Women's rights: The clash between Science and Metaphysics!

10 Misconceptions about the Men's Rights Movement
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8k4qRt7-SQ

Patriarchy: women own you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ5Zp8W7G78
Links from above video:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zaron-burnett/guide-to-rape-culture_b_5440553.html
http://www.city-journal.org/2013/23_4_boy-trouble.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Somme#Casualties

I believe the argument being made here, is based on a number of false premises.
The first being that evidence is ignored.
Evidence like multiple contusions, broken bones, ripped and torn vaginae, teeth smashed so badly, the only choice was to pull the few remaining and replace them with dentures; and women so cowed and terrified for their kids and or their pets, they complied with obscenities, as if they were mere slaves; and there's a lot worse.
Eventually, women who try to stand up to a typical controlling male, could easily find themselves, having the unborn child within kicked to death, because it was inconvenient or unwanted; or worse, thrown off a forty storey balcony, have the air hose to the aqualung cut at forty fathoms etc/etc ad infinitum, ad nuseum!
And of course the controlling male stereotype, is going to argue most strenuously, that there is no such thing, or she made me do it, with her nag nag nag, stop your drinking Joe, pay the rent Joe, don't gamble away your wages Joe, please don't send me back into the streets Joe!
What if I get pregnant, catch an SID or AIDS?
And remember what happened to the last kid, just because, you couldn't be 100% sure it was yours.
These same house devils, street angels, would charm the leg of a chair, and butter wouldn't melt in their mouth.
Invariably, compulsive and convincing liars, who all to often can even beat a polygraph test; well at least until now!
And they want to keep getting away with it! Hence this atypical BS?
This article, I believe, is patently false excuse making garbage? Don't be fooled, AGAIN!
Rhrosty.

Incredible! Finally some sensible, sane and neutral commentary about the sinister designs of 'feminism' and it's even more terrifying and truly evil sister cohort 'lesbianism'. Germaine Greer et al are exactly and precisely what they denounce - control freaks with borderline paedophile leanings.

Bravo Adam. Expect a rabid backlash to this from feminist idealogues who will present emotive anecdotes and paint you as a misogynist lunatic for daring to challange their orthodox dogma. Still more and more people are becoming aware of the fraud and failure of feminism in the area of partner violence. Blind adherence to such dogmas by ideologically rigid advocates has done much harm.

Rather then real education on "respectful relationships" feminists programs (such as "love bites" and 'relationship violence no way") are teaching Duluth inspired male bad, female good in schools, despite the overwhelming evidence that teen and dating violence is gender symmetrical hence dooming further generations to suffer this blight. Hopefully sanity and evidence will eventually prevail.

This is a thoughtful article which would make most sensible people stop and think.

Goebbels was right: repeat an idea often enough, and people will believe it.
'Privatisation of public assets is a good idea"
"Men are violent"
"Women are bad drivers"
'It doesn't matter if foreigners buy up Australian assets"
'We have to stop domestic violence which affects all women every day"

The ABC is recently running a series on domestic violence, but it's the same old stuff. Women are constantly at risk from men who are violent, apparently. False statistics are trotted out: "One in three women will be abused". What possible evidence can be produced to prove something that hasn't happened?

We need a much calmer, less emotive discussion on these issues.

In case nobody noticed, the gay press tells us that same-sex couples can be abusive and violent.

And by the way- we need to be much more careful with defining what is "violence". The more extreme feminists, who are beloved by the media (especially SBS and ABC) throw it around because they know it gets them attention.

'Same sex couples can be violent'

Same sex couples ARE violent, simple as that. Violence is person specific, and not gender specific as the rabid femo-nazis would have us believe.

Cody,
We shouldn't call them Nazis, for all their perceived faults Hitler & Co really were on a mission to transform European society, Ideological Feminism, is just fraud, rent seeking and a lot of the time outright extortion and blackmail with menaces.
As we see with Rhrosty's post Feminists take the spaces formed by a lack of supporting evidence for their claims and fill it with what amounts to a bunch of old wives tales and conspiracy theories.
Feminists don't represent women, or even the views of women, they represent a form of racketeering dressed up in a veneer of respectability, like Cosa Nostra running a soup kitchen for the poor.

In the context of this article I find this news report interesting http://www.couriermail.com.au/questnews/west/reports-of-sex-offences-almost-double-over-the-last-year-in-brisbanes-innerwestern-suburbs/story-fni9r1r4-1226917345400.

In it the police call on men not to take advantage of drunken women for sex. When I first heard it on the radio my instinctive reaction was to wonder why it was not twinned with a call for women not to take advantage of drunken men. If both parties are under the influence it's a bit hard to say that either was taking advantage of the other, unless you're acting on the basis of a stereotype.

Things may have changed since I did much clubbing, but it always seemed to be the case that the men had more to drink than the women, so more likely that a man's thinking was even more impaired than a woman's.

Yes it's an interesting question Graham.
When is a man too intoxicated to consent to sex or to be held responsible for his actions?
Arousal doesn't mean consent and the failure or inability of one party to say no in a sexually charged situation isn't usually available as a defense in court.
There's been some interesting work on the role of intoxication in male-male violence and it seems to indicate high levels of impairment arising form only moderate consumption. It might sound obvious but young men in particular experience a narrowing of their field of vision even when only moderately drunk, they are unable to process sounds as normal nor properly interpret speech and body language, I've not seen any work on the effects of intoxication upon women but you'd expect something similar.
The obvious message to both young men and women is just don't get so drunk when you go out on the town and if you're specifically going out looking to get laid maybe not drinking at all is the best policy.

Firstly Adam congratulations on a this article.

Bronte, "One in three women will be abused". What possible evidence can be produced to prove something that hasn't happened?>

This figure was arrived at, by expanding the definition of domestic violence and including 'one instances" such as being hit once, rather that the accepted thing about repeated behaviour.

The expanded definition included things like psychological abuse, such as manipulation, but then by tying the one in three, with talk about physical violence, this attempt is then to associate the one in three women will experience physical violence resulting as Rhosty puts it broken bones, smashed teeth ect,

When in actual fact women who have their bones broken and teeth smash will make up around 1% of the female population in Australia (excluding native australian camps).

If one goes to central australia then the figures are mucher higher.

There was a project about a decade ago, where I think they wanted to catch the data on how many women who presented to ED's were victims of domestic violence.

Don't know the results of that research project as to my knowledge the results have not been published.

Usually the media would be all over it.

Good afternoon to you both, J OF MELBOURNE & GRAHAM Y...

Interestingly, drunkenness was a defence to 'criminal capacity', along with that of automatism and lunacy ? I'm not sure if that's still the case, apropos drunkenness ? As a retired detective, I've always pursued my own little theory, 'it takes two hands to clap' in matters of alleged assault. Is there any contributory negligence in the commission of the offence ?

Can you establish the elements of the alleged crime - mens rea & actus reus. The old legal maxim applies; 'an act does not make a person guilty unless his mind is guilty' which is the cardinal principle of English (Australian) criminal law ?

It's been my experience in some instances, though the assault was first perpetrated by the female person, and because the male person had responded in kind, he'd been 'done for it'? Ostensibly because of the obvious physical dissimilitude between the sexes ?

I know of no copper who likes attending 'domestics'?

Retired? Thank the Lord and praise the heavens!

Bravo; an article which is far too sensible to get any media attention. It's also worth noting that men on average are three or four times more likely to be the victims of violence than women, another statistic which seems to get mentioned less often than it ought.

Unfortunately far too many otherwise sensible people regard an uncritical acceptance of fourth wave feminism as a defining trait for being acceptably lefty. One leftist commentator elsewhere had a hissy fit when I asked him to commit himself to funding violence prevention on a per-victim rather than per-gender basis.

The underlying problem is an attempt by a few women and their fellow-travellers to regain gender privileges they lost when the hard-won campaign for legal and social equality was won. Their -- sometimes successful -- campaign to define crimes against women as inherently worse than equally damaging crimes against men is a prime example.

Wolly B, O'sung,
The way Feminists come to the "one in three" figure is that they take statistics for all the contacts the authorities have with troubled families and then apply that as an average to the general population over what they term a "lifetime".
For example, I know one such "troubled' couple and they've had four contacts with Police just in the last two months..that we know of, both of them have also taken out several AVO's against each other and other people. Whereas my wife and I, like the vast majority of couples have never had any contact whatsoever with the Police or Social Services in our 25 years together.
There's a small number of very troublesome people in the community who account for most of the contacts with authorities, so for the sake of simple maths imagine a community of 3000 people where there are 1,000 "instances" of domestic violence in a year, that's not "one in three", it's more likely to be 100 people with ten contacts each, so one in 300.
Feminist's definition of violence against women is also very broad, it goes from behaviour such as ignoring a woman at one extreme to murder at the other, yet when they are forced to recognise violence against men they only consider a very narrow range of very severe cases.
Rubbery figures, so to speak. Victoria Police had filed 60,000 incident reports of DV last year, as we know on average 1/3 of those are men, so we can say 40,000 incidents pertaining to women, what's the average number of contacts per victim? That's the real question.

One thing I think men need to do is to point to the behaviour of rabid feminists. It is a bit pointless to try and argue with them as if they are capable of rational argument. What really needs to be exposed is not what they say, which is boringly predictable, but the way they say it. If they were truly interested in fighting only for women’s rights then they would do it in a respectful way and try to get society to change because it is reasonable and just to do so. It is obvious by the way they conduct themselves that this is not their real concern.

Take the example of Rhrosty. Look at the hysterically manipulative way that comments are made in response to an article written in good faith in a temperate language. You can almost see the veins about ready to burst. It is full of aggression and the desire to hurt someone for no other reason than they have a contrary opinion. In another recent post there was a very patronising sermon telling men how they should conduct themselves in relation to women. This kind of behaviour points to deep seated insecurities in Rhrosty’s relationships with men and women. If there is a point to be made it can be made reasonably without being a drama queen or being patronising.

This is what men should be focusing on. Men should be exposing this behaviour for what it is and stop wasting time trying to enter into dialogue with people who clearly have no intent on solving society’s problems but every intent on covering up their own. Women who are exposed like this will either resort to violence or slink away and create women’s ghettos for themselves. The more that men keep the spotlight on their behaviour the less vocal they will become because they will be afraid to have their insecurities exposed for what they truly are. Once they are forced to calm down we may be able to gets some reasonable discussion happening.

'It's also worth noting that men on average are three or four times more likely to be the victims of violence than women ...'

Committed by ... ahem ... men.

Up to 90% of violent crime and murder is committed by men. In western countries, seven times the rate of intimate partner homicides is committed by men - much more in non-western countries. More than 95% of rapes are committed by men, with women committing rape mainly as men's accomplices. Men control more than 95% of the world's weaponry. Wars are created by and for mostly men's interests and almost 100% of the atrocities in war are committed by men.

Look, guys. If it makes you feel better to throw up all kinds of links to all kinds of studies funded by uber-right wing (mostly US) think tanks to use silly methodologies like Conflict Tactic Scale to 'prove' that women are doing at least 50% of the spousal-thumping, raping, murdering, assaulting, warmongering and torturing of much of the world's population - go right ahead if it makes you feel better. And if it helps you to create nice little conspiracy theories about feminists suppressing all these plucky little MRM Gallileos trying to expose the truth - then do so. (Sheesh! Feminists should be so lucky??)

