" horse with more power and money as recommended by former family court judge Chisholm.
Posted by Howard Beale, Wednesday, 15 June 2011 2:39:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks to ChazP and Howard Beale for actually debating the issues.

There is no easy solution, I agree the adversarial style of law is not suited to family disputes. It generates a climate of blame rather than focusing on the best interests of the children. This is why I have challenged certain posters who remain fixated on fault, their own bitterness and desire for revenge.

Keep the dialogue open - we have made progress since the 50's attitudes, however we still have a long way to go.

My previous flippant posts were a response to the extreme comments being made by some posters here who never change their opinions. I apologise for such irreverence, but simply cannot take some comments seriously.
Posted by Ammonite, Wednesday, 15 June 2011 9:25:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ammonite, that was not a challenge. It was gross misrepresention of others positions based on your own issues.

I'd like the focus on fault taken out of the equation but while one group insists on making the issue about bad fathers rather than the merit's of the parents regardless of their gender that's not realistic.

The article highlighted the problems when governments play that same gender game.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 15 June 2011 9:29:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVcCZyhWcLY

Occasionally a politician says something useful.
Posted by JamesH, Wednesday, 15 June 2011 10:33:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
HB- Criminal convictions are not unfounded allegations, nor is a diagnosis of HIV/AIDS.
"Protecting the child is not leaving that child in the care of the mentally ill, the vindictive or the opportunistic while their allegations are fully investigated as proposed by the “guilty until proven innocent” family violence amendments. It can take years before the allegations can be tested in trial by which time it becomes irrelevant whether they are proved or false."
I think you are very confused between civil and criminal law. The purpose of the FL Courts are to determine the care & welfare of the child - no one is on trial for a criminal offence (same mistake was made in Briginshaw & Briginshaw which created a Third Standard of evidential proof which does not exist). Determinations on the care & welfare of the child should be on a `Balance of Probabilities' i.e. "more likely than not" or 51% proven. Family Courts are only required to examine, `Has this child suffered abuse which may have to be considerd in determinations regarding the child's care and welfare'. The Family Court has no powers to determine guilt of an criminal offence so nothing is determined "in trial" in the way you imply.
Tragically, people may feel themselves on trial in the civil court of the FC but this has been brought about by the adversarial nature of proceedings and the practices of lawyers in destroying the credibility of evidence. It is these two factors which have created the atmosphere of `Blame', and have lost sight of the central purpose - the care and welfare of the child and in particular whether a child may be exposed to unacceptable risk of harm.
Expert witnesses must be qualified and have the expertise to which they profess, before they are allowed in a Court Room. At the moment such `Expertise' as is used in FCs is exactly like asking a paramedic to give an opinion about a possible cancerous brain tumour.
Posted by ChazP, Wednesday, 15 June 2011 11:08:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert

I am not challenging or bothering with you at all. At best you appear to be sitting on the fence at worse your silence with some of the more odious comments about women implies tacit agreement.

If we do agree about anything such as on adversarial system not conducive to helping children, it is mired down in your negative perceptions from your past.

As Pelican and others have repeatedly pointed out the vast majority of men (and women) work out their differences without the aid of the family courts - this is very positive. When disputes do reach the courts, most are then dealt with leaving a tiny minority of people - men and women - who will never be satisfied, never compromise for the benefit of their children and never stop hating the other sex.

The rest of us move on - however that doesn't mean we do not hurt when vilified by people who know nothing about us.
Posted by Ammonite, Thursday, 16 June 2011 6:50:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
James H (14 June) - "I sometimes wonder how many of the abusive people, be they male or female are actually psychopaths or sociopaths?".
The vast majority who use violence in any situation. Some psychopaths are extremely intelligent and rise to positions of power and influence because of their ruthlessness, while those of lower intelligence damage and destroy the lives of those within their family.
This is the area which psychiatrists/psychologists should be concentrating on in FC proceedings, but are often groomed and fooled by the cleverness of such psychopaths, and their ability to manipulate them and the system. Wherever there is an accusation of violence or child abuse, there should be an automatic assessment of psychopathy of the adult involved. Psychopaths are extremely clever at evading the responsibility and consequences for their actions - denial, blaming others, and twisting the evidence are the more simple hallmarks of their personailities. It isn't difficult to pick them out on Blogs and debating forums, mainly by their ability to distort reality, hectoring, and abusive remarks.
Individuals and society need to be protected from these people and that is why it is so important to establish a National Register of Violent Offenders, which is publicly available.
Posted by ChazP, Thursday, 16 June 2011 8:12:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Damn... well I'm exceedingly cross with myself that I missed the pointy end of this debate>;-(

