The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Why I won't be taking up the Man Prayer or supporting 1 Billion Rising this Valentine's Day > Comments

Why I won't be taking up the Man Prayer or supporting 1 Billion Rising this Valentine's Day : Comments

By Greg Andresen, published 15/2/2013

The Man Prayer takes the worst stereotypes of men and masculinity and reinforces them.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. All
Greg wrote "Why I won't be taking up the Man Prayer or supporting 1 Billion Rising...

leave this alone mate...they are not us, and we are not them...

its another female organized thing...where one event is used to spear head a legal change that eventually empowers females...and females group on bandwagon automatically(I include theior obedient male faithfuls here) refuse to reason the situation...as doing so will defeat their ultimate hidden goal...so just bag on on the official line and spout unprovable facts to support the claim and organize mass rallies, and once goal achieved keep at it escalating its power reach and scale till it removes almost all accountability of their own acts, and makes them guaranteed victims in any situation and so full governmental free support and benefits...so do whatever they want eg here dress any way, send any sexual signals...flirt and encourage...till in private...then wait for the moment...to claim rape...and guaranteed to succeed...while legal ramifications to the male of 'rape' is kept to its original severe crime status and fully enforced...so thats their justice huh?...

eg India now, and how rape definition is being widened to include even touching without permission...worse attempting to corrupted established legal process by using some government 'committee' to bring in changes that by law excludes any past evidence of woman to be included...so she could be a serial "rape' accuser and carry on winning...as these events its usually only the two alone...

and abortion...it started with a specific focal situation where womans health was at risk...and this was a very high standard to meet legally...since theyve been plugging to now...just now wanting the unborn baby is enough to kill without any further requirement bar some superficial counselling if any...

domestic violence, equal employment...and any other woman organized and achieved...when one looks at it closely...the same pattern arises...and conclusion is its not about equality or vulnerability...but furthering power and control by monitoring and enforcing...

so leave it alone...these things have a natural cycle of their own...all "cyles" end...

sam
Posted by Sam said, Friday, 15 February 2013 8:12:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good one Sam, you're probably right.

Why are women becoming more aggressive? There have been numerous violent attacks in past few years that have included women as the perpetrators. I can’t recall this happening before.

These feminist Nazis don’ even know the difference between sexism and misogyny. Softening the difference is an insult to the women who have been victims of misogyny. That whole dreadful campaign of accusation against Abbott, who has a wife, 3 daughters and a lesbian sister who he gets on well with all. One award winning Australian author, Wayne Grogan (crime writer) who knows the real meaning of misogyny, as he has written about it, has since challenged Gillard. Good on him, I say!

www.storycentral.com.au/.../terror-australis-author-takes-aim-at-gillar...

http://www.6pr.com.au/blogs/6pr-perth-blog/misogyny-defined-for-pm/20121105-28uco.html

I’m not even going to watch the video the author is talking about because I can easily guess what to expect. It would only rile me.

Now we have the Slut Walk which I find terribly degrading to women. Hope they all trip over. These women are incredibly stupid.

These women are all neurotic. Feminism has created monsters. I know, and experience it in the public service every day. Although I have come across a handful of good female managers, most of them are just about psychopathic. I’ve discussed this with males and females from all walks of life who agree with me. The female executives and managers lack morals and will go to the endth degree to please their upper dictators. They make it incredibly hard for workers and are so devious.

I met a woman recently who use to attend all the feminist protests once since it all started happening. She has completely changed her mind about the whole shebang. She said what I already knew, “We got it all wrong”.

A nightmare for me is working in an all female environment.

All Feminism is doing, is dehumanising males. No wonder mental health issues, particularly for males is growing by the minute. Society is becoming more and more divided.

Denying the differences between the genders is supremely unwise and goes against human nature.
Posted by Constance, Friday, 15 February 2013 8:21:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The 'man prayer' initiative may well be a load of rubbish, but there is no denying the fact that men are responsible for the bulk of the violence in our society.

There is nothing wrong with trying to decrease the violence in our society by concentrating on the worst offenders first, and then moving on to other causes.

I think there are now way too many overly sensitive men who feel threatened by women finally standing up for themselves.

They forget that most women have male relatives they love and would like to see the violence in everyone's lives banished...
Posted by Suseonline, Friday, 15 February 2013 9:20:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Yes, women (and men) are violently raped and beaten far too often - a single victim is one too many - but the way to reduce this violence is to fight against ALL violence, wholly and inclusively, against all people, male or female, white or black, Muslim or Christian or atheist, old or young, straight or gay, rich or poor. And to do so in a way that doesn't attack or stereotype any other group. And to not promote misinformation in the process."

I could not have said it better myself.

Also Suseonline, what is wrong with trying to reduce violence in a holistic way, reduce all violence = reduce specific violence. I am not a violent person, yet I am highly offended by women who say "men" (as a collective term) are violent. It has nothing to do with "women finally standing up for themselves" but rather the shotgun scatter, they are all the same so who cares mentality that offends me. A small percentage of any ethnic minority (just like any other part of the community) commit crimes yet imagine the uproar if I were to say that they all do. However I am forced to put up with the same thing from women, painting me as a violent individual just because I am male. It is in no way acceptable and that is why I am offended. It's time to find some new words Suseonline, the ones in use now are out of date!
Posted by Arthur N, Friday, 15 February 2013 11:02:57 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...The truth is it’s an ineffective male that cannot lend himself to a bit of violence when violence is called for, (e.g. in times of self-defense and war for example).

...There is definitely a place for violence in this world and it is a role best served by the male of the species! Discrediting violence in the male is simply a further feminist step along the road towards a world of the subservient “effeminate” and ineffectual male, and one more advance towards homosexuality as the norm not the exception; another of the feminist love affairs!
Posted by diver dan, Friday, 15 February 2013 12:42:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don't be offended by me Arthur, as of course everyone wants all violence reduced, not just you.
No one is saying all men are violent, or that all women are rabid feminists out to disempower men!

But I don't see why stating that male v male violence, and male v female violence is by far the most evident in our society is so threatening to you.
Check the police data if you don't believe me.

Unless some men get off their high horse and admit there are problems only they can solve, then we will get no where.
Posted by Suseonline, Friday, 15 February 2013 9:44:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
and so are we going to have Tony Mundine stand up and represent his people on this one? Males might do a lot more violence than woman however indigeneous men and woman dare I say commit violence at a lot higher rates than the rest of society. Are they to targeted or is it only the white male population who needs to do pennance here in Australia?
Posted by runner, Friday, 15 February 2013 11:21:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I watched the 'Man Prayer' video - and so should anyone who's going to comment on this thread. In this instance the video clip is key - particularly as the author ranges way beyond the '1 Billion' issue and into 'red herring' territory of how men are hard-done-by generally. ('Meat' for another soup?)

'Man Prayer': How to be a woman in a man's body? Or, 'Mr Perfect' 'New Age' gay-straight 'blend', Ms/r non-masculine male. Or, How to overcome a million years of male/female evolution in three easy lessons! Phooey. Men and women alike can only shudder at the thought.

Men are 'designed' first and foremost to cherish, and to protect - violently against any threat where necessary - and to provide, to make a home, to innovate, develop skills, and to pass their accumulated knowledge on to their offspring. Normal Man seeks a compatible female to love, and to 'complete' the genetically-determined recipe for making a home, and hopefully, a family. Would anyone really want it any other way? (Gays may be excepted.)

Unfortunately, not all men (or women) are optimally constructed, so all have to be aware of potential pitfalls, and be prepared to remove themselves as quickly as possible from any threat to their own well-being or that of their children. There are people who will help!

Our highest cultural responsibility is to provide help where it's needed, and to cultivate and ensure an environment where nobody should feel helpless, and any potential threat to anyone's quiet and peaceful enjoyment of their lives is stomped on quickly and firmly; no exceptions. (TBC>)
Posted by Saltpetre, Saturday, 16 February 2013 4:35:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Cont'd.)