But the big whopping elephant in the tiny little room is that global violence is MALE driven. We mostly look at violence as a 'human' trait, when it's mostly a 'human MALE' trait. And culturally, male violence is worshipped and glorified as being rugged and masculine and manly.

These articles keep on coming because men do not want to give up the very thing that has kept them in control of the planet for last few thousand years - and that is their propensity for extreme violence against other men, women, children, animals and nature.

Rhrosty, the examples you cite are extreme cases and not typical of most of what is described as DV.

The case most of us have been putting for quite a while has been pretty well covered by Adam.

Simply put when both genders are asked questions about actions without pre-loading the outcomes large numbers of studies over a long time in many countries have shown similar rates of initiation of violence against intimate partners. A significant proportion of relationships where violence is a factor involve both parties initiating the violence at times. When the violence escalates then women are more likely to suffer serious harm, the general difference between women's and men's size and strength is a factor in outcomes not in who initiates the violence.

The determination by the feminist lobby to portray intimate partner violence as massively gendered has left male victims with few options, support services are all to often dismissive of their plight, leave and face a very large uphill battle to maintain residency of children etc. Punch someone often enough without them feeling they have any "good" ways to get that to stop and sometimes people will make choices they would not otherwise make.

So yes the obvious injuries look gendered but that does not tell you who hit's early and who hit's often. You might also be more inclined to think of other reasons why a male is carrying injuries than DV than you would for similar injuries visible on a woman.

You might also think about male suicide rates and ask to what extent they are impacted by partner violence (not necessarily physical). I wish I had that answer.

Within the home both genders can initiate violence, both can struggle to find good answers to a partners violence. Both can harm their kids.

R0bert

Yes Killarney we understand that you don't think systematic research asking the same questions of both genders and a failure to apply feminist theory to the outcomes can stack up against a whip around the "women's action group" to provide evidence of what's happening. Ok maybe a little exaggeration but I not so much.

Point to credible research that has actually asked the same questions of experience of partner violence without the pre-loading of subjective terms or which are very clear in what they are claiming and those claims match the questions asked and without the post loading of feminist interpretation which also shows the highly gendered nature of DV which you so desperately want to portray and I'll look.

In all the years I've been looking at and commenting on this issue I've not seen one reference to research supporting the position the feminists put which didn't start with a statement of faith about beliefs about DV or carry other major flaws guaranteed to impact on the outcome.

The carry on about Conflict Tactics Scale flaws is a smoke screen based mostly on some minor historical flaws whilst ignoring the fundamental lack of rigour in studies used to support the viewpoint you prefer. You are part of the problem, not any attempt at a solution.

R0bert

CODY...

And you point is...?

Killarney, not a single one of your statistics is correct.

These articles will keep coming because women like you do not want to take responsibility for your part in the drama of human history. The attempt to make everyone else the repository of human evil and claim perfect innocence for their own group is a strange human behaviour embodied by fundamentalist christians/muslims/feminists etc. This is the basis of every single conflict in human history, the need to see yourself as greater/better/purer than another. I call it moral terrorism.

Killarney, "But the big whopping elephant in the tiny little room is that global violence is MALE driven. We mostly look at violence as a 'human' trait, when it's mostly a 'human MALE' trait. And culturally, male violence is worshipped and glorified as being rugged and masculine and manly."

Cr@p.

From the day one was born, my mother was cruel, violent, manipulative, one has seen their father dominated by an aggressive woman for the whole of his life, he never ever retaliated or struck back, we as a family have all suffered mentally as to the extent of the violence perpetrated by my mother throughout our lives, not only to him but ourselves.
Women are as violent as men, don't be fooled by that exterior of submission and nicety, follow them home, you may learn the true facts.
Erections in a completely drunk male for sexual enjoyment would be almost nil, violence may occur because he cannot get it up, but he would more likely puke or fall asleep.

Adam Blanch

‘Killarney, not a single one of your statistics is correct.'

OK. Here are some more ‘incorrect’ statistics. More than 95% of murder suicides are committed by men on women. Men are more than 30 times more successful at killing themselves than women are. Mass murders in the suburbs are entirely committed by men (unless you can find one that isn't). And on it goes ...

And here is another ‘incorrect’ statistic. While we are lectured to ad nauseum by the current government about how we have to cut back on all our profligate spending, that same government has committed us to spend $20 billion dollars on weapons systems (aka male-operated killing machines) just for this year alone.

This is so that Australia can participate in the wargame fantasies of the most macho superpower on earth, which is hell bent on creating a ‘potential’ zone of conflict in the Asia-Pacific sphere. That’s $20 billion committed to simply giving more men more opportunity to engage in legitimised male violence, which for future generations will be wrapped up in pretty euphemisms like ‘valour’ and ‘honour’ and ‘mateship’ and ‘defence of the realm’ and ‘international security’.

But no, people like you think the problem is all about women ‘taking responsibility’ for their part in the ‘human drama of history’ – even though men have violently excluded women from history for millennia.

You think it’s all a matter of making women take responsibility for the fact that some of them chase their hubbies around the house with a rolling pin from time to time and that many mothers make their kids' lives miserable with emotional abuse.

Fine. You've got plenty of sympathetic company.

This article is extremely biased towards men and in no way wants to come up with answers for reducing domestic violence in our community, but rather seeks to blame women.

I really don't care about 'studies' that tell us that , apparently, there are all these violent women out there that are really at the crux of the domestic violence problem, and that all the poor men are just unfairly vilified.

What a load of toss!

The only evidence I go by are the undeniable crime statistics that show that women are by far the most likely to be more seriously injured and/or die in DOMESTIC violence encounters than men are.

Suse

Agree. These so-called studies are basically 'proving' that water runs up hill. They fly in the face of every basic law of existence, not to mention common sense.

Men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of violence against everything and everyone. The reasons are either biological or cultural.

I don't go with the biological factor (good old testosterone theory), because the vast majority of men are not violent - indeed, utterly incapable of it.

That leaves cultural factors as the obvious cause. There are a lot of ways to deal with this - denial is not one of them, neither are conspiracy theories about feminists vilifying men to further their own agendas.

As you say ... what a load of toss!

Suzie are you deliberately misrepresenting what people are saying or are you so focussed on the mantra that you refuse to read what is written. I know I'm probably wasting my effort with you on this but yet again the point is not about blaming women, its that gender is not the issue in DV. There are a whole bunch of otherfactors predominately to blame including the fact that some people are thugs.

Whats not about reducing DV is the continued attempts to make it a male thing to help the womens political plays. DV is harder to stop reduce because of the efforts of the Killarneys of the world who I know how the figures are made up, twisted, misrepresented etc but it suits their agenda. You I suspect really believe their spin.

If you want to do something to reduce DV take of the gendered blinkers and accept that human beings have failings regardless of their gender.

R0bert

"On domestic violence, no one wants to hear the truth"
- a very interesting article in Canada's National Post

A snippet,
"University of British Columbia psychology professor Don Dutton, is acknowledged by his peers as a world expert on IPV. He has proven, over and over again -- most recently in his definitive 2006 book, Rethinking Domestic Violence -- that the tendency to violence in intimate relationships is bilateral and rooted in individual dysfunction: Men and women with personality disorders and/or family histories of violence are equally likely to be violent themselves, or seek violent partners.

But Dutton's scientific credentials and extensive 25-year archive of peer-reviewed research cut no ice with Canadian policymakers, none of whom has ever solicited his advice.

Instead, pseudo-science absolving women of violent impulses, delivered on demand to interest groups by the same tiny, incestuous coterie of ideologically sympathetic professionals, is routinely applied in training police, family law judges, social workers and women's shelter personnel.

A lazy, politically correct media dutifully spreads the party line by reporting uncritically on bogus selection-biased "studies" by non-accredited stakeholders, who extrapolate to the general population data that are based on testimonials from men in court-mandated therapy programs or women in shelters."

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=a41532d6-d4df-46a2-a784-f6499938f3b0

It strikes me that most people don't know the difference between women & females & men & males.
Then we have the third sex, the asexuals who are harboured by the public service.
Combined, they make up a considerable voting force against men & women.

A great article Adam. One important thing it's important to mention is that while couple counselling, relationship skills training and individual therapy may work well for most domestic violence (the 'common couple violence' you refer to), it's essential that a triage system is in place so that those (rare) cases of 'intimate terrorism' aren't referred on to counselling as this can be extremely dangerous for the victim (male or female), but instead referred on to the appropriate authorities.

RObert, I know I will never change your mind either, but as I said before, I am only looking at the cold, hard facts from official Australian crime statistics that overwhelmingly show that women come off much worse in Domestic violence situations.

I doubt these elusive 'feminists', that apparently drive this conspiracy against all men in society, have anything to do with compiling actual crime statistics.

Thanks Men's Health, at last a voice of reason.
Yes, counselling may work for those couples who are willing to look past the previous violence in their relationship, as long as it wasn't too longstanding or violent I suppose.

However, there are many women who clearly would not want to continue these relationships, whereas the men would prefer to stay with 'their' women, regardless of the violence.

These are the men that need to be locked up much earlier than after waiting until they have severely maimed or killed their 'intimate' partners.
We see this sad scenario far too often...

Feminism is more of a religion than anything else. It begins with a maxim - that men are the cause of all evils in the world - and interprets all (bad) phenomena to coincide with this maxim. The maxim itself is saturated with value judgements, and when applied to interpret phenomena, ends with committing numerous errors in reasoning. Feminism particularly does damage to the notion of cause and effect; because, it won't look at the circumstances surrounding every DV incident and the multiple elements that led to the incident in question. Rather, it begins with the maxim 'man is aggressive and violent' and then interprets the DV incident to coincide with this maxim. Any disagreement with the maxim is then interpreted as sexist or misogynistic. And around it goes in circles, ad infinitum. It commits the error of circular reasoning and begging the question.


It's important to look at the methodology in feminist literature on DV. They do telephone interviews and surveys, but only for women. So, if you're only going to investigate one half one the population, then obviously the results are going to be skewed toward that half.


Hopefully with the recent reforms of the University, 'women's studies' and all related courses will be de-funded. It only currently lives off tax payers' money, but deregulated university fees should see it crumble.

Suzie, crime statistics carry a number of pre-filters that alter the outcomes in terms of understanding the dynamics of DV.
- Police are trained to some extent to see DV as a male thing so are far less likely to recognise or deal with female perpetrators
- Given the treatment men receive when they do report DV we are far less likely to report it in the first place and in some cases even recognise it as DV ourselves. It took me a long time to get past the stereotypes and rcognise that being punched by by ex was DV, a mental block that many share.
- Reports to police and charges are far more likely to happen when the violence gets to the point of physical injury. The stats and most of the men pointing out that initiation of DV is not gendered acknowledge that women get seriously hurt more often because of the difference in size and strength

If the debate was just about who suffers greater physical injury there would be very little debate, its not. Feminists rely on the extremes for their hard evidence then discuss the issue as though that covered all emotional, financial, social and lower level physical abuse of an intimate partner.

