Oops bad editing on that last sentence but you get the drift.

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

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'.

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

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.

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.