But if there is anyone left reading i'd just like to say that:

Firstly, I think this is a very useful article. While I'm in no position to offer confirmations or denials of statistical details i think it is deeply concerning that the National Plan on domestic violence contains so many presumptions about what men are and are not capable of, and structures processes in such a way that it will be very difficult for individual men to argue against these assumptions. It's heavily biased against men, essentially.

Secondly, any statement to the effect that men are inherently capable of violence, and that domestic violence is in any way associated with masculinity, is both patantly false, and highly damaging. Saying to men that they should self-examine for their own such tendencies positions them as guilty until proven innocent, and runs the risk of teaching young, vulnerable, impressionable men that they should be ashamed of themselves because of the way they were born.

Thirdly, it is pretty obvious from the stark divergence of views between commentators that our understanding of the dynamics and causes of domestic and family violence is still very unsophisticated. We are yet to have anything approaching a proper debate on the reciprocity issue - ie what can the dynamics of a violent relationship tell us about why family violence occurs (incorporating issues of mental illness, levels of education and disadvantage, abuse history, susceptibility to stress, non-violent injustices perpetrated etc). As such, anyone who takes up any kind of unequivocal or universalist position in this debate, like the Michael Floods of this world, is worth saying "goodnight Michael" to, kissing on the forehead and tucking in, turning out the light on, and returning to the adult's table from.
Posted by Sam Jandwich, Thursday, 16 June 2011 6:15:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[cont]

And lastly, I would like to register here that I have been subjected to false allegations of intimidation and harrassment in an AVO application, lodged by an ex-girlfriend of mine who was a feminist academic, in an attempt to paint me as a "typical man", and abrogate her responsibility for being the reason why we broke up in the first place. But here again, there's more to it than that, because what actually went on was that she had been badly sexually abused as a child, had subsequently gone on to develop a post-traumatic stress reaction that's normally called Borderline Personality Disorder (that's a medical term, not a descriptor, by the way), miraculously survived her adolescent suicidal urges, discovered the lifeline that is feminism, and as a result of her experiences I think genuinely and legitimately believed that she was under threat from men and from their supposed capacity for violence. May god's love be with her (whoever he is), but educate yourself about BPD and protect yourself from it!

Overall message: All people are different, and there's always more to something than there seems (no mater how closely you look into it); so respect each other, and have the humility to realise that you can't know everything. And fight this bloody legislation!
Posted by Sam Jandwich, Thursday, 16 June 2011 6:22:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SamI – You admit to not understanding statistics, but perhaps the following simplified version by Deputy Chief Justice John Faulkes, may help in understanding the scale and nature of the problem.
“In 2005, an estimated 1.3 million women aged 18 years and over had experienced partner violence since the age of 15 years. The most common location where women were physically assaulted by a man was in their home or another person's home (64% or 125,000). In 2005, the majority (87%) of women whose most recent experience of physical assault during the last five years was by a partner said that it took place in their home. A vast majority of women reporting incidents of sexual assault by a partner also said they took place in their home or another person's home. Some women experience partner violence while they are pregnant. In 2005, 37% (83,500) of women who were pregnant during the relationship with a violent partner had experienced violence while pregnant. A small proportion (16%) said that the violence occurred for the first time while they were pregnant. In 2005, 60% of women who had experienced partner violence in the last five years had children in their care. Just over two-thirds of these women (68%) said that the children had witnessed the violence. Violent behaviour is often associated with consumption of alcohol or certain drugs. In 2005, of women whose most recent experience of physical or sexual assault was by a partner, a considerable proportion (50% and 46% respectively) said that their partner's consumption of alcohol or drugs had contributed to the incident."
I hope that this helps you to understand the situation, and the need for children to be better protected from such violence, as is proposed in the legislation. Additionally, in general terms, there are 20 children killed in Australia every year by parent - 12 are killed by their natural fathers, 5 are killed by mothers, and 3 are killed by de facto fathers i.e. 75% are killed by males. Do you not think that children need protection from abuse and death?.
Posted by ChazP, Thursday, 16 June 2011 8:30:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sam I'm guessing that you are already aware of the principle catch in Chaz's stats - they only refer to part of the stats. It was pleasing to see all the cries of outrage by those who don't like the blame game in response to Chaz's post.

