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.