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

'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.'

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 :)

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.

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.

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