I've never found particularly good material on fatal assaults of children for all of Australia. I have previously posted some detail from the NSW child death review team at
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11234#189902
and earlier posts. In that case I was looking at trends in fatal assault. Fatal assaults by fathers have dropped significantly in NSW during the period since the changes to family law were introduced, a situation some appear to want to reverse.

What is clear is that generally the risk factors are not primarily about gender, they are about substance abuse, they are about mental illness, they are about the stresses of family breakdown. Those who want to play the gender blame game will continue to focus on violence by men and perpetuate the problem.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 16 June 2011 9:26:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert : Reliable figures can be found at the Australian Institute of Criminology. This is what they have said about child deaths. "There is no mistaking the gross over-representation of fathers as offenders in this period. When the offender was a parent, the offender victim relationship was as follows:
· for 46 victims, fathers were the sole offenders;
· for 11 victims, de facto fathers were the sole offenders (all butone in abuse-type killings);
· for 22 victims, mothers were the sole offenders;
· for seven victims, mothers and fathers or de facto fathers were jointly charged."
No matter how much you may deny or rationalise the issue, there is a gender preponderance in the killing of children.
The major influence on the current reduction in the numbers of child deaths in NSW is due to improved interventions by the police and child protection authorities and the trend was appparent before the 2006 Act. So where and in what way does Shared Parenting come into the equation and what clear and carefully researched evidence do you have to back up such a fanciful speculation.?.
Posted by ChazP, Thursday, 16 June 2011 10:25:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chaz links would help to put the findings you report in context. I have looked at the AIC site previously. Most of what they publish seems to be intepreted findings and not a lot of the detail. It also appears to be running to the "script" on gender issues.

Coverage of Emerging issues in DV is almost entirely written in the context of female victim, male perpetrator except for a brief foray into GLBTI DV
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/rip/1-10/10.aspx

Other material I've found on the site seems to run to the same script, lot's of repeatts of "women and their children", much harder to find "men and their children".

The piece on "Community perceptions of domestic violence" seems to be attitudes to violence against women. Eg again domestic violence is framed entirely along gender lines.
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/cfi/121-140/cfi138.aspx

The closest I've seen to asking the core questions was in "Detainee experience of partner violence" http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/cfi/141-160/cfi154.aspx

Most of the material I've seen on the site showed all the hallmarks of much of the gendered research around, it uses phrases like "women and their children" and "violence against women" regularly, it never really seems to try to show the other side of the equation.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 17 June 2011 7:01:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert - there is no gender bias or prejudice in simple statistics, they merely report what has and is occurring. In such statistics, males are shown to be the major perpetrators of physical and sexual violence in the home and females and children are the main victims. The major concern has to be therefore for those victims. How hard is that to understand as a rational and logical outcome?. There is no conspiracy or prejudice and bias against males in such statistics, despite the mythologies and false memes propagated by FR groups. There is also considerable differences in the types of violence experienced by females, the majority of which are physical and sexual with very serious and longlasting injuries, whilst males report the violence they experience is mainly emotional and psychological, and the effects are only temporary.
I still cannot get a straight answer to questions regarding the false memes of FR groups, as to the claims they are propagating that the Shared Parenting law has in any way affected the number of child deaths, and for any evidence from a Coroner's Inquest that any male has committed suicide because he has been denied contact with his children. The silence of FR groups on these two points is deafening.
If males are experiencing the amount of violence in the home which they claim, and are concerned to protect their children (as you have shown to be), then very simple logic would suggest that they have every reason to support the proposed legislative reforms. Why oppose something which is in your favour and for the benefit of your children?.
Posted by ChazP, Friday, 17 June 2011 1:59:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ChazP

>> males report the violence they experience is mainly emotional and psychological, and the effects are only temporary <<

I feel you have discredited your otherwise reasonable posts with the above sweeping claim.

