Suse

'Trying to deflect the huge problem of DV out in the community by saying there is more of a female perpetrated problem is just sexist hysteria from men who don't like losing control of women.'

I know you are only exaggerating the point out of exasperation - but that's not entirely what most of the men here are saying. Only one or two irrational extremists here are trying to make us believe the poppycock that women are the greater perpetrators of DV.

However, they virtually ALL destroy their own argument by blaming this lack of acknowledgment of male DV victims on feminism, instead of where the blame really lies - the lack of political will to fund and support the DV system and macho patriarchal bigotry that views male victims of female violence - indeed most violence - as 'failed men'.

This thread has long since descended into farce. Most OLO gender threads really just become another excuse to bait, bully and blame feminists for men's problems. That's always the lazy option.

So that's it for me. See you on another thread.

Natasha Stott Despoya is too busy mixing with the "right" people like the Downer's etc to mixing with battered women, she has the gift of the gab, that's about all.

@killarney Stop insulting my intelligence and the intelligence of every single battered man here who is reading this thread. You claim that feminism isn't the enemy of battered men, yet if it looks, walks, quacks and swims like a duck, then it's a duck.

Firstly according to your response, it is perfectly acceptable for feminists to stigmatise me personally, along with every single other battered man out there as virtually non-existent, lying, effeminate scum who "had it coming to us", if they're "exasperated". If Sheik Hilaly was "exasperated" when he compared female rape victims to "unconvered meat", would that make it ok, or is that "different"?

Secondly, you made deliberately misleading statements about the P.A.S.K. starting with it's link: http://www.domesticviolenceresearch.org/

You then made baseless accusations about the academics who worked on the project, while making baseless and unfounded accusations against a peer reviewed academic journal that was thew product of collaboration between 20 universities and over 100 academics, as well as misleading claims about its methodology in reviewing and collating over 1,700 studies. Of course, you have gone out of your way in previous posts here to attempt to minimise the prevalence of female abusers and male victims of DV.

Furthermore, rather than acknowledge the pain and revictimisation which your hateful and sexist ideology has inflicted upon DV victims/survivors and child abusers when confronted with one, you instead resort to the shaming tactics like "you need help" ind indirectly, "misogynist" (feminists always baselessly equate criticism of feminism to hatred of women) - which actually amounts to calling me a "woman hating homosexual" and telling me "be a real man and you wont be abused".

Finally when confronted both the gendered, stigmatisation-based narrative on abuse of both the Duluth Model and Patriarchal theory, as well as the violence and terrorism against men and women used by feminism to maintain that narrative, you simply dismiss it by pretending it hasn't been made.

But then I guess members of organisations like the KKK also try to downplay the hatred of their movements by calling them things like "white pride movements" too.

Ah well now, we can all cherry pick our websites can't we?

At least mine is Australian statistics.
"Domestic and sexual violence is overwhelmingly committed by men against women.
89 women were killed by their current or former partner between 2008-10. This equates to nearly one woman every week."

http://www.anrows.org.au/sites/default/files/Violence-Against-Australian-Women-Key-Statistics.pdf

You are right though Killarney, best to leave them to it now.

Suse,

Is it not a shame that Australian law does not allow women who are/were the victims of domestic violence (or any other violence) to possess any legal items for the purpose of self defence?

If they were then some of those 89 deaths may have been avoided.

Why do so many people commenting seem so full of bile and anger?

All the article is doing is asking for a rethink.
If he's wrong, then calm reason should set him right. Any article asking for a rethink often arouses anger. Even Peter West's this week on the aged, though it seems a bit bitty and scattered at times.

If we reflect on people speaking about feminism, why do so many of them seem to be so white-hot in anger? What is it about gender issues that makes them so wild? This was something that used to be reserved for religion!