Sadly, there is a 'culture' in some male quarters which disrespects women, often resulting in abuse and even rape. We see evidence of this in some 'macho' settings - football teams and other aggressive, combative pursuits - and this has to be eradicated with all possible haste. This is criminal conduct, nothing less, and should be treated as such, most severely, wherever it may be found - no excuses. And, it is a totally unacceptable 'example' for our youth.

Some ethnic cultures may also have different norms to ours. These have to be clearly informed of our 'rules', and of the penalties for non-conformance. Our law must be fully enforced in all quarters.

Most men are aware of the 'problems', and hate them as much as any woman. It is up to all of us to be aware, to not put up with lousy behaviour, and to attack it wherever it rears its ugly head.

Finally, women need to be careful not to place themselves in potentially hazardous situations - not walk alone at night in isolated or deserted streets or rail stations, etc, not to get drunk or take drugs, not to unintentionally give out the wrong 'signals', and, in all situations, be strong - including being fully prepared to mash anyone's balls who threatens their well-being. (But please be assured, not all men are rogues.)

And men, please cherish and respect women - or we will find you out and crush you.
Posted by Saltpetre, Saturday, 16 February 2013 4:35:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Saltpetre wrote "And men, please cherish and respect women - or we will find you out and crush you."

well Saltpetre you better come find me and crush me I guess...because I do NOT give respect to the undeserving...and I do not bow to fear on this...Respect definition: Verb
Admire (someone or something) deeply, as a result of their abilities, qualities, or achievements.
of which I note females do so in buckets towards their spearheading feminists...eg Greer whom had the decency to be identified publically...

I start with mutual social respect thats given to all by all...and from then on their observed acts will determine my respect for them...

so killing unborn babies would put a woman in the highly disrespectable category for me in general starting terms...and it would take a life threatening condition to absolve a woman for doing so...

sam
Ps I recommend that threatening kinda approach is not going to work as men through evolution has excelled at this over women...so women should stay with their strengths...energy and thought and image manipulations etc and men challenged to excel and win at this...so no one/organized group/sex has domination of a particvlar type of ability
Posted by Sam said, Saturday, 16 February 2013 8:53:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Men learn/develop all their traits/habits at their mother's knee! Then they are re-educated by society, and know that Normal masculinity and all that Naturally springs from it, is wrong?
Or that traditional roles, as practised by their parents, are history?
I've no problem with the, not before time, outlawing of unwelcome uninvited touching!
After all, who, regardless of gender, wants to be pawed, particularly by an obnoxious drunk, who can't take no for an answer!
But I do have a problem with the ongoing emasculation of men, by the feminazi movement. Who arguably are simply men haters, or just want to replace them in all the traditional roles, where there is perceived power or control?
Little wonder the modern male is thoroughly confused, or no longer understands their "PROPER" role in a relationship; and or, is staying away in droves from marriage and or commitment?
Or seeking mail order brides from countries, where old fashioned traditional roles not only dominate, but are the accepted norm by both genders?
That said, many failed relationships are the product of falling in lust, and then waking up around ten years later, beside a perfect stranger, one doesn't even like!
Moreover, many relationships are burned by one or both partners, taking the other for granted, or nagging/verbally bullying the other?
When what is required to save a relationship worth saving, are nothing more than small acts of repeated kindness, which say to the other, I love you as much today, spouse, lover and my best friend, as I did, when we were both still young! Finally, all children need real DADS/male role models, if they are to develop normally?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Saturday, 16 February 2013 10:55:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
oh dear there are some sad men who just can't cope with women being treat as equals.
Posted by cornonacob, Saturday, 16 February 2013 11:32:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sam Said, you sound very judgemental.
I disrespect men who feel the need to tell women what they can or can't do with their own bodies.

Abortion is legal.
If you or yours don't want to have one, that's up to you, but it isn't your business what any other woman wishes.
Posted by Suseonline, Saturday, 16 February 2013 11:42:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suseonline...sorry but I usually dont engage in debate with women over issues like these...as reason and logic fails...and its more about continuation of current powers and benefits...

but I will say that I believe there will come a time when the unborn baby will be given the highest social legal and moral protection humanity can endow...and this period will be seen as the worst of humanity exerting itself...

regards

sam
Posted by Sam said, Saturday, 16 February 2013 1:37:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Yes, women (and men) are violently raped and beaten far too often - a single victim is one too many - but the way to reduce this violence is to fight against ALL violence, wholly and inclusively, against all people, male or female, white or black, Muslim or Christian or atheist, old or young, straight or gay, rich or poor. And to do so in a way that doesn't attack or stereotype any other group. And to not promote misinformation in the process".

Agree

"If we want men and boys to be the best they can be, we don't need 'man prayers', we need services and practical support for males on the ground where it matters".

Agree

Not achieveable under a Gillard/Greens administration.
Posted by onthebeach, Saturday, 16 February 2013 1:52:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ Suseonline

"The 'man prayer' initiative may well be a load of rubbish, but there is no denying the fact that men are responsible for the bulk of the violence in our society."

On what evidence or facts are you basing this entirely deniable claim?

Here are 286 scholarly investigations that show that women are just as violent, if not more, than men: www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

Threee things emerge from this body of research:

1. While women report more severe injuries in domestic violence situations, women initiate violence and more often than men.

2. Women report violence far more often than men (a visit to the family courts is sufficient to verify this), which skews statistics and public perceptions about female-to-male gender violence.

3. A significant portion of male-to-female violence is intended to STOP violence or abuse initiated by the woman. It's a well-known fact in DV circles that domestic abuse is almost never one-sided.

Your comment also infers that the rights of victims of violence are dependent on the sex of the attacker, which is wrong. Violence against one class of people isn't justified just because that class are perceived to be more violent than another. Even if those perceptions are true, bigotry has no place in the DV discourse.

It ultimately doesn't matter who's the more violent, even if the research shows that women are such. All victims of violence suffer terribly, so preventing and alleviating the suffering of ALL victims are what these programs should be about. That we're still describing it as a gender issue in public discourse shows that the discussion is still owned and controlled by gender ideologues with a political agenda.

Thankfully, there are some who blow away the obfuscation and get to the truth. This report from The Independent back in 1995 talks about manipulation of the very statistics on which these anti-DV programs are based: www.mensrights.com.au/domestic-family-violence/all-men-are-bastards-1995/. Take an hour or two to follow the reference trail - the revelations will astonish you. We've somehow allowed the feminist brownskirts in the labour government to jackboot gender apartheid into this country right under our noses.
Posted by Men Are Not Abusers, Saturday, 16 February 2013 2:07:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Very good. There is a chance that Suseonlie will consider those facts with an open mind.

After all, Suseonline did scold "overly sensitive men" for being unaware that "most women have male relatives they love and would like to see the violence in everyone's lives banished".

So Suseonline should relish the chance to find information that the men she comes into contact with are not the foul, violent, sex-obsessed beasts who need to be constantly reminded by women to mind their tongues and keep their paws to themselves. Either that or cops and State control.

Then again, Suseonline is the self-styled avenging angel of women everywhere who have been done wrong by men. The bones of countless other PEOPLE, some men, who have tried to convince her otherwise lie bleaching in the sun. A prayer for those simple well-meaning folks, please.
Posted by onthebeach, Saturday, 16 February 2013 2:55:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't usually post to correct my typos or grammatical errors, but it is necessary in this case where in the first sentence of my post above I missed the letter "n" in Suseonline. Sorry.
Posted by onthebeach, Saturday, 16 February 2013 3:04:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Onthebiech and Men Are Nnot Abusers, an indication of the amount of violence in a society is often measured by the numbers of homicides recorded.
According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, you can see that males perpetrate the most murders in Australia, and that there are also more male murder victims as well (except for domestic violence related murders).

