Roger Smith draws on a very over simplified use of statistics to make his point. If he were to take a more detailed look at this data by following the convictions etc he may find that the men who died in domestic violence had been the perpetrators of abuse for many years before their partner finally snapped and took drastic action as a self-protection - I would like him to consider that.Also, this single 'one in three'piece of data does not counter all of the other overwhelming statistics that it is a highly gendered occurrence and crime - women are overwhelmingly the victims of domestic abuse and violence - it cannot simply be measured by the extremes - abuse includes all forms of psychological and physical control. Gender inequality is not about transferring abusive power form one gender to another - it is about men not viewing women as a lesser human being that themselves and their male friends, colleagues and leaders. The 'what about the poor men victims' is a tired old counter to the discussion of domestic violence and often shows how threatened men are about public discussion that demonstrates that many men do not view women as equal to them and shows that women's human rights (across the world) are not bestowed equally to those of men. You make a good point about gay relationships and most researchers in this field would agree that this is an experience of violence that is less understood. For someone who would have been aware that women are very often raped by military as part of an invasion from a dominant force, as happened systematically in East Timor as well as many other places of conflict in the world, I would have thought you might have a stronger sense of the existence of gendered violence.

One of my sons, years ago, was in a relationship with a very violent woman. The only time he laid hands on her was to hold her off from attacking him. On one occasion the police were called, and upon arrival at the house, they immediately proceeded to take my son into custody.
It was only when a female friend insisted they check his wounds, and they saw the bite and scratch marks on his body, as opposed his unmarked girlfriend, that they let him go. She was never taken into custody or charged, as they tried to do with him.

It's highly telling that Ruth, like so many radical feminists, operates lock, stock and barrel from what could be described as the feminist playbook for stigmatising battered men. It goes a little something like this:

1. Immediately begin with the tired old trope of "yes men are abused, but" or "I'm sorry you were abused, but". This should never be taken as a genuine recognition of male victims, but rather a tokenistic, insincere one - purely designed to be an act of plausible deniability.

2. Immediately follow this up with the usage of either misleading statements, outdated statistics, findings from studies with questionable methodology (ie only asking women about being victims and only asking men about being perpetrators) and misleading statements to justify the focus being on entirely on female victims and male abusers. Such tactics include using the violence experienced by men at the hands of strangers, to deliberately cover up the existence of battered men.

3. Immediately attempt to cement this by denying the countless evidence out there which proves that domestic violence should be treated as a gender-neutral issue where all victims are supported and all perpetrators are called to be held accountable for their actions, including:

- recent official figures from the AIC demonstrating that battered men and battered women are murdered in this country at similar rates

- recent official figures from the ABS finding that the vast majority of battered men are abused by women

- recent figures by the ABS and the NSW Auditor General's Dept finding that at least a third of all domestic violence victims are male

-several international DV studies such as the 2001 NLSAH, which have found that while half of all domestic violence is reciprocal, of the remaining half which was non-reciprocal, more than 70% of it was found to be women battering men

- recent findings by the ABS that women disclose their abuse 2-3 times more often than men do and report their abuse upto 40% more often than men do.

(continued next post)

If, as all these 'statistics' suggest, there are all these men out there in the community being bashed by their women, then where do these guys go for medical help?
Or do they lie when they get help and say another bloke bashed them?
If this is so, how do we know about these 'statistics'?

I have no doubt there are very violent women in the community, but I think that concentrating on the minority of crimes they perpetrate is being used to take the heat off the very obvious fact that men overwhelmingly perpetrate the most domestic violence in our society.
Why is this fact so hard to handle for some guys?

(continued from last post)

4. In the event of someone bringing up abuse victims being driven to suicide as a direct result of their abuse, claim it's 'different', even though psychologically abusing someone on a daily basis until they commit suicide, is no different to feeding someone low doses of poison on a daily basis until their body finally gives out from the strain and they die from it.

5. Either openly make stigmatising comments towards regarding male victims, or engage in rhetoric which excuses and justifies the standard narrative, which when deconstructed, is quickly shown to stigmatise male victims of domestic violence as urban myths- if not pathological liars- "who had it coming to them" and as quite literally the equivalent of child cheap, filthy worthless sluts.

Gain bonus points for doing so by also stigmatising child abuse victims of female child abusers in the process - especially sexually abused children -through using that narrative.

6. Defend the lack of meaningful support services for battered men, such as no shelters whatsoever, the virtually non-existent amount of support groups in this country and a single phone helpline, with the misleading claim that under-funded and marginalised advocacy groups, anger management groups and even jails provide male victims of abuse with plenty of support. Compound this with economic rationalism in place of arguing for all victims of abuse to be adequately financially supported - regardless of gender.

7. Attack any male victim who refuses to accept either the dehumanisation and stigmatisation we face or the lies which defend it, with the shaming tactic of calling them a "misogynist" - either directly or indirectly.

Given that men are dehumanised as disposable, arbitrary protectors and providers of women by society in the same manner as women are objectified as "baby machines", such a shaming tactic quite literally amounts to the equivalent of a combination of calling them "man-hating lesbians" and telling them "don't dress like a slut and you wont get raped".
________________________________________________________
When feminists stop using this playbook to respond to male abuse victims, they'll actually begin to stand for gender equality.

Suzeonline, you mean where to we go when we go looking for support and are rejected time after time because countless support servfices out there refuse to acknowledge our existence- like when I tried to look for a support group for battered men, desperately feeling alone and isolated - only to be told by countless organisations they had nothing to offer me, with the exception of one organisation who told me that the only thing they had to offer me was an "anger management group" - the equivalent of a female rape victim being offered support and being told the only thing on offer to them was a convent or a reform school.

But of course your response reveals that your depravedly gendered position on domestic violence, is best summed up by the following sentiment "Yes men are abused by women too [but it is much more ideologically convenient for me to operate from a gendered narrative, which stigmatises male victims of abuse as urban myths - if not pathological liars - who 'had it coming to them' and as effeminate scum - the equivalent of cheap, filthy, worthless sluts]." Your gendered response makes that abundantly clear in spades - displaying a gendered empathy gap so great that it dwarfs the Grand Canyon.

If you were genuinely about equality, you would be demanding that society's response to DV and abuse in general was that one victim was one victim too many and that one abuser was one abuser too many - regardless of gender and that the system needs to FIND the money to support all victims.

Yet the fact that you have adopted a position which stimgatised and demonises DV victims and ideologically shields DV perpetrators, based solely on gender, proves that your stance is one which entrenches, rather than rejects sexism on the subject of abuse.

Congratulations to you and other feminists in this thread, demonstrating in spades that feminism is to male abuse victims, what Sharia Law is to female abuse victims.