This Op Ed was written after receiving numerous comments and personal emails after publication of "Good blokes or smug thugs". I sincerely wish the 'Male Champions of Change' all the best in helping women to achieve gender equality.

Esther Villar wrote an interesting book titled the "Manipulated Man"

<The book argues that, contrary to common feminist and women's rights rhetoric,
<women in industrialized cultures are not oppressed, but rather exploit a well-established
< system of manipulating men.

<Vilar writes, "Men have been trained and conditioned by women, not unlike the way
< Pavlov conditioned his dogs, into becoming their slaves. As compensation for their
<labours men are given periodic use of a woman's vagina." The book contends that
<young boys are encouraged to associate their masculinity with their ability to be
<sexually intimate with a woman, and that a woman can control a man by socially
<empowering <herself to be the gate-keeper to his sense of masculinity.

Personally I do not think so called "equality" will ever be achievable, for the simple reason that the definition keeps getting redefined. Once one goal is reached another is created.

Lets look at superannuation, if a woman works full time and does not stop work to have children, she will have the same amount of superannuation as any male who works in the same job, be it police person, teacher, nurse, ambulance driver.

The discrepancy arises because some women of child bearing age, choose to have children and so there is a break in their 'direct' earning capacity. So is it fair that for example that other taxpayers contribute to her superannuation when she is not working.

A possible solution is that if she is in a relationship, that her partners earning capacity could be used to contribute to her superannuation.

Feminist often make the claim about male power and privilege, ignoring the often special treatment and incentives that those of the female gender often enjoy. Yet we are not allowed to even discuss this topic.

"If men have all the power? How come women make the rules?"
http://www.amazon.com/Have-Power-Come-Women-Rules/dp/1453800379

When a woman speaks about domestic violence, those who are well off under the existing order of things respond that "men are victims too", torturing statistics to support their claim.

How dare you say that, who exactly are who saying is better off. Don't you understand that is sort of statement that turns most men off.When did you stop hitting your husband?

Sarah you will get nothing but vitriolic rants about this subject on this male dominated forum.
I too hope this group of men can make a difference in the fight for equality and improved safety for women in the home. Nothing else has worked so far.

Wolly B, men make decisions to have babies too, so shouldn't they also support the mother of their children during this time, including superannuation?

The current murder statistics for women by their 'intimate' partners is a national disgrace, so until we have cut that down to nil I don't think there is anything else more important in the domestic violence issue.

Correct if I'm wrong.

Women advocating gender equality will not be satisfied until such time 50% of CEO's; 50% of politicians (including cabinet members and party leaders); 50% of professional athletes; 50% of professional / popular musicians; 50% of the military, including high ranking officers; 50%+ school principals and university lecturers; and probably 50% of train drivers, truck drivers, lawyers, doctors, scientists, construction workers, electricians, plumbers, and chippies, white collar and blue collar workers are women, earning exactly the same wage as their male counterparts?

Once the above is achieved the (Western)world will be a better place, women will be happy and they will forgive all men for the wrongs that were done to women throughout history. Yeah, right!

Come on Suse, I don't know a single bloke who made a decision to have a baby. Mostly they were told there had been an accident with the birth control, & that was it. We can only wonder, in view of the desperation so many women exhibit to breed, if that was an accidental accident, or a planned one. Of course many have gone along with breeding when the lady they loved exhibited an extreme need to breed.

About the only change really needed where the ladies are concerned is the need to get them the hell out of news rooms. So many of them are infesting the news rooms of our TV stations the news is becoming more like those dreadful morning talk shows, designed for the ladies, than anything to do with real news.

I am so sick oh human interest bulldust, which is actually just another form of voyeurism that I rarely watch the junk.

".. those who are well off under the existing order of things.."

Before dawn this morning I was on a building site with the men, NO women, although any willing worker is welcome.

I am wondering who are the "well off under the existing order of things"? Not those men and not their partners either.

I suggest that the educated, middle class women who ARE feminism were always advantaged. Fat lot they care about anyone else and they certainly don't represent women. They do want a free leg-up to cosy jobs on the boards of public and private companies though to round off lifetimes of riding the gravy train, usually paid for by the exasperated taxpayer.

It will be a very long cold day in Hell before the educated, middle class women who ARE feminism give a hoot about the women outside of their clique, or ever accept that the great majority of women do NOT choose career first and exclusively, but usually through their own choice go through a number of transitions in life.

All aboard for the gravy train? As far as the feminist clique are concerned that would apply exclusively to Emily's Listers. Now they really could be considered as "those who are well off under the existing order of things", and they want more of a good thing.

Male Champions of Change won't make one jot of difference in reducing domestic violence.

"One in three" is a constant in the domestic violence discourse. Its a conflation of a few instances of severe violence with a vast heap of petty behaviors (say one push or put down.) made to look as though it all severe violence. Its a bit like the mathematical constant Pi...whilst we have taxpayer funded womens' organisations, it will forever be. It doesn't matter how much taxpayer money is thrown at the problem.

The feminist who came up with "one in three" constant should be given a Nobel prize.

What is the point of these juvenile articles full of so much free floating disenchantment about the way things are. There is nothing in this article which has not been said a thousand times over.

If things are so bad then stop whinging and do something about it. Things would change much quicker if women got up and did something about it instead of this incessant nagging and bemoaning. So desperate to have everything fall in to line they have now appealed to Male Champions to do the work for them. Black people in America, who suffered as much if not more oppression than women ever have, did not achieve the equality which they now enjoy by sitting around whingeing all day. They took action.

No one is going to change because they have been nagged into changing. Who would want a woman like Sarah in a position of power where she would spend all the taxpayer’s dollars complaining about how awful everything was. Nor would we want Suseonline in power either because she wastes her time trying to support such tripe.

ConservativeHippie

"Women advocating gender equality will not be satisfied until such time 50% of CEO's; 50% of politicians (including cabinet members and party leaders); 50% of professional athletes; 50% of professional / popular musicians; 50% of the military, including high ranking officers; 50%+ school principals and university lecturers; and probably 50% of train drivers, truck drivers, lawyers, doctors, scientists, construction workers, electricians, plumbers, and chippies, white collar and blue collar workers are women, earning exactly the same wage as their male counterparts?"

Do you mean whilst costing employers more (eg workers compensation/maternity leave etc etc) and contributing less (eg. women professional tennis players)?

<Sarah you will get nothing but vitriolic rants about this subject on this male dominated
< forum.
I too hope this group of men can make a difference in the fight for equality and improved
< safety for women in the home. Nothing else has worked so far.

\Posted by Suseonline, Friday, 24 April 2015 10:20:14 AM

So Suzie what are you saying?

Are you saying that you only want men to agree with you, and only to discuss things that you agree with?

Are you saying that Men must be seen but not heard?

So is this equality? Where men are only allowed to agree with feminists.

The last Government was a fine example of what incompetence and stupidity it is to use quota systems to promote people.

There is a book title Venus; the dark side.

Written by Mary T Cleary.

Now Suzie please note that the above author is FEMALE!

She is FEMALE, understand a female wrote this book, not a male, but a female.

A female author is someone of your own gender. Susie. et al.

Have I read this book?

No! I haven't and I really truly do not want too. It some times pays to be naive and as a bloke the vast majority of covert communication and behaviours just go right past me and over my head.

Well, there is no indiction that Ken Lay hates men or anyone else. However, David Morrison's manner of delivery on TV and his fierce visage suggests that he hates EVERYBODY.

This supposed 'hatred' of women just because they want 'equality' is a load of rubbish. You are either EQUAL to the task, or you are not. More men than not have crappy jobs too.

Never thought that it might be the obnoxious, individual harpies you allow to harangue us, ladies? There is certanly equality between women and men went it comes finding individuals who get peoples' backs up as soon as the open their mouths.

Anyway, What has domestic violence to do with 'equality'. It sounds if the missus wants equal rights to pop the old man in the mouth (which many of them probably do).

Domestic violence is firmly in the area of criminal activity, and should be dealt with as a crime.

In the workplace, the women with what it takes are already in place; and the girls about to enter the workforce who show that they have what it takes will be up there with them. Those who don't make it should start looking at themselves, and stop blaming men for their own inadequacies. Fat chance, of course. Whingers are whingers, male or female.

One in three misinformation:
http://www.oneinthree.com.au/misinformation/

OTB,
I've worked in male dominated industries since I was 15, I can recall only one conversation in the smoko shed where a man openly talked about being violent with his partner and he was moaning about spending a night in the cells for punching a hole in the wall above her head when they were both drunk and going at it. If some men are violent with their female partners they don't talk about it in polite company, so trying to shift responsibility for prevention of violence against women on to all men then shaming them when such initiatives fail says more about Feminism than it does men in general.
Feminists might imagine that work sites and public bars are where men really let loose and show their "true feelings" but that's no the case, in my experience men rarely discuss their problems at all and something like domestic violence would never be talked about except in general terms.
Again, that's where Feminists have painted themselves into a corner with their false portrayal (or complete misunderstanding) of Men and what it means to be a man.
Men who are violent in the home are degenerates, this idea that violence occurs in so called "good homes" and can be perpetrated by "good men" is blatant BS, if violence is occurring in the home it's clearly not a "good home" and he's not a "good man". Bad men can't hide their true nature from good men and contrary to what Feminists will say the vast majority of us love our wives and girlfriends and would never lay a finger on them and we don't tolerate much less enable the degenerates who do lay into their women. Violent degenerates have to hide their nature from the majority of men, there's a limit to what can be achieved by urging us to confront suspected abusers who will obviously deny any wrongdoing.

Sorry, that last paragraph doesn't make sense, what I'm saying is that a violent degenerate can't be a wolf in sheep's clothing in a group of ordinary men, we can tell more or less straight away so such men will as best they can try to hide their true nature and for the most part they avoid us altogether. Even so, what are we supposed to do based on nothing more than a suspicion when even the Police need solid facts to take action? Feminists seem to want lynch mobs and anti DV vigilantism, which is typical of "progressives" these days.

Dear Sarah,

Your article contains a number of errors about the One in Three Campaign. You claim that we "conflate ABS statistics to claim one male is killed every 10 days by a woman partner".

Firstly, homicide statistics aren't collected by the ABS, they are collected by the AIC's National Homicide Monitoring Program. We have never referenced the ABS.

Secondly, we have never made the claim made in your article. Please have a look at our website or do a Google search. We claim (quite accurately) that "75 males were killed in domestic homicide incidents between 2008-10. This equates to one death every 10 days." We have never claimed that the perpetrators were woman partners. We are quite aware of the correct statistics.

Our Campaign exists to advocate for male victims of FAMILY violence, not just intimate partner violence. It doesn't matter whether these men and boys were killed by women, other men, partners or other family members. They are still dead. We need to reduce these tragic and unneccesary deaths, along with the violence and abuse that precipitates them.

Many members of One in Three are victims/survivors of family violence. To call them "well off under the existing order of things" is insulting.

Dr Russell, do you think you could expand on what you mean when you use the term "gender equality"?

Let me explain why I ask.

I am a man of 51 who is currently enrolled at Griffith University studying for a degree in electronic engineering. I am a single father of a 17 year old son and I have an 18 year old daughter who lives with her mother, who works for the Qld Health Department as a social worker.

When we divorced, I was in the first year of studying for a degree in engineering which I had interrupted to move from WA to Qld. After the divorce, I was told by the CSA that I had a "capacity to earn" that I must exercise, so continuing study was simply not an option. However, my (by this time ex-) wife, who had been working full time in WA, that same as I had been, was not subject to this ruling and was in fact subsidised by Centrelink to go to university to study for the degree which is now the basis for her employment.

I won't go into some of the more personal aspects of the next 14 years, but now I am finally able to continue the project of procuring the education I set out to achieve nearly 16 years ago. The only reason it has taken so long is because of the gross gender discrimination I experienced as a man at the hands of Government organisations, including Qld Legal Aid, the Child Support Agency and relatively recently, Centrelink.

I am now a very unusual undergraduate, as a man of middle years. There are quite a few women of a similar age on campus and on some campuses a great many, but never very many men. It's not the uni's fault, I've never felt in any way discriminated against because of my age, but it is a fact.

Is that equality?

Posted by Craig Minns, Saturday, 25 April 2015 9:57:40 AM

I think Craig, that Dr Russell will only hear;"&#924;&#953;&#963;ώ &#964;&#959;&#965;&#962; ά&#957;&#948;&#961;&#949;&#962;".!

Craig,

Thankyou for revealing that about yourself. It is only hard evidence like this, stories from real life, that might show activist females and unworldly legislators just how out of touch and hypocritical they are.

Wolly, I don't think that's a fair characterisation of Dr Russell's approach or her views as put forward here. She seems to me to be sincere and authentically concerned about something that is undoubtedly a serious social issue.

As a father of a daughter and the brother of no less than 6 sisters I would like to be able to call myself a "pro-feminist", but there are a few things that stop me.

The first is that I have watched the failure of a feminist approach to social construction over about 40 years, largely because it has been promulgated on a "crash or crash through" approach in which ideology is the primary informant and negative feedbacks are excluded.

The second is that feminism is largely promoted in entirely reactionary terms: female success is cast in terms of mid-twentieth century definitions of male success. As a result, gender equality has been cast as a "zero sum" game, in which success in promoting female outcomes has been almost entirely offset by degradations in male outcomes at every level.

The feminist movement could do with a great deal more of Beauvoir and a great deal less of Friedan in its cultural oeuvre.

The problem for policy-makers today is that they have been very successful in promoting female tertiary education, albeit at the expense of males, yet the females who are so educated don't choose to go on to do the same things that educated males might choose to. As a result we have a huge unpaid HECS bill and a lack of qualified people in some of our most productive fields, as well as a high level of social expense to keep the whole tottery edifice from falling over.

For most women, their personal vision of success is not the same as for most men. It is that fundamental failure to grasp the importance of intrinsic motivation that is at the nub of the problem. A social constructionalist approach emphasises extrinsic forces, but unless they align with the intrinsic, they will always fail.

I will respond to comments on this Op Ed when I return to work on Tuesday. For now, I would like to apologise for any errors I made about the One in Three Campaign.

I included the paragraph about domestic violence in this piece after dane dismissed domestic violence as “a myth” (in his comment about another recent opinion piece)

I visited the One in Three website before writing the article. There is a section titled “LATEST DATA FROM THE ABS AND AIC”. In this section the statistic “75 males were killed in domestic homicide incidents between 2008-10” is cited. I wrongly attributed this to ABS not AIC.

I have seen the AIC statistic incorrectly used to claim: “One man is killed every 10 days by a woman”. This is incorrect. I apologise for mistakenly attributing this incorrect claim to the One in Three campaign.

According to National Homicide Monitoring Program annual report:
Throughout 2008–09 and 2009–10, 194 victims were killed by an offender with whom they shared a principal domestic relationship, 39% (n=75; 39%) of these victims were male, while 61% (N=116) were female. http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/mr/21-40/mr21/04_homicide.html

I agree that all victims of violence – both male and female – should be supported, as should their families.

The intention was not to imply that anyone who is a victim of violence, or indeed murdered, is well off. The term “well off” came from The Prince, Chapter 6, as a warning to the Male Champions of Change: “And let it be noted that there is no more delicate matter to take in hand, nor more dangerous to conduct, nor more doubtful in its success, than to set up as the leader in the introduction of changes. For he who innovates will have for his enemies all those who are well off under the existing order of things, and only lukewarm supporters in those who might be better off under the new.’

Sarah, to be honest, if the arguments are as specious as they are, people will pay as little attention to those two men you cited as to anyone else. They are just playing a political game as they know that feminist ideology is extremely powerful and they have to advocate it if they want political favors.

In my opinion, it's you that are threatened by change. For instance, you can't even acknowledge that a large minority of DV involves male victims and female perpetrators. Just to cite the Australian Institute of Criminology stats that you refer to. You are correct in that although 38% of victims of domestic homicide in 2010-12 were male, a lower proportion were victims of intimate partner homicide. But then you tactfully neglected to state the actual percentage of males killed by their intimate partners. It's 24%. And around 83% of that 24% were killed by women.

So yes, I agree with you that more women are victims. But to you, does "equality" and "anti-discrimination" mean to completely ignore the one quarter killed by their partners who happen to fall within a demographic minority?

How is that equality? How is that anti-discrimination? Where is a single feminist willing to speak out for that 24% (or 38% in the case of all male casualties of domestic homicide)? When you do and only when you do will we (the politically disenfranchised) take you seriously.

You live in an Orwellian world, but one that is unfortunately becoming more prevalent in our politically correct but factually incorrect society.

"I will respond to comments on this Op Ed when I return to work on Tuesday." - Sarah Russell

Does your work know they are paying you to write articles and post comments on OLO?

Thank you so much Sarah for your correction and apology.

You are correct that some people have probably read the statistic "75 males were killed in domestic homicide incidents between 2008-10" and assumed that all perpetrators were female. Our brains seem to be wired into a gender binary that makes this kind of error more frequent.

Craig a couple of great posts thanks.

There is much in family law/child support systems and elsewhere that seems to be supported by feminists that makes a mockery of claims of any genuine concern for equality.

As for DV stats they have been addressed over and over and Sarah's claims of manipulation don't stack up especially when compared to the massive flaws in the methods used to support feminist claims about DV. I suspect most are so stuck in their ideology that they are unable to consider any evidence that contradicts it as being plausible.

Token words that all victims should get support but no sign of any real support for the idea that public messages should speak against all DV regardless of the respective genders of perpetrator and victim.

R0bert

I read this in the article: "When I talk in English about power, entitlement and gender inequality, I use examples such as domestic violence,..." , so I thought I'd go and have a look at the crime stats to see what they have to reveal about domestic violence. Domestic violence is a crime, right?

Well what do you know, in the local jurisdiction 152 page crime stats document online, I can't find any reference to domestic violence...tables and charts relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are in abundance but there is nothing, repeat nothing, on domestic violence. Even in the table on homicide and related offences 5 years to the current quarter, I counted 26 offences but domestic violence related ones are not shown.

Does anyone have any clues as to why meaningful crime stats on DV, as dealt with in the courts, are so hard to obtain?

http://tinyurl.com/pqcxr5f

Sarah,
My remark about speciousness made it into your next article! Gave me a good chuckle. Never has there been a better example of the way feminists twist language and use statistics 'speciously'.

In my comment here:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17261&page=0

I said: 'Like many advocates who push an agenda rather than look for truth, your USE OF STATISTICS (caps added) is specious.'

But then in your latest article, you wrote:
'some men reply that the STATISTICS ARE (caps added) "specious"'

You completely twisted what I said. This is the problem with feminists. I talk about your inability to understand statistics and before we even get to the statistics you have been unable to understand the literal meaning of my sentence. Honestly, did you do your PhD at English speaking university? What is so hard to understand about that sentence?

I guess if you find it hard to understand simple sentences in English the link where Sowell demolishes the wage gap myth 30 years ago would be way too hard. But I'll link to it again. Maybe another viewing will help.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_sGn6PdmIo

At least you didn't start by insulting all men this time, so I guess an improvement in that sense.

Anyway, thanks for the laughs.

Sarah,
I just read your response to One in Three Campaign where you said
'after dane dismissed domestic violence as “a myth”'

I checked my post and couldn't find your quote. Am I missing something? Or are you making stuff up again?

Gee. Why do you feminists find it so hard to stick to the facts?

Your whole second article was bemoaning the fact that men don't listen to women and you hoped we might listen to other men. I think you now have your answer why.

Thank you to all who have commented on both recent articles. I welcome debate on the issues that I raised in my Opinion Piece. RObert - I oppose ideologues. I welcome evidence that contradicts me. I also welcome my ideas being challenged.

ConservativeHippie, I am self-employed. I have owned and operated my business since 1999. It is unusual for me to be in my office on a Sunday morning, but wanted to respond to some comments.

Dane. I have received emails claiming both “the statistics I use” to support my claims are specious and “the way I use statistics” are specious. In a previous comment, I agree with you that statistics should be used honestly so there can be informed debate.

In a previous comment, dane, you stated that I had “the gall to rehash long debunked myths like a gender pay gap, domestic violence, glass ceilings, superannuation differences etc.” This comment led me to conclude that you thought domestic violence was a myth. I apologise if I drew the wrong conclusion.

The Google definition of “Gender equality” is: “the state in which access to rights or opportunities is unaffected by gender”. This definition is both accurate and succinct.

I agree Wolly B that the discrepancy in superannuation arises because some women spend years doing unpaid work raising children and so there is a break in their 'direct' earning capacity. You propose an excellent idea – that our partners could share their superannuation during the time women are out of the paid workforce.

ConservativeHippie – the aim is not 50-50. The aim is for rights or opportunities to be unaffected by gender.

Hasbeen – ABC News 24 has real news and a diversity of new readers.

onthebeach - I unaware of a feminist clique or a gravy train. Women worldwide from all socioeconomic, ethnic and religious groups are working towards gender equality.

Roscop – the one in three campaign aims to raise public awareness of the needs of male victims of family violence, not female.

I will continue my replies in the next post

Eeva Sodhi, who happens to be a female (feminist please note) has on her now archived website some interesting articles.

Manufacturing Research.

The integration of gender equality analysis into the research and evaluation work of the
<Department implies a departure from traditional research methodology. It does not start
<with a premise of neutrality, nor limit its investigation to sex disaggregated data. A
<gender research approach begins with women's experience as they see it.

http://web.archive.org/web/20050308115735/http://www.nojustice.info/Research/ManufacturingResearch.htm

Perceptions are not Facts

http://web.archive.org/web/20050317002453/http://www.nojustice.info/PerceptionsarenotFacts.htm

Justice Canada instructs its research contractors to "make a careful choice about which
<indicators are going to be applied , because you want the indicators to reflect the
< gendered approach you are developing"

There can hardly be more insidious form of deception than the intentional manipulation of
< public opinion by presenting data in a manner which creates an ideologically motivated
<perception that one identifiable group is responsible for all evil while hiding the fact that
<those who are portrayed as the collective victims are equally culpable. It is
<incomprehensible that men, who still are the main tax payers, defenders of and
<providers for their families, quietly allow themselves to be used as the scapegoats who
<are driven down the cliff to their destruction.