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide/offenders.html

What I don't understand is why you guys get so uptight at the mention of these facts, and blame it all on feminists and governments?

These facts say that males are the most likely perpetrators and victims of violence, so why aren't you all trying to rectify the situation and reduce the violence, rather than blaming women?
Posted by Suseonline, Saturday, 16 February 2013 7:45:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suseonline,

From a quick check of your posting history that truly ignorant reply would be par for the course as far as your favourite subject of awful men is concerned. You broken record the same mantras and smart 'A' replies. That is despite the efforts of the dozens of respondents who have patiently explained before, providing facts and dispelling your arguments.

I doubt that you read and comprehended the article in its entirety, or the posts. If you had you might try at least to engage with the arguments and contribute. But you know what you know and no way that will change. I very much doubt that you discuss your attitudes with any men in your life. Or more likely you just don't listen or 'get it'. You are forever rooted in the old discredited radical feminism of decades ago. Your shield and excuse I suppose, but against what?
Posted by onthebeach, Saturday, 16 February 2013 9:33:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The pot calling the kettle black onthebeach?
Why must you be so personal in your attacks on someone who doesn't agree with you?

Did you not like the facts I presented?
Well, that's just too bad.
Posted by Suseonline, Saturday, 16 February 2013 9:41:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yo, onthebeach,

Is your last post supposed to be an example of mature, inclusive, reflective and reasonable discussion?

Because if your recent rhetoric towards Suze is a representation of masculine civility and an illustration of measured discourse - you're failing miserably
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 16 February 2013 10:03:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Erin Pizzey interviewed by Dean Esmay
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhqVQCyNEGg

Feminism and the Disposable Male
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp8tToFv-bA

Systemic Gendered Violence?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gekyg7yy4Dc
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Saturday, 16 February 2013 10:15:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here, once again we see the clash of beliefs against facts, the "information" peddled by second wave Feminists in the 1970's has been proven to be nonsense. If you watch the Erin Pizzey interview you'll learn that Susan Brownmiller has recanted her early views on sexual violence and apparently Betty Friedan changed her mind as well.
Facts don't matter to "believers", one poster said there's no point discussing violence with women because their minds are closed, they have closed minds because they have been brainwashed. Older posters probably don't understand what actually goes on in the education system, children have feminist theory, which is a set of BELIEFS not facts, drummed into them, they are literally indoctrinated. Public secondary education these days is basically just extended diversity training and women's studies which is overseen by Feminists in a Female dominated workplace.
Men are the primary defenders and protectors of women, children and the elderly, statistically women are far more abusive toward senior citizens and children and have an equal share of responsiblity for domestic violence. What's more studies have shown that domestic violence normally follows the woman, men who've been violent toward a woman don't often repeat offend with subsequent partners but abused women will very often go from one violent man to another. As demonstrated in my links false reporting isn't the big issue it's this "hard core" of battered/ battering women in the community which has a compounding effect in statistics collated over time and by individual incidents recorded.
Come on, do we really believe that 30% of women are "abused" by their partners? That's a third of the women you know, it's just a preposterous notion.
According to a broad range of studies it's more like 4% of Women and 4% of men who are subjected to actual intimate partner violence.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Sunday, 17 February 2013 7:19:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leaving aside the data I'd like to address the main points of this article, well when I say address I really mean reject.
Mens rights advocates (hereafter MRA'S) are advocating parity with feminism and equal treatment of men and women under the law, they reject real masculinity just as feminism rejects authentic femininity.
What the MRA's like Warren Farrell, Bob Geldof and Dean Esmay actually want is equal distribution of the sexes in the state's gender bureaucracy and they promote pretty much the same fettered form of ideological masculinity as that demanded by the Feminists.
MRA's are also lukewarm on the subject of traditionalism as well, the Christian version of masculinity wherein males are disposable, the chivalric ideal of self sacrifice which is so ruthlessly exploited by the state and in particular by Feminists.
MRA's are men who don't want to have to prove their masculinity to other males, they still want to deny authentic masculinity and repudiate what Jack Donovan calls the Tactical Virtues of masculinity, Strength, Courage, Mastery and Honour in exchange for representation in the gender industry.
Men and Women are built to compliment each other, not to be equal, we're Yin and Yang, Indra and Indrani, Jupiter and Juno, different powers, different virtues.
Parity between Feminists and MRA's will only double the number of people in the bureaucracy which is absolutely against the best interests of families since it's the materialist gender "sciences" which are corroding our society, not the natural inclinations and instinctive behaviour of men and women.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Sunday, 17 February 2013 8:22:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suse,

Haven't you realised that females are aggressive also? but more in an under-handed way - as they are naturally more devious and passive aggressive than males. You for one, are very aggro. Females are pretty good manipulators. How can you deny male biology - you do know they have more testosterone than females, don't you? You're a nurse, aren't you? You can't deny mother nature.

And that there are a lot of b.tches out there. They seem to becoming more prolific of late.
Posted by Constance, Sunday, 17 February 2013 3:25:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with you, Jay. I came across Jack Donovan recently, and he is a gay man. He thinks gay and heterosexual men should be doing more bonding with each other. He is delluded with the whole superfical gay scene where all they talk about is going to the gym and going to the latest trendy spots to be seen. John Saffron, the comedian loves what Donovan has written in his books, Androphilia and The Way of Men.
Posted by Constance, Sunday, 17 February 2013 3:34:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Constance,

Suze...You for one, are very agro..."

That, would have to be a crowning example of the pot calling the kettle black.

What do you reckon, Constance? You seem to have a particular dislike for "females who are passive aggressive". I see that you like to demonstrate your own aggression consistently and in an upfront fashion.

As in:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5559&page=0#152302

and

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5559&page=0#152125

and

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5559&page=0#152300

and

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14683&page=0#253435

To name but a few.

(I await your next outburst)
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 17 February 2013 4:01:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Because i am out of work I am presently subject to the full spectrum of domestic violence, from name calling, humiliation, and even being threatened with a pair of scissors last week but I'll deal with that the best I can.
What gets me though in this discussion is the readiness of 'men' to accept responsibility for the behaviour of some other people who happen to be male. Most car thefts are probably done by males by I don't feel any personal responsibility because I don't steal cars. For some reason, and it has been done numerous times in this discussion, 'men' are being told they share responsibility and should do something about domestic violence. A person can only be responsible for their own behaviour so to put blame on males for the behaviour of other totally unrelated males is pure sexism.
Posted by citizen, Sunday, 17 February 2013 4:04:07 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some posters are in agreeance with the author's lament of stereotyping men and then do exactly that in regard to women. I don't think this campaign is stereotyping men even if one puts aside for a moment whether or not such a campaign is likely to achieve it's aims.

That aside, issues of violence do need to be approached holistically. It is becoming a growing problem if one believes the statistics.

While it appears that women are becoming more violent, the facts are that men are still more likely to perpetrate violence. I don't know why this fact is taken as some kind of insult against men or is labelled as stereotyping. This is not stereotyping as most reasonable people (and I believe most people are) do not lump all men in the same basket. The majority of men are responsible, law-abiding and non-violent.

The best solutions would include providing good supports for men and also to involve men in the 'space' (maybe this is what 'rising' is trying to do) rather than exclude men. Based on some of the responses so far, inclusion may be a damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of scenario.

Of course there are violent women. I imagine for men that have been affected by DV at the hands of their spouses must get irked if they see DV always put in the context of men abusing women. I think there is a good case for including (in Ads and the like) a scenario where a wife is beating on her husband while he has his hands over his face to avoid the blows and in avoiding causing harm to her.

Why is there more violence? I certainly don't know the answers but the solution has to be a community effort. There are many countries like India where rape is not seen as a big deal,this is something that should not be tolerated. But just to throw up ones hands and say I won't be supporting this or that campaign is a wasted opportunity for men as well as women.
Posted by pelican, Sunday, 17 February 2013 5:01:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Constance, it isn't just testosterone that causes aggression dear.
If it was, then you wouldn't be as aggressive as you are...
Of course, I'm not to know if you are male or female.

