Any cause whatsoever can be sandwiched in De Gaulle. Had the author's teacher not requested a certain minimum number of words, 350 would suffice and the author could have then posted it in the "General Discussions" section. In fact 7 (1/50th!) would suffice: "There are also male domestic violence victims".

It needs to be remembered that sometimes women will make preposterous allegations largely due to spite and to cause inconvenience and problems. I had an intervention order made against me which I was unable to get to court to contest. Supposedly for personal safety. In fact the only dealings I had with this woman was blowing the whistle on her trying to gain control of a voluntary organisation for her own purposes. ( She subsequently was eventually run out of it.) Very annoying as when an Intervention order application is made, the accused has to immediately surrender shooters licence and registered firearms to police. Then go to court to get them back. Guilty until proven innocent! Maybe this could stop an impulsive violent type from shooting the complainant but politicians and anti gun activists do not seem to consider that many firearm owners could readily illegally get another firearm if they were determined to shoot someone.

Spiteful types often fail to consider that their dirty deeds often come back to bite them sometime in the future. In fact false allegations can make the accused look out for opportunities for retaliation which they otherwise would not have dreamed of. This could include legal tactics. Not necessarily illegal ones they are likely to get away with.

Oh for goodness sake, what a whining piece of writing this article is.
The author likens a supposed lack of recognition of male domestic violence victims to World War 2? Really?

Where has anyone ever said there aren't any male victims of domestic violence?
The media report male victims when it happens, albeit more rarely than female victims.
Fathers, brothers and sons have been killed by other family members, and it is every bit as awful as the mothers, sisters and daughters killed by family members.

Maybe if the numbers of males killed by intimate partners or family members increases to the same levels that women are killed at present, there will be more urgent steps taken by our Government to stop this murder in our society?

Another man hating post, treating the victim with scorn is evil. I remember the violent one in the family was the mother and father almost worked himself to death to keep away. She stopped when we were too big, ergo a bully like many women are.

Suse, why do you feel the need to denigrate the author for raising the topic? It kind of makes his point for him, don't you think?

It seems to me that he makes a good point, which is that our social policies are often very narrowly focussed and as a result the potential for unintended consequences (in this case, the potential that male victims of serious domestic terrorism may be left to fend for themselves) is high.

I've been doing quite a bit of thinking about this general subject - social policy-making and how to do it better. Hopefully I'll have the time to write a proper article after my exams finish.

I would just like to say that I agree with Y's comment on the article. But the the poor fellow had to pad his piece out with something, so often is this stuff brought up, even though statistics clearly show that most violence is directed towards women. Frankly, as a male myself, I think that the bleatings from a certain kind of bloke are pretty pathetic.

Suseonline is a female supremacist who subscribes to the radical lesbian feminist notion of 'wonderful' womyn who are the perpetual victims of men. Men, boys too, see as their raison b'etre and first priority the control, victimisation and denigration of wonderful womyn.

Suseonline SAYS!

Suseonline will tell you that serious crime is with very few exceptions indeed, always a masculine problem. Any rare female deviance is seen as a consequence of the 'mens' fault and wrongdoing somewhere. Something wonderful womyn were forced into by men, even where the said woman lay in wait as meticulously planned for her partner with a firearm checked to flatten the largest boar and purchased well before.

Womyn must be excused and better still never investigated for the serious crimes that they could not have committed through their own choice and volition. The government, police and society are to recognise womyn as forever victims, vulnerable and frail, totally believable and not capable of deceit and deception which wouldn't cross their childlike innocent minds, and in need of protection, not really responsible for any of those decisions that result in nasty consequences.

Remember, "Snips and snails, and puppy dogs tails, That's what little boys are made of. Sugar and spice and all things nice, That's what little girls are made of".

What stake do the Suseonlines have in NOT wanting independent study of violence in the broad and coordinated effort to deal with it? Is it as simple as a self-serving interest in what is putting bread on their table and the careers that go with it?

Violence is violence. Regarding violence, 'partner violence' or any other, as a gender crime just gets in the way of understanding violence and its causes and fragments efforts to study, detect and resolve

raison d'etre

//What stake do the Suseonlines//

You do know the difference between 'singular' and 'plural' grammatical senses don't you?

//have in NOT wanting independent study of violence in the broad and coordinated effort to deal with it?//

I very much doubt any feminist has a problem with independent study; I think their objections are more against dealing with violence against men when the resources could be devoted to dealing with violence against women. They are, after all, feminists. I prefer to think of myself as a 'personist' (because 'humanist' has attached baggage which I don't necessarily wish to claim).

//Violence is violence. Regarding violence, 'partner violence' or any other, as a gender crime just gets in the way of understanding violence and its causes and fragments efforts to study, detect and resolve//

Hear, hear.

Toni, I prefer "sentientist", it sounds so much more pretentious and it only has one more syllable.

I'm prepared to entertain alternatives that may be more syntactially, if not semantically, efficient.

ttbn, ".... statistics clearly show that most violence is directed towards women." Well what you say is probably true but those women known as "access bitches" ie. those who perpetuate the worst form of emotional violence often show up as victims themselves as a consequence.

Because women seem to suffer the most out of relationship conflict flare ups we only need to maintain a very narrow focus on who are the victims and who are the perps. Nothing else really matters...not even who initiated the violence.

Toni Lavis,

While I might take issue with your first two points, that matters little because it is the final crucial one that matters and on which we agree.

Male victims of Dv do have rights, and can access the various crime victim agencies and government responses. They are not always disbelieved, or always denied. The numbers of women arrested for DV events is rising. Be careful what you wish for because DV services are often less than what is needed even by the women who use them, and family court is quite dismissive of any services provided by women's only services. Do you really want that for men?

Interestingly, women are not always believed, or always victorious in the battle for services and safety. And you'd only have to sit in local court for a little while to realise 'are you kidding? this nonsense is justice? about the silly system. Then try family court!

No, better everyone get over their own personal gripes and stop arguing to take the other side down, to belittle, humiliate, cybertrash etc. That's not where solutions or services are found, or where genuine reform begins. And, by golly, (if that is not a racist remark) democracy is in deep trouble without getting lost in the 'no, she/he started it, her/his toys are bigger than mine squabbles. Injustice is everywhere. And getting worse because we spend too much time being inflexible.

What's the answer? contribute, dont rubbish. I abhore violence and abuse. Not fussed about who does it. Not fussed about stats as they are all rubbish if you did down and examine the limits in questions asked.