<The fact that men like Michael Rand willingly play a role in this deception proves that
<"the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world". Regretably, this rule has become
<tyranny that is leading us into chaos.

Continuing from my last post:

Phanto – I am sorry that you think my articles are “juvenile”. As a colleague once said to me, “I will keep talking about this issue until things change”.

Runner – I do not think the successes and failures of the Gillard government was due to quota systems to promote people.

ttbn – , One of the most common derisive taunts thrown at women who speak about gender equality is “manhater”. It’s been around since the days of suffrage, and still gets used today, as indicated by the emails I received last week. Most feminists, like me, do not hate men.

Thank you, Jay Of Melbourne, for the link. As I have said, statistics should be used honestly so there can be informed debate.

Craig Minns – Thank you for sharing your anecdote about returning to university. I am unsure of the data (what ttbn calls “hard evidence”) concerning mature age students. It seems possible there are many more mature age women than men on campus because women often retrain when their children are older and they are planning to re-enter the workforce. Men are less likely than women to leave the workforce when their children are young. By the time their children are older, men are often in senior positions and less inclined to start again and retrain for a job in a new profession.

Wolly B

In my work as a public health researcher, it is important to analyse data using categories such as age, socioeconomic status, gender, and ethnicity. This is not politically motivated. It is motivated by a desire to target public health interventions so that they are effective.

Eeva Sodhi, who is a female (feminist please note) wrote this article

"Why Men Fail"

The often repeated observation in these documents was that men have "disengaged" themselves. Yet, if we look at the reality, it would have been far more accurate to say that men have been pushed aside, or forced out. In the final analysis, can we blame men for thinking: "If I am such a monster, why should I struggle in order to earn more?"

The British said it right: "Call a man a dog and he will eventually behave like one". As soon as a man has proven himself responsible and a high achiever, like the vast majority of men do, along comes a woman who, with the generous help of the government and judiciary, will not only rob him of everything that he has worked for but who also tries to make sure that he ends in jail (“The only answer our society has offered so far has been to put a rapidly growing share of adult men behind bars”…same source as above).

http://web.archive.org/web/20050310180627/http://www.nojustice.info/Media/WhyMenFail.htm

Hello Dr Russell, by definition "senior" positions are a relatively small part of the workforce, therefore to suggest that any demographic is "often" in such positions is, with the greatest of respect, risible on the face of it.

However, you are quite right to suggest that women may be better placed to attend university as mature-aged students than men are, especially women of middle-age compared to their male counterparts. One reason has already been given in an earlier post of mine, relating to the differential nature of the legal situation around families after breakdown of relationships. The feminist movement has been extremely successful in achieving opportunities for women to seek education as parents of young children.

But I suspect there are even bigger forces at work:

- the streaming of young men into blue-collar careers which have, in many cases now become contracted "self-employment" carrying large debt loads and little security;

- the upgrading of traditionally female fields to professional status, including many of the caring and educational fields, so that women who wish to become nurses or teachers for example can now spend 6 or more years as part-time university students rather than working as full-time trainees in a workplace;

- the preferential employment of women in Government workforces;

- the availability of HECS and the cutoff income levels for repayment, which means that those who work part-time will not have to repay much (often nothing at all), while those who work full-time and have an effective high rate of tax thanks to paying child support (which is a much larger cohort than those in "senior positions") will have a large extra burden of repayment.

There are many other factors, including the broadening of entry pathways and the changes to schooling designed to enhance female outcomes.

You didn't answer the question I asked above, which was the reason for my telling my own story. What do you mean when you speak of gender equality? If you want my support as a "male champion of change" I think it's reasonable to know what it is I'm being asked to support.

Dr Russell,
The fundamental flaw in the Feminist critique is the dogmatic position on male power merely because of a perception that a small number of men at the head of a few elite families are able (to some extent) exercise their will over the population as a whole.
Historically working and poor men have always had the worst of it, to quote a popular song by the Dropkick Murphys
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTafZRecy2k

A lie, that appeals to our prejudices is far more palatable than the truth in some instances.

Take for example the research that was conducted by Lenore Weitzman, that found mens income increased whilst women's fell after divorce.

Because his corrected figures may actually still overstate the inequalities in the
<economics of divorce, Peterson's revision of Weitzman's numbers may ironically
< continue the distortion of the truth. As the media slowly begins to use Peterson's
<calculations to correct its uncritical acceptance of Weitzman's 73/42 statistic,

http://www.acbr.com/biglie.htm

So Sarah as a researcher, have you ever asked yourself why men and women are asked different questions in domestic violence research?

Take for example the screening questions for pregnant women.

"When was the last time he hit you?"

When men are asked;

"When was the last time you hit her?"

If you look at the first women safety survey, there was never any research conduct into male safety, asking men about their domestic experiences.

Interestingly there is a very rare piece of research that was conducted in Canada in about 1987. That actually did ask men and women the same questions.

http://www.franks.org/fr01060.htm

Women are just as violent to their spouses as men, and women are almost three times more likely to initiate violence in a relationship, according to a new Canadian study that deals a blow to the image of the male as the traditional domestic aggressor.

Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the study, however, is the source of the data -- a 1987 survey of 705 Alberta men and women that reported how often males hit their spouses.

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

Sarah:
Phanto – I am sorry that you think my articles are “juvenile”. As a colleague once said to me, “I will keep talking about this issue until things change”.

If they are not juvenile then you do not need to apologise. Nor is it logical to feel sad or ‘sorry’ – you are under no obligation to please me. Perhaps the word juvenile has hit a nerve.

Well, it is your right to keep on talking and saying things that have been said thousands of times before but it cannot be construed as anything else but nagging. Some people who nag do so because they enjoy the nagging. They do not want things to change because they enjoy the sense of power that they feel from belittling others. Their worst fear is that change will occur

Antiseptic, I was incorrect when I stated "men are often in senior positions and less inclined to start again and retrain for a job in a new profession." When putting forward a possible explanation for a larger number of mature age female students than male, I should have said "it is possible that some men may be in senior positions".

Phanto, I will be explicit about why I am sorry: your description of my articles as "juvenille" is a technique used to negate my views. This has made me loose interest in further discussion with you. I am sorry because I was interested in your comments on my earlier article.

Wolly B – I have never undertaken research into domestic violence, but if the questions are as you state in your post– the research question is most definitely biased. It is sexist to have different questions for men and women.

Antiseptic – I have defined gender equality in a previous post. You may be interested to know who are Victoria’s Male Champions of Change.
John Cain, former premier of Victoria
Glyn Davis, vice-chancellor, University of Melbourne
Chris Eccles, secretary, Department of Premier and Cabinet
James Fazzino, CEO, Incitec Pivot
Adam Fennessy, secretary, Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning
Tony Frencham, managing director, DOW Chemical (Australia and New Zealand)
Gareth Goodier, CEO, Melbourne Health
Peter Hay, chair, Newcrest Mining
Doug Hilton, director, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research
Damon Johnston, editor-in-chief, The Herald Sun
Brian Kruger, CEO, Toll Group
Ken Lay, former chief commissioner, Victoria Police
Gillon McLachlan, CEO, AFL
Chris Maxwell, president of the Supreme Court of Appeal
George Savvides, managing director, Medibank Private
Luke Sayers, CEO, PwC Australia
Steven Sewell, CEO, Federation Centres
Ian Silk, CEO, Australian Super
Andrew Thorburn, CEO, NAB

I do not know how these men were selected. If you decide you would like to be a Male Champion of Change, you should perhaps contact the Victorian Human Rights Commission.

Sarah:
There is no need to be so defensive. When I said “what is the point of these juvenile articles” I was referring to all the articles like this of which this one of yours was an example. There have been many such articles like this written here in the past. I was not referring to all your articles.

Calling them juvenile is not a technique it is an expression of an opinion. Not every opinion you disagree with is a technique to negate your views. I cannot negate your views even if I wanted to – you are free to say what you like on this forum.

I think these type of articles are juvenile because nagging is juvenile type behaviour. It is an immature response to a set of circumstances that someone does not want to have to deal with.

“This has made me loose interest in further discussion with you.” There is no need to tell me this. Why should it matter to me? I express my views not simply to engage with you but to engage with everyone who reads and writes on the forum. I can express exactly the same views whether you engage with me or not.

Why all this waffle about "equality"?
Men and women are different, not the same.
If each gender treated the other with equal respect, there would not be
complaints about "dominance".

Dr Russell, you're obviously a skillful and well-qualified person, with the personal integrity to acknowledge when you have made a mistake and you have repeatedly stated your commitment to seeking to support your views with good data.

However, it is also pretty obvious from your articles and some of your comments that you are strongly influenced in your analysis of gender relations by some flawed assumptions that have become somewhat axiomatic in feminist discourse.

There are two fundamental flaws that I see in your approach.

The first is that you set up a false class dichotomy between men and women while ignoring the much larger class distinctions that exist across society. A woman employed as a professional, or a woman married to a professional man is likely to be, on any measure of social wellbeing, better off than a man working as a casual labourer, for example. However, that man and his female partner are probably quite similar in all such measures. Similarly, a wealthy couple who divorce don't suffer much in the financial fallout, but a couple at the other end of the socioeconomic spectrum might well be both devastated financially with no hope of recovery.

The second is that you don't seem to have a well defined model of what is meant by equality between genders, with respect. The genders are intrinsically different, with some significant overlaps, but there are essential aspects in which most men differ from most women, without even considering reproduction. The genders are complementary in very many ways.

I am a big fan of Barbara Pocock's excellent AWALI series, which has shown a steady decline in self-reported life satisfaction for both genders since its inception. Are we racing to be equally miserable?

Dr Russell, that's quite a list and gives creedence to the observation that Feminism is capitalism's little sister.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/14/feminism-capitalist-handmaiden-neoliberal
Another musical quote which sums up the present state of Feminism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psB0cidB5bg

Sarah, I admire your tenacity in the face of an overwhelmingly negative response to your article. I doubt any articles written by women, except possibly the religious ones, get any positive feedback on this forum.
I suspect that in future there will be very few of these articles for all the good ol' boys to get their jocks in a twist about.

Wolly B, I was just wondering how you know exactly what questions are asked by police to men and women at every domestic violence situation? Are all the police who go to these sort of call-outs female cops then?
If there were any male cops attending, I can't imagine them asking your questions of the men they interrogate, because of course, as frontline people involved in the fallout from domestic violence, they would know that there is a huge female-perpetrated violence against men out there, surely?

I would imagine there are also plenty of 'safe-houses' for these men to go to to get away from their female abusers? If not, why not?
In our rural town, we have an organization that assists men involved with domestic violence, as both victims and perpetrators. It seems to work quite well by removing men from the situation and giving them a supported place to stay.

It sounds to me like you need to get one of these places going in your area?
Maybe you could do something positive about the problem rather than continually blaming 'feminists' for all men's problems in society today.

Suseonline, the response has been overwhelmingly one of a willingness to engage respectfully, despite disagreements.

Your own comments are notable exceptions.

Dr Russell, I see the Chief of the Army, David Morrison is a male champion for change.

So learned doctor, tell all of us here why the army has double standards for entry fitness requirements and hair length etc. Do you know what Morrison intends doing so that there is only one standard?

Sarah you have along the way made comments which imply a belief in the standard feminist dogma regarding DV. Issues that have been discussed numerous times on this site. If I recall correctly you suggested something along the lines that claims that DV is not predominately something men do to women are a distortion.

Have you ever tested those beliefs with a genuine look at the case put by those putting a case that is different to the feminist mantras on the topic?

It's my opinion and I think that of many others who have looked into it that much of the research that underpins the currently accepted view on DV being gendered start with a premise that it's an offshoot of male control and therefore never see the need to genuinely examine mens experience as victims of DV or womens role as perpetrator.

From http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.308.252&rep=rep1&type=pdf Page 6

"Although the batterer treatment standards of most states are premised upon DV being the product of patriarchy, the central causal construct in the feminist/sociocultural theory, there is little consistent empirical evidence in support of this view. Briefly, the patriarchy-as-cause view asserts that DV is solely a product of the socially sanctioned domination and control of women by men (Corvo & Johnson, 2003).

Empirical studies examining the influence of patriarchal gender role socialization or gender-based power inequities on DV behavior have demonstrated neither strong nor linear correlations (Dutton, 1994; Sugarman &Frankel, 1996; Yick, 2000)."

If you are willing to examine the alternate case a starting point on the DV issue is http://web.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
"SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 286 scholarly investigations: 221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 371,600."

R0bert

The major problem with data about murder of family members is that it only counts those judged to be homicide. Most of these are preceded by domestic violence. DV that leads to a female killing a male is more likely to be judged as self defence than identical cases where a male kills a female. One reason for this is unrelentingly sexist and inaccurate depictions of domestic violence influencing the decisions of police, prosecutors and juries.

Without this confounding variable, no one knows how the data would look.

Craig Minns, I have one comment to make about this statement:

"Similarly, a wealthy couple who divorce don't suffer much in the financial fallout, but a couple at the other end of the socioeconomic spectrum might well be both devastated financially with no hope of recovery."

A wealthy divorced couple are not likely to suffer financially like those at the other end of the scale but I think it would be more common for a woman in that class to be ditched as her looks fade and boobs sag and the bloke has had enough of her menstrual/menopausal mood swings. For such blokes life's much more exciting with a much younger trophy wife or mistress. Its the reason why family law remains as it is. No fault divorce suits their lifestyle perfectly. And besides, it doesn't interfere with their dreams of taking their children to Disneyland one little bit.

benk, it also ignore the possibility of link between a range of bullying behaviours and suicide rates and the sometimes brutal and contribution of the bias in the practical implementation of our family law and child support systems to both suicide and I suspect some of the murder suicides.

It's speculation in regard to those links as the evidence that would allow a good understanding of any links is hidden behind a great concern for confidentiality that does not appear to be an issue in other aspects of the system.

R0bert

Here is an interesting question, if being a housewife, mother etc is unpaid?

Then how come a woman's standard of living falls, following divorce or separation?

Because if the work is unpaid, it should then make no difference to a mothers, ex-wife standard of living.

Sarah

STOP apologising! STOP right now!

You have nothing to apologise for. You have stated your case and done so more than adequately.

These guys are veteran OLO veteran fraudsters, who twist the research and statistics beyond all recognition to suit their own self-pitying, women-despising agenda.

You will never, EVER catch them apologising for getting it wrong. And they DO constantly get it wrong.

And what’s more … they know it. Oh, how they know it!

But they are too entitled, too sanctimonious and too protected by their overwhelming numbers to ever face up to themselves. They operate in aggressive packs to ensure that women are too intimidated by their senseless hostility and too exhausted by their screwed-up reasoning to continue beating their proverbial heads against the proverbial brick wall.

Keep pandering to them if you must. But don’t kid yourself that you will ever get anywhere

Old Killarney...your last post...what a hoot...never read anything so desperate on OLO...go have a bex and a lie down.

When you can't have your own way - throw a tantrum. Very dignified.

I agree, Craig Minns, a discussion of gender equality cannot occur in a vacuum – it must address class distinctions. I did this in my article “Good blokes or smug thugs”. I also agree that women employed as a professional, or a woman married to a professional man, benefits from the current economic (and class) system.

‘Male Champions of Change’ brings together leaders in government, the community sector and the corporate world. It is not surprising they are all men who support the current economic system (capitalism).

To those who are focussing their comments on domestic violence, I have done no research on domestic violence, nor experienced it. I have not heard of “the standard feminist dogma regarding domestic violence”, nor know what this even means. Before writing this article, I read the statistics – to demonstrate that domestic violence is not a myth. I am aware that it occurs in all areas of society (upper, middle and working classes) and to both men and women.

I support policies that ensure access to rights or opportunities that are unaffected by a person’s gender. For example, I support parental leave policies to enable both men and women to take leave from their jobs to care for young children. I also support flexible work arrangements for both men and women who have children.

Wolly B – a housewife or househusband shares her/his partners’ income. If these people divorce, it is beholden on the man or woman who has remained in the workforce to provide their share to support their x-partner to raise their children.

Killarney – thank your advice. I do not feel intimidated by the posts to my articles. Some people have made valid points to contest my claims. Others have engaged with argumentum ad hominem. I engage with the former, not the latter.

I have been resolute, not defensive, in my comments to my Op Ed. In both articles I have provided evidence to support my claims. These statistics are from reputable sources. Those who question how I used these statistics, or simply claim the statistics are wrong, need to respond with counter claims for me to take them seriously. Simply dismissing me as a feminist or a lefty carries no weight.

I have apologised whenever someone has pointed out a mistake.

I have also apologised to those who I have offended. Some people who don’t agree with me often say my views are “offensive”. I have not apologised for my views. Instead, I am sorry that they have chosen to dismiss my view as “offensive” rather than engage with my ideas and challenge them. It is a missed opportunity for us both to learn something, and shift our thinking.

Sarah, I like your style!
We need more researchers such as yourself who are unbiased and just work with the facts.
Many people on this forum would find that threatening in their narrow little world.

I really do hope the list of men you gave above do make a difference, and I am sure that just the fact they have put their name to such a worthy cause is a good start.
Good luck!
Cheers,
Suse.

Dr Russell, I realise that you tried to discuss class distinctions within your previous article, but your focus was entirely on male class privilege, ignoring the similar privilege which is enjoyed by females of that socio-cultural class.

This is a common feature of social justice discourse: choose a favoured class characteristic then create a pejorative dialectic based on some features of a sub-group of those who don't possess the specific class-defining characteristic, while ignoring those within that favoured class who share features of the demonised sub-group.

It has been called "framing the debate" by George Lakoff and of course Orwell is famous for his extreme example of just that in "1984". Alinsky in his "Rules for Radicals" set out a set of guidelines for doing so. Betty Friedan in her book "The Feminist Mystique" used her considerable experience writing Marxist polemics for the US Electrical Trades Union to good effect in framing second-wave feminist discourse, which she later admitted to having some regrets about. There have been innumerable examples across social justice causes and politics generally, all based on the end justifying the means.

The thing is that while someone like yourself might be able to examine somewhat dispassionately such a skewed presentation, it is clear that many others are not. As a result debates are polarised on "tribal" lines. Confirmation bias takes over and as Paul Simon said so well "a [wo]man hears what [s]he wants to hear and disregards the rest", leading to poor understanding of issues and flowing on to poor policy when a misinformed public demands that "something must be done".

I think it is time for people of good will on both sides of the gender discussion and many other contentious topics decided to stop trying to frame debate in favour of achieving a genuine workable consensus based on mutual good faith rather than politics. Your willingness to seek good evidence and engage on issues is to be commended.

Craig Minns, I agree that I focussed exclusively on male class privilege in my previous article and ignored the privilege that is enjoyed by women of that socio-cultural class.

Privileged women – either by birth or marriage – are an interesting group and would require a separate opinion piece. I think they exhibit traits quite different from their male counterparts.

It is interesting that you quote Paul Simon – the verse you cite is a wonderful description of an ideologue. Ideologues (either male of female) are dangerous – particularly when they have political power. You cannot convince an ideologue with reasoned argument.

There are many of us (both men and woman) who are willing to discuss issues and work towards a fairer and more inclusive society for both men and women.

I have enjoyed our exchange – and wish you well with your university studies.

Suseonline.

Nobody, including the gracious, open-to-debate Dr. Russell is 'unbiased; she would probably be the first to tell that to people naïve enough to believe differently, if her careful and respectful responses to criticism are anything to go by.

'Bias' is not something to belt those who disagree with you over the head. You show YOUR OWN bias very clearly as does anybody with an opinion. As for facts versus bias, many so-called facts, particularly those in the social sciences, are really opinions put up for debate.

ttbn, of course one agrees with one's own opinion, and is swayed by them.

However, Of course there are facts and statistics that just show exactly the numbers and figures of certain issues, don't you?
Examples could include the number of murders committed in any one month in one state or country, and of those, how many were male or female victims.

Scientists collect these facts, but then throw in their own slant on how or why they happened. It's not rocket science.
So, what is your point?

Quite a lot of projection in Killarneys post at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17286#305193

Killarney is one of OLO's most constantly determined posters when it comes to trying to shut down any recognition of issues impacting men that are not entirely of mens own doing. Suzie occasionally steps out of line and shows some understanding but is generally corrected by Killarney and falls back into line.

Reality is there are few men in this space who would deny some of the social constructs of the past have created unnecessary restrictions and disadvantage to many. Few if any who would give any support to actual rapists or those who would actively discriminate on the basis of gender.

The real points of difference are over a range concepts. I'll list some that come to mind.
- That men have somehow been uniformly more advantaged than women whilst ignoring the inconvenient aspects of advantage and disadvantage.
- That men alone are responsible for the shape of society.
- That men should be held to a higher standard than women when it comes to the impact of our own choices on life outcomes.
- That men somehow are more responsible for the social constructs, limitations and restrictions that we almost all face.
- That feminist dogma based on marxist concepts of power structure should decide the outcomes of gender research rather than actual figures.
- That womens perception of what occured is both more important than mans and more important than truth.

There are some bitter men around here, generally with good cause even if not always managed well.

R0bert

I'm still interested in discussing the way Feminism is now turning to capitalism and the captains of industry to get the job done, even calling the men named in the list their "Champions". Technically and in the Feminists parlance that's known as "damseling" and the response "white knighting", what's the premise here? Is this some 21st century version of medieval courtly love where knights vie for the attention of powerful women and bash each other's heads in over insults to their maid's honour? It's a metaphor of course but where the men of the 14th century dueled with lances and rapiers the modern knights use TV and social media to defend the honour of the objects of their courtly love.

And Dr Russell let's not even get into the capitalist motivations for harnessing Feminism, the part Feminists themselves have played in the subversion of their movement to that end and the negative impact upon wages and conditions across the board of having a largely Feminised and therefore defenceless workforce.