Thanks for the links above Poirot.
I think I have said all I want to say on this subject, so I will see you all on another thread.
Posted by Suseonline, Sunday, 17 February 2013 5:04:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
pelican, "the facts are that men are still more likely to perpetrate violence"

No, that doesn't coincide with the article nor the posts before yours, excepting for Suseonline's personal opinion, predictable as it was.

How do you dispel the evidence to the contrary in the article and in respondents' posts? For instance, what evidence do you have to dismiss what Erin Pizzey says? Jay of Melbourne's post refers,
Erin Pizzey interviewed by Dean Esmay
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhqVQCyNEGg

It is all very right proffering avuncular advice along the lines of 'Never you mind Dears', but even leaving the rather obvious unfairness to men aside, there remains the problem that the victims of violent women will continue to be unrecognised and unsupported. Many of whom can confidently be expected to be children (and incidents are seen often enough in shopping centres with women berating and belting children in public), and it is most likely that such violence is accompanied by child neglect.

What prevents a campaign against violence? Why are you opposed to that? These are questions that must have been asked many times on this forum. I am wondering why the rather obvious recommendation is not taken up.
Posted by onthebeach, Sunday, 17 February 2013 5:43:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
several times over the years I havce been berated by feminist for stereo typing on OLO. Reality is that many of them are very quick to stereotype and demonise. While men obviously commit more physical violence because as a general rule are stronger, woman are known to manipulate much more than men. Many women working in offices with other woman will tell you the abuse they receive is far worse than any physical abuse they have ever received. Maybe we need a Woman prayer for those woman against manipulating men. Of course none of the OLO woman would be guilty of that would they?
Posted by runner, Sunday, 17 February 2013 7:32:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican, its a lot more than being irked. These very deliberately gendered campaigns have real practical consequences. They are quite deliberately gendered to promote a particular view of DV which has flow on effects in a number of areas.

I've been in the situation of having professionals who should have known better dismiss my ex's violence on the basis that she was smaller than me and unlikely to do 'real' harm. No one would tell her it was a real issue and she needed to stop. I was taunted by my ex with the claim that because she was a woman I could never ever hit back. I did once in one fight, two light slaps after being punched yet again and in desperation at tying to find a way to stop being hit. A dumb move, a doctor was consulted to record non-existant bruises, most of the people we knew were rung and informed that I'd hit her (no mention of her regularly hitting me).

When the issue of her violence did to come up I had to fightbthe perception that I probably deserved it, its never OK for a man to hit a woman but if a woman hits a man then she is deemed to be fighting back - thats part of the mantra.

I strongly believe that these gendered campaigns have very little to do with any interest in rducing violence, rather they are part of a broader attack on men and masculinity. Not all the supporters work on that basis but the ongoing and systematic refusal to address in any way female initiated or mutual violence should tell enough of a story to get anyone who cars thinking.

The switch from claims about the proportions of a very broadly defined DV committed by men to serious injury stats (or personal observation) when challenged on the details should be telling. Mens traditionally defined roles inside the home and outside are different, in the home we are supposed to protect, outside compete.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Sunday, 17 February 2013 8:32:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How about a pink ribbon version? The recent murder in Coffs Harbour of the 21 year old by her female "flatmate" is surely Domestic Violence?
Posted by McCackie, Sunday, 17 February 2013 8:54:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suse,
You seem to have run out of puff dear, the last resort of the Feminist is always tears, "You're being so aggressvive, I don't feel safe in this space, can someone please remove this person?"

Constance,
The way domestic violence statistics are presented by the Feminists is always skewed, when they want to show women in the best possible light they use only the figures on cases of actual bodily harm which have occurred in relationships, that of course appears to show women as overwhelmingly victims and men as primary aggressors.
The problem is though that the feminists are tripped up by their own overly broad definition of partner violence which covers everything from the man sending the woman to Coventry all the way to murder, so the full spectrum of emotional, sexual, financial and physical manipulation. When you apply those standards equally, as do the MRA's then you get about a 50/50 split along gender lines, when you add in child abuse and abuse of the elderly then Men and Boys appear to be over represented as victims and women as aggresors.
The Feminists only use the image of spousal abuse because it provides those politically useful ABH figures but "domestic" violence occurs across all age groups and in all familial relationships with the very young and the elderly at elevated risk of abuse and exploitation.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Monday, 18 February 2013 7:02:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
' I don't know why this fact is taken as some kind of insult against men or is labelled as stereotyping. '

Think about this pelican. What other area of crime are men as a whole encouraged to take responsibility for others just because they share the gender of the perpetrators? How do you think you would feel being asked to display your bona fides as a non wife beater as in the white ribbon campaign.

Would you be happy being emotionally blackmailed into wearing a ribbon and reciting a pledge that you wont hit your kids to distinguish yourself from abusive mothers?

Why are there no TV campaigns to prevent child neglect, focusing on mothers? There are many reasons women, being the primary carers, and more often in the position of being emotionally strained neglect and abuse children. But this is seen as an example where women may need more help. Can you imagine a gender-shaming campaign on national television about child neglect concentrating on mothers? It would never happen.

Even if it isn't the intention, the 'Violence against women, Australia Says no', effectively denies that women are ever violent in relationships. My experience is different. I've had to deal with a knife wielding partner, knowing all the time that in my attempts to disarm her or prevent her from hurting me or herself, that if the police came I am likely to be treated like a black man running away from a HiFi store with a TV in my hands.

If it's wrong to perpetuate stereotypes against black people, why is it ok when it comes to white males
Posted by Houellebecq, Monday, 18 February 2013 8:17:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Believe me, when you have a psycho knife wielding partner, you have enough to deal with without being told if you are a male in a violent domestic dispute, you are the problem. The stain is on you, as a male who finds himself in a violent relationship. Just for being there, you're 'one of those' men.

I often ponder how many men, like me, have found themselves in an emotion and adrenaline charged atmosphere, trying to balance keeping themselves and their armed partner safe, with threats of self harm added into the mix if you walk away, and trying to use just enough force to protect themselves and their partner and control the situation without putting themselves in a position where they're added to the violent wife basher stats. How many guys like me err on the side of not protecting themselves enough, and how many guys snap and lose control of the situation they found themselves in.

I wonder how many men have been taunted and goaded by their partners like I have, had a partner trying to get them to hit back, but have not given them the satisfaction. More than once I thought if she taunted a different guy like this she would surely get a reaction, and if she kept this up even with me would I eventually crack and smack her one. It creates amazing internal conflict having someone attempting to belittle and emasculate you because you refuse to hit them back.

It's such a more complex situation than man abuses woman. It's not PC but I really believe we should be able to talk about women's actions in violent relationships with more nuance and without someone predictably screaming 'you're blaming the victim'.

' I think there is a good case for including (in Ads and the like) a scenario where a wife is beating on her husband '

Yep even just 1. That's all I've ever asked for in these campaigns, but a bit of honesty is too much to hope for in the feminist controlled domain of domestic violence.
Posted by Houellebecq, Monday, 18 February 2013 8:41:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So much with which to agree...

There seems to be consensus that stereotyping makes for simplistic arguments… If for no other reason than there are always significant exceptions.

All of us should be more responsible in our actions for what is between our ears than what is between our legs.

However much of a big deal it is to others – I don't wish to be stereotyped by my penis.

