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?

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.

<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.

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.

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.

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.