Craig: You implore people of good faith to enter into honest discussion and this is a valid call but the reality is that many people who engage in these debates do not have that good will.

It is not what people say so much as the way they say it. It is not always easy when you cannot see body language to discern whether what is being said is genuine. We have to look closely at language and behaviour and if there are signs of aggression or emotional manipulation then those things should be evidence that a person is not seeking the truth but trying to protect a personal agenda. In my opinion this immediately shows that they are not capable of rational discussion and these issues can only be solved by rational discussion.

Such things should be pointed out or such posters should be ignored if we are to maintain the integrity of the forum. When it comes to gender issues people have a lot of unresolved bitterness but I believe this is not the place to deal with those things. It is an abuse of the forums.

I have seen many articles by professionals and academics on OLO which are purely aimed at protecting a personal agenda. They feign impartiality but present arguments in such a way as to try and manipulate debate. They even do it at the taxpayer’s expense. When challenged they often become quite defensive and the true motive of their writing comes to the surface.

I think we should pay more attention to the behaviour of posters and ignore those who say one thing and do another, who think aggression is passion and even those who try to suck up to others in order to win them over.

RObert
You begin your recent post by insulting Killarney and Suseonline, then proceed to make 6 unsubstantiated claims. Do you have evidence to support these claims, or are they merely thought bubbles?

Jay Of Melbourne
I support all those who address gender equality. As the Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner stated “The men are not champions because they are perfect role models, but rather because they are committed to taking action to increase the representation of women in leadership”. Many people, however, are critical of Male Champions of Change, some for the same reason as you.
Feminism is a broad church. Many feminists are critical of capitalism. We see how women (and men) have been co-opted to advance the capitalist agenda.

phanto
Was the point of your post merely to cast aspersions on academics who engage in debates about gender equality (i.e. attack the messenger)?
Rather than rigorous debate, you seem to prefer to insult. You describe women who discuss gender equality as “whinging, incessant nagging and bemoaning”. I don’t need body language to discern your intentions.

Your posts remind me of story I heard recently from Julian Burnside during his talk on 'Fairness'. He describes school children who go on an excursion to the local pool. The boys are allowed in the pool first – and they spend 20 minutes swimming. The girls go into the pool next – and they are only allowed spend 10 minutes to swim. The boys do not complain, but the girls do. The boys then describe the girls as “whiners”.

Dr Russell, thanks for the good wishes.

You are quite right that ideologues are not susceptible to reason, but I think what is more dangerous is the cognitive bias within otherwise reasonable people that is created by the sorts of "debate framing" (spin) that is so common within political discourse of all kinds. We are all the product of our own experiences that create a predisposition to prefer particular viewpoints which makes us vulnerable to confirmation bias. There are other biases which are more intrinsic and some are close to universal.

I find it difficult to objectively reason on some aspects of the treatment of men and their relationship with their children after separation for example, so I have to be especially watchful of my own responses when discussing them.

Many women are especially aware of their vulnerability to rape or other forms of violent assault, so they might find it difficult to untangle that intrinsic bias from their responses to gender-related topics. That was the basis of Friedan's and later, Greer's work.

Paul Simon's lyric was not about such ideologues, it was about a young man reflecting on his disillusionment.

"I am just a poor boy.
Though my story's seldom told,
I have squandered my resistance
For a pocketful of mumbles,
Such are promises
All lies and jest
Still, a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest."

I think there are a lot of disillusioned people, of both genders and all social classes.

Craig Minns

Thanks for the lyrics - I agree there are many 'walking wounded' (both men and women). I think this explains, in part, why men and women become so heated when having these types of discussions.

We are all susceptible to confirmation bias. I agree that life experiences (and personality types) create a preference for particular viewpoints that makes us vulnerable to confirmation bias.

The challenge for us all, myself included, is to be aware of our confirmation bias and to try to keep an open mind. There is no point engaging in a discussion if you have already made up your mind, particularly when you ‘know’ the other person is wrong.

Having an open mind - and not attributing mischievous motives to those with a different point of view - is essential for progress

Suseonline,

I am sorry that you are unable to grasp what I said. Your response indicates that I over-estimated you.

I will not bother you again.

Sarah, interesting that you responed to my comments with "You begin your recent post by insulting Killarney and Suseonline"

I didn't see a similar approach to Killarney who said "These guys are veteran OLO veteran fraudsters, who twist the research and statistics beyond all recognition to suit their own self-pitying, women-despising agenda." etc http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17286#305193

And Suseonline in the 4th post of the thread "you will get nothing but vitriolic rants about this subject on this male dominated forum." plus a long history of dismissing anything that looks like recognition of the issues facing men.

And yet the "insult" you chose to pick up on was my reference to their determined effortsd on that front.

R0bert

Sarah, without wishing to divert you from consideration of the point I made in the previous post I would like to highlight that in regard to your comment about "unsubstantiated claims" that I had previously posted links to material which makes a start on substantiating the case against DV being an overwhelmingly male act against women.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17286#305183

Material which I've not seen any indication that you bothered to look at. The closest I've seen was this which does not give the impression of and interest in substantiating material "To those who are focussing their comments on domestic violence, I have done no research on domestic violence, nor experienced it. I have not heard of “the standard feminist dogma regarding domestic violence”, nor know what this even means. Before writing this article, I read the statistics – to demonstrate that domestic violence is not a myth. I am aware that it occurs in all areas of society (upper, middle and working classes) and to both men and women."

There are word games can be played, it's an opinion site and not everything gets backed by evidence on the spot.

Nor can every claim be readily substantiated in a format like this. Often our views are the result of long experience. Opinion sites provide opportunity to test those views against others experience and have demonstrated where the flaws in views may exist.

R0bert

The political correct argument for equality is a load of crap.
We cant have equality, because we are not all made equal.

Who do you want rescuing you from a burning building?
A 90 - 100kg male who can easily carry you.

- Or a 55kg woman who successfully argued for equality.

Case Closed Morons... Get Real

... And maybe one day magazines will start putting ugly people on their covers.

Armchair Critic,

"Who do you want rescuing you from a burning building?
A 90 - 100kg male who can easily carry you.

- Or a 55kg woman who successfully argued for equality."

I'd first want to have a look at the woman. You never know, she might be a bit of ok, it might be worth going with her for the free grapple because you know how tight you've gotta hang on coming down a ladder. Or alternatively she could be equally useful by holding the ladder steady whilst 100kg male comes to get you and brings you down. That way you might get a nice view from above if she has a top button or two open trying to cool off from the heat of the fire and her hot female flushes.

Armchair critic

You do not have to be male, macho, massive to be a competent firefighter.

Your post is a pertinent reminder that it will take some time before some people change their view of the stereotypical firefighter of 100 kg man that runs out of the building with a person over their shoulder.

Firefighters have far fewer non-English speakers, female or overseas-born workers than any other emergency service in Australia despite lots of research showing the benefits of a diverse team in firefighting.

Roscop

Sexual harassment includes inappropriate sexual comments on social networking sites and discussion groups.

Dr Russell, despite the obvious intent to provoke, I think both Roscop and Armchair Critic make a pertinent point in relation to the fundamental differences between males and females.

We have come to agree that any proper consideration of gender inequality must be careful to exclude broad socio-cultural effects that may mask or enhance observed genderised effects.

Similarly, it is important to maintain awareness of intrinsic genderised differences that may influence socio-cultural norms. Walk into any gym and there will be men trying to build as much muscle mass as possible and as many women who are working hard to become lean and avoid developing excessive muscle mass. It may be argued these are acculturated norms, but they draw on some quite fundamental archetypes that go back a very long way!

Walk around any uni campus and there are many young women doing their best to be attractive to young men and vice versa, with both groups doing their best to check each others attributes, often with little subtlety. Neither group seems offended by the attention and young women are often much more obvious than young men!

Coercion is the result when extrinsic forces do not align with intrinsic motivation. It is the only outcome possible when intrinsic motivations are deliberately excluded from consideration. Any plan which relies on coercive methods to achieve its ends is a bad one.

The "nagging" that phanto mentions is a form of coercion. It is strictly in accord with Alinsky's guidelines for conflict-driven polarisation of debate. It has been a failure, as your article itself points out.

Feminism has had a good 50 years to develop into a mature philosophical model for human behavioural guidance and I don't think it has managed to do so yet or whether it will ever be able to be comprehensive. It has certainly provided a new lens for examination of some cultural constructs, but a lens is not a plan.

Craig Minns

A gender lens bring into clear focus the fact that a person’s gender influences attitudes and behaviours towards them. This is true for attitudes and behaviours towards both men and women. This lens may not in itself be a "plan" but it underpins action towards social progress.

I agree about intrinsic differences between men and women. There are many differences, however, that are socially constructed. These socially constructed differences need to be challenged.

I don't agree that young people flirting with each other at university can be equated with a bloke perving at a professional firefighter.

I don't know much about Alinsky. I think it was he who said “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.

Dr Russell, it seems to me that socially constructed norms that don't fit with intrinsic motivations don't last long and require considerable effort and expense to maintain, which was the point of my last couple of comments.

When it comes to firefighters, the male ones have had a long association with sexual attractiveness for females, if the number of "nude firefighter" calendars produced for charity is any guide! In general, being perceived as attractive to the opposite sex is a fundamental aspect of sexual selection and has been extremely influential in shaping human populations. A social construction in which such an intrinsic drive is treated as tainted is never going to be a long-term success and can't possibly be regarded as "progress".

The tendency to seek the mean is something that cannot be underestimated.

Socially constructed behavioural/ethical models that deviate too far from a long-term norm will inevitably return to something close to that norm. The best that deliberate social construction can hope to achieve is to ameliorate any disruptive effects if a highly deviant socio-cultural formation collapses suddenly, due to revolution or as a result of an accumulation of bad decision-making.

Feminism, if it is to be a long-term positive influence, needs to develop a clear vision of what is meant by some of the terms that are bandied about and to put a lot more care into thinking about what might be negative consequences of some forms of social construction that it might bring about. Simply pushing them into the future as something that might be or "should be" educated away isn't good enough and will end in failure.

I referred to the AWALI series earlier: have you looked it up? Barbara Pocock, UniSA; it's extremely informative.

Take this comment of Dr Russell’s:
“You do not have to be male, macho, massive to be a competent firefighter. “
I assume Dr Russell would say the same thing about being a competent soldier, like Jessica Lynch say. So why the different physical fitness requirement between men and women in the defence forces?
xxxx
* Fire brigade relaxes strength and fitness test to make entry easier for women*
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1375381/Fire-service-strength-fitness-tests-relaxed-allow-women-firefighters.html

Craig Minns and Roscop

I accept that men and women have different intrinsic abilities. However, research (both in Australia and overseas) shows that emergency services (e.g. firefighters) benefit from a diverse workforce (gender, race etc).

I agree that sexual attraction is normal.

The men and women who pose for the nude calendars do so willingly. Sexual harassment legislation was introduced to prevent people (both men and women) from receiving unwanted sexual comments and behaviours.

Craig Minns
I have looked briefly at both Barbara Pocock's and AWALI's web pages. Is there anything in particular you think I should read?

Sarah, I have read Daphne Patai's book "Heterophobia" and a couple of interesting things stand out.

First is the use of 'inflammatory analogies' this tactic triggers the more emotive part of the brain and over rides the more logical reasoning centers. The example she uses if I remember correctly was how the claim makers, equated sexual harassment being equal to rape. So sexual harassment now becomes associated with rape.

The other thing is about how the 'claim makers' once one particular claim has been made and accept, they then go out and find further examples, sometimes down to the microscopic level.

Sexual harassment is suppose to be repeated, unwelcome behaviour, however even a one off instance, is now construed as sexual harassment.

I am now of the firm believe that even if we had equal female representations in government and on boards, and all the other things that feminism wants, feminists will still continue to claim that women do not have equality.

Wolly B
I have never heard sexual harassment being equated with rape. However, if this happens, it is most definitely an incorrect association.
You may or not be right about what may happen if we had equal female representations in government and on boards.
I propose we all (both men and women) work towards equal female representations in government and on boards, and then we will see if you are indeed correct.

Dr Russell, the problem is that laws which seek to modify human behaviours that have a wide range of expression must inevitably be coercive and coercive laws will always have unintended consequences. If those laws are intended to construct a social outcome, as harrassment laws are, then the potential for unintended negative consequences must be given a great deal of consideration. A man who has a complaint made about simply trying his luck after misreading the situation may be seriously traumatised by the experience, for example. There is also the potential for priming, creating a potential for heightened tension that distorts what should be normal platonic encounters.

Another problem I see is that making strong laws based on the social mores of a particular time and culture seems to be more at home in a conservative than progressive ethical framework regardless of the intent behind them.

I haven't looked at the AWALI work in a year or so, I'll do so a bit later and get back to you if you like. Perhaps the latest series has made a liar of me :).

Sarah, you state, "Firefighters have far fewer non-English speakers, female or overseas-born workers than any other emergency service in Australia despite lots of research showing the benefits of a diverse team in firefighting."

Please advise what fool researcher has come up with this garbage. We must get them out of the research industry before they do too much damage.

Perhaps you would like to explain how having a fire fighter or an SES worker others could not talk to, or even warn of danger, would be a good idea.

You could also perhaps advise the advantage of having a small woman as a paramedic.

When my mother needed to be taken to hospital, the lady paramedic had no chance of moving her 3 meters across a lawn by her self. It was she assured me too dangerous for me to do it, so she called a second ambulance. Half an hour later, even with the second female paramedic, they could not do the job, & despite their instructions, & probable insurance worries, allowed me to do it.

There are many jobs ladies are not fully equipped to handle as well as men, but affirmative action garbage, & feminist agitation means we now have them incompetently so engaged

Dr Russell, Whats better; to experience mild sexual harassment or to be dead?

"I've never seen icing conditions. I've never deiced. ... I've never experienced any of that. I don't want to have to experience that and make those kinds of calls. You know I'd've freaked out. I'd have, like, seen this much ice and thought, oh my gosh we were going to crash."

Those are the words (contravening sterile cockpit regulations) of a chatty female first officer whilst at the controls of an c.70 seater passenger aircraft in severe weather conditions typical for winter in the NE USA particularly around Buffalo. Four minutes later the aircraft did crash killing all on board.

How many of the now dead passengers would have stepped on board had they known such a conversation was to take place during the flight.

The first officer also retracted the plane's flaps. From the UK Daily Mail "An expert on stall recovery working for the plane's manufacturer, Wally Warner, told the board retracting the flaps would significantly increase the potential for a 'secondary stall' and make it harder to recover."

Needless to say the investigation tried to shift as much of the blame that it could to the male captain. If I'd been the captain I would have, at the risk of a sexual harassment charge, told the FO to shut the f*!k up and concentrate on flying the approach.

http://tinyurl.com/momkyc9

I propose we all (both men and women) work towards equal female representations in in jobs that are dirty, physically difficult, require long hours or isolation from friends and family and then we will be somewhat closer to equality. Nursing is one area where a role that is generally dominated by females which ticks a number of those boxes but many other jobs appear to attract relatively few females despite the sometimes relatively high pay.

After all not all that many people go into government representation, get seats on boards or roles as CEOs so whilst part of the issue those boss roles are not the real picture for the vast majority of people.

R0bert

Dr Russell,
Why do social constructs need to be challenged? Social constructs are what bind and regulate a society, it appears as though Feminists, discredited time and time again are simply looking for new ways to undermine normal society. A society which puts women in the place of men is in a state of crisis, the only reason to do so is if the men are dead or absent such as in times of war or natural disaster.
If you want to see what a dismal failure women in combat roles has become for the British army I recommend the series "Bomb squad" which follows a group of combat engineers in Afghanistan. The female team members cannot do their jobs, they can't carry their own gear, they can't keep up with the men and have to be repeatedly rescued and carried, one even gets stuck in an irrigation ditch while she was supposed to be operating crucial electronic jamming gear to protect her fellow soldiers.

http://www.marieclaire.com/culture/news/a14211/mean-girls-of-the-er/

Which makes the profession's silent secret all the more surprising:
< rampant hazing, bullying, and sabotage so destructive that patients
< can suffer and, in a few cases, have died. Nurses told me about
<numerous daunting behavioral patterns: colleagues withholding crucial
<information or help, spreading rumors, name-calling, playing
<favorites, and intimidating or berating nurses until they quit.

What I find to be hypocritical is that feminists will concentrate their energy on the negative aspect of the behaviour of some males, and label any one who tries to discuss the negative aspects of the behaviour of some females and try to shut down debate by labelling those people as being misogynists.

Sarah

I understand your comments and have no disagreement with them - in theory. I also note that your OLO commenting history started on 21 April!!

I've been participating on the DV threads on OLO for years now. When I started, I had your attitude - argue the facts, refer to the research and refute it where necessary, respectfully acknowledge where (or if) you get it wrong and don't rise to the ad hominem bait.

I learned very quickly that this is not the game plan of the men here. Dominance and intimidation is their only game plan, even the ones like R0bert and Craig Minns, whose capacity for passive-aggressiveness is as awesome as it is consistent.

Over time, you learn that most of the men who post to these OLO gender threads have extremely powerful triggers regarding anything to do with women-centric issues. They go straight on the attack - either with naked hostility or passive aggressive falsehoods.

But ultimately, ask yourself: Why are there SO FEW women here?

Try and work out the answer BEFORE you make your next apology.

"Passive-aggressive behavior is the indirect expression of hostility, such as through procrastination, stubbornness, sullenness, or deliberate or repeated failure to accomplish requested tasks for which one is (often explicitly) responsible." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive-aggressive_behavior

Craig which of therm have you been doing on OLO. At a guess the stubborness of sticking to your own opinions rather than accepting the feminist line. Perhaps failing to complete an assigned task of changing your views to suit the feminist line. I doubt that procrastination or sullenness are easily applicable.

On the other hand it might be just another insult without an basis in fact.

R0bert

There has been quite lot in press over the past few days about an alleged rape of a woman by three men in Albury. Well what do you know it was a crock of the proverbial, it was just another false reporting of sexual assault. This type of thing with sexual assault and domestic violence happens far more often than the likes of Killarney and the author of the article, I believe, would like the rest of the public to know.

Many years ago I read an article in the Waikato Times, NZ which said the Hamilton police did an analysis of reported sexual assault/ rape cases. It revealed that 30% of allegations were proven to be false. No doubt the percentage of actual false allegations would have been higher than that.

Does anyone know of any research done in Australia on false allegations?

From the Nambucca Guardian:

>POLICE have closed their investigation into a reported sexual
>assault in East Albury.

>Detectives had been investigating the incident since Tuesday night,
>when a 17-year-old girl reported being approached by three men on
>the Dean Street footbridge about 6.20pm.

>She told officers she had been dragged along a nearby bike path into
>bushes and sexually assaulted, with one of the men said to have
>threatened her with a knife.

>Police had scoured nearby businesses for security footage, and the
>girl was assessed at Albury hospital, but officers now believe the
>incident didn’t happen.

>“Detectives from Albury Local Area Command have conducted extensive
>inquiries since the reported incident, including forensic testing,
>and have spoken to a number of people,” police said in a statement
>last night.

>“The investigation has now finalised. Police are no longer seeking
>three men and no further action is anticipated.”

>However, police were adamant they didn’t want the outcome to
>dissuade people reporting similar incidents.

Roscop

It's interesting that you have reduced yourself to using a poorly reported northern NSW case and an isolated New Zealand case from 'many years ago' to create a benchmark for a trope about women who set out to falsely convict a man for attacking and raping them a public bike path.

Sorry, but I'm at a total loss as to what could possibly motivate a woman to bring a false charge of rape/assault against a stranger on a public bike path ... but whatever. Under a patriarchy, misogyny and gynaphobia need no explanation.

Jay/Craig

Craig claims that feminism is a Marxian dialect.Jay claims that feminism is the 'little sister of capitalism'.

Oh, dear.What a flexible little movement feminism is! Only limit by men's febrile imagination.

Dr Russell, sorry for taking so long to get back to you. I'd suggest you have a look at the whole series of AWALI reports if you're interested in issues of social welfare and their impact on individual wellbeing. The survey of satisfaction with work/life balance is particularly interesting, especially the gendered aspects. In a nutshell, most men would like to have more work available and most women would like to be able to work less, while overall satisfaction among the WORKING population is at only 65% and has stabilised over the past few years at that level, possibly as people's expectations have been lowered.

R0bert, you're quite right to say that for most of us, sitting in the boss's chair isn't ever going to happen. For far too many of us though, sitting across the dining table from an empty chair is an all too familiar experience. What a distorted social structure we have allowed to be constructed around us.

Killarney, I am saddened by my failure to meet your expectations yet again and a little flattered that they are so high. I'll try to do better in future.

Killarney, a "dialectic" is a rationalisation or argument to justify a particular set of conclusions that may not necessarily be directly observable empirically. A "dialect" is a variant of a language, often geographically limited in range.

"Capitalism" is a Marxist concept, which defines a mode of economic organisation in which labour is controlled by capital.

There is no contradiction.

I do hope my response is compliant with your response time and emotional tone guidelines on this occasion.

Killarney, I did not say anything about "an isolated New Zealand case" in my previous post. I referred to a police analysis of many cases.

It was absolutely amazing that Hamilton, NZ police were able to get away with doing just that much considering that feminism has had such an overwhelming stranglehold over what gets reported about women's involvement with the eroding justice system.

The Albury(southern NSW) incident only saw the light of day in the media because the Mayor made a commonsense remark that upset the feminist mob. You find not too infrequently the same sort of thing with other cases like the Bulldogs northern NSW incident and the case involving a woman catching her partner with email on his laptop from another woman, once you scratch the surface of these types of cases you get a picture of something much much different from that which was initially alleged. This does not in anyway help women who have legitimate complaints because it can therefore be seen that all allegation involving serious allegations need to be rigorously and thoroughly tested.