Nor should women.
Posted by WmTrevor, Monday, 18 February 2013 8:43:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Houellebecq,
That's what we mean when we talk about Female Supremacist exploitation of the chivalric ideal, of course men always see themselves as responsible for the welfare and the behaviour of the group. Men are wired for two basic functions in society, to fight other men who want to take over our territory and steal our women and to co operate with other men within our group to overcome nature, this is why the in group-out group dynamic is so readily exploited by politicians and would be social engineers. Men can very easily be induced to turn against other men, especially at the behest of women or if the issue is framed as a matter of chivalry.
Feminists don't like to talk too much about Ms Pankhurst and the White Feather Girls but from a tactical standpoint it was a great success:
Pankhurst and the White feather betrayal of history.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GsBg4aW0Ag
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Monday, 18 February 2013 9:23:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Julia Gillard, Leftie gender feminist and recent innovator in 'hyper-bole' misogyny riding the 1 Billion Rising bandwagon in an effort to improve her poor standing with women:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_JkyWapMns
Posted by onthebeach, Monday, 18 February 2013 12:59:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RObert
I was thinking of you regarding the difficulties that men might face in simulaneously trying to avoid being harmed and causing harm. And then being in the position of 'suspect' even before the facts are known (in cases when police are called). I have known many police and I they tell me that attending a DV case is one of the most dangerous for them due to heightened anger. It is men that mainly attack the police but there have been women too, sometimes oddly when the police take away the man that has just beaten them to a pulp. It is very complex.

But if you read the posts from some on this thread you would think think women are evil incarnate and responsible for the majority of everything negative on the planet. (Yes I exaggerate just a tad but the tone is in keeping with some of the sentiments expressed)

Houlley
We disagree about the premise ie. I don't believe white men are stereotyped as 'violent' although I understand the desire to seek balance in the DV debate. I was sorry to read about your previous situation (well I hope previous).

'Would you be happy being emotionally blackmailed into wearing a ribbon and reciting a pledge that you wont hit your kids to distinguish yourself from abusive mothers?'

I wouldn't like reciting a pledge particularly as I don't abuse my kids so there would be no need for such a pledge - I get that completely.

No campaign can beat practical on-the-ground support.

You have to remember women are constantly stereotyped and emotional blackmail is not limited to men. eg. abortion, breast feeding, working or stay-at-home, not feminine enough, femiNazis, gold diggers, manipulative, emotional and without reason - the list goes on. I know men cannot put themselves in women's shoes but there really is a lot of guff we have to put up with sometimes. Equally I don't assume for a minute that I can fully understand what it is like to be a man and what all the guff you have to put up with.
Posted by pelican, Monday, 18 February 2013 1:01:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oops bad editing on that last sentence but you get the drift.
Posted by pelican, Monday, 18 February 2013 1:41:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican, hopefully you know me enough to know I'm not a fan of the overly aggressive approach some like to take. Having said that I personally find Suzies putdowns of men who raise these issues more bothersome in this context than some of the other comments which bother you more. Onthebeaches response to Suzie did not seem that far out of place in context with her determination to portray male posters objecting to gendered campaigns as over sensitive. He was also correct to point out that posters have patiently addressed the issues with Suzie many times.

Suzie shows a determination to make discussion of DV about gender.

Thereare some very good reasons to oppose gendered campaigns which have been addressed many timeson OLO, to claim its about male posters being too sensitive is in my view dirty tactics rather than a genuine lack of comprehension. Following on from the recent old boys club and "anti-female" claims on another thread my sympathy for Suzie copping a blast is somewhat muted at the moment.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 18 February 2013 2:01:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't know RObert. onthebeach had a go at me in one thread for using the phrase 'mainly male judges' in response to a thread about rape and whether victims are ever to share blame (or some such). I do think in this case his (I assume a he) knee-jerk reaction is over-sensitive. It is not sexist or misandry to call out those male judges who make generalisations about rape victims and how much 'she' was to blame. Really, this is the 21C afterall.

Probably in this case I am also sensitive to the premise for such a topic which is also guaranteed to get my up my nose. :)

Whether it be feminists being unreasonable or over the top, or male judges, or masculinists bringing out the usual anti-female stereotypes, then I will call them on it. Often we spend more time defending our genders than getting on collectively with coming up with solutions.

As far as Suze goes, she also repeatedely states her support for the men in her life and as such does not see gender based campaigns in any way affecting men who are not guilty of those behaviours. I think this is a common feeling. To some extent I have always taken that view, but trying to think outside the square, I can understand why men might feel the way some of the posters describe. Some men clearly don't feel prejudiced by those campaigns as they sign up in support. When Houlley challenged me (nicely) to see the situation from the opposite side (ie. a woman who does not abuse her children having to sign a pledge) I could empathise.

It is difficult as in countries like India (which I think spurred this 'rising' campaign) rape is rarely acted upon and justice for women is more often a fluke than a deemed right.

From that point where do we go from here. Perhaps the key is to target behaviours rather than genders in any campaign but I don't see a problem in a campaign that 'says rape is wrong under any circumstances'.
Posted by pelican, Monday, 18 February 2013 3:24:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
pelican, "onthebeach had a go at me in one thread for using the phrase 'mainly male judges' in response to a thread about rape...I do think in this case his (I assume a he) knee-jerk reaction is over-sensitive. It is not sexist or misandry to call out those male judges who make generalisations about rape victims"

It was your "knee-jerk" not mine. You tendered no evidence to support your frivolous and unnecessary allegation about the attitude of male judges towards women in rape trials. However I was easily able to cite highly controversial judgements by female judges where the State itself was moved to review soft sentences for rape, including rape in a pack, which was much more serious than the 'sexism' you accused male judges of. Even as we debate this, the decision by a female judge to give parole to a notorious rape offender who was incarcerated never to be released is being challenged by government.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/16088713/sex-offender-fardon-seeks-release-from-jail/

Now as I said at the time I challenged your unsubstantiated sexist remark against male judges, the sex of the judge is quite irrelevant and it was interesting you would go out of your road to refer to male judges.

But what about answering those questions I asked that are pertinent to the subject of the thread and the comments you made earlier? Here it is again,

onthebeach, Sunday, 17 February 2013 5:43:15 PM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14694&page=6
Posted by onthebeach, Monday, 18 February 2013 6:01:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
onthebeach
I don't want to get into an argument or digress over a past thread or debate who was more knee-jerk than the other. You commented on something I wrote, not the other way around. We will have to disagree about the 'frivolous' part. I certainly don't think it is frivolous that some of these past attitudes still remain. I only mentioned it in the context of RObert's post. I can see you have very strong views about gender issues and I imagine we won't always agree.
Posted by pelican, Monday, 18 February 2013 10:09:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you 'onthebeach' for the link leading to the Erin Pizzey interview (and to JoM for the original reference):

Erin Pizzey interviewed by Dean Esmay
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhqVQCyNEGg

(Erin Pizzey had a 'difficult' childhood, runs many shelters for battered women in the UK, has some men on staff in all her shelters (to overcome derogatory attitudes towards 'all' men - particularly by the children), and also runs men's shelters. She has great knowledge of DV, and is active in countering misconceptions, including 'misrepresentations' by women's advocates.)

Although the interview was quite long (50 minutes), and somewhat laboured by Dean, it is and an absolute gem in relation to this discussion.

The DV statistics were amazing - 1/4 involving violent women, 1/2 involving both partners, leaving 1/4 down to the men. Certainly not what I expected.

Then there was reference to women who are attracted to, and seem to 'need', violent men - 'habitually' - taking considerable counseling to 'break' this apparent 'addiction'. (However, I did not detect any reference to men who seek violent women.)

Erin believes men have a 'gene' which generally disposes them to be caring of their children and their wives - derived through human evolution - and that much DV arises from personality disorders and/or a prior history of abuse (including through an 'example' of violence by one or both parents).

She says violence damages the right frontal lobe of the brain, often resulting in a cycle of violence from one generation to the next, and we need to break the cycle.

She is critical of women's movements raising massive funds (public and private) for action to protect women from DV, but who go about demonizing men in general, disseminating lies, and pursuing related distortions of the law and of the treatment of men.

