doog, a few possible reasons for you to consider.
- Mental instability (some people live in a world of fear that's divorced from reality).
- As a cover for her their abusive actions. Pretending you were pre-emptively acting in self defence is a great justification for some.
- Leverage in family law. If you can get the man out of the house and keep him away from the kids during a family breakup it puts him firmly on the back foot when it comes to residency arrangements with a follow on that with child residency goes the division of assets along with future income streams from Centerlink and CSA.

I'm with Alan B's second post (first one is disgusting in my view). We need to apply every tool at our disposal to finding the truth in these matters and I get the impression that lie detection is much more advanced state than our pollies and lawyers want to admit to.

Once we get to the truth we need to use that info to stop any further risk. If that is by way of jail term, financial penalty, impact on access to home, family etc the penalty should apply to whoever is telling the lies (accuser, accused or accomplices).

R0bert

It is pretty telling the way men treat women in countries where
women haven't been able to stand up for any rights.

It was very similar too, 70-100years ago in Australia.
I think history is a daming testiment,to the way
men seek to control women.

There was a reason women abandoned motherhood for
the workplace. It freed them from the control of men, who
never gave them a fair go. Treating them like unpaid slave labour.

There are really loving marriages that last a lifetime,
usually because the man in the marriage is different to the usual male mindset.
But those marriages are the exception rather than the norm.

Hi Alan B, i absolutely agree with your opinion.

It is concerning to find that after the decades of emancipation of women and hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers dollars spent, that some here are unaware of the well proved, significant downsides of positive stereotyping affecting women (and minority groups too). One supposes that it remains prevalent because of the widespread political correctness in the media.

At the same time there is also the endorsement of hostile stereotypes, in this case towards men.

Then there is the manipulation of social policy and individual decisions to suit. Where positive stereotyping in particular is deeply embedded in the psyche of the population, even obvious abuses of human rights can escape detection as too subtle to notice (or even care!).

What the author, Augusto Zimmermann, LLB, LLM, PhD, who is a Lecturer in Law at Murdoch University, Western Australia,.is endeavouring to do is to wave a red flag at the encroachments on the very fundamental principles that underpin our Australian law. We would be very foolish indeed to go along with cynical, cowardly and ignorant politicians who are not earning their money and really must do better. It isn't about 'isms' and the gender war, now is it? It is about legal principles and human rights.

CHERFUL tries to equate the history of western countries with cultures built on very different value systems.

I wasn't around 70-100 years ago but I do have strong impressions from my childhood of the sense of control women of my grandparents generation often displayed around the family.

I recall being taught as a child to stand when a "lady" entered the room, that as a male I'd need to give up my seat if there were not enough seats for all of that ladies present and a variety of other ways of showing respect to ladies, lady being a term used to describe any adult woman from our circles in the same way that gentleman seemed to apply to all of the adult men. Show me any other power based control system where the oppressors were the ones who were taught to show respect to the oppressed.

The women of my grandparents generation often did it tough but from what I saw of it the men often did it a lot tougher, sacrificing pretty much everything for the sake of wives and children.

The term "Women and Children first" pre-dates the 70-100 year span mentioned but does highlight how strongly CHERFUL's view of our cultures treatment of women stands in contrast to at least part of our history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and_children_first

CHERFUL cites a self serving and very distorted view of our culture that does not reflect the dominant social norms.

There were practical differences, in many cases hangovers from the biological necessities of an earlier era. There were dysfunctional individuals and social norms that expected differences from the genders (and often from what I've seen most vigorously enforced by the older women of the day). None of that equates to men of our culture systematically seeking to "control" women in the way that CHERFUL claims.

R0bert

Bravo for every word of both of AlanB's posts. All this dancing round the mulberry bush, and defending wife-bashers, is not a defence of men. No normal man would ever give assaulting his wife or anyone else even a passing thought.

Domestic violence will continue until our community turns against all who DO domestic violence (defined as physical assault on a domestic victim) and forcibly removes them, for ever, from where they can get at their victims. Simplest way is to lock them up. They're only scumbags anyway.