A lot surrounding allegations made by women gets suppressed by the courts. Take the Luke Batty murder case as an example. There is a suppression order on the coroner's findings which is said to be in the best interests of the public(huh?). Also information about the latter domestic violence order that was taken out, has also been suppressed. Meanwhile Rosie Batty tells her version of events in a Womens Weekly, April 2015 edition, 4 page cover story and according to that story she is going around the country signing book deals and getting herself on to PM task forces. The chronology included in the story has many holes in it, too numerous to go into here.

Saw one definition of a misogynist as being a male who dares to disagree with a woman in particular a feminist.

Craig

'I do hope my response is compliant with your response time and emotional tone guidelines on this occasion.'

No. You're just being your usual patronising, passive-aggressively hostile self.

Roscop (et al)

Feminist 'stranglehold'? 'Feminist mob'? OH ... pleeeese.

If you look back through this whole thread (and other OLO gender threads), the comments are just DRIPPING with this grotesque hatred and fear of feminism. Nowhere is there ever any attempt to understand or accept its right to exist - no, it's just there to be ripped to shreds with endless rage and lies and self-pity.

Do you guys EVER stop to consider how ugly all your anti-feminist rage is? You just POUR out your anti-feminist venom to contaminate every gender thread on OLO and then you innocently claim that it's the FEMINISTS who are bullying the men? (Hardly any women ever even participate on the gender threads, let alone feminists. There's only ever me and Suse and that's about it ... up against at least a dozen raging and fuming anti-feminist dudes per thread.)

The sad and pathetic part of it all is that your behaviour is simply CONFIRMING why women so badly need feminism. And it only confirms why so many women leave their marriages. But the real sadness is that all you men really, really want is for a woman to love you. If so, then trust me ... you're going about it the wrong way. If you're alone and lonely, I'm not at all surprised.

Killarney, it seems you're running out of arguments, even poor ones, in response to my assertions. You've now turned to nasty ad hominem remarks.

Roscop

If you had any arguments to address, then I'd address them. However, you choose to smother any arguments you might have under your hatred of feminism. This guarantees that you will not receive a respectful reply. And, of course, this will simply validate your all-consuming hatred of feminism.

Hate away! Don't let me stop you.

Killarney, you're just feeling a bit miffed because you don't like having your controlling nature pointed out.

Hasbeen
The research is not garbage.
Paramedics have manual handling procedures that are the same for men and women.

Roscop
You give an interesting anecdote about a pilot, though I don’t see the relevance to the discussion about Male champions of change.

RObert
I agree that Male champions of change focus only on the upper end of town. You raise an important point about some jobs, and the fact that mostly men are employed in these types of jobs.

Jay of Melbourne
Social constructs need to be challenged when they discriminate against people. For example, the social construct that only women can be nurses has been challenged. We now have many male nurses.

Wolly B
It is important that all forms of bullying, including between women, are discussed openly and honestly. The type of bullying you refer to within nursing is known as horizontal violence. The presence of male nurses has helped to decrease horizontal violence.

I also dislike people who try to shut down debate by labelling those who disagree with them using pejorative labels. Name calling is puerile and it inevitably silences debate.

Roscop
Like Killarney,I'm at a total loss as to what could possibly motivate a woman to bring a false charge of rape/assault against a stranger.
You refer to the Mayor’s comments as common sense. I disagree. Surely we need to focus on the perpetrators’ behaviour. To use drink driving as an example – we don’t say to people “Stay off the roads after midnight in case a drunk driver crashes into you”. Instead we say to those who drink: “don’t drink then drive”.

Wolly B
People (both men and women) are entitled to disagree. Feminism is a broad church – I often disagree with feminists.
Simply disagreeing with a woman does not make you a misogynist. A misogynist is a person who is strongly prejudiced against women. Some women are misogynists.

It is disappointing that the hostility evident in recent posts has taken the focus away from the discussion.

Craig Minns

I also have some reservations about how sexual harassment policies are implemented, and sometimes exploited (by both men and women). However I agree with the premise that men and women should be able to work without being subject to unwanted sexual behaviour.

Also, as an afterthought:

I am not sure why some people use the word Feminism and Feminist pejoratively. Feminism is one of many frameworks for understanding social structures that contribute to human behaviour.

It is not possible to have a reasoned discussion unless people engage with the ideas. Dismissing an idea as simply "feminist" or "marxist" is not helpful.

Sarah, a couple of points from your response to Roscop I'd like to pick up.

"Like Killarney,I'm at a total loss as to what could possibly motivate a woman to bring a false charge of rape/assault against a stranger." - I'd be suggesting the need for some mental health assessment as is the case for a lot of the really out there behaviors that get quoted. As for motivations it's impossible for those not close to have any real idea but my first thought on it is attention seeking.

"To use drink driving as an example – we don’t say to people “Stay off the roads after midnight in case a drunk driver crashes into you”. Instead we say to those who drink: “don’t drink then drive”.
" I assume the comments by Roscp were in relation to this story http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/albury-sex-assault-investigation-finalised/story-fnq2o7dd-1227329546549 (or a variant of it). The use of the word "invitation" was a poor one but the rest of the mayors comments in my view reflect choices we all make.

As an adult I make choices about risk and if possible avoid situations where I think the risk is elevated beyond what I'm willing to accept. I lock my car when I'm not in it (and sometimes when driving in an area where the risks are elevated). The law in Qld and some other states requires my car be locked in some situations http://www.allianz.com.au/car-insurance/news/fine-for-an-unlocked-car . We may not tell people to stay off the roads at particular times but we do mandate other risk reduction strategies.

I lock my home when I'm out or not in a position to monitor who has access. We don't just say don't steal, people are encouraged to take proactive steps to protect themselves because no matter how thorough the message against criminal activity I suspect we will have criminals in our midst for a long time. I would be an idiot if I relied for my own security on public messages encouraging criminals to behave no matter how I feel about what I should be able to do.

R0bert

R0bert,

The following is an excerpt from the Waikato Times published some time ago. I would be fairly confident that nothing much has changed since the justice system in NZ and in Australia is still very accommodating of a false allegations (perverting the course of justice). Of course the spokeswoman for the women's crisis service, as an imperative poo poo'd the findings of the police investigation of 147 reports, as those findings are an anathema to its industry bleatings:

>"The high number of false accusations also create difficulties for
>genuine victims. Detective Senior Sergeant Mike Whitehead of
>Hamilton CIB said police tended to delve more closely into sex
>complaints they receive, giving the impression of over-vigorous
>investigating. "Because so many sex offence complaints are shown to
>be false, we are obliged to look extremely carefully at every
>complaint we receive. In that process, extra trauma can be created
>for genuine victims." Mr Whitehead said.

>The nature and complexity of sex allegations meant police put huge
>resources into those investigations. "Irrespective of other
>commitments, we will always push resources into these types of
>offences. As a consequence, other things will be put to one side."

>One investigation into a sexual violation last year took nine police
>42 hours to prove it was untrue. The investigation cost the taxpayer
>$7,417. The costs included salaries, doctors fees and forensic
>testing.

>"It's not a case of disbelieving the complainant. We have to prove
>it is false."

>Police rarely prosecute people who have made false complains about
>sex crimes. Mr Whitehead says police will focus on the reason for
>the false complaints. "Invariably, we will find there are other
>issues behind most false complaints. We try to have those issues
>addressed." Reasons given to police in the past for making false sex
>complaints range from young girls who need to explain a pregnancy,
>failed relationships where a complainant is seeking sympathy or out
>of spite.

Craig

‘Killarney, you're just feeling a bit miffed because you don't like having your controlling nature pointed out.’

If I were so into controlling others, wouldn’t I stick to commenting on threads where I have the numbers to control and dominate?

Consider this …

So far on this thread, there have been 18 male commenters, most of whom have commented multiple times, ALL of whom are strongly vocal in their disdain for women in general and anti-feminism in particular, and have a well-worn OLO history of strident anti-feminism.

So far on this thread, there have been 4 female commenters. One of them, onthebeach, has an OLO history of strongly vocal, strident anti-feminism and a pro-male POV – so I’d put her more in the 'other' camp.

That leaves 3 female commenters, the author, myself and Suse, offering a female perspective. So that leaves roughly a ratio of 19:3.

As I said … if I were into controlling any debate or discussion, I’d be much more inclined to stick with the dominant group. Much easier to bully and control others when you have the safety of numbers.

Sarah

The above comment to Craig is not meant to be an empty ad hominem. I’m making what I consider to be an important point about the dynamics of gender violence and domestic violence.

Many men (thankfully not all) display a disturbing cognitive dissonance about female power and control. Moving in packs – either physically, emotionally or intellectually - is a common male-defensive tactic designed to alleviate their fear of female power. It’s also a common form of male violence designed to psychologically intimidate and control both men and women.

Much of the so-called research on gender violence being increasingly cited by male advocacy groups is based on dodgy data-gathering methods designed to overinflate male victim figures, underplay the male-on-male perpetrator role, and portray a false scenario that women are much more violent than they really are (again, that age-old fear of female power).

When feminists rightfully challenge this so-called research, they are portrayed as trying to silence all criticism of female violence and to control the discourse on DV as only something men do to women.

Men are never going to be 'champions of change' until they face up to two things: 1. their crippling fear of female power and 2. the cultural relationship between violence and male identity.

"ALL of whom are strongly vocal in their disdain for women in general "

another lie on Killarneys part, no disdain at all for women generally from most of the male posters, there has been the odd exception over time on OLO. It's not the norm just as Killarney and Suseonlines contempt for men is a out of the ordinary amongst most women.

I'll admit to a strongly critical view of feminism, my disagreement in that space is on record.

Hunting in packs implies a coordinated plan rather than happening to share the same space. For the most part the male commentators are more than willing to make disagreements with each others views know. The fact that in many aspects of issues relating to feminism we agree on the broader issues does not make a pack nor imply any requirement for intellectual conformity.

Perhaps the reason there are so few female posters is the bullying by Killarney of women to toe the feminist line (and her version of it). Others like Killarney but a little less determined perhaps don't cope well with an environment where men are easily put in their place and silenced.

R0bert

RObert
I agree that the young woman who made a false allegation of rape should have a mental health assessment. It is certainly attention seeking behaviour – though extremely malicious in its intent. According to Rosocop’s article, the reasons given to police in the past for making false sex complaints range from young girls who need to explain a pregnancy, failed relationships where a complainant is seeking sympathy or out of spite.

I also agree with you about how we manage perceived risk. Is walking alone a risky activity? I believe both men and women should feel safe to walk alone without feeling at risk of being attacked. However, many women do not feel safe – particularly walking alone at night evidenced by the number of women who have attended Reclaim the Night marches since 1978.

Albury Mayor Kevin Mack has apologised for the comment in which he encouraged women to walk in groups in an effort to discourage offenders. To quote verbatim: "I always have encouraged women not to walk alone, to have someone with them at all times, because that in itself is an invitation for someone to take advantage of you”. I am not surprised he received opprobrium for this view. Even without the word "invitation", his comment seems to suggest it is unsafe for women to walk alone, and thereby a risky activity.

Killarney makes an observation about the gender representation on the OLO forum. Research shows that women are more likely than men to withdraw from unfriendly online communities.

Sarah, I suggest its a big ask for someone to be overly friendly towards a person who won't acknowledge the character flaws of their own gender eg false or grossly exaggerated allegations, and take every opportunity to bang on about the opposite gender.

Do you think your Champion for Change, Ken Lay would ever call for investigation into false allegations like that which was carried out by the Hamilton Police, had he continued in his role with the police? I think never in a million years. He knows what side his bread is buttered on and I don't see him as having that level of integrity. What do others think?

Roscop

The Australian government and police forces have commissioned a lot of research on false accusations of sexual assault. You can access the results of some of research easily on the Australian Centre for the Study of Sexual Assault website. I highly recommend the recent report by Wall and Tarczon. Their research provides a summary of recent literature, prevalence rates and the motivations for falsifying reports.

Sarah, I think the issue of perceived risk and associated fear of walking alone at night is a bigger one for women than men but it's not an either or situation. Rather one of degree.

There are other aspects to that as well, there are some fairly strong ingrained social conventions against assaulting women that don't apply to the same extent to assaults on men. The upbringing that many males have had that places an obligation on us to step in and put our own safety on the line to protect women in a dangerous situation.

There are places I simply choose not to be alone at night, my gender is no protection against a tougher person or a group of thugs or someone carrying a weapon. I'd like for that not to be the case but it's not the reality of city living.

In regard to Killarney's comments she did more than make an observation about gender representation on OLO, I quote again "ALL of whom are strongly vocal in their disdain for women in general". That's not an observation of gender representation, rather a very nasty lie.

Killarney has a very long history of extremely unpleasant behaviour towards those who don't accept her views on gender, also a substantial history of reprimanding female posters who step out of line. She has not in my recollection ever actually debated the facts, rather relied on unfounded and unsubstantiated claims about research that does not back their view of gender. Generalised claims of that research being discredited but unwilling to back up those claims or discuss even greater flaws in the research that feminist narrative on gender violence relies on.

R0bert

Sarah, further to my previous post some material on victimisation by strangers. It's difficult to get the exact context from the kind of reports readily available to the public and these kind of reports are heavily influenced by reporting patterns. And I do agree that most of these assaults by strangers are committed by men but I don't own the types of men who assault strangers and have no control over their freedom to commit those offences.

Some Australian figures http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime/assault.html

"Fifty-eight percent of recorded assault victims in 2007 were male.
Males had higher victimisation rates than females in all age groups."

"Most male victims (70%) were assaulted in non-residential locations, whereas the majority of female victims (58%) were assaulted in residential premises. "

and some more at http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/facts/2011/facts_and_figures_2011.pdf

A US report showing a surprising reduction in victimisation http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vvcs9310.pdf

"Simple assault made up the majority (60%) of victimizations committed by strangers during the year, followed by aggravated
assault (20%), robbery (17%), and rape or sexual assault (2%)."

"In 2010, males experienced violent victimizations by strangers at nearly twice the rate of females" - note also a greater decline in the rate of victimisation of men by strangers.

In terms of likely hood of assault by a stranger it's fairly clear that males are actually at a significantly higher risk than females and that sexual assault in public settings is a relatively small proportion of violent crime committed by strangers (that does not take away from the horror of it BTW). No idea how much of that assault involved a brawl at or outside a pub or club.

I'm not aware of any argument to suggest that the stranger assault rates are significantly impacted by social factors to make it look like males are represented in the statistics more often than they actually are assaulted.

R0bert

RObert
Thanks for the stats.
I am not an expert in assault (domestic or otherwise), but these statistics seem to confirm what I have heard - that the prevalence of men assaulting other men is higher than men assaulting women.
These stats also confirms that violence towards men occurs more often outside the home while violence towards women occurs more often inside the home.
I was interested in your comments about men who step up to protect women when a woman is being assaulted. These men who step up are often then the victim of assault. I have an anecdote to support this:
Recently, a male relative bombarded me with verbal abuse. Another male relative stepped up to defend me, and as a result himself became the victim of verbal abuse. Fortunately no physical violence occurred..

Sarah "that the prevalence of men assaulting other men is higher than men assaulting women. "I don't think you will get any dispute on that one. Perhaps the real wrong in the mayors message is that he is not telling the more likely victims of an assault by a stranger to not walk alone at night.

I do though think that it's a relatively small proportion of the population involved in perpetrating these assaults and often the same group of thugs committing multiple offences. I'd also like to see some breakdown by location, what proportion of the assaults by strangers occur at drinking venues?

There are also significant demographic factors at play that don't get the same airplay, disadvantage, mental illness, substance abuse being three of the major factors that I'm aware of. Those factors can translate into racial groupings, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are far more likely to end up on either side of the violent assault equation than most of us, not a comprehensive report but a start http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/1370.0~2010~Chapter~Aboriginal%20and%20Torres%20Strait%20Islander%20peoples%20%284.4.6.2%29 . No references handy by my recollection is that those patterns don't follow for urbanised indigenous people.

This Ask article touches on the Indigenous community aspect http://www.ask.com/wiki/Indigenous_Australians_and_crime but is not really covering the topic.

In regard to violence in the home, there are some different dynamics at play that in my view alter both the perpetration of violence and the reporting of that violence. I'd typed some of that up and well exceeded the word limit for the post, I will see if I can do a second post with that material.

R0bert

Sarah the follow up comments on violence in the home.

There is a long part of human history where the role of the male was to both provide for and protect family. That brings with it rewards for aggressiveness and competitive behaviour outside the home and a whole different role within the home.

There is also still a significant social stigma and risk of significant legal consequences facing males who report violence by a female partner. There are no public messages that I'm aware of specifically speaking against violence against men in the home by women.

Men I've spoken to who have had violent spouses have lived with the fear that they won't be believed if they report the violence, that if someone is removed from the home and children it will be the male because that's easier for the police to deal with. There is a lack of shelters able to accommodate men and children. Many of the professionals you need to deal with have been heavily indoctrinated with the beliefs in men as aggressor and women as victim and appear to have a very limited understanding of the actual dynamics that can be at play.

There are a whole bunch of reasons for men to under report violent female spouses.

Have you had a look at the material I referenced in one of my earlier posts http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17286#305183, specifically http://web.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm ?

I do think that it's worth a look at.

R0bert

RObert
I agree that demographic variables provide a much more informed picture of violence - who are the perpetrators and victims. A more informed picture also enables services to be better targeted.
It is my understanding that domestic violence is under reported by both men and women.
There is no doubt that men can also be victims of domestic violence. I appreciate the difficulties for men who are in these situations.

Psychologists, point out the some people believe that if you don't agree with their opinion or ideas, then they believe you must hate them or not like them.

<Do you guys EVER stop to consider how ugly all your anti-feminist rage
< is? You just POUR out your anti-feminist venom to contaminate every
< gender thread on OLO and then you innocently claim that it's the
<FEMINISTS who are bullying the men? (Hardly any women ever even
<participate on the gender threads, let alone feminists. There's only
< ever me and Suse and that's about it ... up against at least a dozen raging and fuming anti-feminist dudes per thread.)
Posted by Killarney, Monday, 4 May 2015 11:16:24 PM

When I was first confronted with the idea that feminist research was
advocacy research and manipulated, I too, did not at first believe it.

<When feminists rightfully challenge this so-called research, they are portrayed as trying to silence all criticism of female violence
< and to control the discourse on DV as only something men do to
<women.

Posted by Killarney, Tuesday, 5 May 2015 6:46:00 PM

It is my understanding that there are some women, who believe that they are better and superior to men.

<Men are never going to be 'champions of change' until they face up to two things: 1. their crippling fear of female power and 2. the cultural
< relationship between violence and male identity.
Posted by Killarney, Tuesday, 5 May 2015 6:46:00 PM

This next question is soo TABOO, to ask.

There are women who do use their femininity to get what they want, to
manipulate and control the men in their lives or men in brief encounters.

Dr Russell,
You asked some time ago why it is that feminism has come to assume a pejorative connotation for many people.

I think this story in today's press may shed some light

http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/men-feeling-under-siege-after-revelation-man-was-wrongly-accused-on-facebook-of-being-a-creep/story-fnjwnhzf-1227347049059

This is an extreme, but by no means isolated example of the effect of "priming" in distorting perceptions.

Unfortunately for sincere egalitarians like yourself, the "normative" feminist in the public eye is much more a strident spreader of deliberate misinformation designed to promote a political agenda that is by no means even remotely egalitarian.

Fathers afraid to be seen near children is just one of the negative outcomes.

Posted by Craig Minns, Friday, 8 May 2015 5:48:46 PM

I would take my daughter to an indoor pool, and one woman filmed me with her. She was only 3 or 4 at the time and I'd be in the pool with her.

<Many men (thankfully not all) display a disturbing cognitive
< dissonance about female power and control. Moving in packs – either
<physically, emotionally or intellectually - is a common male-defensive
< tactic designed to alleviate their fear of female power. It’s also a
<common form of male violence designed to psychologically intimidate
<and control both men and women.

by Killarney, Tuesday, 5 May 2015 6:46:00 PM

During WW1 the white feather brigade would mob and intimidate any male civilian.

<“Mrs. Pankhurst toured the country, making recruiting speeches.
<Her supporters handed the white feather to every young man they
<encountered wearing civilian dress, and bobbed up at Hyde Park
<meetings with placards: “Intern Them All.”

http://historyoffeminism.com/white-feather-campaign-second-world-war/

The use of a tactics like "guilt tripping" or 'transference' where others are accused of doing the very thing, that one's self is doing.

After re-reading my last comment I would like to modify it a little. Feminism as an ideological basis for analysis of human relations has developed a great deal over the past 50 or so years. The great challenge it faces is much the same as many other social movements have faced, from the days of the "terror" that was perpetrated in the name of egalitarianism by the Jacobins during the French revolution.

That is, how do you use the passion of commitment to justice for voiceless victims of terror without yourself falling into committing terrors?

The same question has been asked of social justice movements ever since and few have managed to answer it convincingly. I can't think of even one, to be honest, including Feminism.

Thank you, Sarah, for your complete ignoring of my comments and for your decision to pander to the twisted rationalising logic of the anti-feminist men on this forum. After all, they have the overwhelming numbers on this thread and you are more than willing to go with the dominant viewpoint.

I'm sure they feel totally vindicated and ever so smug that you have gone with them. And I feel completely vanquished and exhausted by my attempts to put the record straight on the overwhelming dominance of the disaffected-male point of view on this forum regarding the twisted analysis of DV research to favour the male DV viewpoint.

Sadly, that is how women are conditioned to relate to men. Pander to their egos, while ignoring and devaluing women's experience.

I wish you luck. Women are their own worst enemy. You are the resounding proof of that.

Killarney

I have been drawn into a discussion of domestic violence, for which I claim no expertise.

I thought your post on 5 May 2015 6:46 was interesting - I had no disagreement with it, and had nothing further to add to it. Hence my lack of response.