R0bert

Killarney, Yeah right...wars are fought for Men's interests, that's why they used posters like this in WWI to guilt trip men into enlisting.
http://goo.gl/wKpBmU
http://goo.gl/fhfmbD
It turned out that the atrocity stories coming from the invasion of Belgium were a lie, a propaganda fabrication, yet here we are 100 years later, same propaganda, same lies:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8499578.stm
Wars are always fought for the interests of a class of people, not a gender, men are shamed into enlisting by being called cowards because they won't sacrifice their lives to protect women and children. The reason this works, time after time is precisely because men have no group interests beyond the protection of women and children, they will either unite to struggle against nature to build a safe home for their families or to struggle against other men to ensure the safety of women and children.

A lot of the arguments seem to revolve around statistics as if such facts tell the complete picture. The statistics are based on the number of reported cases. This does not necessarily equate to the actual number of cases. It is reasonable to assume that there are probably many women who do not report for a variety of reasons. Many women still do not report because for them the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. We do not have an accurate figure which shows how many actual acts of violence are committed against women. What we have is reliable information that there are more cases reported by women than by men. There can be no argument about this.

We also have some studies that show how many cases are reported by men but men also elect not to report for a variety of reasons. We also have no real indication of how many children are victims of violence nor what gender they are abused by unless it is reported. Most children are incapable of reporting violence and they have a lot more to lose if they could.

Arguments which claim that men are more violent than women based on the number of reported cases are clearly false arguments. The reported facts do not necessarily show the complete picture. Men may well be more violent but you cannot deduce this based simply on the number of reported cases. It is an illogical and very unscientific way to mount an argument.

There was a time not long ago when women never reported domestic violence. Did we then deduce that it did not exist? If men decide to report more and children are watched more closely will it one day turn out to be that women are the more violent gender?

<The only evidence I go by are the undeniable crime statistics that show that women are by <far the most likely to be more seriously injured and/or die in DOMESTIC violence encounters <than men are.
<Posted by Suseonline, Thursday, 12 June 2014 1:10:03 AM

There have been recent cases where women who kill their partners are found not guilty.

There is no denying what Suzie writes, but this is the extreme end of the paradigm defined as domestic violence.

The sad fact is locking up perpetrators does not reduce the incidence, whilst prevention is the aim, nobody is game enough to really look too deeply into how situations eventually escalate to physical violence and injury.

"The strongest predictor of physical violence is one party is an emotional abuser" I saw a quote similar to this once, but have not been able to locate it since.

How many of us have partook or witnessed where a victim is selected and had their emotional buttons pushed, being teased or provoked by verbal abuse until they finally 'crack it'.

Then the bullies sit back a plead innocence whilst the victim gets the blame.

Why are we being sold the story that men are more violent than women?

Why because it means some women can get away with premeditated murder, by claiming "he beat me"?

Why, because it makes it easier for the woman to get the house, & all the money in a breakup.

If men are more violent, why is it we hear reports of women cutting a mans penis off when he was asleep, but we don't hear of men cutting women's breasts off, or filling her vagina up with wet cement?

Phanto,Hasbeen,Killarney correct in what you write, Susieonline needs to follow many women home to know how violent they are to the men they married, manipulation is a game mainly played by women, even Susieonline comes across as manipulative in her outlook on domestic violence.
War is created by men at the top but not necessarily so, Thatcher & also Gillard went along with violence when they listen to the rantings of people like Reagon or Obama , war mad, ordinary men do not want to go and kill people but are made to do so by Government leaders, conscription for women to kill would be the same as for men, they could do the same, but it is the men called upon to do the killing whether they like it or not, having been taught myself how to do just that, not my idea at all, we have a Governor General whose main aim in life was to kill, and then be decorated for the act of killing.
Women are violent creatures the same as men, men being what they are do not report to authorities that a woman has tried to kill them, take the case of arsenic poisoning to a husband a few years ago, then she denied she never did such a thing , but found guilty
You are wrong Susieonline, women can be as violent as men

Hi there SUSEONLINE...

Notwithstanding the interesting comments attributed from HASBEEN, who's essentially quite correct in what he says. Regrettably, from my experience it is the male who's likely to be much more violent in the domestic scene, than the female.

As I stated in my earlier thread, 'it takes two hands to clap' ! Often there's a trigger that provokes the male into violence, and unfortunately no matter the degree of provocation, if a male assaults a female, provocation is no defence in law. Without even mentioning that quaint moral imperative; 'a man should never strike a lady' ? Still our enlightened society seems to have very little truck with such twee, standards of virtue and gentlemanly standards of conduct towards women ?

In conclusion, I refer to OJNAB comments, inter alia, you state '...women can be as violent as men....' ? Of course they can, in fact even more so in some instances. The fact is, overwhelmingly there are many more assaults occasioned against women, than that which have been occasioned against men. An indisputable fact unfortunately.

O sung,
It's not a "fact" at all:
http://goo.gl/grzo5k
The only argument here is between people who believe that violence against women is a more important issue than violence against men.
Everyone knows that men and women are equally violent but look at the incarceration rates:
http://goo.gl/BC4Cyn
Men are more likely to go to jail than women, even when the charge is the same and women are treated more leniently by courts, here's an extreme example from overseas:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyvIif2YL9o
If you don't want to sit through the rather tedious commentary I'll tell you how it ends, the woman is acquitted of all charges even though the video shows she tried to cut the throat of a Police officer and actually succeeded in wounding him. The commentator makes an interesting point at the end, a man in that scenario would be doing 20 years for attempted murder, more than likely he'd have been shot dead either by the victim or by the responding officers.

Ok JAY OF MELBOURNE...I give up ! You can't beat Stats !

<Ok JAY OF MELBOURNE...I give up ! You can't beat Stats !
<Posted by o sung wu, Thursday, 12 June 2014 5:45:10 PM

The real fact is you can beat statistics, you can manipulate statistics very easily.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050308115735/http://www.nojustice.info/Research/ManufacturingResearch.htm

See Manufacturing research.

also 'Lies Damned Lies and Lenore Weitzman.
http://www.acbr.com/biglie.htm

R0bert

I've read enough of your posting history to know about your background and how personally this issue affects you. However, I believe your own experience has distorted your view of the whole issue.

I don't know how long ago your experience happened, but the police attitudes, Family Court procedures and general prejudices you describe towards male DV victims do not tally with the personal experiences I've had in regard to DV (although I've never been directly abused by a partner.)

I don't usually like to use anecdotal observations as an argument, but I've encountered among my friends and acquaintances a few menwho have either been genuine DV victims or pretended to be DV victims thinking it would give them an advantage in the Family Court system (despite Howard's FC reforms making this redundant). Yet I've never come across the anti-male attitudes you describe - among the police, or lawyers, or Family Court or people generally.

My own view about articles like this is twofold.

One is that they are part of a so-called men's movement whose only interest in gender violence is within the marital separation/divorce context - because men have a personal vested interest. These groups completely and deliberately ignore the wider - and very extensive - problem of gender violence, mostly perpetrated by men.

The other is that this movement comes almost exclusively out of the US, where anyone who can afford an expensive lawyer or get enough legal aid can smear the ex's reputation with a DV charge or two and thus take their ex to the cleaners - get the house, the bank account, the share portfolio, pension plan and 100% child custody.

It's a situation that simply does NOT fit the Australian Family Law context, with its system of mediation, 50-50 child residency and much fairer asset splits. This largely fictitious anti-male-bias DV scenario not only gives Australian men a distorted view of the Australian divorce system, but is actually discouraging genuine male DV victims from getting the help they need.

Killarney, Firstly feminist researchers expanded the definition of domestic violence, but when they argue the point, it is about who does the most physical damage.

In maternity units around australia, women are screened by being asked, "When was the last time he hit you?"

Men get asked "When was the last time you hit her?"

Unfortunately there is a certain percentage of the population who display "Psychopathic" traits and there is not much that can be done to protect people from the psychopaths.

Then there are the drug users and alcoholics who are violent, their violence will not stop until their drug alcohol use stops.

Another cause that is not really talked about, is the people who have an acquire a brain injury.

A number of years ago when I was bored, reading 'That's Life' magazine, there was a story that seemed familiar, about a male who had an acquired a brain injury, who killed his step father. It turned out that I already knew some of the details of the story.

Hi again, JAY OF MELBOURNE...

I've no answer to your contrasting statistics that you've supplied me, where you clearly refute my opinion ? What I am asserting quite unequivocally, as very much the pragmatist and a policeman, I could count on one hand the number of domestic assaults I've attended over the years where the female was the offender. Though there were significantly less female offenders to that of males, many of the offences committed by these women, were often classed as more serious, eg. ABH, malicious wound., attempt murder etc. ?

Whereas, I couldn't begin to precisely enumerate the inordinately larger number of domestic assaults I've attended that were clearly perpetrated by the male !

Furthermore, I cannot begin to account for any statistic, record or opinion, that you've furnished me, that may prove contradictory to the experiential evidence that I've accrued over the thirty two odd years I was in the job. It's is simple as that, JAY OF MELBOURNE ?

O Sung Wu, you are wasting your time trying to offer reason or actual proof to many posters on this thread re domestic violence.

Like you, I have had experience in hospitals and in the community dealing with victims of domestic violence.

By far, the overwhelming majority of badly injured or dead victims were female.
If there were meant to be all these adult male victims of domestic violence by females, I rarely saw them.
Maybe they went to other major hospitals than the ones I worked in.

Mostly, the injured men who came in claimed they were bashed by other men.
I guess they could have lied, but the undeniable fact is that unless maybe guns are used, then not many women can overpower a man.

I don't profess to know the answers, but whatever is happening now is not working...

Hi there SUSEONLINE...

I'm afraid you're right. Sometimes others don't wish to hear the truth, for whatever their reason. What to do about it ? I really don't know. Violence is becoming most prevalent, particularly amongst young males, all trying to prove themselves, how tough they are or something ? Threats of gaol don't seem all that effective, there must be some other deterrent that may have a greater effect ?

O Sung Wu, I believe domestic violence has been around for all of human history, it's just that it is only relatively recently it has been a criminal offense to injure or kill your wife.
Before that , it was considered the man of the house's business what he did to 'his' family under his roof.
Some men these days are unable to get past that fact.

There is more domestic violence around because more people populate the earth and more victims are speaking out.
Also, maybe alcohol and drug consumption have increased, leading to more violence in the homes as well as out on the streets?

o sung wu, it may not be those who disagree with you who don't want to see the truth.

You should have a think about how much your experience was impacted by prevaling attitudes. Men rarely call the police over DV issues, a lack of faith that they will get any support if they do, a concern that the police will decide the easiest course is to treat them as the aggressor and remove them (easier than taking mum from the kids etc), difficulty in recognising themselves that their partners actions are DV. The issue is made even more difficult by the view that has been pushed by those pushing the gendered approach that when women assault their partners they are fighting back against an abuser (well refuted but it has traction in peoples minds). Don't blame the victim has no traction when the victim is male and the assailant is female.

I get the impression from your posts that you are of an age and mindset that has an overall protective view of women, not a bad thing overall as long as it's not a blind spot or something that hinders recognition of the fact that women ar human beings with all the strengths and weaknesses that go with that.

When was the last time you saw any public mention of female initiated DV as a bad thing other than on forums like this?). I've not noticed any for a couple of years but there were still TV adds running not that long ago that portrayed women about to assault a partner as their fun attention grabber.