I agree with you in general - most physical violence is perpetrated by males both in the home and in the public sphere. However, psychological abuse is an issue for both sexes and it is NOT necessarily temporary. This is a very dismissive comment for an extremely nasty type of abuse. Until mental illness is taken as seriously as any other, bullies will continue to get away with ruining many lives.
Posted by Ammonite, Friday, 17 June 2011 2:13:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ChazP, I work in child protection, because I think there is no greater dilemma facing rich and poor alike than the abuse and neglect of children.

And I'll qualify my below remarks by saying that I am at home sick today, and naturally am under the influence of my chosen combination of painandfever relieving agents, Panadeine, Sudafed (you can still get the real stuff in NZ), and Campari, so I reserve the right not to make sense.

I don't dispute that most statistical measures turn up that males are often the perpetrators of domestic violence against their female partners and their children. But firstly, I take this with a grain of salt because there are so many imperfections and inconsistencies in the way research on this issue is done. "violence" is almost always defined differently, and the questions posed, and to whom, produce widely-ranging results as to who reports what.

Secondly, the linking of the preponderance of men-as-perpetrators in statistics to the claim that there is some sort of normative that causes men to resort to violence is a non-sequitur. There are so many factors that contribute to a relationship's spiraling out of control in that way - and rObert has helpfully pointed out that mental illness and substance abuse play a large part (thank you rObert for those references. I promise to check them out forthwith) - that it is impossible to have them represented properly in he-said-she-said dialectics. It is, to use a currently fashionable term, a "wicked problem".

And then there's, I feel personally insulted by the claim that as a man I might have a tendency to use violence. I find such behaviour abhorrent, and unthinkable. and I have yet to see any intellectual argument which doesn't have its origins in the way the person making it feels about themselves, and the projection of same - and thus reflexivity is achieved by writing from a position of self-awareness. And if there are exceptions to a logical relationship, then it is not a logical relationship.
Posted by Sam Jandwich, Friday, 17 June 2011 5:38:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[cont]

So essentially, I think it is quite dangerous to try to combat the problem of domestic violence by focusing on men's tendency to perpetrate it, as to do so oversimplifies the problem, and prevents us from addressing the actual, individual case-by-case reasons why it occurs. What we in the child protection field seek to do is to understand each family's dynamics by spending significant amounts of time with them, observing how they interact, and figuring out how the dysfunction is caused through the interaction, rather than through the individual (though of course individuals are often to blame, and in these cases they are referred to the police).

In sum, to blame maleness for domestic violence is to put the cart before the horse.
Posted by Sam Jandwich, Friday, 17 June 2011 5:39:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chaz of course there can be bias in simple statistics, if those who collect the stat's are so imersed in their own bias's that they fail to do anything except try to confirm what they already believe the simple statictics will normally give the result's they seek.

I know I'm wasting a post telling you that, this is for the benefit of others who may not love the bias. Ask yourself how many pieces of research have you seen that gave any real indication of testing the underlying claims of massive gender disparity in family violence. If you think about it most will start with an introduction including a statement that the majority of domestic violence is perpetrated by men then go on never questioning that assumption.

There are papers which do ask the question, you will find Flood going all out to try and discredit the methodology but you won't find Chaz quoting the relevant sectiond from them.

For a start a somewhat dated piece of Australian research which set's the theme for what I'm trying to describe about asking the question
http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/dom/heady99.htm - to get in ahead of the almost inevitable claims about CTS some material by Murray Straus on the criticisms http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CTS4.pdf

The section on DV from a NZ longitudinal multidisciplinary
health and development study http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/170018.pdf

Strauss and Gelles have been asking the question for a long time and finding little difference in perpetration rates. Perhaps start with this piece by Gelles http://www.breakingthescience.org/RichardGelles_MissingPersonsOfDV.php

A small edited quote from that article (word limit - check the link for the rest)
"Murray Straus has found that every study among more than 30 describing some type of sample that is not self-selective has found a rate of assault by women on male partners that is about the same as the rate by men on female partners."