Many of the comments, particularly earlier, support your view about the type of person who engages on OLO.

I am not pandering to anyone. I am merely engaging in a discussion with those who have hung in there.

I am very interested in internalised misogyny, and agree that women can be their worst enemy

R0bert

'Killarney has a very long history of extremely unpleasant behaviour towards those who don't accept her views on gender, also a substantial history of reprimanding female posters who step out of line. She has not in my recollection ever actually debated the facts, rather relied on unfounded and unsubstantiated claims about research that does not back their view of gender.'

That is NOT true and you know it. I have many times challenged the so-called facts. I have especially challenged the methodology of Conflict Tactics Scale (which even its founder has distanced himself from) and memory recall methodology that forms the basis of so-called DV research that tries to prove that women are just as violent as men.

That 'unpleasant behaviour' you capriciously refer to is simply your take on the fact that I disagree with both you and the many 'research' studies you link to use to back up your biased and subjective views on DV, based on your own unresolved bitterness about your divorce history.

Craig Minns

I read the article you posted with interest. It is very sad that men interacting with young children receive such unjust treatment. However, I am not sure that feminism is to blame for this. I wonder about the impact of sexual abuse allegations, both past and present, that flood the media. I am also aware of the impact of social media - in which people seem more likely to shoot off an emotional response (often in anger) rather than think before they post.

You ask an important question: how do you use the passion of commitment to justice for voiceless victims of terror without yourself falling into committing terrors?

I think the answer is - by keeping an open mind, and acknowledging that our behaviour is determined, in part, by our social, economic, cultural environments - including our life experiences. I also think "passion of commitment to justice" requires empathy.

Sarah

'I am very interested in internalised misogyny, and agree that women can be their worst enemy'

Then, for goodness sake, say so! And let women know that YOU know!

Male viewpoints need little validation or addressing, because the male viewpoint is the 'status quo'. What is needed is for women's experience to be acknowledged and understood.

Instead, many feminist-oriented women feel they must try to make men feel less threatened, by reasoning and rationalising and being ever so polite in the face of men's misogynist anger, bitterness and fear.

On the face of it, that seems mature and reasonable. But it's a dead end. Women never gained anything from being polite and reasonable. Their gains have only come about through pushing and forcing change and refusing to listen to all the platitudes men come up with to insist that the status quo will change if they behave the way the status quo wants them to behave.

Killarney

In my experience, some men feel very threatened by women engaging in calm, rational and informed debate.

Take for example, earlier comments made by Phanto, ConservativeHippie, and dane (to both this article and my previous one "Good blokes or smug thugs") - I calmly contested their claims and they vanished from OLO.

I do not agree that my debating style is a dead end. The challenge, I think, is to keep the discussion going. Over the past week or so, I have learnt things, and shifted my view on some issues.

Although I too get frustrated, I don't see any benefit in screaming. When men and women scream at each other, no-one listens.

Dr Russell, I think you're mistaken in saying that feminism hasn't been influential in creating the circumstances described in that news article. The media doesn't exist in a vacuum and feminist advocacy groups have been very adept at working with media organisations, facilitated by a large increase in female participation as media workers. The message that has been sold is that bad things done by a man are reflective of a risk presented by all men, while bad things done by a woman represent an unusual circumstance in response to some terrible life event.

This is the "priming" I mentioned. It may not affect everybody, but there are people for whom it fits nicely into their own preferred narrative. In political terms, it is a great "wedge", because it lends itself to an easy smear of those who might disagree: "you don't care about protecting our [insert class of victim here]". It leads to seriously distorted outcomes like men not being allowed to sit next to children on aircraft, or the coach of children's sport who doesn't dare touch any of his young charges, even to comfort them if they are hurt.

However, whether feminism is to "blame" or not is somewhat a moot point. Do you think that man or any of the men he tells the story to and any of the other men who have experienced something similar or know a friend who has are going to be avid supporters of a feminist model in which maleness is seen as a pejorative attribute? There are many more Killarneys than Sarah Russells, I'm sorry to say. You've already experienced the typical denigration such people use to attempt to control other women and shut down any attempts to discuss gender topics with any seriousness or empathy.

I agree with you that empathy is the key, but feminism first has to address the mistrust that has been engendered.

Perhaps it is time for some "Female Champions of Change" to do just that?

Gawd, plurry awful punctuation. Please amend as necessary...

"In my experience, some men feel very threatened by women engaging in calm, rational and informed debate.

Take for example, earlier comments made by Phanto, ConservativeHippie, and dane (to both this article and my previous one "Good blokes or smug thugs") - I calmly contested their claims and they vanished from OLO."

Who are you trying to convince with your triumphalistic humbug? You come across as a very dishonest and manipulative person. At least three times you have said you were going to act in a certain way and then acted in the complete opposite.

You argue absolutes and then contradict yourself with exceptions which make your absolutes pointless and lacking in integrity. You seem not to accept any argument unless it is backed up by 'research'. Common sense and logic seem foreign to you.

<while ignoring and devaluing women's experience.
.
Posted by Killarney, Saturday, 9 May 2015 6:04:53 AM

I think Killarney demonstrates why there will never be equality, firstly is an attempt at guilt tripping, and then there is the implication that only women's experience is important and valuable, and that the experiences of men are not important enough for feminist to consider.

<the disaffected-male point of view on this forum regarding the twisted
<analysis of DV research to favour the male DV viewpoint.

Posted by Killarney, Saturday, 9 May 2015 6:04:53 AM

Feminist research that is false or wrong

Lenore Weitzman published her book the Divorce Revolution where she created the myth;

<women's standard of living decreased by a whopping 73 percent while
< men enjoyed an increase of 43 percent caught the attention of
<pundits, legislators, and judges.

<The only problem with this statistic, in fact, is that it turns out to be wrong.

Researchers/critics who challenged her findings were ignored.

>Publication of the "other side" of the violence study provides a
<sharp illustration of how social science is manipulated to fit a
<particular agenda.

<"It happens all the time. People only tell one half of the story,"
<says Eugen Lupri, a University of Calgary sociologist whose research
< shows similar patterns of violence against men.

<"Feminists themselves use our studies, but they only publish what
< they like.
http://www.franks.org/fr01060.htm

Then there is what is known as "Maternal Gatekeeping", where mothers discourage the fathers involvement in child rearing.

Cathy Young who writes for Reason/Salon magazine wrote an interesting piece, about research and how one must be careful of it and especially the conclusions.

Whilst trying to find the article, I came across this one,

<Team players or tools of the patriarchy?
http://www.salon.com/2000/07/06/crusade/

And yet the enemy ranks are filled with women who are not just a ladies’ auxiliary but, in some cases, the most dedicated warriors — many of whom consider themselves feminists

Settle down phanto.

In my article, Good blokes or smug thugs, I described traditional silencing techniques – attack, shoot the messenger and then ignore the message. Your post is yet another example of this.

In his article, 'The trouble with common sense', Nick Christakis argues that common sense is a kind of bespoke make-believe, and we can no more use it to scientifically explain the workings of the social world than we can use a hammer to understand mollusks.

Common sense is a reflection of the dominant paradigm/status quo. It needs to be challenged by rigorous research.

Those who read my article, Good blokes or smug thugs, may recall my conclusion:
Professor Triggs is a role model for all of us at the receiving end of such attacks in both public and domestic places. The next time I am on the receiving end of such a tantrum, I will ask him to "settle down". When he responds aggressively to my views, I will substantiate my views. If he treats me dismissively, or attributes malicious motives, I will name his behaviour for what it is: a technique to negate my views. I call on all of us who are victims or witnesses of bullying to similarly take a firm stand. The next time our views are attacked, dismissed or ridiculed, we should dust ourselves off and then stay on message.

Wolly B, I agree with you about research findings being manipulated and misused. I have written about this topic extensively in both academic and lay publications. You may be interested in my critique of "One in Five Australians" http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/perspective/sarah-russell/3318744# or my article "Unreliable statistics leave many out in the cold" http://www.research-matters.com.au/publications/HomelessStatistics.pdf

As I have said numerous times, statistics should be used honestly so there can be informed debate. Unfortunately, people torture statistics until they say what they want them to say.

I also agree, people must be careful of research, particularly its conclusions. To quote from my article "One in Five Australians":
It is sometimes difficult to differentiate credible social research from the rest. Few of us have the time, or indeed the expertise, to go back to the original data and see the flaws in the research design, the misrepresentation of the data and the over-simplification of the findings. If we did, we would see that simplistic statistics can be used as both a political tool and a marketing strategy.

Craig Minns

I liked your idea about "Female Champions of Change".

There are currently many women, both in Australia and overseas, arguing the case for gender equality calmly and rationally.

Unfortunately, women who speak out about gender equality need a very thick skin - because we are often victims of personal attacks. The recent personal abuse from Mark Latham, Andrew Bolt and Tim Blair shows that these personal attacks come from both the so-called Left and Right.

Change.org currently has a petition for the Australian Financial Review to remove Mark Latham’s offensive and derogatory articles about female writers and cease publishing any more of them in the future.

Many women are happy to engage with reasonable debate, but are not happy when we receive personal abuse.

I am interested in your views about how female advocacy groups have shaped the media and the representation of men as a potential risk. Could it be that the increasing number of women in senior positions in the media ensures that incidents of violence are reported more openly? It is, however, a great shame when all men get tarred with the same brush.

Sarah:
You said in your opinion some men are threatened by women engaging in calm, rational debate. Then you named three of us who in your opinion were so threatened that they ‘fled’. How do you know they have fled? They could be sick, their computer could be out of service, they may be “out of their office for a few days” or they may have just decided your arguments are not worth wasting their time on. It is rather arrogant to think that people who do not respond to the ‘calmness’ of your exchanges are necessarily threatened by you.

You have used your exchange with Killarney to tout your triumphant victory. Firstly using another person just to grandstand your own ‘achievements’ is an aggressive act and disrespectful of Killarney. If all you wanted to say was that some men are threatened by calm, rational debate then you would have stopped at you first sentence – there is no need to provide examples - but that was not all you wanted to say. You also wanted to say that you have had a victory – that you have made men ‘flee’. Why would you want to do this? Is this what it is really about for you? Being able to put men down and have them run away defeated. Do you want to just hurt men and make them change their behaviour out of fear of your aggression rather than because it is the reasonable thing to do? Are you not interested in finding the truth about equality and bringing about change based on reason and logic rather than fear and intimidation? How does your behaviour differ from all that behaviour of men which seeks to ‘negate your views’?

Then you tell me to settle down. If someone feels angry they have every right to their feelings or are you trying not only to negate the views of some people but their feelings as well? How threatened does all this make you look?

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5010&page=0

A Bitter sweet harvest.

You're right phanto - there are many reasons why people may have stopped engaging.

My "settle down" referenced the senate estimates hearing in which Senator O'Sullivan told Senator Penny Wong to "settle down". Senator O'Sullivan was disrespectful.

I considered your post 9 May 2015 11:37:32 PM as disrespectful. Whenever I am treated disrespectfully online, I now reply "settle down".

There are many people, both men and women, who want reasoned discussion about social issues. I do not agree with Killarney that women never gained anything from being polite and reasonable. I have not attacked Killarney, merely disagreed with her.

I do not consider it a victory when people disengage from a discussion. Quite the opposite. I much prefer it when people engage with my ideas and challenge them.

I do not see the purpose of this discussion if for me "to win". Instead, it is about hearing alternative views, and perhaps shifting my thinking.

Incidentally, I was interested in our discussion about my previous article. However, after your comment about "juvenile articles", I saw no point in continuing our discussion.

Sarah: Telling someone to ‘settle down’ is patronising whether a senator says it or you say it. It is an attempt to negate a person’s feelings rather than deal with their arguments.

I never said you attacked Killarney. I said you used her. You were not just expressing your opinion to Killarney about men being threatened you went on to name three examples. Killarney is not stupid and it was not necessary to bolster your opinion by giving examples.

If you really believed that the three of us had fled because we were threatened then who were you talking to? Killarney didn’t need examples. Perhaps you wanted everyone else on the forum to know how triumphant you were at making men flee.

“I do not consider it a victory...”

Why bother mentioning it at all then that three particular people have disengaged with you? People come and go all the time for a variety of reasons. Some even disengage because they feel threatened but what value is there in pointing it out at all? More specifically what value is there in naming those three people?

“Incidentally, I was interested in our discussion about my previous article. However, after your comment about "juvenile articles", I saw no point in continuing our discussion.”

Why not? I think I made a valid argument that your article was juvenile. I explained that it was simply more of the same ‘nagging’ and nagging behaviour is immature and juvenile. Craig also had some sympathy with this argument so he must have seen the logic in it. I said your article was juvenile and you took offence and saw it as disrespect. I was not making any claims about you personally but about your article.

You stopped responding to me as a form of passive aggression. You did not engage with my opinion about your article because you found it threatening and then you claim it is my fault for being ‘disrespectful’. This passive aggression is just a ‘tactic to negate the other person’s views’. Passive or active aggression – it is all aggression.

Sarah

I too shared phanto's concerns about your example of the three posters who left the board. Whether you intended it or not, it did tend to read as mild triumphalism.

Unfortunately, I've found on forums like this that calmly respectful reasoning is far too often used as a weapon against others (although I don't mean this in reference to you). There are quite a few commenters on this board, who ever so politely take my comments, twist them completely out of shape, then ever so politely respond to an argument I never made in the first place. (This is also done to feminism in general - distorting feminist arguments and theories out of all shape - usually as a personal attack on men - and then politely arguing why feminists are so wrong.)

I have much more respect for someone who shows that they understand what I say but disrespectfully tells me that I'm talking nonsense, than for someone who twists my words and then politely and calmly points out the fallacies of my 'non-argument'.

Sarah, "Many women are happy to engage with reasonable debate, but are not happy when we receive personal abuse."

or to put it in a way I'd consider more relevant "Many people are happy to engage with reasonable debate, but are not happy when we receive personal abuse."

Women are not the only human with feelings, not the only humans who don't enjoy personal abuse from those using it as a weapon to try and silence dissenting views. Nor are men the only gender to use those tactics to shut down dissenting views.

I have got the impression from criticisms of other posters that you have decided to comment on that your determination of what is reasonable debate and what is personal abuse is substantially skewed along gender lines. You've objected to criticism of Killarney's posting but demonstrated no objection to some pretty nasty posts on her part.

There are some unpleasant men on this site and others as there are some unpleasant women, I sometimes drop out of discussions when the level of abuse top's my interest in the topic or when it does seem like further contributions are just not worth it.

R0bert

Killarney

I am pleased that some people have remained engaged with this discussion, and not surprised that many have not. In my experience, debates of this kind are rarely conducted in a civil manner. My surprise (and pleasure) to have found some men with whom to have an interesting discussion appears to have come across as triumphalism.

I have noticed how several commenters in this forum twist your comments, and then insult you by responding to an argument that you did not make. I gather you have been on OLO for some time, and I admire your resilience for staying engaged.

Most of us who try to discuss power, entitlement and gender inequality have experienced this twisting of arguments. I used to think the only option for me was to withdraw from discussions whenever this happened (and it happens a lot). My niece taught me a clever withdrawing technique that I use. It works every time.

Wherever possible, I now try not to withdraw, to stay calm and stay on message. Normally, I don't have much success but on this occasion, I seem to have had some.

I too respect people who show they understand my argument and then contest it.

RObert

My comment was a response to Craig Minns’ idea for Female champions of change.

I most definitely agree with you. It is more relevant to say: "Many people are happy to engage with reasonable debate, but are not happy when we receive personal abuse."

Phanto

On several occasions, when a woman is disagreeing and making her argument, I have seen a man put his hand on a woman’s arm and then say to her “settle down”. Of course, it is rude, patronising and belittling. It is most definitely a technique used to silence her.

When I (a woman) told you (a man) to settle down, I consciously turned the tables. 'Turning the table' is a technique many feminists use to make a point.

Of course telling you to “settle down” was rude and patronising. But it appears to have been effective in making my point.

I found it interesting that many of those who have left the discussion did so after making insulting allegations.

Conservativehippie, for example asked me, "Does your work know they are paying you to write articles and post comments on OLO?" Conservativehippy made another insulting allegation during the discussion of my previous article: “Who knows, maybe you (TimH ) are actually Sarah in disguise, it wouldn't surprise me”. I responded to both allegations. Rather than apologise Conservativehippy left the discussion.

dane was insulting when he asked “are you making stuff up again” and “Why do you feminists find it so hard to stick to the facts?”. When I responded to his questions with facts, he too left the discussion.

It was a mistake to put you in the same basket as Conservativehippie and dane. You have clearly not left the discussion.

I have no respect for people who are aggressive and insulting, and shoot from the hip. I have no respect for people who use passive aggressive or aggressive aggressive techniques. I do however respect people who debate issues raised in the articles.

The point of this forum, as I understand it, is to debate the issues raised in articles, not to make personal attacks or insulting allegations.

Sarah:
You have shot yourself in the foot once too often now. You have no credibility when talking about issues of aggression and equality. You say one thing and behave in a completely opposite way.

You cannot simply keep calling people back to the 'discussion' and ignore the hypocrisy in your own behaviour and expect anyone to take you seriously.

There is no point in discussing issues with you until you become aware of your own desire to hurt people.

Phanto

You say I hurt people.

It is not my intention to hurt people.

I am genuinely interested to know how you think I hurt people, who you think I have hurt and when I did this.

Phanto I doubt it's a desire to hurt people. I do think there is a substantial level of blindness to the offensive nature of many feminist beliefs about men resulting from being heavily immersed in that world. I think there is also a blindness to the degree of double standard in seemingly not noticing the nasty nature of Killarney's comments about male posters while calling out male aggression.

On the other hand I'm inclined to ignore the nastiness of some male posters because there does not seem to be much that can be done about it, perhaps the same approach but that's not the impression I've had.

Sarah when dane asked “Why do you feminists find it so hard to stick to the facts?” he is propbaly reflecting on long experience dealing with feminist posters on OLO and the constantly moving goal posts, the wordplays used to twist meanings, the claims that when refuted with evidence are either dismissed based on personal views or a generalised claim that something is discredited (eg CTS) without the integrity to back those claims. You may have copped more ire than has been warranted but it's coming on the back of a long history of highly sexist, anti-male posting by various feminists over the years and repeating some of the same mantra's.

There does seem to be a belief by feminists that they should be able to say whatever they like about men and masculinity but if feminism is attacked or the behaviour of feminist posters is criticised then it's male aggressiveness and demonstration of contempt for women. All to often massive double standards at play.

R0bert

Robert:

I don’t think there is such a thing as an offensive belief but there certainly is offensive behaviour. I think feminists are entitled to any belief they like. If they express those beliefs in a public forum they must be prepared to back them up with reason and logic. The problem is that when they are not successful with reason and logic they can become aggressive. They hope to change society by intimidation. They try to put men down in the hope that men will go away quietly and then they will have the control they desire.

Men do exactly the same thing. I am prepared to listen to a reasoned argument but some people do not like having to use reason because they know that their arguments are not reasonable and they become exposed. This is where they resort to aggression. They want to hurt people who do not simply let them have their way. It often takes a bit of discussion before such aggression comes to the surface but it is a sure sign of the poverty of their arguments.

There is no point in discussing something with someone who quite clearly has reached the point where they are resorting to aggression. If they own their aggression and apologise then maybe the discussion can resume on a reasonable basis but if they continually deny that aggression or try to rationalise it away then in my opinion they do not warrant being listened to until they change their behaviour.

phanto that was well put. Undecided about the offensive belief thing, that probably rides on how the word offensive is thought of.

There are some things deeply wrong with the core assumptions of feminism about the genders that create a very one sided view of human history and in particular western culture. As to the point about the expression of those beliefs being offensive, I'd put them in the same category as racist statements making differences about race while ignoring all the other relevant factors. We can choose to take offence or not but we are certainly in a good position to challenge such views.

R0bert

>I have much more respect for someone who shows that they understand
> what I say but disrespectfully tells me that I'm talking nonsense,
> than for someone who twists my words and then politely and calmly
>points out the fallacies of my 'non-argument'.
Posted by Killarney, Sunday, 10 May 2015 5:28:32 PM

>I have noticed how several commenters in this forum twist your
> comments, and then insult you by responding to an argument that you
> did not make. I gather you have been on OLO for some time, and I
> admire your resilience for staying engaged.

Wherever possible, I now try not to withdraw, to stay calm and stay on message. Normally, I don't have much success but on this occasion, I seem to have had some

>I too respect people who show they understand my argument and then
>contest it
Posted by Sarah Russell, Monday, 11 May 2015 9:59:37 AM

Now I assume that both of you are intelligent enough to be familiar with the theory of communication.

To give you an example the phrase;

"Give me a call sometime.", has I believe around a 150 meanings.

So what you or I write depends on how the meaning of what is written is taken. So what I mean maybe totally different to what you interpret.

Now most of us males are handicapped in being articulate, when compared to the female gender and are well and truly outclassed and outmaneuvered when engaging in verbal tousles with your members of your gender.

I am not terribly good at picking up covert meanings, unless someone points it out to me.

<Most of us who try to discuss power, entitlement and gender inequality
< have experienced this twisting of arguments.
Posted by Sarah Russell, Monday, 11 May 2015 9:59:37 AM

OK where do we go to from here?

You want to discuss power, entitlement and gender inequality.

The elephant in the room is the twisting of arguments.

The Feminist arguement is that males are born with all this power and privilege. Sure Prince Harry and William are certainly born with alot of power and privilege, but then so is Princess Charlotte born with an enormous amount of power and privilege.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminist-power/

Depending on what side of the arguement you want to make, one can claim that the female gender has specific privileges that are not available to males, but then the argument could be twisted to claim that very advantages are in fact disadvantages.

A lot also depends on what adverbs and adjectives that are used.

I will use some recent examples, like the report of 32 women being killed by another person as an "epidemic of domestic violence"

Lets consider the fact that almost 400 people died from asthma last year. What adjective could be used to describe that? a slaughter, a massacre, genocide.

Lets consider the past, feminists use history to find examples of how women were oppressed, yet the real elephant in the room is that we are judging the past social behaviour from our socalled modern enlighten perspective.

This creates a values conflict.

Talking of the past, feminist often point to issues around women getting the vote, but leave out certain inconvenient details.

In an Article titled the 'Green Fields of France'( I will put up the link when I find it} Thousands/ millions of young men who were not entitled to vote were sent to the front.

The suffragettes in winning the right to vote, also won the right for these young men who were previously ineligible, to also be able vote.

There was also the introduction of English labour laws for women and children, that limited the number of hours that they could work, these laws did not apply to men.(I have long lost the link to this article)

The other issue is when looking at the past, is what level of society are we comparing.

Women in the middle, upper middle class, and upper class, definitely were far better off than the males in the lower classes, who generally could not vote, and were more than likely illiterate.

The men who worked in the coal mines had an horrific death toll. Nor were the industrial work houses particularly, safe places to work either.

Phanto

I agree with everything you said in your post on Monday, 11 May 2015 6:13:55 PM. Anyone who expresses an opinion in a public forum must be prepared to back their opinion up with reason and logic.

In my opinion, people (both men and women) respond to discussions about power, entitlement and gender inequality emotionally. I also believe forums such as OLO encourage people to emote (i.e shoot off an emotional response) rather than think rationally before they type.

Issues that were raised in my article - domestic violence, childcare, glass ceilings, political representation, bullying, salaries and superannuation - are all complex social issues, not merely “feminist” issues. We need evidence based policies to respond to these complex issues.

I chose to use a feminist framework to analyse some of these issues in this article (and previous one). However, I could just have easily used a different framework. Masculinist or neo-liberal or Marxist or Keynsian etc etc. These social issues are complex so we need lots of different ways of looking at them before we can implement strategies to make the world a more just place.

I suggest that interpreting my analysis as “nagging” is an emotional, not intellectual response. This is not meant as a criticism – I too had an emotional response when I witnessed Tony Abbott et al treat Gillian Triggs with such disrespect. The challenge for me was to reflect on my emotional response, and to try to understand it. I do not claim that my analysis is correct, or indeed tells the whole story. But I believe both “Good blokes or smug thugs” and “Male champions of change” are a contribution, albeit rather small, to the debate about these social issues.

And in the naked light I saw
Ten thousand people, maybe more
People talking without speaking
People hearing without listening
People writing songs that voices
Never shared and no one dared
Disturb the sound of silence

"Fools", said I, "You do not know
Silence like a cancer grows

Read more: Simon And Garfunkel - The Sound Of Silence Lyrics | MetroLyrics

And the people bowed and prayed
To the feminist gods they made
And the sign flashed out its warning
In the words that it was forming
And the sign said, The words of the prophets are written
On the subway walls and tenement halls
And whispered in the sounds of silence"

Read more: Simon And Garfunkel - The Sound Of Silence Lyrics | MetroLyrics

Wolly B

Thanks for drawing my attention back to this forum.

I have reflected on RObert’s claim about double standards: “I think there is also a blindness to the degree of double standard in seemingly not noticing the nasty nature of Killarney's comments about male posters while calling out male aggression.”

I have only “called out” the nasty comments that were made about me. For example, when I was described as a “very dishonest and manipulative person”, I described this as a personal attack.

In this forum, Killarney has made comments addressed to others and me. She has also made comments about others and me. I have only responded to the comments she addressed to me, and made about me. I found her comments to me to be assertive, not aggressive. I have not responded to the comments she made to others or about others. It is not my place to do so.

Wolly B, you say the elephant in the room is the twisting of arguments. I think we all challenged the elephants when they popped their head in the room.

Sarah:
When you behave dishonestly several times and you try several times to manipulate people it is reasonable to call you a dishonest and manipulative person. It is not an attack it is an opinion about what type of person you are and if you do not agree with it then all you have to do is say so. Anything else is defensiveness.

In earlier posts I've reposted some of Killarneys comments, Sarah either choose not to consider comments like those directed at men as the kind of insult to be bothered with or is deliberatly ignoreing them. She has not stated which.

In Sarah's recent post at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17286#306207

"I have only “called out” the nasty comments that were made about me."
and "In this forum, Killarney has made comments addressed to others and me. She has also made comments about others and me. I have only responded to the comments she addressed to me, and made about me. I found her comments to me to be assertive, not aggressive. I have not responded to the comments she made to others or about others. It is not my place to do so."

Suseonline in the 4th post on this thread "Sarah you will get nothing but vitriolic rants about this subject on this male dominated forum." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17286#305039

Killarney "These guys are veteran OLO veteran fraudsters, who twist the research and statistics beyond all recognition to suit their own self-pitying, women-despising agenda." and "But they are too entitled, too sanctimonious and too protected by their overwhelming numbers to ever face up to themselves. They operate in aggressive packs to ensure that women are too intimidated by their senseless hostility and too exhausted by their screwed-up reasoning to continue beating their proverbial heads against the proverbial brick wall." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17286#305202

Part 1 of 2

R0bert

Part 2 of 2
My response to that and some of Suseonlines earlier posts "Killarney is one of OLO's most constantly determined posters when it comes to trying to shut down any recognition of issues impacting men that are not entirely of mens own doing. Suzie occasionally steps out of line and shows some understanding but is generally corrected by Killarney and falls back into line." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17286#305243

Sarah calling out the insults to Killarney and Suseonline "RObert
You begin your recent post by insulting Killarney and Suseonline, then proceed to make 6 unsubstantiated claims. Do you have evidence to support these claims, or are they merely thought bubbles?" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17286#305274

Sarah appears to be calling out my comments about Suseonline and Killarney which were not about Sarah. She also calls part of my comments thought bubbles on the basis of my not having provided substantiation of points I made despite providing no indication of having bothered to read earlier material I'd linked to and making a range of unsubstantiated claims herself in regard to a number of issues.

R0bert

RObert, here you are dragging up old posts to keep this thread alive so you can continue on your usual path of feminist bashing and all things female.

It is all a bit sad really.
Knock yourself out....

For anyone tempted to be taken in by Suseonline's comments please note my post was a direct response to claims made in Sarah's most recent post.

No attacks on all things female unless Suseonline considers deceit a female trait, I don't.

I make no claims to liking feminism, whilst some of the causes have been important most of modern feminism seems to be run based on extremely shallow and self serving analysis of western society that ignores any inconvenient truths and just plays to the arguments that seek to give middle class women more privilege than they already enjoy.

R0bert

Sarah, as a male I am use to loosing debates, discussions, arguements with your gender.

In my experience, I have had what I said, turned around and used against me, or being accused of something that comes out of the left field that throws me off balance, and I think, where did that come from?

Phanto
Please see my post on Monday, 11 May 2015 4:41:30 PM. If you substantiate your allegations, I will then defend myself. Your slanderous comments about my integrity remind me of the personal attacks against Gillian Triggs.

I consider personal opinions about others’ integrity irrelevant and a distraction from discussion about the issues. I note with interest that both The Australian Bar Association and Law Council of Australia agree with me:
“The Australian Bar Association and Law Council of Australia agree that personal attacks deflect attention from the very serious findings of the report”

RObert
Many women agree that current feminism in Australia has been hijacked by white middle class women. Anyone who's been around for the past 25 years, as I have, hears echoes in current debates of the feminist "sex wars" of the 1980s. These debates return us to the tired old model of two opposing genders: man=masculine=aggressive versus woman=feminine=passive. These debates were unhelpful in the 1980s and are equally unhelpful now. They ignore the wealth of feminist theory as well as the scholarship on the intersections between sexism, racism and class produced over the past few decades.

Wolly B
Discussions are not about winning or losing. They are about coming to the table with an open mind and sharing ideas

A point of clarification:

I consider personal opinions about others’ integrity irrelevant unless, of course, they can be substantiated.

Domestic violence crisis, sexual assault crisis…forevermore there will be these crises as long as there are women’s organisations wanting taxpayer funding and whilst there are compliant champions of change thinking its chivalrous to peddle the propaganda generated by those organisations.

“Yes, there are victims of America’s alleged college “rape crisis.” There are the women who are actually raped — who experience among the worst of crimes and live with the psychological and sometimes physical consequences for the rest of their lives. But there are also other victims, people whose lives are ruined by false accusations, with reputations destroyed in the quest to prove a larger narrative — that America’s college campuses are uniquely dangerous places for American women. Three recently filed lawsuits show the other side of the “rape crisis,” how the media glosses over ambiguity to advance an agenda, creating heroes out of potential liars and villains out of the possibly innocent. I say “potential” and “possible” because in the real world, ambiguity is common and clarity is rare. But its difficult to create a crisis out of confusion, so agenda-driven “journalists” manufacture clarity, no matter the cost.”

Read more at: : http://www.nationalreview.com/article/418319/three-recent-lawsuits-challenge-rape-crisis-storyline-david-french

Sarah, "These debates were unhelpful in the 1980s and are equally unhelpful now." I would like to see an end to that approach to gender however there are still plenty of feminists milking that stuff for all it's worth.

I don't believe it's valid to expect men to remain silent in the face of the the sexist tripe that passes for feminist views and comment from some quarters.

R0bert

Out of curiosity, could a 'male champion' ever qualify as a male feminist or simply, a feminist?

Or does the absence of a vagina rule that out and he is doomed to be nothing more than a compliant tool (double entendre intended) forever? Are the feminists still 'dissing' the trans-women as a lower caste and still uniquely advantaged by being born 'male'?

Feminist 'issues' that many millions of taxpayers' money have been squandered on for decades. Now we are informed the money was all wasted (on those knees-ups at the Sheraton?) and 'male champions' (say what?!) are required.

Those tickets on the gravy train enjoyed by that feminist elite of educated middle class women have cost the taxpayer $millions per each. In lieu of such things as better town and transport planning that would have benefited all women (and the community) regardless of their social and educational standing and chosen pathways in life.

Still they whine, demanding the led-up to seats on private company and government agency boards to top off whole lifetimes riding the gravy train in academia and as public bureaucrats.

'Male champions of change'? What a laugh, today I was in a motor workshop where women apprentice mechanics would be welcomed to enjoy the pay and conditions (there is a cold draft to keep that complexion pink). Tow truck operators work twelve hour days for $60,000+ pa and their employers would champion women to don the overalls and rigger gloves. All mechanically assisted these days and not beyond the slightest frame.

You go, Grrrls! Feminist dinos with higher Degrees in Self Entitlement from the previous Millenium. Any wonder young women (and young men) taxpayers are fed up with carrying that negging, nagging lot. Those educated middle class feminists are victims, you know.

Still they whine, demanding the LEG-UP to seats on private company and government agency boards to top off whole lifetimes riding the gravy train in academia and as public bureaucrats.

Bears repeating, even if to correct a mistype.

Still they whine, demanding the LEG-UP to seats on private company and government agency boards to top off whole lifetimes riding the gravy train in academia and as public bureaucrats.
Posted by onthebeach, Monday, 18 May 2015 6:34:56 PM

Wish I could post comments about my CEO, but that would be equivalent to committing suicide.

http://m.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/what-the-coroners-court-report-reveals-about-domestic-violence-20150517-gh3qhj.html

Will anyone believe Coroners reports?
Worth a try.

Unless we address why some men feel so threatened by their partners leaving them that they feel their only way out is to kill someone they profess to live, we will never stop the domestic violence in our communities.

Sarah

‘These debates return us to the tired old model of two opposing genders: man=masculine=aggressive versus woman=feminine=passive. These debates were unhelpful in the 1980s and are equally unhelpful now.’

Unhelpful? In what way?

Virtually all online forums are dominated by men (masculine=aggressive). This forum is dominated by at leasr a 5:1 majority of men. And the miniscule number of women have all but left the discussion. I’m sure that quite a few women ‘lurk’ but don’t contribute.

When I have participated on online forums that allow private correspondence between commenters, I have received many private emails from women and pro-feminist men that claim that rational discussion on gender issues is futile. There is something about feminist arguments that triggers irrational and bigoted anger. The consensus is that life is too short to keep bashing your head against the proverbial brick wall.

Women=feminine=passive is not a feminist theory. It’s reality. Women cannot compete with the overwhelming numbers of aggressive, threatened male superiority, which manifests itself on forums such as this. The men here express arguments that THEY are discriminated against, while ignoring the all too obvious facts that show how much women are still disadvantaged by the current, traditional system. Many people – both men and women – are seeking to change this.

Women who contribute to online forums such as this end up having to be PASSIVE to keep the peace (either by pandering to the men’s anger or by leaving the discussion) – as women have always had to do, because the dominant male status quo leaves them little room to do otherwise.

I know this is a massive insult to you. You are doing your best to engage with the arguments of the overwhelming number of ‘disposesed’ and angry men here. But at the end of the day, are you really changing their minds?

Physical abuse
Verbal abuse
Sexual abuse
Financial abuse
Emotional/psychological abuse
Spiritual abuse

pushing or shoving causing NO injury

pushing or shoving causing injury (eg bruising)

hitting, slapping or punching causing NO injury

hitting, slapping or punching causing injury

kicking

pulling your hair

attempted strangulation

using an object to harm or hit you, please specify what

Unless we address why some men feel so threatened by their partners leaving them that they feel their only way out is to kill someone they profess to live, we will never stop the domestic violence in our communities.
Posted by Suseonline, Tuesday, 19 May 2015 2:21:21 AM

Separation is also a key indicator into who will be committing suicide or attempting to commit suicide for both males and females.

It would be interesting for researchers to actually dig deeper into the lives of the perpetrators of spousal/partner murders to see how many of the perpetrators have issues surrounding alcohol and drug abuse, mental illness, or acquired brain injury.

It is also possible that in the elderly, dementia may also be a contributing factor.

Also we need to look at the dynamics in the relationship, and not get shut down by being accused of 'blaming the victim'. Things like emotional/psychological abuse don't leave bruises or abrasions.

Erin Pizzey in her discussion paper talks about the family terrorist,
http://www.ejfi.org/DV/dv-10.htm

http://www.hrtwarming.com/woman-realizes-that-shes-been-accidentally-abusing-her-husband-this-whole-time-wow/

This is an absolute gem.

Killarney

Your post was not insulting – I think it hit the nail on the head.

I’ve just re-read my earlier post and it was not clear. The point I was trying to make was there is an abundance of feminist theory on the intersections between sexism, racism and class produced over the past few decades. I think it is unhelpful when feminism is conceptualised as “Men versus Woman”. There are many men and women who are disempowered in our current social and economic system.

Many people – both men and women – recognise that we live in a patriarchal and capitalist society that engenders unfairness and, as you say, many men and women are seeking to change this.

I suspect the word patriarchy will put some in a spin. I hope not.

I am not trying to change anyone’s mind. I recognise an ideologue when I see one – and know that ideologues are not interested in the evidence. However, some men who have remained in this discussion have engaged with the debate, and made some interesting points.

I have heard elsewhere that many online forums are dominated by men – it has been suggested that men have more leisure time. I don’t know if that is correct, but there certainly seem to be many more men than women in this OLO discussion.

In response to your comment that “rational discussion on gender issues is futile”, perhaps you read my post on 12 May 2015 11:17:24. I agree that discussions about gender equality trigger an emotional, not rational, response. I am not sure what can be done about this except to stay calm and stay on message.

The point I was trying to make was there is an abundance of feminist theory on the intersections between sexism, racism and class produced over the past few decades. I think it is unhelpful when feminism is conceptualized as “Men versus Woman”. There are many men and women who are disempowered in our current social and economic system.

I have heard elsewhere that many online forums are dominated by men – it has been suggested that men have more leisure time. I don’t know if that is correct, but there certainly seem to be many more men than women in this OLO discussion.

Posted by Sarah Russell, Tuesday, 19 May 2015 8:34:55 AM

Very good first point.

I believe that there are internet forums where males are deliberately excluded. The other possibility is that some women are not interested in this subject and see no point in talking about.

No comprehendo "there were no cases where a woman was a domestic violence abuser who killed a male domestic violence victim"

Mr Silly Coroner...main witness dead. Naughty coroner no understand men don't report the slap or the push especially dead ones.

And talking about coroner's findings we still don't know what drove Greg Anderson crazy because coroner put suppression order over his report on the bazaar pretext of fears it would undermine the state's child protection service.

I was very interested to find out from the coroner's report how many "ex parte" domestic violence orders had been taken out against Greg Anderson over a period of 11 years, separating him from his son and if any of the allegations had been substantiated, if a handover centre was used and whether the mother had been in compliance with family court orders etc etc. Meanwhile the mother of the murdered child, Rosie Batty is free to roam around the country telling the media and other fora whatever she likes.

Killarney says: "Virtually all online forums are dominated by men (masculine=aggressive)." More rubbish from Killarney...Killarney why don't you go subscribe to the ausfem-polnet list hosted by Uni of Tasmania and wallow in the misandry there? Or considering you know so much about aggressive people in debate go and post comments on the mamamia where the talk is about aggressive female journalists, Sales, Alberci, Ferguson etc.ie feminine=aggressive

Yes indeed Roscop, the Coroners Court could be all wrong, and you know better than everyone else. You must feel humble in your own presence?

Roscop, do you think Rosie Batty is happy with the way things turned out for her?
She lost her only son...violently.
It seems it didn't matter what she or the courts did or didn't do ....Anderson still murdered his son. They should have locked him up for life long ago.

Suseonline

>"They should have locked him up for life years ago"

On what grounds should they have locked up Anderson for life years ago?... offences he had been convicted of or unsubstantiated allegations? My understanding is that he had no convictions against his name but I could be wrong on that. The coroner and Male Champion of Change, Ken Lay, would know the facts in that regard.

And for you comment:

>"It seems it didn't matter what she or the courts did or didn't do ....Anderson still murdered his son."

So you don't think what Rosie Batty and the courts did or didn't do, had any bearing on why Anderson murdered his son...that would be right he just went troppo for no reason at all...I guess there just happened to be a full moon that day.

Roscop, I doubt you should use Anderson as your poster boy for anti-family court sentiments because it has been widely reported that he had a serious mental illness that preceded any dealings with the family courts.

These sort of people need mental health treatment at the first sign of violence, and not years after a long history of violence and restraining orders.
If this treatment did not work, then they should not be free to live in the wider society.

Maybe if Anderson had either received treatment, or was detained in a mental health facility, that poor little boy would still be alive.

@suseonline, you say with respect to Anderson that:

"...it has been widely reported that he had a serious mental illness that preceded any dealings with the family courts."

Do you mean it has been widely reported Rosie Batty, domestic violence poster girl of the century, was saying whenever she got the opportunity that Anderson had a serious mental illness or something to that effect?

You say he had a serious mental illness that preceded any dealings with the family courts (what about local courts where unsubstantiated allegations are also welcomed and accepted?). Would that illness have existed before Batty hooked up again with Anderson and produced a child?

It is not surprising that a discussion about gender inequality is now focussed on domestic violence. According to the Australian Human Rights Commission Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Elizabeth Broderick, men’s violence against women is Australia’s most significant gender equality issue. It is both a cause and a consequence of gender inequality.

It saddens me that some people feel that feminists over-react to intimate partner violence, when in fact many people (both men and women), organisations and countries (i.e. not just “feminists” or “male champions of change”) react to this worldwide issue.

According to the World Bank, there are now more women living in an intimate relationship characterised by violence than malnourished people in the world. With such a high prevalence, it seems reasonable to describe intimate partner violence as an “epidemic” (i.e. a widespread occurrence in a community at a particular time).

FYI - 37 women have been murdered in Australia so far this year. In the past month alone:
1. May 14th : Unnamed woman (37) dies in hospital after being shot. The estranged partner of the dead woman has been charged with her murder.
2. May 11th: Seker Yildiz found dead at home. Her husband has been charged with murder.
3. April 28th: Linda Locke (51) died in hospital following injuries inflicted the day before. Her partner arrested and charged with murder.
4. April 25th: Melita Hart (18) killed at her home. Her partner has been charged with murder.
5. April 23rd: The body of a woman found in the boot of a car near Bermagui is believed to be Daniela D'Addario (35). Her partner has been extradited to the ACT and charged with her murder.

I do not know if mental illness or substance use was a factor in these 5 separate murders.

Regarding the claim that “men are victims too”, has a woman murdered her male partner in the past month?

In my view, more resources should be spent on the issue of domestic violence. With this rate of men murdering women, it seems reasonable that resources are spent trying to prevent further murders

Wolly B

I am surprised that you compared (in an earlier post) those who die from murder with those who die from asthma (a medical condition). This is like comparing oranges with apples. You also suggest some men commit suicide after separation. This is very sad but can taking one’s own life be compared with taking another person’s life?

Roscop

In my view, the Australian of the year deserves respect whether or not you agree with her.

Sarah have you bothered to look at the material I referenced earlier in the thread or are you just repeating what those with similar viewpoints are spouting without at least investigating the other side of the issue?

Given you have made no acknowledgement of having looked at the material and also taken a swipe at me for thought bubbles in a subsequent post whilst seemingly avoiding any debate of the evidence on this significant aspect of gender issues your interest in the actual evidence does not seem serious.

Rather the repeating of a view of DV that serves the feminist cause but does nothing to understand the issue and little to reduce the overall rates of DV because the political benefits of misrepresentation of DV to the feminist movement are apparently much more important than the well being of those caught in DV situations.

R0bert

Robert

I have scrolled back to your post:
"The real points of difference are over a range concepts. I'll list some that come to mind.
- That men have somehow been uniformly more advantaged than women whilst ignoring the inconvenient aspects of advantage and disadvantage.
- That men alone are responsible for the shape of society.
- That men should be held to a higher standard than women when it comes to the impact of our own choices on life outcomes.
- That men somehow are more responsible for the social constructs, limitations and restrictions that we almost all face.
- That feminist dogma based on marxist concepts of power structure should decide the outcomes of gender research rather than actual figures.
- That womens perception of what occured is both more important than mans and more important than truth".

