And there are no anti-female comments on these threads.

More double standards.

"I know some don't need much excuse or will invent one if it's not available but that's not entirely the case here."

Another form of denial and obfuscation RObert. You are better than that.

R0bert, I shall do as you suggest, but I reserve the right to respond in kind to the scurrilous rubbish.

Patricia, I do not withdraw anything. I apologise if you were offended, but my comments were made with sincerity and reflect my true opinion. However, I shall endeavour to refrain from such utterances as long as you refrain from telling great big porkies and snide remarks.

Are you man enough?

Pelican, I've made no "anti-female" comments. I've made specific comments about some people who happen to be female, because they made fatuous and offensive comments. I do the same to males who do so, although I see no reason to address the more egregious comments as I can't see how it will make a difference and I rarely address male posters at all on these gender threads: either they're ranting or their comments stand alone and need no support.

For example, I try to respond to you comprehensively, Patricia somewhat less so, Ammonite dismissively and ChazP with contempt. This reflects the relative merits of your commentary in my view. Poor old Suze is just a cheerleader who's trying desperately to be part of the team.

I will agree that I make many "anti-feminist" comments, because I think Feminism is a doctrine that is doomed to fail and fail badly. It is predicated on a faulty proposition: that women are helpless hapless victims of men, which is patently false. On the back of this "big lie" has been built a veritable tower of straw, albeit very nicely furnished and all paid for by men's efforts and housing thousands upon thousands of women who really, truly believe thet they're underprivileged if a single man does better than the average woman.

Once upon a time my Dad really believed that women were objects of reverence, to be cossetted and spoilt and treated like princesses. He even inculcated a similar view in me. That I no longer hold that view is entirely due to the efforts of feminists. Well done, thanks.

pelican that's all pretty pointless. I disagree with you and like anti reserve the right to rebut accusations levelled against myself (and others if I'm in the mood).

I have been very specific that I'm not suggesting that women are not more violent than men, that I think the real factors lie elsewhere (substance abuse, poverty, mental health etc). Do I need to keep repeating that?

I'd like the focus to move off who does more DV and onto how to reduce the prevalence of it and the impacts of it. That's not possible while there is widespread acceptance of the the clearly false line that it's something men do (and ever so rarely by women).

At best female DV gets excused on the basis of feminist theories of power or by looking at the extreme end of the harm spectrum, neither approach cut's it when it comes to stopping DV or determining issues of child residency.

On this topic it's clear that the supporters of the proposed changes are trying to play off gender based perceptions about DV, perceptions that are clearly false in the facts although not the spin.

Honest people do have something to fear from false accusations especially if the changes occur and accusations are acted on without safeguards - eg allowing a pattern of child residency to be set early.

If the law also contains profiling statements about DV (a topic which was covered in an article some months ago) then it's clearly going to put dads at a massive disadvantage (and yes men can make false accusations but if the law gets to include a statement that men do most DV then that won't be much use will it?).

At best the proposed changes will bring an increased level of conflict between parents, in rare cases they may save a kid from living with a dangerous parent but what's proposed makes it look like they will have the child living with the parent best able to manipulate the system.

R0bert

C’mon Robert stop trying to be so naive and innocent. The selective use/misuse of information is part and parcel of any debate. It is not a crime, or the FamilyLawWebGuide would have been forcibly closed down many years ago. Try also reading the statements made to the Senate Committee by Sue Pryce and Barry Williams. But of course they are long-practiced in such arts and know as well as anyone, that it is for the other side in the debate to use other information to refute and rebut what is stated in selective use of information. The most blatant example of the misuse of information is the constant quoting of statistics that mothers are most commonly recorded by child protection agencies for child abuse. I have explained on more than one occasion that such bare statistics are a gross misrepresentation of the situation and are virtually worthless as any kind of guide to the incidence and nature of child abuse, yet they are still frequently quoted to support other weak arguments advanced by the male supremacist lobby.
You for example keep arguing about how many males suffer domestic violence, yet despite being frequently challenged to do so, can produce no statistics of its incidence and nature. Yet it still remains one of your major platforms.
As for Septic, I would suggest that he has nothing whatsoever to contribute to this debate, except insulting words and pejorative invective, so from now on his postings should be completely ignored. I will certainly be doing so, rather than feeding his inflated ego and grossly attention-seeking conduct.

AIFS - "Impacts of childhood exposure to domestic violence
Research on children exposed to domestic violence indicates that there are a range of impacts that such children are likely to experience.
Psychological and behavioural impacts
Most research has focused on the psychological and/or behavioural impacts experienced by children exposed to domestic violence. The research literature documents the following psychological and/or behavioural impacts:• depression;• anxiety;• trauma symptoms;• increased aggression;• antisocial behaviour;• lower social competence;• temperament problems;• low self-esteem;• the presence of pervasive fear;• mood problems; • loneliness;• school difficulties;• peer conflict;• impaired cognitive functioning; and/or• increased likelihood of substance abuse. Herrenkohl et al. (2008) also list eating disorders, teenage pregnancy, leaving school early, suicide attempts, delinquency and violence as potential consequences of child abuse and/or childhood exposure to domestic violence.
Health and socioeconomic impacts
Research has also indicated that there are significant health and socioeconomic problems resulting from childhood exposure to domestic violence. The physical impacts of exposure to domestic violence on children have rarely been documented, due to the difficulty of differentiating children exposed to domestic violence from victims of other forms of child abuse. This is particularly problematic given that children often intervene in pisodes of domestic violence (Bedi & Goddard 2007). A study by Saltzman et al. (cited in Clements, Oxtoby & Ogle 2008) found, however, that children from violent homes had significantly higher heart rates than other children, even fter direct child abuse was controlled for."
Clearly those who arew opposing the proposed amendments want this situation to continue.

“Patricia, I do not withdraw anything. “ Antiseptic, it appears that you have NOT apologised. This is not an apology.

You have not withdrawn your use of the words “dogs” grub” & “creature” to me and others on this forum who have not agreed with your opinion. You are not sorry that you have abused out humanity by calling us "dogs", "grubs" and "creatures".

You are the one that has engaged with “scurrilous rubbish” because we do not turn into "dogs", "grubs" and "creatures" upon disagreeing with you.

“I apologise if you were offended, but” - is also not an apology. The fact remains that I AM OFFENDED at you labelling me and others on this forum as “dogs”, “grub” and ALL your analogies to kennels, bones, mess etc.

I am offended because you in effect have done what abusers have done- they call people- human beings - names that degrade , diminish, put down and offend their humanness.

I am a human being and you have no right to call me a “dog” “a grub” “a creature etc, just because I don’t agree with you.

You also have no right to refer to Chaz and others that disagree with you in terms of "dogs" and "creatures" with their "bones" and "maternal bias kennels". You are not superior to them by using these types of abuses. In fact- it diminished your arguments and betrays your character as a human.

It is irrelevant how “sincere” you believe your comments are. Sincerity does not justify your use of demeaning language with those you disagree with.

Your abuse is abuse is abuse no matter how sincerely you believe your intention is.

I do agree that the use of these dehumanising words reflect your true opinion. Your opinion of me and anyone that does not agree with you is that we are NOT HUMAN- you have called us “dogs” ”grubs” and “creatures”. You have referred to us as less than human.

“Are you man enough?” you challenge? The appropriate question is- are you human enough to properly apologise and not repeat such abuse?