Antiseptic, well said. I'd been pondering why it keeps being suggested that mostly male politicians would not do stuff that disadvantaged other men. It seems to some that the idea of putting gender ahead of other considerations unless it's really close to home just does not register.

We can disagree and happily challenge each others thinking even within gender threads but the best Ammonite could offer up was rebutting ChazP over a comment about mental health (maybe a little more close to home than some other issues). None of the women apparently can even see the problem with her claim that the incidence of kid's seeing violence against dad's and stepdad's is non-existant nor the subsequent pointing out that the same report has very similar figures for that to those of kid's who have seen violence against their mum or step mum.

None seem to see a problem with repeated false claims about what we have said despite repeated clarifications, it's just what they do and it does sidetrack the discussion and keep it off those inconvenient truths.

R0bert

Now maybe back to the topic for a bit. I just came across this one while trying to find the Donnivan Research report
http://www.science.uwa.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/118532/Australian_Institue_of_Criminology-Trends_and_Issues_No195-Yound_Australians_And_Domestic_Violence.pdf

"Up to one-quarter of young people in Australia have witnessed an
incident of physical or domestic violence against their mother or
stepmother. These findings come from a survey of 5,000 Australians
aged between 12 and 20 from all States and Territories in Australia.
Data of this nature have not been available before, and it must be
noted that what is included within the rate of witnessing varied considerably depending on the nature of household living arrangements.

For example, the witnessing of male to female parental violence ranged from 14 per cent for those young people living with both parents to 41 per cent for those living with “mum and her partner”. Young people of lower socioeconomic status were about one and a half times more likely to be aware of violence towards their mothers or fathers than those from upper socioeconomic households. Indigenous youth were significantly more likely to have experienced physical domestic violence amongst their parents or parents’ partners. In the case of male to female violence, the rate was 42 per cent compared to 23 per cent for all respondents, and for female to male violence the rate was 33 per cent compared to 22 per cent."

On this topic it's noteworthy that the headline part is about violence against mothers and stepmothers yet their own figures show a 1% difference based on gender yet a massive difference based on other factors. 23% vs 22% is not statistically significant in any meaningfull way.

and
"Victimisation surveys ask women about the violence they have experienced and some of these surveys also ask women whether, to their knowledge, children had witnessed the violence."

"Thus, the gender disparity commonly recognised in domestic violence, and reflected in criminal statistics, is revealed by the subjective experience of the aggression: girls are at least four times as likely as boys to have been frightened by an episode of intimate aggression."

Out of space, more to come.

R0bert

<Robert, Jamesh, Antiseptic et al, you only care about your perspective and no-one else's; not other men, women and least of all the children you claim to be concerned about - to which I direct you to point 3 above.

You need help:

Posted by Ammonite, Tuesday, 12 July 2011 1:07:32 PM>

One of the most common comments I hear from other men, is that even if they win an arguement with a woman, they still loose.

Another male commented on how women even in a work perspective will make things personal.

Having more than my fair share of battle scars from getting involved in 'debates' with members of your gender Ammonite, I have learnt to pick (some of the times) when it gets unfair and dirty.

The twisting of an arguement usually starts with making an exaggerated claim like;

<, due to a minority of disenchanted people determined to prove that women are a greater threat to family life than men.>
Posted by Ammonite, Monday, 11 July 2011 9:29:>

or Suzies fall back position about who inflicts the most physical damage.

Then there is the labelling and name calling.

<4. Proving one sex is somehow 'worse' than the other is not only counterproductive but pointless.>

Good point, however, is that not exactly what feminism has done for the last 30 or 40 years?

Many of the current crop of feminists, will still claim that women are much worse off than men and will set out to try and prove it.

You mentioned being 'selective' or 'cherry picking' yet again that is exactly what feminist's have done and continue to do.

Over the last 30 or 40 years, awareness of DV has been carefully regulated and controlled, policies developed, yet it is claimed that these policies are not working.

So the next question would be "Why aren't they working?" and "What is being missed?"

The answer is the invisible perpetrators. The perpetrators that have been deliberately excluded from the research.

http://www.responsibleopposing.com/comment/lasttime.html

<My father explained that the world requires men only to be responsible and accountable for their thoughts, their feelings and their actions. Women, he suggested, are always permitted to blame others for what they think and feel and do. My mother, he explained, would maintain her belief that I had "made her hit me first" and would insist that I needed to change so that "she wouldn't have to yell at me or hit me ever again.">

Makes for an interesting read, but then the one's who really, really need to read it, will find ways to discount what this man has to say

RObert
I am not oblivious to anti-male comments but they are rare - please show me an example. I don't see the comments by those people named above as guilty of some blind sisterhood conspiracy. You seem to be oblivious to the tirade of anti-female comments and I am not talking about the usual fallback position which falsely labels disagreements as anti-male.

Every time a female disagrees it is suddenly anti-male. Every time a male poster happens to take a more egalitarian view they are 'sucking up' to the women or are labelled as emasculated (pomeranian comments come to mind). Are you seriously suggesting that there have not been some appalling comments made about women on these sorts of gender threads that go beyond the 'disagreement' scenario.

I care less about gender than you think despite Antispetic's generalisations about the individualism of men as opposed to the 'pack' mentality of women. While I generally get on with men better than women, I find the opposite to be true in my experience - just look at the footy culture and pack mentality of men when they have been drinking. I have witnessed situations where men are less likely to support a women if it means losing the 'respect' of his male colleagues.

The sisterhood is something some men say when they wish to diminish the views of women. I've seen it many times in RL not just on OLO. When women agree suddenly it is a grand conspiracy when men do, it just happens to be coincidental despite all that burgeoning individuality.

The generalisations tend to characterise all men and all women as the same.

I just happen to disagree with you that more women are responsible for DV or that women are more violent or equally violent as men. Why is that anti-male?

Antiseptic, vanna, JamesH and yourself often cast similar statements about women. Why the double standard?

You can ignore the anti-female rhetoric doesn't exist but that does not make it true.

As I said we have to agree to disagree, I can't say more or better than that.

All that about "poor women" and nothing about the topic. I think R0bert's comments stand.

Pelican:"I just happen to disagree with you that more women are responsible for DV or that women are more violent or equally violent as men. "

No one has said that, Pelican, so don't try arguing a straw man. What has been said is that women contribute to the escalation of conflicts that sometimes result in very bad outcomes for all concerned. Further, young women are acculturated to the view that it is acceptable to "playfully" hit a man. My daughter said to me in the car today, after I made an extended series of bad jokes "do you WANT me to hit you?", which I found a little disturbing. Why are you so unwilling to accept that it takes two to tango and to absolve women from any kind of personal responsibility? It's hardly respectful of the capacity of women to self-direct, is it?

We accept that men are responsible for their personal actions in every way, yet you seem to be demanding that women should not be. If one is to be self-determined, one must be self-directed and self-controlled. You appear to be demanding the first but eschewing either of the latter, while claiming them both for yourself.

I note that you have not addressed any of the concrete suggestions made, so presumably you have nothing to offer?