I frequently have thought bubbles (or as you called it: “things that come to mind”). Thought bubbles lead me to undertake ‘curiosity driven’ research - the best research I do.

I have read with interest all your posts – as I have read everyone’s posts. I have also read all the links in everyone’s posts. There have been a lot of links – and I confess to having read some more thoroughly than others.

I have not however responded to everyone’s posts nor everyone’s links – I simply don’t have the time. And as I have said previously, I am not an expert in the area of intimate partner violence.

In your previous posts you provided these links:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17286#305193
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17286#305183
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive-aggressive_behavior
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/albury-sex-assault-investigation-finalised/story-fnq2o7dd-1227329546549
http://www.allianz.com.au/car-insurance/news/fine-for-an-unlocked-car
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime/assault.html
http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/facts/2011/facts_and_figures_2011.pdf
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vvcs9310.pdf
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/1370.0~2010~Chapter~Aboriginal%20and%20Torres%20Strait%20Islander%20peoples%20%284.4.6.2%29 .
http://www.ask.com/wiki/Indigenous_Australians_and_crime
http://web.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

I would be happy to respond if you think there is something special I should read again.

The view I presented in my post was my own. It was not a view of DV (I assume DV is an acronym for "domestic violence") that serves the feminist cause.

I hope those men and women who work to prevent intimate partner violence are interested in the well being of all those (both men and women) caught in DV situations.

@Ms Russell

"In my view, the Australian of the year deserves respect..."

Sorry not this year until Rosie Batty uses her elevated position by standing up and asking loudly and persistently for the Victorian Coroner to lift the suppression order on his report on the inquest into the murder of her son. If the coroner has concerns regarding protecting the identity of child protection workers he can have his report redacted. I have no doubt in my own mind that the coroner is covering up more than matters concerning child protection workers and bureaucrats.

Seeing where Ms Batty has placed herself by dint of that murder I believe the public has a right to know the full context surrounding the murder. What the public has heard about the murder/er so far has largely come from Ms Batty's mouth.

I think the case of Greg Anderson and Rose Batty is a good indication that the mental health system is failing severely.

Sadly the feminists do not want to look at the mental illness or drug and alcohol abuse that affects males. I believe if we are able to reduce the occurrence of these disorders, then we will manage to reduce the incidence of domestic violence.

Roscop, weren't there multiple witnesses, including children, who watched as Anderson killed his son? That's enough evidence of his guilt for me, mentally ill or not.
Do you think ANY reason at all is a good enough reason to absolve him of responsibility of that crime?

Wolly B, you are very incorrect in saying 'feminists' don't care about male mental illnesses. Where did you get that absurd notion from?
All women ('feminist' or not) have male relatives they love, and I am sure there are many, many women who worry sick over their mentally ill relatives of both genders.
I know I do.

There are mentally ill men in our society who are more likely to commit domestic violence, due to aggression they feel when depressed. There is no doubt their intimate partners would be very concerned about that....

Sarah in particular the second link in http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17286#305183 This one http://web.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

"REFERENCES EXAMINING ASSAULTS BY WOMEN ON THEIR SPOUSES OR MALE PARTNERS:AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY"

I'd start with that one.

A few more links to material that you might find interesting if you have not looked at the other side of the issue previously and do wish to understand the case better

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID41E2.pdf "DOMINANCE AND SYMMETRY IN PARTNER VIOLENCE BY MALE AND FEMALE UNIVERSITY STUDENTS IN 32 NATIONS"

A summary by the US Department of Justice on from the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/170018.pdf

An Australian study that sought to determine if rates of partner violence were gendered http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/dom/heady99.htm

Most of this work is based on CTS (Conflict Tactics Scale) which those promoting a gendered view of DV claim as discredited. From what I've seen thats a self serving claim which over emphasises limitations in CTS and ignores significant structural failings in the research that supports the gendered view of DV.

If you wish to understand the debate around CTS my impression is that Michael Flood has been one of the more visible opponents of CTS and Murray Straus one of the more visible defenders.

An article by Michael Flood on CTS http://www.xyonline.net/sites/default/files/Flood,%20Husband%20Battering.pdf and by Murray Straus at http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CTS4.pdf

R0bert

Suseonline, "There are mentally ill men in our society who are more likely to commit domestic violence, due to aggression they feel when depressed. There is no doubt their intimate partners would be very concerned about that"

For someone employed in community nursing (correct that if it is wrong) it is most surprising that you turn a blind eye to drugs and alcohol as contributors to violence and crime.

That deliberate blindness to 'prove' that domestic violence is a gendered thing - that being male is the prerequisite to offend- doesn't wash with the broader community now that the SBS has lifted the lid in Mt Druitt (to take a recent expose).

The major impediment to researching and treating domestic violence and violence generally is how to take the gender lobbying/activism out of it. Effectiveness and efficiency in delivering public health and policing requires independence, and cooperation within and between at all levels of government. That is not possible where there is a horde of professionals, bureaucrats and NGOs who are making their daily bread out of partisanship, and a corrupt ideology. There is a victim industry putting its future first and all thanks to Gough Whitlam who kick-started it.

@Suseonline: "Do you think ANY reason at all is a good enough reason to absolve him of responsibility of that crime?" Of course not...he is a male. Its seems to be only women who have reasons for absolving themselves of their crimes. Lets see what the woman who killed 8 children comes up with. And the old "battered wife" tale seems to work every time.

Roscop, ""Do you think ANY reason at all is a good enough reason to absolve him of responsibility of that crime?" "

Nothing I've seen suggests a good enough reason to absolve him of responsibility for that crime. I am willing to accept that there may have been contributing factors but I don't consider that an absolution.

I think there is great wrong in not separating a desire to address the factors that make family breakdown far worst than it needs to be and the choices the adults make along the way.

Unless you are privy to information about that case not in the public domain then it's unlikely that any of us know enough to judge what went before. Our guesses will be coloured by our own views and experiences.

Nothing that the Family Law system or CSA could have done is enough to absolve someone of a choice to kill their child. I do think there should be a thorough analysis of the role of government in the lead up events such as that one, reducing pressure points would I believe stop some of these events but that does not absolve the perpetrator nor would it stop all.

I suspect that the Australian of the Year award was politically motivated rather than based on long service to the community. I also think the attacks on Rose if without evidence of your suspicions quite unfair and not helpful to what I think your are trying to highlight.

I've not heard much of Rose Batty speaking, the little I have heard followed the normal mantras but did at least include a statement against all violence.

R0bert

Roscop

I have gone back to read reports on the death of Luke Batty, particularly why the coroner’s report was not released.

Victoria's coroner did not release an official report into Luke Batty’s death because The Commissioner for Children and Young People, Bernie Geary
said the report would undermine the state's child protection service. Rosie Batty challenged Bernie Geary, and asked for the report to be released. However lawyers acting on the commission's behalf sought to stop it being released publicly on the grounds it would be contrary to public interest. The application to suppress the information was backed by the Department of Human Services (DHS), responsible for the child protection sector. Rachel Doyle SC, acting on behalf of Rosie Batty, said the department's argument assumed child protection workers would put their "self-interest and fear" above the public interest. "Where there is secrecy, there is real potential to undermine public confidence in those services…If there's secrecy around this report... people will be less understanding, less confident in the system."

Coroner Gray acknowledged there were "clearly, strongly competing public interest" in the issues raised. But he said "protecting the integrity" of the Commission for Children and Young People "outweighs public disclosure of the report".

Clearly Rosie Batty wanted the coroner to release the report but unfortunately she does not have the power to make this happen

Sarah

Your post is good for others to read and its good that you are doing your own research on the case, but you are not telling me anything that I didn't already know.

It goes without saying that Rosie Batty does not have the power to make the Coroner release the report. So I don’t know why you bother to tell people that.

However if Rosie Batty is/was really genuine in wanting the Coroner’s report released and if she thinks secrecy in respect to these matters is such a bad thing and she did not just come in on the back of the child protection organisation objections to the report being released thinking that that organisation was going to win the day anyway, she now has the voice and stage for a whole year at least, to say things about that loudly and persistently. She is going around the country addressing audiences, had the cover story in last months AWW and according to what I’ve read is working on book deals.

Rosie Batty does not deserve respect simply by virtue of being Australian of the Year. As others have said she could simply be a politically motivated pawn and no one deserves respect for playing that role. She could also have a personal agenda.

Her opinions about domestic violence should not be given much credibility. Being a victim of domestic violence does not make you an expert on how to deal with it as a social problem. In order to be able to contribute you have to come to the table with no underlying agenda. In my opinion Rosie Batty has an underlying agenda. She is driven by the need to suppress her own guilt. She obviously was not responsible for the death of her son but it is quite likely that she caused her son to suffer a great deal just by maintaining the relationship she had with her partner. This is what she feels guilty about and rightly so. She knows that she could have left that relationship much earlier but did not because of her own emotional dependence on that relationship. Her dependence caused her son to live in fear and for that she must take full responsibility.

She thinks she has covered her guilt up but each time she speaks it emerges unconsciously as if it is a cry for help. She needs help to deal with the stress of suppressed guilt and the strain of having to maintain a facade in a very public role. She is not a hero or role model for other women – quite the opposite. Had she dealt with her guilt and taken responsibility for it she would be free to approach the wider social problem with an open mind but she is driven.

Her situation is not unique and so many of the women who offer solutions to the domestic violence problem carry the same burden of guilt. Their responses to domestic violence discussions are attempts to cover the guilt they feel for what they have done to their children.

Phanto,

"She knows that she could have left that relationship much earlier but did not because of her own emotional dependence on that relationship."

I think you might be wrong in what you say there. My understanding is that Rosie Batty had ended her relationship with Anderson a long time before the murder of the boy. I understand that at one stage Batty was in a live-in relationship with another bloke and therefore Anderson's son would have been living in the presence of another man (family law allows that irrespective of the fathers feelings towards it). I would say Anderson would have been full of resentment over that. Exactly how long that other relationship lasted I don't know.

According to the chronology given in the AWW some six months before the murder a court ordered that Anderson was to have supervised access to his child. For a father you can't get anything much more humiliating that. Some two months later "Child protection closes the file on Luke Batty, satisfied he is not in danger". Two months after that Rosie Batty takes off for the UK with her son...purportedly on a 5 week holiday...which reminds me of another mother who took her four daughters from their homeland purportedly on a holiday. The Australian Embassy in Rome gave the mother assistance to leave Italy. It took court action to get the children returned to their father who spent 100,000 euros(~140,000AUD) seeking justice. There was good coverage of that case in the media.

https://nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/20417-abducting-mother-of-four-italian-girls-part-of-previous-scam

(Phanto, wait till you get down to the allegations of tit groping and fingers up the twat bit...this is a ripper of case.)

R0bert

I agree. Being sent manic in no way absolves a person of his or her crime. Anderson should have found a better way to deal with his emotional trauma.

Thanks Sarah for clarifying those facts for us.

Phanto, unless you are a qualified psychologist who has actually treated Rosie and her ex-husband, then you have no idea of their thoughts or motivations.
Like many ignorant people, you blame the victim for the violence perpetrated against them.

If Rosie does benefit financially after the tragic murder of her only child, I say good luck to her, and she deserves some joy in her life. Like many victims, she could have curled up and died herself, but she didn't.

Those who aren't happy with her Australian of The Year award should complain to all those who nominated her and voted for her, and not conduct the witch-hunt on Rosie that is currently happening on this forum.

Roscop

Rosie Batty did not ask to be a so-called “domestic violence poster girl of the century”. She was thrust into the limelight after a tragedy - her son being murdered by his father.

There is a rigorous process for selecting Australians of the Year. Rosie Batty received many nominations. Based on these nominations The Board of the National Australia Day selected her to be Australian of the Year. It was not a feminist conspiracy.

Until quite recently, intimate partner violence was considered a domestic, rather than a public issue. Luke Batty's murder occurred at a time in our history when public awareness of intimate partner violence was increasing. It is not surprising, that it captured so much public attention.

RObert
I agree. Australian of the Years, like orders of Australia and knighthoods, are political. They are determined by the zeitgeist. For example, Adam Goodes (racism), Tim Flannery (climate change).

I will read the articles you have suggested. I will do my best to do this as quickly as possible. Coincidentally, I have been asked to write a submission to the Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence (about financial elder abuse), so my attention is currently on that.

Also, regarding your comment about me “ investigating the other side of the issue”. I agree that advocates may present data to support their position. I believe this is dishonest. However, I am a researcher, not an advocate. I look at primary sources (i.e. data) not at other people’s interpretation of the data

Susieonline

I agree with you regarding the inappropriate comments made about Rosie Batty’s thoughts, feelings and motivations. Trying to analyse Rosie Batty from a distance says much more about the person doing the analysis than it does about Rosie Batty. Psychologists call this “projection”.

Wolly B

All those who work in the area of intimate partner violence, including feminists, acknowledge that men and women who have mental illnesses and substance abuse issues are at a higher risk of domestic violence.

I agree that those who work in the area of intimate partner violence, including feminists, must address how mental illness and substance abuse affects both men and women.

However, mental illness and substance abuse is not the only cause of intimate partner violence. Gender inequality is also known to be a cause. So gender inequality must also be addressed to prevent intimate partner violence.

A point of clarification:

I wrote "I agree that advocates may present data to support their position. I believe this is dishonest."

I believe it is dishonest when data is tortured to say what you want it to say.

It is sometimes difficult to differentiate credible social research from the rest. Few of us have the time, or indeed the expertise, to go back to the original data and see the flaws in the research design, the misrepresentation of the data and the over-simplification of the findings. If we did, we would see that simplistic statistics can be used as both a political tool and a marketing strategy.

Data needs to be analysed objectively, without emotion, and without a political agenda.

Also, anecdotes are not data...

Sarah Russell,

Some posts back in the discussion thread in regard to false accusations of sexual assault, you directed me to the work of Wall and Tarczon. Well thanks for that. The opening words in the introduction are these:

“The literature around false allegations highlights a paucity of critical analysis that would enable better understanding of the context around reporting sexual assault in the criminal justice system.”

I always thought that to be the case. The results driven purpose of the cited study was to make excuses for why false allegations are made:

“Ascribing a sexual assault with a black or white label of true or false fails to understand some of the broader social issues that can create complexity around the motives for making an allegation.”

When it comes to domestic violence there is no talk about “complexity”. Its simply “One in three women” blah blah blah...patriarchy…patriarchy.

Sarah, I was hoping you could help me to show Champion of Change, Ken Lay somewhat more respect. You could do that if you were able to tell me how many restraining orders arising out of “ex parte” court hearings and with the purpose of separating a parent from his/her child/ren, were served on respondents in the state of Victoria in the previous calendar year. Is such data: a) captured in the justice(sic) system and b) made easily accessible to the public eg via the net? If not, given the abundance of technology and court staff, why not?

Until quite recently, intimate partner violence was considered a domestic, rather than a public issue.

Posted by Sarah Russell, Friday, 22 May 2015 8:30:25

Unless some one has been living in a cave, cant read or write, the issue of domestic violence has been around much longer than recently. It has been a long time since it was regarded as a domestic rather than .a public issue. I think that change happened in the 1980's or 90's.

Wolly B

Family violence legislation was enacted in most states and territories in the 1980s and 1990s. I consider this recent.

Prior to 1980s, it was not possible for a man to be charged with, and prosecuted for, raping his wife.

Most importantly, The Family Violence Protection Act 2008 empowers the police to issue Family Violence Safety Notices. These notices are for use outside of court hours and provide police with another tool to ensure that immediate protection is available when police respond to an incident.

Suzeonline and Sarah:

Just because you cannot see the guilty feelings and the cry for help from Rosie Batty does not mean that you have to be a trained psychologist to see them. You only need a modicum of emotional intelligence to see what has already been shown many times in the media. You also need an open mind to be able to see it.

It seems that both of you have neither.

Fair dinkum fellas, Rosie Batty lost her son in extremely brutal circumstances. Let's have a bit of decorum eh?

Sarah, the problem with the domestic violence legislation is that it creates a positive feedback mechanism for both complainants and perpetrators. For a woman who is unhappy in her relationship it provides a simple mechanism to lever her partner away with no cost to her. For a violent person, especially a violent man, it may act to create a situation in which he feels that acting or not acting violently will lead to the same consequence, leading to more or worse actual violence than a more nuanced approach might.

Unfortunately, it's a very good example of a law made with good intentions that creates bad outcomes, especially when definitions are continually broadened so that almost anything at all can be called violence.

We can do better than that.

Wolly B

I have been thinking about our different views about whether the changes in attitudes and laws towards domestic violence are recent or not recent.

Only a generation ago (i.e. my mother’s generation), there were no laws to protect women (and men) from abusive relationships.

When I was a teenager, I remember my mother supporting some friends who were being abused by their husbands. I remember one woman in particular. She was married to a very respectable doctor who was charming to the outside world, but abusive (both verbally and physically) in the home. This was considered a private issue. My mother supported her – drove her to the hospital on several occasions. At no stage did any doctor or nurse suggest calling the police. This woman committed suicide in 1985.

Craig Minns

The history of how domestic violence shifted from a domestic issue last century to a public and criminal offense this century is interesting. Attitudes and laws did not simply change overnight. There was a lot of lobbying, petitions, parliamentary enquiries, commissions etc. Last century, many women worked tirelessly to ensure domestic violence became a public issue, and laws were introduced to make intimate partner violence a crime. Even after legislation was introduced, it took time for the police force to change their practice.

The recent discussion suggests that there are some men on the OLO forum who agree that the current legislation is inadequate. If the current legislation is inadequate, there needs to be further lobbying. In a democracy, legislation only improves if people get involved by contacting their local MPs, petitioning etc.

Roscop

I do not know how many restraining orders arising out of “ex parte” court hearings and with the purpose of separating a parent from his/her children were served on respondents in the state of Victoria in the previous calendar year. I am sure such data is available, but I do not know how to access it. Perhaps you know someone who is a lawyer? They may know. Or perhaps someone else who is reading this thread may be able to direct you in the right direction?

Dr Russell, the problem is that to a very large extent DV is not treated as a criminal offence, but as a relationship management tool. For acts of violence which are actually criminal, assault and other criminal laws apply, with the relevant onus and standard of proof. However, a DVO/AVO can and will be issued on the basis that it is asked for, or simply because the police have been brought in as the "nuclear option" during what might otherwise be a relatively simple and mutual disagreement between two people that is not in any way either violent or likely to become violent.

As a result, the law and the respect for the law has been debased.

This is most particularly a problem that has been caused by a narrow feminist analysis of relationship dynamics as power struggles.

What is most disturbing about this is that the people who are most affected by genuine violence - especially Aboriginal communities and other communities in which poverty is endemic - are barely helped by such measures. Perpetrators with little to lose don't care about being locked up, or don't think about it until it's too late. On the other hand, middle class communities in which such violence is barely existent are seeing families torn apart and trust destroyed.

It is not working. It needs to be changed. More of the same is not good enough.

Craig Minns

I have no personal experience with intimate partner violence but I am surprised that DVO/AVO can and will be issued on the basis that it is asked for. Aren't people required to go to a Magistrates Court and that the Magistrate determines whether or not the request for a DVO/AVO is warranted?

I'm quite sure DVO/AVOs were not intended to be used to settle relatively simple and mutual disagreement between two people. These types of relationship difficulties are more appropriately dealt with by relationship counsellors.

If DVO/AVOs are in fact being used to settle relatively simple and mutual disagreement between two people, it seems to me that some Magistrates are not doing their job responsibly.

Craig Minns

You articulated the situation extremely well...far better than I could. Bravo!

Dr Russell, police issue interim DVO/AVO with no recourse to courts and a Magistrate will ratify that order if asked. There is no requirement for evidence to be tendered in support of the application if police have already issued an interim order: it will go through on the nod.

Magistrates are acting under instruction. In issuing DVOs they are doing exactly as they are told they should. If you think about it, its a situation in which the magistrate has no option other than to do so, based on a narrow analysis of correlation without causality. Imagine the uproar from DV advocates if a magistrate declines to issue an order and violence then occurs.

As I said, we can't go on this way, it is destructive.

Craig:
“Fair dinkum fellas, Rosie Batty lost her son in extremely brutal circumstances. Let's have a bit of decorum eh?”

It is not lacking in decorum to discuss the private feelings of someone when they express those feelings on national media. I am not talking about the sadness and grief she is feeling which everyone feels who loses a child. I am talking about the guilt she displays which most people do not feel when they lose a child. I am also talking about her cry for help in dealing with that guilt – people do not cry for help unless they need help.

It may well be that she wants that stress out in the open. It may be a great relief to have it exposed so she could see what it is that she is really trying to accomplish by taking on the role that she has. Maybe then she will realise it is not what she really wants to do and be able to relinquish the role and find inner peace.

You cannot ignore these facts when examining the views she puts forth about domestic violence. It is not just about the words that people say but also about the feelings they demonstrate. To only look at part of the story is to be disloyal to the truth and this topic needs to face all of the truth.

Sarah, in Canada there is a law titled "Shout at your wife and loose your house."

>Men and women who shout at their partners risk being thrown out of
>their homes under a sweeping ruling by judges yesterday.

Raising your voice at a husband or wife, or a boyfriend or girlfriend, now counts as domestic violence under the landmark Supreme Court judgment.

The decision also means that denying money to a partner or criticising them can count as violence and bring down draconian domestic violence penalties from the courts.

The Supreme Court made its decision in the case of a woman who left her husband’s council flat and then demanded a new council home.

>She said she left because she had suffered domestic violence – even >though her husband had never harmed her.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1350761/Women-entitled-council-house-partner-shouts.

Mr. Mutka alleged, among other matters, that his wife bullied him throughout the marriage and, on one occasion, butt her cigarette out on his person in an argument. His wife denied this treatment with unconfirmed general denials.