She is also critical of the lack of attention to men's needs, and of the lack of funds to meet these needs, and believes in families, and that children need a (good) male role model.

Obviously, DV needs a massive (psychological) re-think.
Posted by Saltpetre, Tuesday, 19 February 2013 5:03:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Saltpetre its importand to understand feminist theory to understand those claims about DV.

You must remember that when men hit women its to control them, when women hit men they are fighting back against patriarchal oppression. Therefore women never actually assault their partners, they just defend themselves. Therefore its legitimate to say that DV is almost entirely a male thing.

If you are of a particularly cynical mindset you may ask how we know that men are oppressing women, well look at the numbers, after some feminist analysis has been applied its clear that men do almost all the assaulting of partners.

If you are struggling with that and keep going back to the part where the rates of actual physical acts are similar then you need to remember to apply some feminist analysis to the numbers (if thats to hard you can always use the old fallback of doing your surveys in womens only shelters and only asking about male violence against women). The other does not exist so why ask.

Its also important to remember that concepts such as objective research are a male patriarchal construct. Quality research which validates womens subjective experience of violence is a more fitting approach.

Its also important to remember that its perfectly OK to extrapolate your results. If you have counted deaths then its Ok to assume the same or worse ratios apply across a much broader definition of DV.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 19 February 2013 6:52:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Concentrating on men splits the resourcing and effort available to counteract violence (territorial conflicts and poor co-ordination are perennial problems) and ensures that the non-noisy victims, those without the ear of government, particularly children, always miss out on support.

Michelle Elliott,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCpr3hr0K30

Michele Elliott OBE, is an author, psychologist, teacher and the founder and director of child protection charity Kidscape. She has chaired World Health Organisation and Home Office working groups and is a Winston Churchill fellow. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Elliott]

However child abuse usually occurs within the broader context of child neglect, and should be treated from that standpoint.

Erin Pizzey encapsulates feminism in three minutes,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhliqceyoL8

Again, I am not dealing out blows for either side. However it is plain that there are needs unmet by present policy that is directed by a middle class elite of educated careerist women and the victim industry they created serves them well in putting bread of the table and providing life long sinecures in women's policy and the like. While this elite monopolises policy the broader aspirations and needs of less advantaged women will not be met either. Nor will the needs of children be taken into account.

I am asking, "What about the children?". To take an example from whistleblowers whose lives have been ruined by their courageous disclosures over the years, "Why should aboriginal girls and boys be subjected to molestation by elders of both sexes?" and "Why aren't aboriginal children accorded the same legal rights and protections, education and carefree childhood that other Aussie children have?".
Posted by onthebeach, Tuesday, 19 February 2013 12:24:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OTB.
There's no solution possible if the only stakeholders are Feminists on one hand and MRA's on the other, synthesis is not possible, Karen aka "Girlwriteswhat?" explains the latest developments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13zZEizsIs0
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Tuesday, 19 February 2013 9:16:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
onteh beach
'Again, I am not dealing out blows for either side. However it is plain that there are needs unmet by present policy that is directed by a middle class elite of educated careerist women and the victim industry they created serves them well in putting bread of the table and providing life long sinecures in women's policy and the like'

I am glad you are not dealing out blows as sometimes these discussions generate into a general anti-women dialogue probably borne out of these frustrations but which rarely help.

I agree with your comment quoted above. Policy is influened by the prevailing groupthink and because of that inevitabley there will be areas unmet by current policy. Whenever did the OSW stand up for women staying at home to raise kids for a time. As far as I know, it hasn't happened, partly because many feel (wrongly) that to do so is betraying some aspect of the feminist cause and reduces women to the kitchen. Paradoxically there is praise for men who make the decision to stay at home while there spouse brings home the bacon. Social engineering at it's greatest instead of policy that provides opportunities for choices for families that are not gender-centred.

In effect the boffins in government have now decided what feminism is about and seek to define it in terms that suit the current economic demands. We now have 'working families' not just families. I note the other day the new manra is 'modern families'. It just gets funnier (you have to laugh).
Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 20 February 2013 9:26:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
pelican,

Once again we have worked our way to an agreement. You have expressed it well and the practical effect on women who are not part of the feminist 'joke' too.

*joke: this was a term used in an independent inquiry into corruption involving police in Qld. Bjelke Peterson and Commissioner Lewis's era. The police, public officials and criminals cooperating in the very profitable web of favourism, deceit and crime at the time were said to be part of the 'joke'.
Posted by onthebeach, Wednesday, 20 February 2013 11:24:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Should a misrepresentation of DV statistics be made a criminal offence? We all know one push or shove in past 12 months is not a beating.
Posted by Roscop, Wednesday, 20 February 2013 4:49:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Roscop,

It is corruption and it is being legitimised and funded by the federal government.

Change the government.
Posted by onthebeach, Wednesday, 20 February 2013 7:28:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's hard to find sensible voices on gender. This is one of them.

There is no way that we can prove that 1 in 3 women will be subject to violence. That would mean that we can predict the future.

There are many sensible women who are feminists. Unfortunately, the ones who gain most attention are the well-known mischief-makers. Many of them have had bad experiences which have scarred them emotionally. One of these said she was glad that men were more successful than women at suicide: it showed men could do something better than women.

FIght on, men, for a more balanced and thoughtful view of sex and gender : and let the mischief-makers drown in their own venom.
Posted by Bronte, Friday, 22 February 2013 9:43:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is an valuable article by Murray Straus at http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V75-Straus-09.pdf discussing public perceptions of PV vs research findings. Worth a read for those wanting some background on the issue.

That's linked from an advocacy site which is trying to promote better accuracy in DV research http://www.mediaradar.org/research.php#waj
Like most advocacy sites there is not a lot of diversity but there is some valuable material referenced there.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 25 February 2013 7:16:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for the link RObert. A worthy extract from the Straus paper:

"Asymmetry in Effects."
"There is one important and consistently reported gender difference in PV: although women engage in both minor and severe violence as often as men, the adverse effects on victims are much greater for women. Attacks by men cause more injury (both physical and psychological), more deaths, and more fear.
In addition, women are more often economically trapped in a violent relationship than men because women continue to earn less than men, and because when a marriage ends, women have custodial responsibility for children at least 80% of the time.
The greater adverse effect on women is an extremely important difference, and it indicates the need to continue to provide more services for female victims of PV than for male victims. In addition, as will be explained later, the greater adverse effect on women underlies the reluctance to acknowledge the evidence on gender symmetry.
However, empathy for women because of the greater injury and the need to help victimized women must not be allowed to obscure the fact that men sustain about a third of the injuries from PV, including a third of the deaths by homicide (Catalano, 2006; Rennison, 2000; Straus, 2005).
PV by women is therefore a serious crime, health, and social problem that must be addressed, even though the effects are not as prevalent as assaults perpetrated by male partners. Moreover, the risk of injury and the probability of the violence continuing or escalating is greatest when both partners are violent (Straus, 2007b), as is the case for at least half of violent couples"
Posted by Saltpetre, Monday, 25 February 2013 3:39:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Saltpetre, it's my impression that the majority of those opposed to completely gendered campaigns would not have too much trouble with those comments by Straus.

It's recognised that women sustain more injuries, that women are generally more afraid of the physical aspects of the violence. Most opponents of gendered campaigns that I've seen comment don't demand equality of representation of DV (I can't speak for everyone). The main bug bear is the utter refusal to acknowledge female violence against male partners.

No public voices willing to stand up and tell women that hitting a male partner is not Ok. No public voices willing to stand and say, it is DV when you hit him (or use any of the other DV behaviours).

I do think that Straus misses some stuff in that, men can be trapped in a violent relationship, societal views on men who desert a wife, maternal bias in the implementation of family law and supporting system being a couple of big issues worthy of note.

