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.

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

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

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...

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.

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