Suseonline, looks like you want to cherrypick statistics from the document MHA put up.

How about where it says there were 66,000 incidents that fell into the category of verbal arguments where "no offence was detected" by the police. The people in the domestic violence industry people use police domestic violence incident attendance figures to suggest to the public that in each incident attended that there is a female victim and a male perpetrator.

Of course I have no confidence in statistics on this issue. I know how the results driven 1996 Womens Safety Survey commissioned by the OSW was conducted. As reported in the media senior officials within the ABS had serious concerns about how the OSW was allowed to shape the questions. Advocates for women made great mileage out of that survey. What it showed in the main was that survey participants experienced what can only be described as very petty stuff like one instance of a push, a bite like, a kick in the previous 12 months. It was waved in the face of the public at every opportunity as very serious violence leading to women being frightened for their lives.

Sure there are women being killed. After all it is they who are in the main the ones who are nicking off with the kids with the assistance of the courts and controlling the father's access to his own children. Even Rosie Batty agreed to allow the son's father to have access to him at cricket practice. She must have been feeling generous after she and the boy went on a 6 week trip to the UK for when the boy asked her if he could stay a little longer playing with his father she agreed. I don't know that the father had ever been "convicted" of any offence. Did the father give consent for his son's passport to be issued, I don't know. From what I've read I think I do know he was just one hell of an angry man and had been for some time.

Roscoe we do not know what Rosie Batty was like when she was at home, she could have been as the case with my mother, the darling to the outside world, although this always changed when they also had a" lashing of her tongue" and quickly changed their mind and never spoke to her again, Rosie Batty could have been a complete bitch at home, but the darling to the outside world, nobody knows except Rosie Batty, personally I do not like the woman, she comes across to me as fake, Is relishing in her role as the Fairy godmother to all those hurt women with vile husbands, she should also be looking at what have caused those men to be like they are, was I part of the problem, but no, wouldn't raise a voice in any circumstances., I was the gentle loving housewife, and pigs might fly as well.

Roscop

'So its only men, thanks to advice received from the evil MRM groups,who know how to manipulate and unfairly exploit the legal system.'

You didn't read my comment. You probably got a few words into it and then the hostile anti-feminism/anti-women triggers took over and you decided to 'write' my post for me in terms of your own (considerable) gender prejudices.

For what it's worth, my post referred to both genders using the system for their own ends. It made the reasonable argument that the rise in the numbers of male DV victims could partly reflect the push by men's groups to get more men applying for DV orders against their wives. I certainly saw this trend in the cases I observed. I've also heard Family Law solicitors and barristers of both genders say they have observed this trend. In fact, very few Family Law lawyers take the DV system seriously.

Only 6% of divorces end up in the courts - the rest settle through mediation or the parties' own initiative. So those couples who end up in court have reached a point of such extreme dysfunction and hostility that no matter what the Family Court does or rules, the parties feel ripped off by a system that 'favours' the gender opposite to theirs.

The books and articles being written - often through conservative, anti-feminist think-tanks like the CIS - to frame an argument that men are being continually abused by a DV system that overwhelmingly favours women, are taking opportunistic advantage of the tiny number of dysfunctional Family Law cases that will never produce a desirable outcome for either party.

Also, the 'dispossessed male' genre has emanated from the US, which has the most draconian divorce legislation in the Western world. The genre has tried to transplant the US-divorce system onto the Australian Family Law system - and it fools almost no one, except those with a personal axe to grind.

Craig

The 'dead white men' I referred to was Marx and other leftist gurus such as Engels, who coined the statement: 'the world-historic defeat of the female sex'.

Much feminist thinking predates Marx and Engels - Mary Wollstencraft, Elisabeth Cady-Stanton and Susan B Anthony, for starters. Also, plenty of feminist writing predates Friedan and Abzug. There are also various feminist writings dating from the Middle Ages.

As for feminism being a left-wing (Marxist) movement, I have found that leftist men are every bit as hostile to the women's struggle as are right-wing men. A lot of radical leftist men hate feminism for diluting the 'purity' of the class struggle (although they mysteriously fail to apply this logic to the race struggle).

And finally, as for your considerable abuse towards me in your last two comments, this is par for the course when feminists have to deal with anti-feminist men (and women), who have trouble controlling their 'triggers' when reading feminist-oriented comments.

You seem to be suffering a bad case of CAFD (Cognitive Anti-Feminism Dissonance). This is a common psychological syndrome whereby the more condescendingly and aggressively an anti-feminist behaves towards a feminist, the more polite and rational he thinks he is being. Conversely, the more politely and rationally a feminist behaves towards an anti-feminist, the more emasculating and aggressive he thinks she is being.

So ... because, by now, he has convinced himself that she is aggressive, emasculating and irrational, he then believes himself justified in letting rip with lots of personal abuse about her mental faculties and, of course, the piece de resistance, she just hates all men.

Whatever floats your boat, but don't kid yourself that you ever wanted a 'rational discussion' with me.

Perhaps someone can please explain why women seem to have this hatred of family violence by men towards them, they tend to leave the first perpetrator and then cannot wait to jump into bed with the next male who could be exactly the same as the first, and so on, so why bother if men are such loathsome creatures, are they looking for security and hope to find it in their next conquest, if men are such violent creatures for goodness sake stop the hunt when divorced or whatever, I am completely puzzled by it all.

Killarney, you say "Only 6% of divorces end up in the courts.." Ergo, everything is hunky-dory with the way in the court has been operating.

That's the tired old argument that the old defenders of the court put up ad nauseam.

This is what historian John Hirst had to say about it in the Quarter Essay titled "Kangaroo Court" FAMILY LAW IN AUSTRALIA, P12:

"Sometimes defenders of the Court cite the low 5% percent trial figure to show that most people are satisfied with how their cases are settled. This is far from the truth. People settle because they run out of money to pay lawyers (and haven't got the time and energy to conduct their own case) or they face an allegation that is too hard to fight or they are told they have no hope of winning what they might want."

I'd say in regard to Hirst's statement the smarter fathers have as little to do with the court as possible. After reading a few appeal judgments they get an excellent understanding in regard to how the court operates and decide not to go pizzn good money up against the wall. Besides the court doesn't enforce its own orders because of its timid attitude towards mothers who breach them. (That's why I'm curious to know whether Rosie Batty was in compliance with court orders if they existed when she took her son to the UK for 6 wks or whatever it was. Because the murder happened soon after their return.)