He also does not seem to acknowledge the emotional impacts on a man of being beaten and being unable to stop it. I don't know how to describe that well but from my own experience it was very very difficult to deal with.

I like Straus, he and Gelles seem to have had great integrity in a field where that seems to be rare. I don't always agree with their background beliefs but that's OK.

There are some other side issues, DV is expanded to cover controlling behaviours yet again without evidence it's assumed to be mostly doing it. A women checking a partners emails and sms's or other behaviours is no less a controlling behaviour than a male doing the same.

Not an issue I've paid a lot of attention to but the question is also asked about the lack of coverage of violence within gay and lesbian relationships. Do DV victims in those relationships somehow not deserve any support?

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 25 February 2013 4:32:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'It all boils down to one in four women will be ignored during their life time'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5AOj6EhRuY
Posted by onthebeach, Monday, 25 February 2013 5:40:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RObert, there has been more studies done on women perpetrating domestic violence than you think.

I have read much on this issue over the past week.
I read the link you provided above, and I can certainly see why all forms of domestic violence should be addressed.

I tend to take more notice of Australian papers on the subject, simply because we live in Australia. I never read papers or studies brought to us by authors with other agendas.

I don't know whether you will bother reading any links that I post, but I found this one very interesting.

www.adfvc.unsw.edu.au/PDF%20files/Men_as_Victims.pdf
Posted by Suseonline, Tuesday, 26 February 2013 1:06:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suzie, I may read the rest of it but the paper starts with lies and repeats of the doctorine of faith. Its clear from the start that the authors are ignoring the vast body of research that shoes its not overwhelmingly men hitting women and children.

Hardly a good start.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 26 February 2013 4:44:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suzie, sorry perhaps a bit terse with that last post.

I really get tired of so called papers which start with those mantra's to assure the faithful that they won't challenge the orthodoxy too much.

There has been a large amount of research done which shows a high level of gender symmetry in initiating violence against intimate partners. Women tend to initiate a bit more of it, women also tend to be seriously hurt more often in that minority of DV that gets to that level. A significant proportion involves both partners initiating at different times (and has some correlation to the more serious injuries I think).

A challenge if you want to give me some reason to re-evaluate, find material which has asked both genders the same questions about being hit (or other physical assaults) by a partner (and without other gendered filters) which demonstrates that DV is gendered. I know I posted a link to summary material with the Straus paper but I also posted a link to the Radar site which references a lot of research into the numbers.

Police and hospital reports have pre-existing filters in them because police and hospital staff are trained are working largely on existing beliefs rather than trying to confirm or disprove those beliefs.

I've referenced it before because it is Australian but it won't hurt to try again. Australian research that asks both genders the same questions.

http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/dom/heady99.htm

And from New Zealand
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/170018.pdf

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 26 February 2013 5:13:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RObert, I understand this is a personal, emotional issue for you, but if you do read through this well referenced article you will see why it gave me pause to think again.

What I now believe is that it is not helpful to compare male versus female victims or perpetrators of domestic violence.
They are two completely different situations in many ways.

The article I mentioned stated:
" Males reported that they were not living in an ongoing state of fear from the perpetrator;
• Males did not have prior experiences of violent relationships; and,
• Males rarely experienced post-separation violence and, in the one reported
case, it was far less severe that in male-to-female violence"

This is not to dismiss male victims of domestic violence in any way, but merely to say that the experiences of domestic violence are often different to women, except in the few very physically violent ways of course.

The article also gives the names of various help organisations for male victims, so I think the situation is being addressed more and more now.

I hate to see anyone, male or female, physically or emotionally abused, as the mental health cost to the victims and to the community at large is huge.
Posted by Suseonline, Tuesday, 26 February 2013 9:32:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suzie, "This is not to dismiss male victims..." right, its to dismiss "the violence" perpetrated upon them.

We know all, repeat all, violence irrespective of the nature or context, against women should be taken seriously because one push or a shove will have a woman living in constant fear of her partner. Yep, we've got the message.
Posted by Roscop, Tuesday, 26 February 2013 11:49:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suzie I will try and stick with it but when you say well researched the opening section makes a mockery of that

"To date there is little statistical data recording men as victims, either within Australia or overseas."
and
"Although men are hit by their wives, figures on husband abuse vary too widely to determine the exact extent or seriousness of the problem"

From http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
"This bibliography examines 286 scholarly investigations: 221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 371,600. "

When they start with clearly false claims such as those it's very hard to consider the paper well researched, perhaps well researched in material they agree with but there is plenty of research around over a sustained that shows that if you ask both genders similar questions about intimate partner violence you get similar answers.

What I've read so far reminds me of a paper written by a couple of catholic clergy discussing the impacts on victims of catholic clergy which starts with a claim that there is very little evidence of children being victimised by catholic clergy. Not a lot of reason to take the rest seriously.

I get the bit talked about the difference in physical fear between genders but I also think that argument ignores the massive emotional impact having an abusive spouse can have on men. Men who generally will have much weaker networks outside the home to provide support, who will often face social ridicule if they dare to speak up and potentially significant legal consequences if they dare to try and involve the authorities or leave the violent relationship.

None of us really know what it's like to walk a mile in someone else's shoes. My own impression is that the negatives on men from an abusive spouse could be just as serious as those facing women, just in different areas.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 26 February 2013 6:15:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I didn't get the feeling from this, or other articles I read, that anyone was saying it was less emotionally upsetting having an abusive female spouse rather than an abusive male spouse, just different.

It states in several places in the articles that it is difficult to get exact statistics from men who have been abused by their wives or partners because of an embarrassment at admitting the problem, so how are we ever to know how much of a problem it really is?

I believe there should be a separate campaign aimed at men, which could encourage all those in an abusive marriage to speak out and seek help.

Maybe if it was labeled a men's help line, these men wouldn't be so reluctant to call.
I see no reason why these men couldn't already ring the Domestic Violence help lines available anyway.
Posted by Suseonline, Tuesday, 26 February 2013 8:19:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Susie, You say because it is difficult to get the exact statistics from men "how are we ever to know how much of a problem it really is?". If you have ever looked at the rubbish reports produced for the DV industry you'd know that lack of "exactness" does not get in the way of it telling society how big the problem really is.

The office of women commissioned Access Economics to produce a report calculating the cost to economy caused by DV. It came up with a figure of $8.1 billion ( UNSW researchers have come up magically with the figure of $13.6 billion). The report was littered with qualifications like:

*In applying the methodology, we encountered severe problems in obtaining accurate estimates of many of the detailed components of costs. ... Hence the overall findings must be considered indicative (and in some cases speculative).

* 2.6 Measurement Problems
2.6.1 Extent of Violence
The data on DV and its costs are subject to considerable uncertainties. NCIPC (2003 p. 5) lists reasons why it has been difficult to measure its extent in the US:
• Lack of consensus about definition.
• Variations in survey methodology.
• Gaps in data collection: Estimates are often drawn from data gathered for other purposes and provide only incomplete information about DV.
• Different time frames: eg, use of annual vs. lifetime victimisation.
• Reluctance to report victimisation.
• Repetitive nature of domestic violence: Reports about DV do not always indicate clearly whether they refer to number of incidents or number of victims.

*Data on men’s experience of DV and that between same-sex partners is almost completely lacking in Australia. Consequently it is necessary to extrapolate from overseas experience.

Now those qualifications didn't stop the DV industry battering citizens' ears with the $8 billion cost to Australian economy without being upfront about it resulting from both "male" and "female" violence. Why interfere with the well cultivated notion DV is something only women experience?

Susie if you ever want to do a study of fundamental dishonesty you have to look no further than the DV industry.
Posted by Roscop, Tuesday, 26 February 2013 10:52:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Roscop, I'm sorry but I just can't see this big conspiracy about 'false ' domestic violence statistics from 'women'.

What women are doing this?
What would they get out of it?

