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