“Women’s violence to male partners certainly does exist, but it tends to be very different from that of men towards their female partners; it is far less injurious and less likely to be motivated by attempts to dominate and terrorise the partner" The Law Commission has referred to one study which was significant in its account of what women did not do (but which constituted tactics frequently employed by violent men) - “No husband was threatened with a gun, or chased with knives, axes, broken bottles or by a car. Husbands were not kicked or stamped on, with steel-capped boots or heavy work boots. Strangling or choking were not used. No wife attempted suffocation with a pillow. Husbands were not locked out, confined to particular areas of the house, or isolated from friends. No wife has ever killed her husband insuide Family Court premises or immediately following a Family Court ordered counselling session. Security is not rooutinely required to ensure wives do not behave violently inside Family Court premises”. Butterworth’s Family Law Journal Dec.2004.

How desperately inept Robert. Six year olds respond with "And you too!" when they have no counter argument. Is that what they are teaching you in the Men's Sheds?. A classic demonstration by you of what was said about using, abusing, and misusing information.
However we do thank you for the statistics you provided that,
"Every week in Australia a woman is killed by a male partner", and every month, 7 (seven) males are killed by their best `mates'.

Val Kyrie,
I think men have been taking it quite well really.

Consider the situation where a man is looking after another man's children and providing for them by being a step father, while at the same time he is only allowed to see his own children every second week.

That is becoming very common, but I would think women would be kicking down the doors if they were placed in the same position.

However, I think the feminist attempt at destroying marriage is gradually coming to a close. De facto relationships are gradually being exposed as one of the worst ways to raise children, and the divorce rate in a number of countries is actually declining.

In future years, we will probably look back on the Family Law Court as being the feminist version of something similar to Stalin's purges or the Great Inquistion, a dark and ignomious time in human history, but thankfully something left behind in the history books.

I see that Charles Pragnell and his sock puppets feel very threatened by the possibility that Professor Parkinson's work may lead to an increase in the stability of marital relationships.

Hardly surprising, he makes his money from other people's misery. Of course he wants to maximise it.

Let's not forget that Charles works for a minor and discreditied single-mother advocacy group.

It was a poor call to echo Val Kyrie extremist views back. The point is lost on Val and others like her or him. In their world it's all about nasty men doing the wrong thing.

Beannie Sidhe summed it up for them, changes to Family Law based on a presumption of shared care whose lifespan has coincided with a drop in substantiated child abuse across the country and no apparent rise in the proportion of substantiated abuse occurring in single parent male lead households (despite more children being in those households) is "the disastrous 2006 Family Law changes, which took such laws back 150 years to Victorian times."

The courts will have got it wrong at times, it's a tough job and they are dealing with people at one of the worst times of their lives. The evidence I've seen though suggests that the changes have improved things not made them worse.

We do need better means to investigate allegations but we don't need a return to maternal bias via concocted claims of abuse no matter how much some people think it's about "Mothers and THEIR children".

R0bert

R0bert, mirroring is a potent tool against the sort of extremist stuff that Charles Pragnell, posing as the new users "Val Kyrie" and "Beanne Sidhe" is seeking to promote.

A good test for any statement relating to gender is to transpose the gender terms and see whether the output makes the same sense. If it does, then the whinge is about something other than gender, despite being couched in gendered language.

For example, turning "women bear the children" into "men bear the children" is an obvious nonsense, therefore the first statement is clearly inherently gendered and no amount of sophistry will change that. However, changing "controlling behaviour may include him restricting her access to money" can be easily changed to "controlling behaviour may include her controlling his access to money and make just as much sense, therefore the statement would be better put in non-gendered terms. I think your effort showed that Charles Pragnell and his sock-puppets are making gendered statements out of ungendered subjects, proving that they are no more than shysters. It's also interesting that he had to invent a couple of imaginary friends. Do none of his colleagues support his views? He claims to be a well-regarded professional...