The parliament, Governments and the law enforcement agencies are predominantly populated by males, so who the hell is telling all these 'lies' about domestic violence statistics?

If the injury and death statistics are wrong, then obviously the medical profession is colluding with this conspiracy as well?

Roscoe, I can't see it.

I still suggest that if all the militant men's groups are so sure of this big anti-male conspiracy thing happening here in Australia, then why not get together and work out a solution to assist males affected by domestic violence?

Why not start their own help organisation ?
Posted by Suseonline, Tuesday, 26 February 2013 11:33:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Susie, who said anything about a conspiracy?...it is more like a culture of misrepresenting the truth. So of the $8 billion cost to the economy that I mentioned, how much is attributable to women's violence and how much is attributable men's violence? You know what we are meant to think. Another example is the female PM Gillard saying one billion women will be raped or beaten in their lifetime. What research supports that statement being applicable to Australia?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_JkyWapMns&feature=youtu.be&a

When you ask "what women are doing this?" , it is not just women. Without mentioning names there are male academics, politicians, television personalities peddling DV nonsense. What would these men and women get out of it? Think, funding to sustain and expand the DV industry, jobs, empowerment, votes, taxpayer funded trips to DV conferences on the Gold Coast etc...its a big big gravy train. Why did you have to ask? I you would have thought that you would have known this.

When you talk about about "all the militant men's groups" what groups are you talking about? I've only ever heard of the Blackshirts and I thought that group disbanded.
Posted by Roscop, Wednesday, 27 February 2013 1:09:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think we are going to just have to agree to disagree on this subject Roscop.
Look up Men's groups in Australia online for a list of groups too many to list here.
They mostly consist of 'fatherhood' groups.

I am all for fathers myself, as I have a wonderful father , as well as my husband being a wonderful father, but I'm not keen on all the guys that blame all women for all of their woes.

Not all women hate men.....
Posted by Suseonline, Wednesday, 27 February 2013 8:29:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I see you've dropped the words "all the militant" when referring to men's groups. Maybe you realised that you were being a bit loose with the hyperbole.

I can only think of one group that claims to be the peak group of men's organisations and last time I looked it had more women on the committee than men and there is absolutely nothing militant about that group. When did you last see a men's group out protesting loud and angrily and if you did it definitely wasn't that peak group?

As to the wonderful men you know. It's good see you have two men in your life. If you had three, according to the PM, statistically the third would be the rapist and/or woman beater.
Posted by Roscop, Wednesday, 27 February 2013 10:13:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suseonline, "I am all for fathers myself, as I have a wonderful father , as well as my husband being a wonderful father, but I'm not keen on all the guys that blame all women for all of their woes.

Not all women hate men....."

Cheap words and a proactive defence for a poster who continually posts the same anti-male opinions and constantly refuses to confront the evidence so many well-meaning and patient posters have laid before her.

This has no doubt been asked of you many times before, but would you like to speculate roughly what percentage of men you believe are violent and roughly what percentage of men are responsible for DV.

To ensure that we are talking about the same thing, please keep to DV that has resulted in actual bodily harm. Because when the incidence of DV is totted up by a victim industry that is rapacious where government funding is concerned, the definition of DV has become very broad indeed and not what the community understands it to be.

Don't worry about sources, just give your personal impression. What you think are drivers would also be useful. After countless posts on the subject and none wavering a jot you must have some strong, committed personal views on both.
Posted by onthebeach, Wednesday, 27 February 2013 2:40:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've not waded though the entire paper yet but what I have conforms to a pattern used by most feminist papers "addressing" male victims of DV.

- Start with a statement of orthodoxy - the claim that DV is mostly something done men do to women. Don't want to concern your readers that you may ever question that core belief.
- Claim there is little evidence that men are victims and it's all to hard to tell anyway. This is an outright lie but the true believers will ignore that. They want to believe women are more virtuous than men.
- Take a small set of papers and do everything you can to demonstrate that man are almost never victims while at the same time making some generalised statements to the effect that they must exist somewhere.
- Claim that CTS (conflict Tactics Scale) is critically faulty ignoring the fact that most of the criticisms are based on the initial version. Meanwhile completely ignore that the methodologies behind the research that a gendered view of DV is based on is far more flawed. Anything that shows men as victims will be attacked vigorously, there will be no such critique of preferred research.

Perhaps right at the end the paper may have something worthwhile to contribute but the first 50% is a typical feminist author effort to undermine the idea of male victims of DV.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 27 February 2013 4:19:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There was a couple of comments made about conspiracy earlier. I wonder at what point it shifts from being a culture within the Gender Studies groups of uni's and other feminist research groups and becomes a conspiracy.

I've seen a number of claims by researchers such as Straus and Gelles of threats against them for publishing material that shows males as victims.
http://breakingthescience.org/RichardGelles_MissingPersonsOfDV.php
"The response to our finding that the rate of female-to-male family violence was equal to the rate of male-to-female violence not only produced heated scholarly criticism, but intense and long-lasting personal attacks. All three of us received death threats. Bomb threats were phoned in to conference centers and buildings where we were scheduled to present. Suzanne received the brunt of the attacks - individuals wrote and called her university urging that she be denied tenure; calls were made and letters were written to government agencies urging that her grant funding be rescinded. All three of us became "non persons" among domestic violence advocates. Invitations to conferences dwindled and dried up. Advocacy literature and feminist writing would cite our research, but not attribute it to us. Librarians publicly stated they would not order or shelve our books."

I've seen that mentioned elsewhere for other researchers, no references to hand but the theme is a common one.

There are other aspects to the deliberate misrepresentation about DV by feminists (and male feminist supporters) that in my view have more of the trappings of a conspiracy than a culture.

As ChazP put it after being caught "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" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12255&
page=0#212833

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 27 February 2013 4:33:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course, ChazP is in fact Charles Pragnell, who is part of the rather nasty Elspeth McInnes push.

He claims to be an expert witness on DV matters...
Posted by Antiseptic, Wednesday, 27 February 2013 5:42:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Roscop, I know plenty of wonderful men and fathers.
Most of the anti-female ones i encounter are on this site.
How about you? Any wonderful mothers or females in your life?

Onthebeach, saying I am continually posting anti-male comments on this site is a bit rich coming from you. Check your own posts for anti-female comments...

I am not anti male at all, just anti female-hating males.
I have already posted a link earlier on in this thread about domestic violence statistics from police figures, so I generally go by these proper figures when discussing violence in our society.

After working as a nurse for many years, I admit I may be a little more upset about domestic violence victims than most.

Maybe I have spoken to, and patched up, so many more women hurt in domestic violence disputes than I have men, that I have more of an idea about these situations than some bitter blokes who b@tch about women amongst themselves.
Posted by Suseonline, Wednesday, 27 February 2013 8:03:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suseonline,

What about an answer to those questions?

See here: onthebeach, Wednesday, 27 February 2013 2:40:12 PM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14694&page=13
Posted by onthebeach, Wednesday, 27 February 2013 9:02:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suze:"Maybe I have spoken to, and patched up, so many more women hurt in domestic violence disputes than I have men, that I have more of an idea about these situations ..." Oh now I see where your authority on these matters comes from.

Yep, I've been to the hospital casualty waiting room on a few occasions and yes you've got me convinced. I've noticed all women slumped and lying across seats with black eyes and with broken noses and limbs...all dv victims...the triage nurse has a separate pile of admission forms with DV victim box already ticked. But hey Suze, they make the women exceedingly tough in the jurisdiction in which I live. It has a pop. of many 100's of 1,000's, and domestic homicides register on an annual basis, in the very low single digits, if at all, and the perp is almost just as likely to be a female.
Posted by Roscop, Wednesday, 27 February 2013 9:06:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think my views on the subject have already been spelt out fairly simply, even for you Onthebeach.
I don't want to play this game any more :)
Posted by Suseonline, Wednesday, 27 February 2013 9:07:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy