Patricia, it's hard to take your "offence" too seriously when you equate being called "dear" with being hit with a fist.

It sounds more like dudgeon at being caught out telling porkies to me. Have you notified the administrators of your deliberately misleading author profile? you know, the one that claims you write on behalf of a group that doesn't exist except in your own mind.

Chaz, nice of you to confirm you regard dishonesty and duplicity as fair practise, I think I'll use your quote as a sig. I'll make sure you get proper attribution, of course...

Pelican:"There is a bias in DV towards women because that is where history has shown the most need"

Not exactly... For example, here's a link to a correction from Monash University of a key publication relied on by the Government in its reforms to Family Law.

http://www.monash.edu.au/news/releases/show/corrections-to-a-publication-and-media-release-from-monash-university

In a nutshell, it acknowledges that the report made claims of fact that were based not on the data, but on the researcher's mistaken reframing of that data.

"The statement in the book states (and again references the 2001 FLPAG Report) that one third of couples in Australia attribute their separation to severe domestic violence. This statement is incorrect. The presenters to the FLPAG Committee (not the couples themselves) assessed one-third of the domestic violence experienced by 65% of women and 55% of men in failed relationships as severe. Thus, it is at most 33% of 65% of couples whose separation could be attributed to severe domestic violence, and not "one-third" of such couples as stated in the book.

Secondly, on page 111 of the book there is a statement which reads "some 30% of all marriages in Australia fail because of domestic violence". This statement is also incorrect and the figures that have been relied upon in making this statement are incorrect. "

Prof Brown is to be commended for correcting the record. Hopefully some Ms will have sufficient courage to amend their views accordingly.

--

"The selective use/misuse of information is part and parcel of any debate."

ChazP 14/7/2011

Robert ~ the figures you quote are a gross misuse of data and statistics. Again you are trying to compare apples with pears. DV is defined in those studies as ''hitting, shoving or throwing things at you.'". A study of two-year-olds would record similar conduct. I don't think such a definition even begins to define domestic violence used against females. Nor do those studies record the impact of such badly defined `domestic violence', which were contained in mt original questions to you and your answer being to throw up these junk science studies as an answer - they are no kind of quatitative nor qualitative measure whatsoever. Try to quote us figures that begin to resemble domestic violence as it is defined in the proposed legislation, and which includes the nature of the injuries suffered by the victim.
'Hitting, shoving, and throwing things' (did they actually strike their targets?) is no measure at all of the very serious violence perpetrated on females.
Now please answer my original questions with studies which examine with qualitative and quantitative measures the incidence of domestic violence against males.
So these are the figures that are relied on by Male Supremacist grubs, and it is very clear their claims are a gross misrepresentation and misleading and false, as are their claims about child abuse. This is not only misusing junk `research', it is abusing it to utter falsehoods.

So, "attempting" violence and failing is OK.

Right.

Can we now assume all attempts of DV by males, that are not successful will also be scrapped from the stats?

A whole class of "attempted" crimes could go out the window.

Chop chop

Rusty

Dear Chazp

>> So these are the figures that are relied on by Male Supremacist grubs, <<

While I agree that many (not all links) by some of the permanently aggrieved male posters are to pro-male web-sites - they are not "grubs". They may not shower frequently, I have no idea about their cleanliness regime, but please don't descend to the depths that Antiseptic and others inhabit.

And here we are, still arguing about violence perpetrated by men and women, still nothing about the best outcomes for children, just people trying to find excuses to inflict violence (for door slamming etc) and others who try to point out that the bulk of physical violence is perpetrated by men, but we must remember to include that some women do behave violently as well - or we will be claimed as acting in some uber-feminist conspiracy.

All I had to do to be punched to the floor was disagree with my ex - I am not prone to door slamming, I have never hit anyone in my life, I did try to walk out the door once but was dragged back. Yep, I am guilty of disagreeing with my EX husband and I still stand my ground despite insults and threats, because insults and threats do not solve anything.

Rusty Cat ~ Read. study, and absorb the definition of DV as stated in the proposed legislation and then tell us how `Hitting, shoving, and throwing things' begin to match up. These are what the FR groups are arguing are minor acts of DV and similar infringements for which they (fathers) will be unfairly targetted for. "She shouted at me, M'Lud, and gave my dinner to the dog, just because I hid in my shed for a few hours, and it hurt my delicate (male) feelings."
I'm sure that Family Courts will not simply look at the actual act of domestic violence within those definitions, but the injurious consequences for the victims. That is where scientifically conducted research which offers both quantitative and qualitative analysis would be helpful, not only to the Courts, but to other concerned observers of the scourge of DV which now plagues our society.

Antiseptic, I guess it’s easier to deflect the glaring light of contradiction to anything other than the obvious issue that you refuse to apologise for your abuse.

I wrote- “Do you not understand that in using verbal violence, you might as well be punching with your fists? Verbal and physical violence is symptomatic of domestic violence, and it is just bullying. In the same way, written violence is just cyber bullying.”

Verbal abuse can hurt as much as being hit with a fist. Being called “dear” can be totally endearing, but the way you use it, I understand you that it is an insult. You are stating “dear” in the condescending context. It is meant to be insulting, not endearing.

I pointed out to you- verbal abuse is dangerous both because it intended to hurt the victim of it and it is designed to reduce the humanness of the person to whom it is directed. In some cases, it is only one more step towards more lethal human rights abuses because lethal violence occurs after abusers first dehumanise their victims.

You called me and others on this forum "dogs" "grubs" and "creatures". You do not argue from credible data and research.You do not critique the issue. Instead, you have repeatedly continued to insult me and others who disagree with you in personal ways.

I said the org is dormant - not dead. It still exists by the democratic will of the members. They do not wish for it to cease. Your humanity though, may already have.

Prove me wrong by apologising for your cyber violence and verbal abuse. Otherwise, you are just a cyber bully and cannot speak of behalf of fathers "falsely" accused of abuse claiming their innocence.

In the same way as their partners, I am not "falsely" accusing you of being a cyber bully. The proof is in your posts.