There is a lot more that shows the same thing but it does not help the cause of those trying to make this stuff about gender so they do whatever they can to discredit it and the researchers involved.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 17 June 2011 7:14:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ammonite : My statement regarding the fact that males mainly report emotional and psychological abuse, and say it is a temporary condition, has been shown by research. No I will not point to such research, as I have repeatedly requested the evidence for the assertions that the Shared Parenting laws have somehow affected the number child killings in NSW, and the documentary evidence that `hundreds’ of fathers have killed themselves [LFAA] because they were refused contact with their children, two of the main claims of FR groups in opposing the reforming legislation.
SamJ If you work in child protection you will be aware that children suffer immense abuse both directly and indirectly, during incidents of violence in the home. These reforms do not and could not, “combat the problem of domestic violence”. That would require much greater attention to the problem by statutory and community services, and lots more resources to do so. Family Law could never do so, no matter how it is framed.
The purpose of the reforms are to ensure that children and young people are protected from harm and exploitation (their Right under international and Australian laws) when determinations are made in Family Courts regarding their future care and welfare. This is to be done by identifying all of the possible ways in which domestic violence occurs, even financial abuse by failure to pay child maintenance.
The definitions to be used in the reforms closely align with those which have been used in Victoria for some years, but every State has its own definitions just as it has its own Child Protection laws, definitions of child abuse, and different methods of collating statistics. A single Commonwealth definition of domestic violence is urgently necessary, just as there is a need for a single Commonwealth Child Protection law. Child protection should not be a matter of a Postcode lottery dependent on which State a child happens to live in.Domestic violence involves a persecutor/aggressor and vulnerable victims. It is not about intra-familial interactions, but about power and control by a stronger character seeking absolute domination over those victims.
Posted by ChazP, Friday, 17 June 2011 7:17:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear ChazP

I don't wish to engage in a slanging match, but I have made a study of people who psychologically bully and the perps are very much evenly divided between men and women. Even the average GP knows psychological scarring is as permanent if not more so than physical wounds.

Below is link to an article published in 1986, it is just as relevant today. In fact the shame of it is that it was published so long ago and is still relevant.

Robert

How is that women are only more physically violent than men in the home? Wouldn't this 'trait' have shown up across society? Pub brawls, rape, equal numbers of homicide?

This is where you and I part company. I do not paint women as angels any more than I believe all men are physically violent - this is a minority of people we are discussing not the majority of women and men who manage their lives reasonably well.

Women are better equipped for psychological abuse than immediate violence, however, some men use both methods of abuse as do some women. Psychological or physical we wind up with damaged children and this is where many people seem to lose the plot.

It is not about who 'wins' custody. It is about the well being of every child.
Posted by Ammonite, Saturday, 18 June 2011 9:19:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ammonite I think that men and women are pretty similar in regards to the frequency of violence in the home. Most of the material I've seen suggests that at the extreme end of the scale women receive more serious injuries than men, that makes sense men are generally stronger. At the same time there are some correlations between mutual violence and the seriousness of injuries.

I think roles are different in and outside the home. Men have largely been socialised to provide for and protect in the home, outside it's compete and prove yourself. Clearly there are exceptions. Most men don't get social credit for beating up someone obviously smaller than themselves (again there are exceptions).

As I've said previously I think that other factors are far bigger predictors of in home violence, child abuse etc, than gender.

"It is not about who 'wins' custody. It is about the well being of every child." - agreed but taken to the extreme that becomes an excuse for some pretty awful treatment of people. There are those that use similar arguments to attack working mum's, the right to leave an abusive relationship etc. There is no magic formula for the perfect life for every child, the raising of children will always be juggling act between the needs of the child and the needs of the adult's responsible for them.

Child residency does matter, it matters because people don't often do well when they are forced out of their kid's lives, it matters because often two parents do bring some good things to a child's life that one can't on their own (and there are exceptions), it matters because the winner takes all combined with a damaging child support system can make it hard for either parent to move on with their lives.

