"But if you harm my sisters, do not expect mercy."

And there lies another part of the problem. This fake sisterhood that some women seem to think is good. They will stick up for their "sisters" no matter how in the wrong the sisters are when the dispute is with a man or men.

ChazP made it quite clear earlier in the thread just how extreme her views on DV are but the sisters continue to focus on behaviours by Anti (only women can treat people with that kind of verbal abuse apparently).

The issue is not about anti, it about a blatant attempt by the mothers lobby to get maternal bias back into family law under the pretence of a highly gendered view of DV and a passion for unsubstantiated allegations.

Lot's of denial that false allegations would ever occur, exagerated claims of the level of DV, utterly one sided examples of abuse, mum's actually do more of the substantiated abuse and neglect because they have the kid's more yet the only examples this crowd can come up with are the ones where the male is in the wrong.

Pathetic and disgusting. None of you have the least concern for child welfare, instead looking for way's to hide behind your lies to help yourselves or your self serving sisters.

R0bert

R0bert:"(only women can treat people with that kind of verbal abuse apparently)"

Abuse? Really? Surely even those possessed of the most insubstantial integument should be able to withstand the "assault" of being called dear without shedding too much hair? As I said, careful breeders... Wish I'd taken more care with the old testimonals.

R0bert, you forgot to mention the generalising from extremes. Ammonite was man enough to acknowledge the tiny scale of the problem, so she deserves some credit for that.

Patricia, my Mum was a lovely woman who died very young at 56 from metastadized liver cancer. My Dad was also an exemplary man, who went so far as to obtain a job at Peat Island psychiatric hospital, situated on the Hawkesbury River, to be close to his first wife who became deranged through diabets before insulin had become widely available.

Frankly, if my Mum was around she'd call you a grub. She'd be right.

Septic ~ "While I've no doubt that Chaz would love to hit me" - where on earth do you get your ideas from?. You really do make some entirely unfounded assumptions about me. I deplore any form of physical violence by one person on another and particularly the violence and abuse experienced by children, a matter on which you seem to have little or no concern, despite your own sufferings. Do you not care about others who are similarly suffering?. The vast majority of those who repeatedly use violence on others are pathologically disordered and should be psychiatrically assessed and registered as such on a publicly available national database. Only in this way can the population begin to be protected from such persons.
Robert - my views are far from being extreme as there is national and widespread concern regarding the increasing incidence of violence, and the need to protect children from such violence. This is particularly so among informed politicians and policy forming groups e.g. AIFS, Family Law Council, researchers/academics etc. It is the dinosaurs and dodos in the Father's Rights groups who are completely oblivious to and in denial of this very serious situation in our society, because they are well aware of the implications for themselves and those they represent of any policy decisions on this issue. The reasons for their stance is pretty obvious to anyone with even a modicum of intelligence. Their only concern is for poor old Dads who they claim will kill themselves when this legislation is passed. They have no evidence whatsoever that this will occur and can give no past events of such having happened.

Look, I think you are all becoming a bit overwrought on this recurring topic of domestic violence and Family Law Act.

RObert- "The issue is not about anti, it about a blatant attempt by the mothers lobby to get maternal bias back into family law under the pretence of a highly gendered view of DV and a passion for unsubstantiated allegations."

I really can't see how all these women's groups can 'get maternal bias back into family law' when it was never there in the first place?

Why or how would a vastly male-run parliament allow this to happen?
Surely they would be enacting laws on the proper evidence they have from law enforcement and medical agencies?
What would they (parliamentarians) have to gain by obviously creating a maternal biased system when most likely most of them are fathers?

ChazP- "It is the dinosaurs and dodos in the Father's Rights groups who are completely oblivious to and in denial of this very serious situation in our society, because they are well aware of the implications for themselves and those they represent of any policy decisions on this issue."

I doubt many of the men in the father's groups are elderly ChazP, and I doubt they are all violent or insane either!
Many of the men in these groups may well have been hard done by from some 'dodo' women who with-held their rights to see their own kids simply because they are angry at the men.
We cannot assume that all the men are at fault in these acrimonious separations, just as we can't blame all women either.

Obviously, both genders can and are to blame for acrimonious breakups, whether it be because of emotional or physical issues at the heart of the problems.

The Family Court must take each case brought before it on it's own merits, with no gender bias allowed at all. If the children get to spend more time with one parent or the other, then it should be because it is better for the kids, and should not be seen as a gender war.

Women do defend other women, so do men with other men, just look at this forum, far more men verbally diminishing women than the other way around, even accounting for any bias I might hold myself.

When you have experienced another women's pain after the experience of rape and assault and had the support of other women yourself there is much comfort in the 'sisterhood'. Sisterhood it is no different than the concept of mateship - nothing wrong with that as long as integrity is not lost along the way and guilty people are allowed to go free or perpetrate other criminal acts because of the 'boys' club mentality. There is remnants still of an old culture of minimising the man's responsibility in these cases by emphasising the women's contribution no matter how small eg. what she was wearing, she was drunk, she was flirting, she was walking alone at night.

Which specific parts of the Family Law Act are unfair? There has already been great leaps forward in shared parenting and the mother is not automatically given full custody. There is certainly more work to be done in affordability particularly for low income men who struggle to live a life just below or above the poverty line while trying to keep up their obligations of child support where parenting is not shared, particularly when this living standard may impact negatively on access or overnight stays etc.

But the anti-female tones that continue to reverberate in these threads is really something to ponder on how personal feelings can completely blur the lines of reality and fairplay.

Pelican, you seem to be saying that a woman has no responsibility at all for her own outcomes. For example, walking alone at night is dangerous for both genders. There are some areas in which I would simply not do so. Why should a woman be able to claim some sort of special pleading if she does something dumb and it goes wrong? Dumb is dumb and we tend to be less-sympathetic to people whose dumb actions ended in them getting hurt. If a jaywalker gets hit by a car they get much less sympathy than if they were using the pedestrian crossing just down the street. they might even get charged with causing the incident and have to pay for the damage to the car.

Sure, in a perfect world rape would not happen, assaults would never have been invented and everyone would live blissed out on love and peace, man. It didn't happen in the 60s and it isn't going to happen now, therefore we need to be a little careful.

There is nothing wrong with empathy, but it is easily perverted into blind loyalty, something that Feminism has relied on to propagate itself, just as extemist movements have always done. Read Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" if you want a complete exposition.