The personal experience of police, nurses etc are heavily filtered by their own attitudes to gender and the social difficulty men face in dealing with DVinitiated against them. I know women face difficulties talking about it but it appears to me at a far lower level than the difficulties men face.

There are plenty of reasons why you and Suzie would have personal experience that does not match what the research that has tried to get to the truth tells us.

R0bert

I repeat:
The difference of opinion here is not pro violence vs anti violence it's between people who want the state to prioritise prevention of violence against women over prevention of violence against men and people who want a society wide anti violence approach.
Feminists and traditional conservatives both hold the same position which can be summed up as "women and children first" with no exceptions though they come to it from different starting points.
While the position of Tradcons can be simply dismissed as primitive and backward Judeo-Christian thinking the argument against Feminism is that it's a money making racket, like a cult backed by pseudo science and utilising political "in group-out group" tactics, hence the term "Feminazis".
Neither Tradcons nor Feminists are actively seeking to end domestic violence, they only want control of the state's social services and law enforcement apparatus to further an ideological agenda by diverting state funding to their own groups.

There is the sneaking suspicion that if a man reported domestic violence affecting him to community health's nurse assistant Suseonline she would very quickly admonish him to 'Grow a pair'.

If feminism is about equality, that equality must also apply to men. Also to those lesbians (and minor groups) who are being abused by their partners. That is all impossible where feminist dinosaurs refuse to admit that women are offenders too.

There is a problem with definitions and of course the favourable stereotyping of women, with the negative stereotyping of men. The old nursery rhyme is believed by some like Killarney and Suseonline for whom there is no redemption for infant boys, who are made of little bits of loathsome snails and discarded, smelly puppy dogs tails.

Conversely, old fire-breathing feminist dragons who block career progression of young women in academia and in public bureaucracies are very pleased to know that they are wonderful womyn, 'Earth Goddesses' in fact. They must be because they were made from 'sugar and spice and all things nice'.

Any wonder that young women run screaming from the feminist harridans.

It is a good article and not before time.

Having read these comments I cannot help but feel sad at how predictable this conversation is and how committed some people are to positions of hatred. Most comments are men saying 'please stop demonising me'. A few are women defending and asserting their prejudice that men are basically evil.

I've long given up being upset by the labels and slurs that are leveled against me when I challenge this hatred of men, this has always been the way the hateful argue, they are in fact exactly the same label and slurs that were thrown at early women's liberationists and civil rights activists when they challenged the prejudice against them.

What I cannot come to terms with is how this sort of emotional manipulation manages to work generation after generation. Whether it's women, or Jews, or black people, or men being vilified - the tactics are the same - and somehow they manage to get otherwise well meaning people to buy into it.

Human history is a story of hatred and division and we never seem to learn. Just get people scared and angry and point them at the person you want to hurt or destroy, and they will do it. Hitler Youth, Poll Pot, Genocide in Rwanda - It's all the same - a hateful power hungry few manipulating the emotional gullibility of the many.

I am not the enemy of women or any other peoples. I am the enemy of hatred, prejudice and fascism disguised as righteousness (and it's always disguised as righteousness). When do we grow up as a species?

Adam Blanch you forgot Bush, Obama, Howard, Abbot, Gillard, Thatcher, Churchill, the list goes on and on of power hungry people, lets create war, let Iraq sort itself out, but Obama can't wait to get in there, and China is in his vision of the next knock out.
How can anyone agree with any one else in la la land without fighting and killing, male or female.

Disillusioned with Feminism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qk3beajVbzg
"Feminism is the WORST thing to happen to women" (Suzanne Venker)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH-mjGNqlHs
Suzanne Venker - The War on Men
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKaNl2QKXwE

The Bomb in the Brain: Brain Development and Violence with Stefan Molyneux
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf7uq9NUOnY

Hi there ROBERT...

You have provided an interesting perspective concerning the complexities of this debate, and I agree with much of what you've said. Particularly your suggestion that our thinking and our moral compass, is more or less structured according to our generation ?

I'll be seventy five shortly, and I guess I've always been schooled in that moral imperative, that men simple don't hit women ! The concept of women being violent towards men has always been on my radar, but that situation has invariably been somewhat alien to people of my generation. However, professionally I'm well aware that women are more than capable of exacting, in some cases, terrible violence towards men with consummate ease ?

In any case ROBERT I can only comment on matters that I've had to deal with. Occurrences that have been thoroughly supported by the empirical evidence that I've gathered, while on the job as a copper. Still, as I stated earlier on, I do agree with much of what you've said in your thread.

Adam Blanch when people like you grow out of their feeling of superiority, there will be some chance for the species to move on.

O, sung.
At one level it's about interpersonal violence but that's not the whole of the issue, the couples who beat each other up or the individuals who are violent with their spouse are a tiny, tiny minority of the population.
Obviously when you were a Policeman you didn't get called out to homes where everyone habitually sat around after dinner quietly watching television, doing handicrafts or listening to the radio like we did in my parents home.
That said alchoholism,domestic violence and family breakdown was a problem in my extended family, it was talked about openly, the aunties and female friends of the family who needed support were supported, the cousins were collected and brought to our house to stay when their mum and dad were fighting and if they were clearly at fault the men were called out on their BS by the other adults.
The situation now is that, like everything else the ability to respond to DV has, little by little been taken away from the community by these cults or political clubs who have no interest in dealing with the issue, who are only interested in control of the state's social service apparatus and who are really focused on "progress" or changing the makeup of society to suit their ideology.
What I'm getting at is that the skills my parents had in dealing with DV when they saw it are being lost and in a way the problem is actually being pushed out of the public eye due to privacy laws and what we might call "offender's rights". For example there's a bloke in my extended family now who needs a bloody good talking to but who's out of reach because of an AVO, we can't just front him and intervene, we can't sit him down with his wife and kids because the first thing they both did when the SHTF was call the cops on each other, this was before the rest of the family knew there was even a problem.

Cont
See at age 18 I knew how to respond when my girlfriend's stepfather was knocking her mum around because I'd seen how my parents, uncles and aunties dealt with it,I knew that they'd back me up too, which they did.
I also know what has to be done with the couple mentioned above but If I follow my "training" I could end up on a charge myself.
This situation isn't an accident, it's not an unintended consequence or failed policy, it's a system that's designed to take responsibility for social problems away from citizens and put it under the control of the state social services system which is controlled by the Gender ideologues, the religious nuts and the corrupt individuals among them.
Listen to the second of those Susan Venker interviews I linked above, she explains it properly and in depth, she goes into what motivates these Feminists and how their worldview and values set is radically different to that of the majority of normal men and women.

Wow, fantastic to see this written. I've stayed away from here for a while, it's interesting to see how the research has progressed. I've long since abandoned trying to be reasonable with feminists, or expect them to engage in a rational debate. Understanding the concept of narcissism, and being aware of the writings of Saul Alinsky and the Munich School are the key to understanding their otherwise inexplicable behaviour.

Jay I definately disagree with you on those last couple of posts. Whilst your family may have dealt with DV actively its pretty clear that a lot of families have not done so.

There are a whole bunch of reasons why that might be the case ranging from an acceptance of the particular form of violence, via blood is thicker than water through to powerless to act for some reason.

We do need resources from outside the family available to help, we do need the communities message to be clear regardless of family history and beliefs that violence and bullying are not OK.

My objection to the status quo is that its been played so successfully as a gender that men with a violent spouse don't get the support they need to either stop the violence or stop having the abuse play out in other ways if they leave.

The extremist position ensuredbthat when the Howard government ran its Australia Says No campaign there was no part of that campaign that spoke against females assaulting others, DV was portrayed 100% as men assaulting women. Other publicly funded advertising which has focussed on controlling behaviours (reviewing phone contents, controlling finances, controlling access to friends etc) has also been portrayed with the same gendered approach. The agenda has been controlled by those unwilling to give an inch.

That needs to end, not by shutting off support to those who need it and leaving it up to families to sort out. Rather by speaking against all violence. By doing what we can to stop it regardless of gender politics or historical beliefs about differences between men and women.

R0bert

Yes Jay, good plan, if one of the Rellies bashes their woman, the rest of the Rellies simply go around and bash the bloke! Very civilized...

I'm assuming the same would happen if the female Rellie bashed her man, what with equal rights and all that?

Good afternoon to you JAY OF MELBOURNE...

You may have noticed in an earlier thread of mine when I said - coppers absolutely detest attending matters of domestic violence ! I've carefully re-read your last thread, and from my understanding I acknowledge the complexities you and your extended family have confronted when attempting to resolve DV issues in-house (within the family) ?

From a coppers point of view, regardless who summons police attendance, invariably when they arrive, they're often informed they're not wanted ! The complainant may've called police, but the spouse may've threatened her/him for doing so, or alternatively begged forgiveness, so when the coppers ultimately turn-up they're quickly shunted away ?

Alternatively, if police choose to arrest the aggressor/protagonist, often the complainant will withdraw their accusation, and criticise police if they persevere with the arrest, or removal of the aggressor ? In other words, rarely can the coppers win JAY OF MELBOURNE.

What you've said concerning strategies that may be employed within the family unit, as evidenced by the skills possessed by your parents for successfully defusing or terminating matters of DV, is highly laudable and quite amazing I must confess. You mentioned, '...if I follow my training I could end up on a charge myself...' also resonated with me.

But our legislators do know better ? Consequently you were prevented from intervening with the situation that you've cited herein, because of the existence of an AVO, and had you done so, you could've been pinched yourself ! I'm sure you'd agree, this whole question of Domestic Violence, what causes it, and how to deal with it, is a real dogs breakfast ! I'll tell you something for nothing..., the answer to this mess, IS NOT TO BE FOUND WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE POLICE !

It's surely a social issue, that demands social strategies, and only the most intractable, violent aggressors, should come within the aegis of police.

"and only the most intractable, violent aggressors, should come within the aegis of police."

And how do you propose defining and categorising this group, exactly? Is one puffed black eye only half as bad as two black eyes? What about the 'silent violence' that remains just that; - silent?

I think this thread is somewhat drifting from the point the author was originally trying to make - that the feminist 'movement' is woefully morally corrupt, abjectly dishonest, completely self-serving and operates with a hidden agenda. Much like most politicians really - if not all.

CODY...

I should think you'd merely use your brains CODY, that's how it would come within the aegis of police !

o sung wu,

I suspect that DV committed by women against other women, children and the menfolk in their lives is akin to elder abuse, which traditionally is also under-reported.

To tale the comparison a little further and we need to do that, elder abuse like DV does not always evidence in unsightly bloodied faces. It takes many forms and the perpetrators know how to trip their way around detection, and how to divert the blame onto the victim. Elders are unlikely to report, out of embarrassment for instance.

Anyhow, while on elder abuse affecting men (and women) which is common,
http://www.theshedonline.org.au/health-lifestyle/caring-for-others/how-can-you-prevent-elder-abuse

Returning to feminism,
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/the-now-president-who-became-a-mens-rights-activist/372742/

o sung wu - you continue to digress . . .