There was another thread sometime back which started based on plan's to introduce into family law some statements about men being primarily responsible for DV (profiling), that combined with the proposed treatment of allegations creates a very dangerous combination.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Saturday, 18 June 2011 9:56:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is a good example to illustrate how Shared Parenting laws affect the lives of children. A drug-addicted, violent father in prison given contact with a five year old.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/toddler-forced-to-visit-prison/story-fn7x8me2-1226031641323

How much more toxic and dangerous does a parent have to be before denied contact and even custody of their children under the Shared Parenting laws?. This clearly demostrates that parental rights under the Shared Parenting laws are treated as inalienable and little, if any, concern is given to the rights of the child to be protected from harm.
But I suppose, that the FR groups would argue that this father would be a suicide risk if he was denied contact, or that child killings would increase, or he would go `planking' on Sydney Harbour Bridge when he got out.
Posted by ChazP, Saturday, 18 June 2011 10:35:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oooops, apologies ChazP, didn't paste link to article:

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1986-09-18/news/8602250353_1_abuse-child-development-parents

Robert

It is the 21st century and women are as active outside the domestic sphere as they are in it. As a result there has been a rise in criminal behaviour by women - no argument from me. However, men still commit the bulk of violence, mostly towards other men. Why you and other men who post here try to 'prove' women as physically MORE violent is beyond my understanding. If you care about yourself and your brothers and children in general you would be working WITH women rather than trying to alienate the sexes from each other.

There is so much wrong with the current family laws which are more about tearing children apart (50/50 custody) than solving fundamental issues. Many men do not know how to verbalise their feelings and use physical force instead. If this is not of concern to you, it should be. It is precisely these problems that Michael Flood has tried to identify and resolve and you dismiss such men.

The way we socialise both men and women in their childhood does not work for some (the minority we are discussing here) unfortunately the ramifications of this minority generates huge ripples into the wider community. Sad but true.

ChazP and Robert

I have presented a discussion thread on Narcissism, while it is not specifically about this topic it does look at the effects of bullies on people's lives.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4516
Posted by Ammonite, Saturday, 18 June 2011 11:53:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Why you and other men who post here try to 'prove' women as physically MORE violent is beyond my understanding" - Ammonite again you misrepresent what I and others are saying. You add the MORE, either you are being deliberatly dishonest or you are so tied to your paradimes that you read into what others are posting what's just not there.

Do you understand the difference between rough equivalence and MORE?

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Saturday, 18 June 2011 12:48:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ammonite - Narcissism is much, much more than mere bragging, when it occurs in a psychopathic personality. It is a belief and attitude of supremacy and superiority over all others. They believe they are unquestioningly right and irrefutable in their beliefs. To challenge them is to risk a violent confrontation and an abusive retort. They believe their perception of the world and `reality' is absolutely correct, and that others have to be made see the world as they see it. There is usually a grain of truth as their starting point, but as they continue in a tirade of didactic and dogmatic statements, the flaws and distortions begin to appear. Similarly their actions are always justified in their minds, and they take no responsibility for their actions when clearly shown to be wrong. Then it is others to blame, they were provoked by any disagreement of the other, or at most it was a momentary lapse in their otherwise perfect personality and behaviour.
Such characters are fascinating to watch in a Court Room as they twist and wriggle, deny the obvious, fabricate, distort, and embellish their evidence and become persistently repetitive in their arguments. As they lack emotions and feelings and have no sympathy or empathy for their victims, or remorse for their malicious actions, they become frighteningly inhuman.
Posted by ChazP, Saturday, 18 June 2011 1:22:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chazzp.

Re smh article: How does 30 minutes of supervised contact constitute shared parenting or giving custody to a drug addicted criminal?

Further, get the facts straight. This was not ordered under the “shared parenting” laws, assuming you mean the Federal Family Law (shared parental responsibility) Act 2006, but under the Victorian Children, Youth and Families Act 2005, which does not incorporate this presumption, by the State Childrens Court and enforced by State DHS. How does this single unrelated aberration justify Federal reform that will make 40% of children fatherless supposedly to protect them?

This newspaper article is as persuasive as your previously proffered evidence that shared parenting laws force children to live with paedophiles, namely, J & W [1999] FamCA 1002 - a mentally ill Mother, who was psychologically harming the child, ALLEGED that the Father was a paedophile who had raped his son and would deliberately infect his daughter with AIDS for the purpose of preventing supervised contact to continue outside her home. She admitted she lied.