What was not in dispute was one particular event where my client was, while sleeping and without provocation, attacked by his wife with a butcher knife. The knife was plunged six inches into his chest.

http://senatorcools.sencanada.ca/speech-in-senate-chamber-senator-cools-proposes-a-series-of-amendments-to-lessen-excessively-punitive-measures-in-the-governments-divorce-bill

My client commenced a divorce proceeding on the basis that the marriage had broken down. His wife counter-petitioned for support and the matter was argued in the Ontario Court General Division in Brampton in November, 1995. The Honourable Mr. Justice McKay, who heard the interlocutory proceedings within the divorce, ordered that my client was to pay spousal support on an interim basis in the amount of $1,500 per month.

I argued, unsuccessfully, that it was not fair that a support order be made under the circumstance that were presented to the court. I argued, unsuccessfully, that it was not fit or just that my client be ordered to pay support to his attacker.

Sarah, I am pleased that you will be working on the issue of elder abuse, as this awful scourge on society has been ignored for too long.
I am presently dealing with some of these problems in my own work.

Domestic violence is at least more out in the open now and we can hopefully keep moving forward despite the many objections from some controlling elements in our society.

I agree VRO's are often not worth the paper they are written on.
Many women are still murdered by their ex or current 'intimate' partners despite these orders.
We need something more concrete. I don't know what that is though.

Sexism begins at birth, well not exactly.

When there are two siblings of opposite gender, regardless of which child begins the fight, argument, The child who usually gets into trouble and the blame will be the male child, even when the male child is the second child. Research support this.

A few years ago, I read a story where at a school, the freezer broke down and the Lunch ladies gave away the ice cream to the children. The girls were each given an ice cream, and then the lunch ladies threw the remaining ice creams to the boys, making them (the boys) scramble to get one.

>Teen romanceDreamstimeIf two people are equally unable to give
> consent, but have sex anyway, should either be charged with a
>crime? It's a question that many college administrators wrestle with
> when drugs and alcohol are factors in sexual assault disputes. The
>verdict often seems to be that male students are uniquely
>responsible for ascertaining that their sexual partners are in a
> state of mind to consent, even when the female is the initiator and
> both are intoxicated.

http://reason.com/blog/2015/03/10/two-teens-have-sex-neither-could-legally#.wcdtog:oZyG

Craig Minns et al

I am not sure where you live, but if you live in Victoria, there is an opportunity to make a submission to the Royal Commission into Family Violence

The Commission will inquire into and provide practical recommendations on how Victoria's response to family violence can be improved.

If you have ideas on how things can be improved, this seems to me a good place to start.

http://www.rcfv.com.au/

It's good to know that there is some interest in examining the topic, but unfortunately, what is likely to happen is that the submissions will be dominated by a large number from those who work in DV support for women and these will all seek to broaden definitions, increase police powers and increase funding for the groups making the submissions, using emotive examples ("case studies" that may or may not be real) to create a climate in which refusing to act as described can be immediately cast as "heartless" or "failing to support victims".

I can't contribute because I live in Qld, but even if I could, there would be very little point doing so. The Victorian model is the most draconian of all the states, being very closely adherent to the original, largely discredited "Duluth" model, based on the so-called "power and control wheel". This was developed in the US city of that name by feminist advocacy groups and is based entirely on the assumption that all men who are accused of DV by a female partner are guilty, while denying any possibility that the female partner may be in any way culpable.

It's patently stupid, but senior police like it, because it removes any decision-making onus from police if it is assumed that the man is always the one at fault.

Thanks Roscop, I try to express things as clearly as I can.

Phanto, if you don't like the word "decorum", try "empathy". Whatever you may think of Rosie Batty, she has experienced something that no parent should have to go through. Her husband was obviously mentally ill and whether his illness was exacerbated by the circumstances around his separation from his family is neither here nor there. The only lesson to be learnt is that mentally ill people do irrational things for irrational reasons, which is not terribly informative from a policy POV.

I do feel somewhat uncomfortable with Rosie Batty's role as AotY, because I think she is being used as a political tool. As with other victim/advocates, the Morcombes being a good example, their presence in the debate leads to an excessive focus on very rare events to the detriment of good policy, as well as creating a climate of fear that is destructive of normal human interactions within communities. However, they still deserve our empathy for their personal grief and pain.

Leave it alone, you're only making yourself look like a rather nasty kind of fool, which is not how I had thought of you previously.

Craig Minns

I am sure women 50 years ago were equally discouraged by the enormity of the task to make domestic violence a public issue and criminal offence.

Public policies and legislation are improved when all members of the community engage. If certain groups dominate the political process (e.g. CEOs of mining companies), the policies favour those groups.

In a democracy, it was ever thus.

Craig:

You totally missed the point of what I was saying so it is not surprising that you have totally missed the expressions of guilt by Rosie Batty and so many others like her.

Many women who remain in relationships far beyond when they should not only cause themselves harm but cause their children harm as well. Not every child ends up murdered but they can be extremely damaged because their mothers have remained in relationships with abusive partners who also are abusive to their children. The mothers have remained because they are emotionally dependent on the relationship they have with the father. They know it is wrong to protect your emotional dependence but when your children suffer because you are too dependent to leave then it follows that you are doing wrong to your children and you will feel guilty.

In my opinion this is what Rosie Batty feels and what she has shown in a very public way. Such guilt needs to be discussed because a great deal of the advocacy of women like her is driven by the need to cover up that guilt. If they can convince themselves that men alone have caused all the damage to themselves and their children then they do not have to deal with their own part of the responsibility.

This kind of hidden agenda has to be eradicated if a constructive discussion is ever to be had. Burying our heads in the sand about it shows a lack of commitment to finding truthful and workable solutions. You cannot have a fruitful discussion with people who have a deep seated guilt to protect.

Telling me to ‘leave it alone’ and saying I look like a ‘nasty kind of fool’ smacks of your own personal discomfort. There is nothing to stop you from ‘leaving it alone’. Every time you respond to my argument you are simply giving it more ‘oxygen’ so you are defeating your own purpose which seems to be to silence me.

Phanto, you’re absolutely right that I am uncomfortable with your crass and boorish behaviour. You’re also absolutely right that I would prefer you shut up. Not because I think your argument is strong, but because it disgusts me and that you cannot see why disgusts me even more. What is wrong with you?

Leave the poor woman alone.

Dr Russell, domestic violence has been at the forefront of social reform for decades before the 60s. Churches and social welfare groups, many of them run by men, were in the vanguard. The issue was hijacked by a relatively small group of women around the late 60s, inspired by the (later acknowledged as fabricated) claims of Betty Friedan and her book The Feminine Mystique. It has been used as a political tool ever since, most notably by the cabal of "femocrats" including Anne Summers and Joan Kirner, who were part of the Hawke Government's advisory group on "women's issues" and who incidentally made a rather nice career for themselves as professional feminist political operatives.

Decent men have not sought to stop women from being heard on the issue of domestic violence and have never condoned those men who commit it.

On the other hand, there is essentially no support from women to be heard when men try to raise issues of discrimination or bad social outcomes for men or the negative impact of genderised social change generally. That was the point of my earlier comment regarding female champions of change. The difference is very clear and in my opinion it represents the biggest threat that the feminist movement faces. A large class of people has been created that has been on the wrong side of the gender divide in social policy and as a result, they are staunchly opposed to feminist policies.

There's nothing democratic about picking winners, Dr Russell.

Craig :
Why would my arguments disgust you? They are simply opinions - a bunch of words. How can they have such an effect on you unless they somehow strike a nerve with you.

You seem almost at the point of becoming violent yourself and I am glad I am not in the same room as you.

Phanto, Craig Minns is correct to dress you down for your disgusting comments about what you think Rosie Batty feels.
She had left this violent guy years before he killed his son, so what you are saying is absolute bulls excrement.
Even if she hadn't, you have NO idea about what these sort of women feel...

Phanto

Is it possible for someone to disagree with you without you insulting them?

You may recall this paragraph from my recent article 'Nice bloke or smug thugs':
"They do not respond respectfully to alternate views. Instead, they react aggressively. They will interrupt, talk loudly and mock. They shoot the messenger rather than listen to the message. ‘Argumentum ad hominem’ replaces reasoned arguments".

Suzeonline:
“Craig Minns is correct to dress you down for your disgusting comments...” There is no need to hide behind Craig just tell me what you think.

Sarah:
“Is it possible for someone to disagree with you without you insulting them?”
Yes.
Or were you being sarcastic which is just another form of aggression?

Phanto

It was simple question.

You say it is possible for someone to disagree with you without you insulting them. I have not seen evidence of this. On this thread, whenever anyone disagrees with you, you have shot off any angry, and often personally insulting, reply. You have insulted me, Killarney, Susieonline and Rosie Batty. You have also insulted Craig Minns.

For example, you have claimed I am a "very dishonest and manipulative person". This is personally insulting. On two occasions, I have asked you to support this claim with evidence. You have not.

I suggest you take notice of how Craig Minns argues. Unlike you, Craig Minns substantiates his claims with evidence. You on the other hand just make wild accusations

Phanto, your words and "opinion" disgust me because they are bereft of humanity. They are compassionless and devoid of empathy; you seek to use the personal tragedy of this person's family - two of them dead because one of them went mad - to suit your own political argument, just as those who have appointed her AotY have tried to do. I give those people just as little respect.

It is a tragedy of another sort that you need to have this pointed out to you.

If we were in the same room I wouldn't hit you, I'd ignore you and so would everybody else. You can say the things you say because you are anonymous and unaccountable. You are responded to because others do not wish to leave your disgraceful words unchallenged as written.

Wake up to yourself. How dare you accuse Suse of hiding behind me, when you don't have the guts to use your own name?

I've not been on line much for a few days. Craig I to am appreciating your posts. As I stated last week I have some reservations about the politics behind the Australian of the Year appointment but I don't think any of us know enough to attack the recipient based on suspicions about what may or may not have happened in the past. As someone else pointed out (Suseonline I think) concerns about the appointment should be taken up with those who made the appointment.

Found an interesting example of the insidious way sexism is added into the whole AVO issue when checking on the conditions for AVO's in Queensland.

http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/courts/magistrates-court/domestic-and-family-violence/common-questions "I am 16 years old, can I seek a protection order against my father?"

Everything else I could see on the page was gender neutral, why did that one need to be gender specific?

I had an incident a while back where my ex entered my property during work hours, I had to come home as she was refusing to leave the property and called the police as I was starting on that journey so that I had some mechanism to get her off the property without putting myself at legal risk.

She was being verbally abusive when the police arrived, had entered my property during work house, she had gone elsewhere other than the front door. The police were unwilling to assist in any way with action that would have provided some legal recourse if the behaviour is repeated.

I have little doubt that if the genders were reversed they would have found grounds to assist with at least a restraining order http://www.courts.dotag.wa.gov.au/R/restraining_orders.aspx I and my son were clearly being harassed.

I'm not convinced that for the most part AVO's and restraining orders stop the truly dangerous, they may provide further aggravation in those cases.
For the rest the police and others need to be seen to be even handed in their dealing with them, from what I've seen, heard and read that is not the case.

R0bert

Robert, one of the coping strategies taught during "Anger Management courses" is too remove ones self from the situation.

However as facilitators report, many men will say when they remove themselves from the situation, that the situation follows them.

R0bert,

Another example of sexism is the proposed NSW domestic violence register (stems from Clares Law). There is only talk about women accessing the register. As a father who had young kids, before committing yourself to a new relationship, wouldn't you want to know if you were getting into relationship with another Kathleen Folbigg. Therefore women convicted of need to go onto the register as well.

"Even if the request for prior domestic violence convictions comes back with nothing, the government will put a system in place to counsel women who make a request to the register."

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/nsw-domestic-violence-register-to-expose-potential-abusers/story-fni0cx12-1227362371152

No doubt the number of people on the register, their gender, no of requests etc etc, will be kept secret from the public.

Now here is a champion of change for you...Ms Aimee Nicholls:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8JRzDI1IIY

#maletears

#kill all men

>Chances are, if you move in feminist circles, you will have at least >one friend who has a "Male Tears" coffee cup, "Misandrist" nameplate
>necklace, or is a regular user of hashtags and GIFs of the #maletears
> variety.

>"Ironic misandry", as Slate's Amanda Hess summarised last year,
>emerged as "a clever tactic for furthering the feminist agenda"

I find this interesting that behaviour that would be unacceptable if a male was the perpetrator, becomes acceptable behaviour when the perpetrator is a feminist.

Just watching last man standing.

If we are after equality, then how come women can get off being fined for speeding

Craig Minns

I was interested in your description of Anne Summers and Joan Kirner, as part of the “cabal of femocrats" who “made a career as feminist political operatives”.

I see both Anne and Joan as agents of change. These women have been unashamedly political, and it is thanks to them, and women like them, that there has been social change in Australia.

As the next generation of feminist, I am grateful for their work. When I took out my first mortgage, a man had to act as the guarantor. Thanks to women like Anne and Joan, young woman can take out loans independently. When I studied at uni, there were 187 male uni students for every 100 female. Now there are 80 males for every 100 females. Again thanks to women like Anne and Joan.

I could go on and on.

I want to conclude with a personal anecdote. A few years ago, I had a discussion with my older brother about an episode of Q and A .He thought Kate Ellis had spoken far too much whereas I thought Lindsay Tanner, Christopher Pyne and Piers Akerman had been rude interrupting her. I re-watched the episode and counted 36 times when the co-panellists interrupted Kate. Tanner and Pyne even had a sotto voce conversation about Downton Abbey when Kate was answering a question. I gave my brother these facts; he replied he “disagreed”.

I remember this anecdote because it was a seminal moment for me. I finally understood how our worldviews influence what we see. He had made up his mind and there was no point challenging his opinion with facts.

My eldest brother thinks “Feminism has gone too far”. With this world view, it is not surprising that he thought Kate Ellis talked too much on Q and A. He is critical of any woman who dares to put her head above the parapets.

Likewise it is not surprising that there are different perspectives on both Joan and Anne. They put their heads above the parapets – and refused to shut up.

I for one am grateful.

Rosie Batty, at taxpayer expense I understand, is going around the country urging women if they are experiencing violence (anything within a very broad definition), to leave their relationship (presume pick up the kids and leave). Shouldn't that type of advice, where taxpayer money is involved only come from qualified relationship counselors?

BTW Sarah Russell , Rosie Batty was not compelled to accept the Australian of the Year Award.

< I finally understood how our worldviews influence what we see. He had
< made up his mind and there was no point challenging his opinion with
<facts.

Posted by Sarah Russell, Sunday, 31 May 2015 10:17:05

I would suggest that you read "Spin Sisters How women of the media Sell unhappiness and Liberalism to the women of America".

Then there is another book "Lipstick Feminism" both books are eye openers.

So Sarah basically the message you are giving is that your brothers point of view or beliefs are not relevant because they do not match yours and that the only valid point of view is feminist.

Christine Stobla in Lying in a room of ones own, pointed out three basic principles,

Errors of Fact
Errors of Interpretation
Sins of Omission

http://www.iwf.org/files/d8dcafa439b9c20386c05f94834460ac.pdf

Daphne Patai in Heterophobia points out how the art of "sophistry" is used rather than dealing with the facts.

<The purpose of Women’s Studies is not sim-
<ply the transformation of knowledge, we are
<told. Out of that transformation should come a
<new worldview, one ever vigilant of sins against
<the status of women. As one textbook notes,
<“once you begin to recognize these patterns, you
<may be astounded at how pervasive they are

There have been any number of Guru's offering transformative knowledge, Mao, Stalin, James town, not to mention various things like transendential meditation.

"once you begin to recognize these patterns," I often think of Don Quixote as an example or George Orwells Animal Farm.

<<They adopt Seven Commandments of Animalism, the most important of
<which is, "All animals are equal."

<Snowball teaches the animals to read and write, while Napoleon
<educates young puppies on the principles of Animalism.

<The Seven Commandments are abridged to a single phrase: "All
<animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"
. <Napoleon holds a dinner party for the pigs and local farmers, with
<whom he celebrates a new alliance. He abolishes the practice of the <revolutionary traditions and restores the name "The Manor Farm". As
<the animals look from pigs to humans, they realise they can no
<longer distinguish between the two.

There is a term Successful Sociopaths,
http://www.bmartin.cc/dissent/documents/health/sociopathy.html

<Sociopathic individuals are extremely self-confidant, intelligent,
< charismatic and persuasive of others as well as themselves. They
<inspire those around them and create a dysfunctional culture, -
<often dizzy and disoriented by its success. Success is proof of the
< accuracy of any claim they make. Words and sometimes bizarre ideas
< become a substitute for reality. They surround themselves by
<supporters who worship them and believe they can do no wrong. These
< loyalties persist even when their world collapses around them. The
<community admires them. The system of justice seldom pursues them.

Wolly B

The point of my story about my eldest brother was to show his response when presented with facts - he did not "believe" them.

Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinions/beliefs - but not their own facts.

I agree with your 2nd post - a gendered lens provides a new world view. This is why people with different world views need to share their ideas, and present evidence to support these ideas.

A "belief" is not evidence.

<A "belief" is not evidence.
Posted by Sarah Russell, Monday, 1 June 2015 7:34:34 AM

That is true, and people will often conduct research to confirm their beliefs.

Researcher bias is well known, the only problem is that researchers become better at hiding their bias, which is similar to trying to reform psychopaths.

There is evidence that in trying to reform Psychopaths, all that is achieved is teaching them new skills, which they then can use to exploit more people and avoid detection.

"When research stops showing women as victims, the research stops!"

Staying on message, is a typical tactic used by our politicians when they want us to believe their porkies.

Many years ago I was introduced to the concept of Concrete thinkers;

>Abstract thinkers are able to reflect on events and ideas, and on
< attributes and relationships separate from the objects that have
<those attributes or share those relationships. Thus, for example, a
<concrete thinker can think about this particular dog; a more abstract
< thinker can think about dogs in general.

By this definition, feminist thinkers display the characteristics of being concrete thinkers.

I watched Rosie Batty's performance at the Canberra Press Club on ABC TV today? What she spoke about was all very predictable.

In the question and answer segment, Ms Batty was given a free run up until the penultimate question when a Fairfax Press reporter had the temerity to ask Ms Batty about women's violence against men and violence against children. As could have been expected her response was dismissive. She said inter alia it comes down to the statistics. Nope I'd say to that because the Family Court & Local courts make it easy for mothers to become gatekeepers to the children as in her own case. She also said that women fear for the lives of themselves and their children. Well on the day of the deaths of her son and his father, it did NOT seem she was in fear of her life. She was lurking in the background since in press articles that I've read it is said her son asked her if he could stay longer playing with his father. She said he could stay longer but who in fact really knows what she said to her son and in turn what he said to his father because it was around that time he went berserk. To me there seems to be inconsistencies in her story.

Anyway, if you didn't get to see Ms Batty's Press Club address, here is a link on ABC Iview:

http://iview.abc.net.au/programs/national-press-club-address/NC1506C018S00

Erin Pizzey, in an interview about her own experiences;

Pizzey: Well you can't make actually your own unique human experience — you cannot "EXTRAPOLATE" that to then include everybody else. If your father, like mine, was a violent bully, it doesn't mean that every man I know is going to be a violent bully. It simply means that he was a product of his own background which I understand.

Rosie Batty's experience is her own unique human experience, that has a powerful emotive hook. We don't hear about the little boy who died from blood poisoning after cutting his foot on a dirty can. We don't have people speaking out about the young girl who died from brain injuries after being forced to ride a motorbike.

We don't hear the national calls to protect these children from horrendous abuse, perpetrated by their parent. That is unless that parent happens to be male.

On domestic violence, no one wants to hear the truth

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

Dr Russell,
I don't dispute that feminism was motivated by a genuine desire to enhance the lives of women. There can be no question that a life as a 60s housewife in an outer-suburban lower-middle-class suburb would have been crushingly dull.

The thing is that life as a single mother in an outer-suburban lower middle-class suburb is still crushingly dull! That is a fact whether the woman in question works or not.

Similarly, life as the wife of a well-off professional in the 60s may have been dull, but it was also largely self-determined with very few obligations other than those relating to maintaining social status. Funnily enough, that hasn't changed much either.

In other words, feminism has largely failed in its own terms. To a very large extent women have fewer choices than they once had, although some choices are different. For example, choosing not to work while rearing children is reserved for the wealthy today, where once it was open to even working class women.

Choosing to marry early and make child-rearing a life priority is almost universally denied as an option today, unless the woman is very wealthy or wishes to resign herself to endemic poverty.

There are very many other examples of the failure of feminist-driven policies failing to produce the promised outcomes, not because of any nasty patriarchal conspiracy, but because they simply weren't well thought through.

Give me a properly examined feminist model, with a plan, a specified final design based on clearly stated aims and reasoning, that includes analysis of the impacts across demographics and economic classes and offers a balanced set of measures to ameliorate negative outcomes without reducing incentives to work toward positive ones and I'll support it.

Otherwise, I won't. It's not a matter of ideology, other than to the extent that I am ideologically driven to be pragmatic.

Good points Craig.

In 1956 a book was published "The man in a Grey Flannel Suit"
and I quote;

"The novel continues to appear in the references of sociologists to America's discontented businessman. Columnist Bob Greene wrote, "The title of Sloan Wilson's best-selling novel became part of the American vernacular—the book was a ground-breaking fictional look at conformity in the executive suite, and it was a piece of writing that helped the nation's business community start to examine the effects of its perceived stodginess and sameness."[4] Historian Robert Schultz argues that the film and the novel are cultural representations of what two-time presidential candidate (1952 and 1956) Adlai Stevenson described in a 1955 commencement address to Smith College women as a "crisis" in the western world, one Stevenson defined as "collectivism colliding with individualism," the collective corporate organization of postwar social and economic life.[5] That increased corporate organization of society, Schultz notes, reduced white-collar workers' (represented by Tom Rath and the other gray-suited "yes men") control over what they did and how they did it as they adapted to the "organized system" described and critiqued by contemporary social critics"