We seem to be talking about physical abuse but believe me mental abuse can be as devastating , mental abuse is mainly the domain of women, men being the recipient of the abuse, having lived with a mother who not only could use physical abuse but her main weapon was mental abuse, and one must admit it was her forte, it was not only with her immediate family, but relatives and her friends as well, anyone who became her friend would soon be at the "lashing of her tongue" as she a always put it, consequently her attitude meant friends etc soon became enemies, this having a mental effect on her immediate family who were suffering as well because one must remember " I am your Mother " male relatives were more at risk of her abuse.
If one suggested she needed help to overcome her aggressive behaviour her answer would have been it is you who needs help and not me.
This is not an isolated case as many of our friends also suffered throughout life by an abusive mother who dominated all
With this type of a mental problem I can understand why any man can resort to aggressive physical violence which my father never ever did,he always regarded any woman with respect and would not resort to violence, he put up with hell and so did the family, until death freed the family.

Feminists have fought against the recognition of parental alienation, and grandparent/family alienation of course. It is DV waged against the child, the child's father and usually the father's family as well. Where are the stats for that?

Parental alienation
https://nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/20972-limited-definition-of-parental-alienation-syndrome-included-in-dsm-v

Hi there ON THE BEACH...

I'm must be getting old mate, I'm getting bloody sick of this Topic ! Furthermore, I can't seem to convey to others how it impacts upon police who have to deal with DV and the difficulties encountered whenever one has to investigate such crimes.

I think it was OJNAB who stated that mental abuse is sometimes as bad as physical abuse, with that I'd have to agree with him. Some buggers are really nasty when they get a belly full of piss and bad manners, and are quite capable of terrorising their spouse.

I've witnessed the effects of some awful abuse of the elderly, both of a verbal and physical kind ? And you're quite correct when you say there's often very little evidence of physical violence, a mere push is sufficient, together with the actual 'presence' of the assailant, will do it with the elderly (purely physical intimidation) will more often frighten them senseless !

Such criminal conduct is very cowardly, and there's absolutely no excuse as the victim is incapable of mounting any defence against such behaviour.

I believe I've said all that I can say on this subject. I've tried to convey the actual practice adopted by police in these instances, if that's not sufficient, then I'm sorry.

otb, interesting link on Karen DeCrow. Did you notice the link to a book by the author of the article?
http://www.amazon.com/Ceasefire-Women-Forces-Achieve-Equality/dp/0684834421?tag=vglnk-c53-20

The write up on Christina Hoff Summers book http://www.amazon.com/Who-Stole-Feminism-Women-Betrayed/dp/0684801566/ref=pd_sim_b_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=027H49TY53PWYTKDS7NF bears a lot of resemblance to points made in this article.

R0bert

And the world as one just went down the drain, thanks to this thread.

Kat

O sung Wu the police were never ever called , but to this day and being nearly at the end of my life, the screaming, throwing of cups & sauces, the face hitting, manipulation of the family & friends left its mark on our lives, we were there for her, to the outside world when first met she was the most charming & happy person, to this day if we portray the opposite to those who met her casually, we are not believed, to all those men who have to cope with the mental anguish of a cruel spouse and mother you have my deepest sympathy
I see it daily now among my friends how manipulation by wives is alive and well with their menfolk.

@R0bert, Saturday, 14 June 2014 10:32:53 PM
Agree. Thank you for those interesting observations.

o sung wu,
I reckon that a lot of the angst about DV arises from deliberate misuse (abuse) of the provision, for instance to soften up the 'other' side in child custody cases.

Of course police are not responsible for the unforeseen (we hope it wasn't deliberate) negative consequences of re-jigging of laws by Left 'Progressives'.

ORIGINS OF MAN,
Why would the world go down the tube if equality applied to men too?

Ojnab,
There are many dominating narcissists around, far more than many of us ever imagined. Or is it that in our youth many of us were naive and didn't comprehend what was happening to our school friends at home? In hindsight I am sure there were and are as many female family terrorists/tyrants as there were drunken belligerent men.

Ojnab: I think you anecdotes and observations are at the centre of the problem. When men lash out in violence against women it is rarely the woman they hit that is really the woman they want to hit. Men can be seething with rage inside at the treatment they have endured from their mother over decades. It can take just one word or look from a partner to trigger that rage and an innocent person can quickly become a victim. I have seen men in their seventies who are still controlled and manipulated by their mothers into living their lives solely for the benefit of their mothers. I’ve known only sons who where told from the age of five that their purpose was to ‘look after mummy when she was older’. I knew a man in his late fifties who had a small medical practice and his mother was his receptionist. He also lived alone with her. Almost his whole life had been lived in the presence of this dominating emotional psychopath. He had in all essence been ‘killed’ by his own mother who had crushed the life out of him with her possessiveness and without ever laying a finger on him.

This does not excuse violence nor does it take away the responsibility for taking control of one’s life so that you are not dominated but it does show how hard it can be to break free of all the anger and fear that can be in one person.

What characterises the feminist approach to the problem is a complete lack of human compassion. Any approach that is without compassion will never succeed. There is even very little compassion shown by feminists toward female victims – they become just statistics or fodder for their real agenda which is to hurt men. If we do not feel compassion for all victims and for all those in pain then we are less than human. ... contd.

...To be totally unmoved by the pain that someone must be in which causes them to become violent shows a hardness of heart that will never be convinced by logic or reasoning. Men will never listen to the voices of those who appear so heartless and devoid of understanding about how human nature works and how emotions can dominate and lead to irrational behaviour.

When men are violent towards women it has nothing to do with mysogyny. They do not feel anger or hatred towards all women but generally towards one woman in particular and the nature of violence is that it strikes at random times when the perpetrator is most vulnerable. Women who want to hurt men also have someone in particular in mind perhaps their father, their partner, a teacher or someone else who has done something to cripple their life in a particular way. Violence and aggression is not our natural way – it is the way we choose when the pain becomes too much to bear.

Projecting our problems with one person onto someone else or even on to a whole gender is a cry for help because we do not know how to deal with that pain we carry from past relationships. The focus should be on providing that kind of help for people which will help eliminate further violence. Until we understand and see our own aggression and how much we want to lash out we can never have real compassion for anyone and we just go on looking for someone to blame for our uncontrolled behaviour. Until we examine our own pain we will not see how much we hurt other people not only by violence but also by emotional abuse and other behaviours that can strangle the life out of those around us.

OMG! For years I never believed Freud when he blamed everyone's mental health issues on their mothers.
Now I can believe him....

Suseonline:
Well one of the most common forms of aggression is sarcasm. Why do you feel the need to try and hurt someone just because they have a different opinion from you?

Suseonline,

It is never too late for you to come to discover a reading and comprehension disability.

As a suggestion you could re-read a passage several times, orally if you like. Ask yourself questions about what you think the writer is saying and make a summary of the writer's main points. Try to focus on the writer's meaning, not some pre-formed opinions going on in your
head. Take into account the whole and not just a word or sentence you might have taken a fancy to.

What do you imagine the writer said? -Some feedback might also help you.

Unless you are stirring of course and that would be a complete waste of your time.

Good afternoon to you OJNAB...

It sounds like you and your family had an awkward relationship over the years with the aggressive nature of your Mother ? Accordingly, you have my profound sympathy. It sounds like it had a fairly devastating impact upon your entire family whenever she chose to exhibit her aggressiveness ? I'm at a complete loss as to what remedy one can adopt particularly dealing with one's mother.

Obviously to seek outside assistance, contemporaneously with her tirade, could easily exacerbate the whole thing ? And calling the coppers (for your own mother !) well, it would take some convincing that she was indeed the malefactor and should be appropriately dealt with...?

Hell, it's a tough one OJNAB ! As you've stated herein, to 'outsiders' she could present as quite charming, a typical Mum, all warm and loving, always smiling - whereas in reality she was very much a 'Jekyll & Hyde' character, whenever she was 'put out' ?

I must admit in my day we didn't receive too much training on handling 'domestics', a bit of role play was basically all ? On reflection, I'm sure police recruits these days receive much more instruction on this important crime, and it is a crime. I'm of the belief that it's just as important police receive some basic instruction on how to 'interpret' incidences of Domestic Violence. Because when you first enter premises, you soon learn things aren't always what they seem, prima facie ?

I think Domestic Violence, whether perpetrated by males or females, is a crime that's exponentially increasing with higher incidences of economic hardship, and other social pandemonium, including the over indulgence of alcohol and drugs ? Therefore it's incumbent on government to seek solutions to this growing social dilemma sooner rather than later.

Actually Phanto, I wasn't being sarcastic.
I just know that it never matters what I say on this subject, it is always wrong.
I am female after all...

Suzie, playing the victim again?

You are wrong on this topic not because of your gender, rather because you make siding with what you see as the interests of your gender a greater priority than honest engagement with the topic.

You have consistently fought over a period of years on this site against any support for males with abusive spouses. You have dismissed copious references to large amounts of research which demonstrates very thoroughly that initiation of DV is not significantly gendered issue and you appear to have done so not on the basis of honest engagement with facts, rather based on your own beliefs about your gender and a liberal helping of confirmation bias.

Try engaging honestly, if you really think DV is highly gendered (across the board, not just in specific areas) then point to some material that seeks to determine if thats the case and deals with the types of issues already addressed in this thread. If there is a better alternative to CTS type studies tell us about it and why it gives a more accurate picture of what DV is occuring (rather than what marxist feminists would like us to believe is occuring).

Clearly point to the reasons for your beliefs on this topic and be prepared to defend them on their merits.

Engage as an intelligent adult rather than sniping at those dealing with real issues and you might come a lot closer to being right.

R0bert

Hot of the presses..well Youtube,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KgBVedec_0
I'm not a fan of meta analysis of this type because every society is different, even within the Anglosphere and all of the studies included in his figures cover Aboriginal and minority groups who, we know suffer vastly different levels of interpersonal violence to the mainstream, bu then again there's only one set of scientific data available, feminists don't have their own sets of statistics...do they?.
Nevertheless this is an important video,Stefan Molyneux and his research assistant have a earned their good reputation by dispensing accurate information.
On thing I'd also like to point out is that I've been a lifetime fan of what's become known as "True Crime" journalism and I've noticed that it's one of the spaces in popular culture where Feminism and Political Correctness have never applied.
There's no escaping the fact that violent women are as or even more sadistic, manipulative and predatory than men and that's the issue here, True Crime mostly only deals with the tiny minority of violent people in society whereas Feminism takes the actions of that tiny number of violent men and accuses all men of harbouring those tendencies, as if under the skin of every man lurks a wife beater and rapist of women.

Wonder if this can break the ton?

Only 16 posts to go, make that 15 now

No thanks RObert, I think I will leave you boys to discuss it all amongst yourselves.
You are all doing fine without any pesky women putting in their opinions.

Susie I didn't really expect you to be adult enough to stop hiding behind your gender and engage constructively on this issue but had to try.

Jay, interesting video. I wish there was an attached fact sheet, some of the studies and metadata work I was familiar with but not all. I'm not at this point convinced by the comments re abusive mothers and wife beaters. Quite possible in some cases but I think the causes of human violence are much more complex than any single factor.

The big point from the video which I'd not seen else where was the drop in male initiated DV over the period compared to the rates of female initiated violence. He summed a lot if stuff up well.

R0bert

Robert, link;
http://www.fdrurl.com/dvsources
Yeah that stuff about male initiated DV surprised me too but you'd expect that all the work that's been done on prevention and offender rehabilitation programs specifically targeted at men would be having some effect.

Certainly has aroused some interesting responses and reactions!

<We now know that women-on-women aggression is far from rare and that women are often
<the initiators of male-female aggression. Surveys of U.S. households have found rates of
<wife-to-husband violence "remarkably similar" to those of husband-to-wife violence. And
<an early cross-cultural survey did not find that men were significantly more aggressive than
<women.
http://womensenews.org/story/books/111203/women-are-aggressors-in-household-violence-too#.U545WMYuKFI

<Women emerge as aggressors in Alberta survey
<67% of women questioned say they started severe conflicts
http://www.franks.org/fr01060.htm

<Although the original researchers asked women the same questions as men, their answers were never published until now.>

This unusual in DV research, actually asking men and women the same questions.

I'd strongly recommend a look at the link Jay supplied earlier which takes you to a summary of research papers on DV most of which touch on the gender of perpetrator and victim. You might take a moment to think about how many nations are covered by those papers, how many are peer reviewed and publishes as then compare that to the misrepresentation of the research Killarney used early in the thread

"Look, guys. If it makes you feel better to throw up all kinds of links to all kinds of studies funded by uber-right wing (mostly US) think tanks to use silly methodologies like Conflict Tactic Scale to 'prove' that women are doing at least 50% of the spousal-thumping, raping, murdering, assaulting, warmongering and torturing of much of the world's population - go right ahead if it makes you feel better. And if it helps you to create nice little conspiracy theories about feminists suppressing all these plucky little MRM Gallileos trying to expose the truth - then do so. (Sheesh! Feminists should be so lucky??)"

CTS is criticised without ever clarifying why the alternatives give a better representation of whats actually happening. I've made the challenge to numerous supporters of the advocates of a gendered approach to DV to provide a reference to any research that supports their position which does not have significant inbuilt bias (or the statement of faith about who does DV - eg research which makes a genuine attempt to determine who perpetrates DV rather than working from a fixed belief that its men and have yet to see a single attempt to do so). Suzie's response is pretty much the norm from those pushing the gendered DV barrow.

The myth of gendered DV is a lie, based on marxist feminist dogma and supported by misleading or straight out dishonest research to support an agenda that has nothing to do with reducing the incidence or severity of DV. That has nothing to do with the generational harm from children being exposed to DV or achieving actual equality.

R0bert

The sociological research of the past two decades has
revealed an astonishing amount of family violence.
Tension over gender roles is
only one aspect of conflict
in the family. Finger-pointing and blaming one
group over another - won't solve anything.

Family violence occurs between spouses,
between parents and offspring - and among the offspring
themselves. We've seen from news reports, TV programs,
and the media in general, that wives assault their husbands
as often as husbands assault their wives, and spouses are
equally likely to kill each other. Although wives are
rarely a match for their husbands in a fistfight, they are
more likely to use lethal weapons (notably kitchen knives).

Family violence - whether it is between spouses, or child
abuse - involving such acts as burning children with
cigarettes, locking them in closets, tying them up for
hours or days, or breaking their bones - is alarmingly
common (and probably causes many of the thousands of
runaways that happen each year). This cannot be ignored.
Neither can sexual abuse of children now recognised as
a serious national problem.

We have to find out the causes of this violence and
workable solutions to end it. Blaming
one gender or the other as we know - does not solve anything.
In any event, the extent of violence in groups whose
members are supposed to love and care for one another is
not easily explained by blame casting. And suggests that we
need to look further into this problem. It also suggests
that the modern family may sometimes by under greater
pressures that it can easily bear.

I don't imagine that it is just 'family', if that is referring to the 'traditional' family and extended family. If anything, reports of DV seem to be lower in 'traditional' families. No surprises there - child abuse for example is reportedly lower where the biological father is present, than in single parent families, or where mum has another adult, a man or woman, in her life.

The concentration of feminists on heterosexual relationships also discriminates against gay and lesbian partners who suffer abuse. To expand the spectrum even further, bisexual relationships may have even more violence.

What seems to be the case and is likely given the prevalence of the 'traditional' family solution is so many societies is that it is more likely to be the most proof against such violence and other problems, particularly where the extended family is working well and giving support.

It is quite possible that the 'Progressive' policies of the left feminists have had unexpected negative consequences that need to be surfaced and studied in depth.

In any event this article is serving a very useful purpose in increasing awareness and stimulating debate. Of course there will be those who will try to soothe and put it back to sleep, to deep six it all again.

"This article is extremely biased towards men and in no way wants to come up with answers for reducing domestic violence in our community, but rather seeks to blame women....by sue.

Its taken millions of years of evolution in our development and to add the built-in mindsets, just cant be sharped or changed over night. Men are by nature hunters and killers for as far back in history and before recorded history. Just because the modern age is seeing mankind with new ways of behaviour, the instincts which comes from the oldest part of the brain, is in my opinion, reawakened when alcohol as added.

And to make matters worse,unemployment/rapid changes with technology/machines taking basic labour/costs of living/ which can cause depression/anxiety/a feeling worthlessness/mental illness/ drug and alcohol dependence, and the end result can sometimes lead to male violence, with catastrophic consequences.....however,to put it simply....where are too many men with nothing to do, and its not their fault, to a point.

Medical THC instead of alcohol(prescription only in extreme cases) has been proven in many studies around the world to reduce domestic violence, and until laws are changed, plus given the rising employment situation,we are going to see more violence as the population grows at its rapid rates.

Now, if every male was employed, violence in men would come into the bracket of only isolated cases......and we know the bible and it quotes along the lines of (Drink is the devils play-ground)

Kat

Origins of Man I do like your observation that violence in men would come into the bracket of isolated cases if all worked, I think not, digressing away from the text of this article is that thousands of innocent people have been killed in Iraq by violent brutal leaders like Bush, Blair, Howard and could be now Obama and Abbott in the same country. When we see brutality by men with positions of power, there is little hope for any domestic issues of brutality by man to woman or woman to man in this world, you may argue that the cases are different but they are not, power comes into play in all cases, whether in the home front or in a far away country like Iraq.

Robert,
Violence between men and women also occurs in other types of relationships. I had an abusive female employer who became so violent toward me in the end that I walked out on her, it went from constant and severe verbal abuse, to a shove, then a slap every now and then until one day she struck me a terrible blow on the back of the head with an object, (I think her briefcase) at which point I could take no more. It was a small tourism related business, just me, her partner and a junior secretary and though I was making good money she had me so wrapped around her finger that I thought I couldn't leave and being a man I felt I couldn't tell anyone what I was going through. She used to say things like "You'll never find another job, you can't think for yourself", "If you quit I'll make sure you never work in this town again", "If you walk out on your contract I'll have you in court so fast your head will spin".
I'm ashamed to say that I put up with that for seven years and leaving was extremely traumatic, for weeks she was coming around to my house, calling me up in tears begging me to come back, getting the secretary and other people to come round etc, it was horrible.
Mine is a different sort of case but I understand how people come to accept worse and worse treatment from abusers and how hard it is to get away from abusive people, how I just shut down inside and became totally fixated on pleasing this psycho. It got to the point that I wasn't eating or sleeping much, I was going in to work at 4 AM just to get ahead so the screaming wouldn't start for a few hours and working through without a break until six.It's really hard for me to think about it now and I don't talk too much about it with my wife as it nearly destroyed our relationship while it was going on.

Foxy welcome to the discussion.

"Finger-pointing and blaming one
group over another - won't solve anything."

agreed but how do we move public opinion and public policy on from that position?

If it was just a few posters on this site then they could be ignored but the sad part is that the so called gender studies departments of universities have pushed the gender issue very successfully over a long period. That results in little or no support for at least half the adult victims of DV as well as a significant risk that they will also become victims of government abuse if it comes to some ones word being believed. The success of that campaign plays out for fathers in a much harder fight to retain a meaningful role in their children's lives post separation.

A number of us have been pointing out that DV is a human issue rather than a gender issue for a long time yet we still have posters on this site with views such as "These articles keep on coming because men do not want to give up the very thing that has kept them in control of the planet for last few thousand years - and that is their propensity for extreme violence against other men, women, children, animals and nature." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16394#285589

and "I really don't care about 'studies' that tell us that , apparently, there are all these violent women out there that are really at the crux of the domestic violence problem, and that all the poor men are just unfairly vilified.

What a load of toss!" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16394#285604

The evidence that DV is not gendered was available when the Howard was running it's Australia Says No (and provided to relevant ministers), it was available when some legislation was amended to claim that DV is mostly committed by men against women but still the highly gendered approach was taken.

R0bert

On another note the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) features heavily in research into family violence.
Some supports of a gendered view of DV are very critical of CTS.

For those wanting some background a copy of a paper by Murray Straus dealing with some of the issues and criticisms is at http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CTS4.pdf

One of the critics is Michael Flood. Some of the criticisms can be found in a paper by him at http://aija.org.au/Family%20Violence%2006/Presentations/Flood.pdf (I think he had a more detailed paper but can't recall where).

There is quite a bit of material available on the PASK site http://domesticviolenceresearch.org/ I don't know the background of PASK however what I've found in there material so far appears to be credible.

R0bert

O Sung Wu, thank you so much for your reply to the problem we had, it was a life of dominance from a very early age until the death of my mother, if for instance my mother had married a man who would not tolerate such treatment from her I daresay you would have been writing out a police report of the bashing of a woman, she was very lucky in this regard.
Jay of Melbourne the sort of behaviour you tolerated from your employer was once again being dominated, I am the boss, you bow down, or else, marriage breakdown could happen as both my brothers wives gave the ultimatum, it's me or your mother, mother one.
Dominance and rape in the armed forces of both men & women is mainly due to rank, I am a Captain you are a Private you do as I request or I will make your life hell, so drop your pants
Men I do agree have the more physical build to be brutal and cause worse injuries to a woman than the other way around, one must remember though, how far do you go with verbal abuse before violence enters the domain.

Dear RObert,

How do we move people and policies away from the
gendered position?

I wish I had the precise answers for you but I don't.
I can only hazard guesses.

I can't really comment in great depth about your
experiences with sociological research. They're
not problems that I have personally encountered.
I'm not familiar with the entire body of work
to be able to offer an in depth critique.
I can only speak generally.

It seems to me that the sociologist's subject
matters present
research problems of a kind that natural scientists
would rarely have to deal with. The sociologist's subjects
are not inanimate objects or unreflecting animals.
They are people who are self-aware, who have
complex individual personalities, and who are capable
of choosing their own courses of action for both
rational and irrational results.

I would imagine that all sociologists
recognise the problems but probably not all agree on how to
deal with them. I would hope that
They would aim to make sociology as
rigorous and exact a science as possible. But probably
human nature being what it is -that doesn't always happen.

Studies should be as
objective as possible. We'd all agree with that.
But as we know - total objectivity
is probably impossible to achieve in any science,
since some bias is always unconscious. However a self-
conscious effort to be as objective as possibly would
produce vastly less biased results than not making this
attempt.

As for policies?

Again we have interest groups that attempt to influence
political decisions. And these groups may use a variety
of tactics from collecting petitions, advertising in the
media, organising floods of letters to legislators,
donating money to election campaigns or political
parties and so on. Our political culture encourages
interaction among parties, elected officials, and private
interest groups. So possibly that's the best way to go
to influence policy.

@ORIGINS OF MAN, Monday, 16 June 2014 5:21:54 PM, "Men are by nature hunters and killers for as far back in history and before recorded history"

Wherever do you get that stuff from? You have never seen Aboriginal women elders hunting File Snakes, just to take an example.

Back to the huddle I guess to find another way to shore up that negative stereotype of men, but for what purpose, why?

"Our political culture encourages
interaction among parties, elected officials, and private
interest groups."

Are you serious? What does this even mean? Some examples please.

Foxy,
I think the point here is that Anti DV campaigners who promote the idea of gendered violence in the home are not looking for solutions to the problems.
White Ribbon is supposedly a male led organisation for the prevention of male violence against women and their children, where's it's opposite counterpart, the female led campaign to end women's violence against men and their children?
The wider problem is that these groups have been able to create the perception that anyone who opposes something must also stand for something when this is clearly not the case.
Leaving aside the dishonesty of it's basic premise, White Ribbon is opposed to Male violence against women and children but it's not pro male quite the opposite, it's Feminist and pro female in outlook and promotes the idea of "toxic masculinity".
http://twitter.com/whiteribbon/status/398825749966118912
Jeff Perera, like all of their chief ideologues is basically just an idiot, what kind of man thinks this way, and what kind of man would say these things unless there was a sack of money waiting for them backstage? :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YH4PDQ2-qcE#t=138
We call that bias.

Not sure how to express this, but the following link is to a question a judge asked.

<Why is ‘only the boy charged’ with underage sex?>
http://news.optuszoo.com.au/2014/05/28/why-is-only-the-boy-charged-with-underage-sex/

Is this not part of the female privilege in society. I know feminists post about 'male privilege' which kind of shuts down any discussion about 'female privilege' in our society.

Typically where members of both genders commit a crime, it is the male who gets the blame.

Dear Cody,

Thank You for your question.

The following link may help clarify things
about lobby groups for you:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-22/readlearn-get-to-know-your-lobby-groups/3906036

Dear RObert,

I've just come across the following link that's
on the gender debate in domestic violence - the
role of data.
It may be of interest to you:

http://www.adfvc.unsw.edu.au/PDF%20Files/IssuesPaper_25.pdf

Foxy, I think I've seen that one before or something very close. A fairly transparent attempt to defend the gender feminist misrepresentation of DV ignoring for the most part a large body of work that has gone into researching motives and dynamics involved in DV. The problem seems to be that marxist feminists have theories about power in spousal relationships that they refuse to put aside when they examine the evidence.

I think the article is a rearguard action trying to divert people from understanding just how deceptive the story the gender feminists have been telling is. The evidence is readily available to debunk their claims about context.

R0bert

Foxy some detail

http://domesticviolenceresearch.org/pages/12_page_findings.htm
Motivation

- Male and female IPV perpetrated from similar motives – primarily to get back at a partner for emotionally hurting them, because of stress or jealousy, to express anger and other feelings that they could not put into words or communicate, and to get their partner’s attention.
- Eight studies directly compared men and women in the power/control motive and subjected their findings to statistical analyses. Three reported no significant gender differences and one had mixed findings. One paper found that women were more motivated to perpetrate violence as a result of power/control than were men, and three found that men were more motivated; however, gender differences were weak
- Of the ten papers containing gender-specific statistical analyses, five indicated that women were significantly more likely to report self-defense as a motive for perpetration than men. Four papers did not find statistically significant gender differences, and one paper reported that men were more likely to report this motive than women. Authors point out that it might be particularly difficult for highly masculine males to admit to perpetrating violence in self-defense, as this admission implies vulnerability.
- Self-defense was endorsed in most samples by only a minority of respondents, male and female. For non-perpetrator samples, the rates of self-defense reported by men ranged from 0% to 21%, and for women the range was 5% to 35%. The highest rates of reported self-defense motives (50% for men, 65.4% for women) came from samples of perpetrators, who may have reasons to overestimate this motive.
- None of the studies reported that anger/retaliation was significantly more of a motive for men than women’s violence; instead, two papers indicated that anger was more likely to be a motive for women’s violence as compared to men.
- Jealousy/partner cheating seems to be a motive to perpetrate violence for both men and women.

I'd also recommend the annotated bibligraphy Jay referenced earlier http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm to get an idea of the coverage.

R0bert

onthebeach......Where do you get this stuff from?

I google it of corse. Please dont tell me you think their my words.

Trust me, I dont give that much of a sh@t what people do in there lives.

But Some of you have Some funny ideas who iam:)

Kat

Dear RObert,

It is unfortunate that this issue has contributed
to a highly politicised and adverserial context
in which men and women's experiences of violence
are placed in competition with each other.
Because the development of effective responses will
be based on a better understanding of the complexities of
each form of victimisation.

Thanks for the links and I earmarked the bibliography.

Education is the key to this issue as well as publicity,
lobbying, and forming pressure groups, to get the message
across.

@ORIGINS OF MAN, Tuesday, 17 June 2014 4:45:48 PM

Kat,

If the women did't expect the men to take the bigger animals sometimes the men would only be nuisances in camp, doing nothing and expecting everything to be done for them. They would have invented a lounge couch but then they would have had to carry it.

The men don't mind hunting though because it gives them distance and silence from the women.

The men say the women are better cooks.

Is any of that sounding familiar?

Foxy,
Yes, you're right...but...
Ideological Feminists are an extremely violent bunch in their own right but they have the power and connections to bring in all manner of Left Wing and Anarchist thugs, goons and bruisers to shut down any group which contradicts their message.
In the U.S and Canada pretty much every meeting which has so far been organised to discuss gender issues outside the parameter of the Feminist critique has been picketed or attacked, aside from the violence and intimidation the favoured tactic is repeatedly setting off the fire alarms in the meeting area so that the building must be evacuated.
Would you go to a meeting to talk about DV if this was what you'd face upon arrival?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0

@R0bert, Tuesday, 17 June 2014 4:33:50 PM

Try reversing the genders. There will be howls of outrage and tub-thumping.

Men and women deserve equality. Some people offend, not 'men'. Some people are victims, not just 'women'.

Must be money and careers in it, eh? Taxpayers' money and heaps of it.

Onthebeach I suspect the reasons are a lot more varied than just access to taxpayer money. A fair does of misandry, some trying desperately to believe it's not abusive when they do it, an element of men's lives being considered less important than women's (women and children first anybody). An element of the lie being told often enough that it's hard to get your head around the fact it is a lie. It took me long enough to come to grips with how much of what I though I knew about DV being a lie. It was the unwillingness of anybody to tell my then wife that her hits was wrong and needed to stop that got me looking.

I was sitting in rooms with posters on the walls about DV, brochures on the table about DV and being told by relationship professionals that she was smaller than me and unlikely to hurt me so it didn't matter much. I had her taunting me with the social prohibition against men hitting women whilst she relished the protected status she had for her own violence.

I had to deal with what little I knew of the mess that is the family law system (worse than I imagined) and my own sense of commitment to the vow's I'd made with seemingly no way out.

Sometimes it takes a lot to wake some of us up.

R0bert

Thank you for adding some much needed accuracy on this issue in the Australian media.

It occurs to me that trying to have parts of this debate is like trying to discuss geology or astronomy with a literal creationist. Everything related to the age of the earth/universe for the creationist has to be made to fit within to boundaries of their belief system, eg that their god created the world 6 to 7 thousand years ago. For the marxist feminist DV is about patriarchal control of women by men and any evidence that does not support that view is either suppressed or recast to try and make it fit.

Imagine how different our view of the world and universe would be if creation science groups had almost complete control of the university departments doing research in those fields.

R0bert

Exactly; our view of the world and universe would deteriorate into farce . . . with such rapidity it would make Peter Garrett's moral's look positively rock solid.

Yes, and what amazes me even more is all those anti-feminists actually allowing all these 'Marxist feminists' to control the world?

Robert.
To Feminists EVERYTHING is about power.
I've said this a hundred times, Feminism is based on female supremacy, traditionalism is based of female superiority.
This article nails the present zeitgeist I think.
Truth in the empire of lies:
http://therightstuff.biz/2014/06/16/truth-in-the-empire-of-lies/

The basic gender charactieristics expected of the
sexes are learned in the family environment very
early in life, and are then reinforced in the
schools, in peer groups, in the mass media, and in
many other specific agencies, ranging from sports
teams to workplaces.

From the time that children are born, their parents
treat them differently on the basis of their sex.
As a result of this training, children learn
their gender roles quickly and effectively.

Beyond the home and the school, social life is saturated
with messages about which sex is dominant and about how
men and women ought to behave. In particular, all forms
of the mass media, from television soap operas to the
lyrics of popular songs, tend to emphasize fairly
traditional gender stereotypes.

I've stated in the past that in order for
attitudes to change -
they needd to change in the home, in the school, in our
social life, in the workplace, and in the mass media,
if we want to change the final shape of our gender roles.
We can all work
towards creating an individualistic society, highly open
to change and experimentation, one in which men and women
will explore a wide variety of possible roles.

A society in which all possible options would be open and
equally acceptable for both sexes. Then a person's
individual human qualities rather than his or her
biological sex would be the primary measure of
that person's worth and achievement.

"Yes, and what amazes me even more is all those anti-feminists actually allowing all these 'Marxist feminists' to control the world?"

Suzie thats because your core beliefs about men and the idea of male power are fundamentally wrong.

There is no wide spread bond where men support one another to maintain control. For the vast majority of men our choices and power are just as restricted as the choices available to the vast majority of women. At best some personal autonomy within a range of often tight constraints.

There is little preferential treatment by men for other men, in most cases if Suzie and I were separately in need of help from strangers my gut feel is because of the chivalry thing Suzie would be more likely to get that help than I would.

At most men may give preferential treatment to a mate or someone who's values they identify strongly with, I've never seen indication of any widespread preference for men to get better outcomes than women. I and I suspect the other usual suspects have no interest in men getting better outcomes than women in family law, rather equal treatment.

Jay whilst I've also noticed an obsession with power from the feminists I've dealt with and from most of those whose writings I've read I do get concerned about those sorts of generalisations. There are equality feminists, some referenced earlier in this thread. I suspect the equality feminists have a tough enough time as it is without adding to it. Kind of like being a liberal in todays Liberal Party or actually caring about workers in todays Labor party.

R0bert

Foxy, "The basic gender charactieristics expected of the sexes are learned...."

It is last century's feminism, from well back in that century to boot, that theorised that 'gender socialisation' is the sole reason why girls prefer dolls and boys their cars.

If you want to keep up with scientific research though, you may need to concede that biology, hormones and genes have some effect.

The knee-jerk reaction of feminists would be to rely on their own qualitative 'research', right?

Many prefer the discipline of psychologists and their peer reviews to feminists in gender studies departments.

RObert, I think you are short-changing most men...in Australian society at least.

I have no doubt that many men support each other in the best way they know how.
What about during the World Wars?

When push comes to shove, aren't men very closely tied to each other in 'mate ship' during testing times?

My husband has several close friends he sees every week at golf, and he tells them at least as many problems as he tells me!

You have been through a terrible ordeal with an abusive wife, and I have no doubt you may never get over that.
But please don't tar all of us with the same feathers RObert.

Dear Suse,

I agree with you. It is unfortunate that as I stated
earlier this issue has become highly politicised and
adversarial in which men and women's expressions of
violence are being placed in competition with each
other because in fact the development of effective
responses will be based on a better understanding of
the complexities of each form of victimisation.
Tarring everyone with the same brush will only achieve
negative results. I too feel sorry for RObert's personal
experience - and wish him well in the future.

Dear RObert,

The following link may be of interest:

http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=6008

A negative consequence of feminists' fallacious stereotype of 'male violence',

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6ptuQfV4q0

Sleep well, Grrls.

Foxy that seemed to be a pretty good coverage of the issues around DV allegations. There are some parts touched on a little lightly or not at all around the different treatment of violence based on gender and the impact of the myth that female violence is "fighting back" against oppression.

For the record I'm not sure how to respond to Suzie's latest misrepresentation of my earlier post, I doubt her comprehension is that bad and assume it is a deliberate misrepresentation.

My history woke me up to the discrepancy between what was being sold as the DV story and what was happening and some of the consequences of that. Beyond that I've tried very hard to way the evidence based on it's merits, not on my own history or gender.

Suzie has been requested to present evidence supporting her beliefs and defend them against logical criticism, she declined and chooses instead to use disruptive tactics designed to divert from discussion of the evidence. Some honest participation in the debate and discussion of evidence on Suzies part would be welcome rather than the tactics currently being used.

R0bert

Dear RObert,

We may be reluctant to believe that discrimination
against individuals because of their sex, race, age,
sexual orientation or health status still exists.
We also may not want to accept the
fact that violence is as common as it is - and that
there are victims of batterings and other cruelties,
despite legislation prohibiting such violence,
common policing, workplace policies, counseling and
training programs that exist. Yet as you've pointed out
this is the reality for many people.

Unfortunately stereotypes occur when individuals are
classified by others as having something in common
because they are members of a particular group or
category of people. Gender stereotypes are a
psychological process which illustrates structured
set of beliefs about the personal attributes of men and
women. Stereotypes (male of female) refer to individuals
cognitions that typically do not correspond to reality.
A stereotype is a picture in the head not an accurate
mirror of the real world.

Until we work towards a better understanding of the
complexities of each form of victimisation - the
development of effective responses will take that much longer.

Foxy completely agree with that last post.

That's a significant part of what this thread is about.

R0bert

The 'blow-off' tactic is equally insulting: copying and pasting reams of general bumpf from some unacknowledged womens studies stuff of yonks ago, with the patronising assurance that stereotyping applies to everyone, so don't you be worrying your heads about that, dear 'boys'.

Stereotyping may well be everywhere, but this thread is concerned with the fallacious feminist stereotyping of 'male violence' that can result in a husband and father being killed by police in front of his loving wife and family. In a First World Western democracy! Who could look at the video linked to earlier without a tear? How in the hell did feminism ever come to that? Here again,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6ptuQfV4q0

Dear RObert,

I'm glad that you understand the point that I was
trying to make. Yes we need to stop domestic
violence. We also need to stop the stereotyping.

The domestic violence system needs to treat
violent couples as violent couples instead of
shoehorning them into stereotypes.

Stereotyping
causes people to downplay or ignore domestic
violence in relation to people's behaviour.
These sort of attitudes can hinder services for
people who are violent and need help as well as
for the victims. Continued stereotyping serves
no one. It actually hampers things. Only by ending
stereotyping may we see real responses to the
problems of domestic violence. Ideally the research
should help create or take it to places that offers
services to victims and perpetrators and helps them to
design programs that could assist both men and women.

I shall repeat what I posted earlier - until we work
towards a better understanding of the complexities of
each form of victimisation the development of effective
responses will take that much longer.

<How in the hell did feminism ever come to that? Here again,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6ptuQfV4q0
<Posted by onthebeach, Thursday, 19 June 2014 2:31:20 PM

How? A woman can deliberately kill a man, admit to it and then be found not guilty. That is how.

Foxy, yet again a voice of reason in a sea of anti-feminists :)

You are right of course with what you say.
Neither gender should stereotype all the members of the opposite gender, because there are so many different scenarios in every family situation, and in the wider community.

Anyone who does stereotype all women as 'feminists' and /or 'ball-breakers', has obviously led a very narrow, sad life.
On the other hand, any women who consider all men as potentially violent or misogynists are also to be pitied.

Domestic violence means violence of any sort, committed against other family members.
It does NOT mean just violence against women, and I can't remember seeing anyone ever say that on this forum.

In regard to whats been said regarding stereotyping I agree but don't think it goes far enough.

For the most part the gender feminists don't claim its all men, they do though base their critique of the figures on stereotypes that are not backed by the evidence. There is an assumption that the gender feminists rely on that family violence is about control and that the fight for control of a partner is almost always a male thing. That is still stereotyping and its not backed by evidence, rather dogma.

The evidence is very clear that neither gender has a significant monopoly on DV, some forms of abuse where one gender will do more than the other exist (sexual/emotional) but overall its not a gender issue and continuing to treat is as such hinders our ability to reduce it and to provide better support for it's victims. What research I have seen on motivation for DV tells a similar story. No stereotype fits neatly.

I don't know if anybody has said explicitly that DV just means violence against women on this forum but I have certainly seen plenty pushing the line that DV is a male problem. Plenty trying to ridicule and divert attention from research showing that DV is not just something men do. Plenty doing their utmost to dispariage those trying to get the stereotypes out of the DV debate and have it focus on all violence rather then just violence by men against women.

R0bert

Interesting how this thread has deviated from the point the author was originally trying to make . . . he obviously struck a nerve otherwise there would not be so many responses . . .

There is a vast difference between mealy-mouthed generalised affirmation that 'DV-is-worrysome-but-it-affects-everyone' that struggles to arrive at the very weak speculation that 'more research may be needed' (presumably to prove that men do in fact suffer DV), and the fierce, strident denunciations of 'DV' in it broadest feminist definition where it might be affecting women.

Why is it so difficult to allow men equal rights and equal treatment anyhow? That is if the core value of feminism is in fact equality. You would thing that the death of an innocent, vulnerable, husband and father in a public place in the Land of the Free would be greeted with a mild rebuke for the extremes of feminist-led policy, its dreadful negative stereotyping of men and boys and the nature and extent of State intervention in private lives.

Where Oh where are the assurances that (say) White Ribbon Day will be occasioned by the same feminists taking the pledge that they will not be violent towards men and children too of course.

I believe that feminism in Australia serves the narrow interests of the educated middle class women who spruik it and in so many cases have a vested interest in keeping it that way to ensure more decades of swinging from the taxpayers' teat. Their sense of self entitlement is forever the elephant in the room.

Mind you, it isn't only 'men' who are their targets of their negatibve stereotyping, scorn and sledging. They are not so nice to their many 'sisters' who are not in lock-step with feminism's chosen ones, the leftist 'Emily's Listers'. It will be a very long, cold day in Hell before feminists recognise for example, that many women pass through a number of transitions in their lives and their choices are just as valid as those of the careerist, mercenary feminists who may be small in number, but are heard so stridently and so often.

tbc..

contd..

Anyhow, jolly good for OLO's feminists who now declare their concern that the dreadful negative stereotyping being waged against men and boys must end. Hmmm, perhaps that doesn't include their weasel words that push their interests, expectations and demands up-front and put everyone else's needs on the back burner.

Looking forward to the same feminists taking a public oath on White Ribbon Day that they will not be violent towards men, children and other women as well. Maybe Hell will freeze over, but then again, it hasn't happened yet.

Suse.
The posters on OLO are mostly sensible people, that's why we don't see a lot of the hard edged Radfem nonsense, nor the more strident Anti Feminist ranting in the comments.
However "man hating" and the gender biased view of society's problems are the stock in trade of widely read sites like Jezabel, The Huffington Post, Ms Magazine and so forth.
As the old media dies and the new media becomes the mainstream it is important to address bias and hatred when we see it, Fairfax and Newscorp simply wouldn't get away with printing the biased material that comes from online Feminist media, they'd be pulled up on it straight away.

Dear Suse and RObert,

All the evidence indicates that the effects of
domestic violence can be devastating for the victim,
involving physical and emotional damage and the
disruption of personal, social, familial, and
sexual life.

If the victim reports the attack to
the police, the emotional trauma may be re-experienced
months or years later in a courtroom, where the intimate
details of the domestic violence are dissected before
an audience of strangers. Typically, defense lawyers
try to shift the burden of guilt from the accused to
the victim. Even this aspect and the aftermath of
domestic violence can be fully understood only in terms
of the overall patterns of sexual interaction in our
society. Until we work towards changing the patterns as
they exist - including stereotyping, labeling,
and classifying individuals as having something in common
because they are members of a particular group or
category of people - nothing much will change. And it has
to, if we want to see some real responses to the problem of
domestic violence.

Thank You both for your comments and I look forward
to seeing you both on another discussion.

Hot off the press
http://news.optuszoo.com.au/2014/06/27/women-more-aggressive-to-partners/

<Women were also shown to engage in greater levels of controlling behavior, which is <understood to be a predictor of physical aggression in both sexes.

<“This was an interesting finding,” Dr Bates says. “Previous studies have sought to explain <male violence towards women as rising from patriarchal values, which motivate men to seek <to control women’s behaviour, using violence if necessary.

<“This study found that women demonstrated a desire to control their partners and were <more likely to use physical aggression than men.

How disappointing most will have moved away from this topic.

Wolly B as reported in this mornings paper, presumably Australia wide, it is the men who are the villains, there is no mention of dominate, manipulative and cruel females to their spouses, we men must look after our fairy like females even if they hit us over the head with frypans or smack our faces, of course that is not violence is it ?

Wolly B,

It is the positive stereotyping of women, buffed up considerably to the 'Wonderful Womyn' and 'Earth Mother' by feminists, that conceals the controlling behaviour and violence of some women.

The existence of parental alienation is hotly contested by feminists, but it does exist and extends to 'his' parents as well. In the US there is the demand for court orders granting access to children to be extended to grandparents as well.

Just an example of many that could be discussed.

It isn't good enough that some here pull the tarp over female violence, particularly by not applying the same definition of violence in the case of women and girls offenders as they do for men and boys. Pulling the tarpaulin over female violence includes denying the discussion of domestic violence affecting men by saying, 'Never you mind boys, violence affects everyone, so there is no need to discuss violence affecting men at all, or how feminism has actually furthered and legitimised violence and negative stereotyping against men and boys'.

As we discuss this, there must be thousands of fathers who are constantly being bullied by their female partners who threaten to remove children and deny access to them. There would also be thousands of grandparents who never get to see their grandchildren and fear often with good reason that they are being alienated against them.

http://grandparents.about.com/od/Grandparents-Rights/g/Grandparent-Alienation-Syndrome.htm

Through voluntary work at schools one often becomes aware of mothers who are so territorial and jealous of their children's (especially daughters) affection that the child has few friends. There can also be grounds for suspicion that the mother might be taking that physical closeness too far and has converted the child into her companion, or even her partner. Shouldn't the definition of violence also consider the advantage that some women do take of their offspring? - Emotional blackmail is violence is it not?