Your troll agenda is obvious. Stop boring us with half-truths and obsessive misrepresentation – women don't lie for custody advantage, yeah right. Why wasn't Ms Ellis censured
Posted by Howard Beale, Saturday, 18 June 2011 1:31:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is another deception in Ammonite's post worth mentioning.

The oft used tactic of suggesting that because someone does not support a particular solution or accept every claim made to support the proposed solution that they don't care about any of the real parts of the issue.

Eg everyone against the invasion of Iraq must not have cared at all about the way Saddam treated people. Anyone against Julia's carbon tax must not care about the environment. Anyone against the curent approach to the war on drugs much not care at all about the harm drugs do. The list could go on and on.

In short a nasty tactic used to try and misrepresent an opponenets position, it's either a symptom of extremely rigid thinking or a deliberate misrepresentation.

A return to maternal bias which is the likely net effect of the proposed changes won't improve child safety, it won't improve outcomes for any involved. It is likely to ramp up the tensions in a lot of families which are not otherwise at the extreme's by giving one parent a powerful tool to grab the kid's the family property and ongoing financial support based on little or no evidence.

Any changes to family law should work to reduce tensions for the vast bulk of families and deal with the exceptions as exceptions not the norm.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Saturday, 18 June 2011 1:32:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ChazP

I know the difference - if you had actually read the posts on my thread, you would know where I was going despite the 'simplistic' heading of "bragging".

Robert

I can only post from what I sincerely believe or know to be true, nor have I stated anything that cannot be verified.

You are making a simple attempt to discredit everything I say by implying deception. Nice bit of projective transference - well done.

To you both. Unlike you I do not regard nor treat you as simpletons or liars because I disagree with SOME of your points. If you cannot respond in kind then you are simply wasting my time.
Posted by Ammonite, Saturday, 18 June 2011 1:58:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It seems pretty pointless to continue the debate with Ammonite.

Just for the sake of anyone who is questioning, like the author I think DV is an equal opportunity crime, not that women are MORE violent than men as Ammonite has claimed I've said. The closest I've ever come to that would be stats that show women initiate violence in the home slightly more often than men - hardly surprising given the campaigns against violence by men. Women harm children more often but children spend more time in their care, all other things being equal I don't think that there is a significant difference.

Men are responsible for more of the serious injuries to women and a greater proportion of spousal murders. Men are also responsible for significantly more overt child sexual abuse than women.

I think that the prevelance of emotional and psychological abuse are poorly known and do need to be treated far more seriously, again the problem being how to do so without the research ending up in the hands of those with agenda's that they put ahead of truth.

R0ber
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 20 June 2011 7:38:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
as Fractelle, once again, falls back to the victim position...

Hahahahaha r0bert, you'll never learn.

Played like a violin.
Posted by Houellebecq, Monday, 20 June 2011 9:44:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Houellebecq, you are correct. I've never really worked out how to handle those tactics in a way that I'm happy with.

I don't want to stoop to the same level and don't seem to be wired to just brush it off.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 20 June 2011 10:06:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RObert, simple rule of anonymous online interactions: just don't acknowledge anyone you think is crazy. Works every time!
Posted by Sam Jandwich, Monday, 20 June 2011 3:31:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sam why do people keep then?

I've tried to avoid drawing that conclusion, it almost seems like the lazy way out regardless of how tempting it is.

The exchange provides a good illustration of problems of acting on allegations.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 21 June 2011 5:42:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The debate hits the air tonight on ABC Tony Delroy's nightlife.

"Wednesday June 22nd Is family law looking after children? Richard Spence from the Benevolent Society and child protection expert Professor Freda Briggs explore this sometimes contentious issue"
http://www.abc.net.au/nightlife/

I have a bad feeling Briggs & Spence both support the Family Violence Bill - protect children by removing their parents

Thanks to Kids First. Support Mick who climbed the Sydney Harbour Bridge on facebook.
Posted by Howard Beale, Wednesday, 22 June 2011 2:51:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 19
  7. 20
  8. 21
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy