So men feel isolated, fearful, lost, confused etc, etc, etc.

Is this true is it?. Almost no research has been undertaken into men or fathers in Australia to make this general judgement (see…http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/papers/smyth5.html), and if there is a feeling of being isolated or fearful, a man just has to become a non-custodial father and they will get to learn all about it quickly enough.

So there is little to be relied upon in this article. Just another unsubstantiated, male maligning article that shows little research before hand.

Do women feel isolated, fearful, lost, confused etc, etc, etc? If women’s media is any indication, I would definitely think so.

Dear Mark,

I appreciate your beautifully reflective response.

Your call to stop and draw a collective breath is an appropriate one. I am interested in men, as a gender, contemplating who they are and where they are going. It is needed. Not because women demand it, but because it is men’s best interest.

Men, young and old, do need to celebrate and value who we are. Just as you point out – “As I see it, the only real choice left for men is to acknowledge our fabulous black-and-white reasoning.”

Men need to celebrate their strength, but be wary of its ability to produce violence. Men need to acknowledge their business success, but not to the detriment of the wide range of other success men and women can have in a life. Men need to acknowledge, as you have, that they are different to women – but ensure that it doesn’t impact on human relationships based on equality.

Black-and-white reasoning doesn’t mean that men cannot grow and develop their role to work in greater partnership with women and children.

And, I would agree that my divisional tactics are not the best approach – but it is just another part of the fabulous black-and-white reasoning with which my testosterone has blessed me.

As a young father, men who deride my decision to be a dad, claim my marriage will end in divorce and label me naïve frustrate me. I am as naïve as the next man. The one thing I don’t wish to do is denounce their experience.

I have no doubt there are many men who have suffered great pain in their pursuit of strong relationships with women and children. In many cases unjustly and unfairly due to a range of cultural and systematic reasons. The experience is real. It is awful. And I wish the best for those men.

But, theirs is not the only experience and I hope someone who has suffered in this way would actually understand and encourage those who have found happiness – instead of wishing upon them the pain they endure.

(Continued next comment)

I will continue to shield the up and coming generation from that attitude and promote committing to a relationship and children as a positive and worthwhile life choice.

I believe that the responsibilities that were once regarded as only the domain of men are actually the responsibility of the whole community. I see family as a core building block to functional and vibrant communities. Men are an integral part of that – but no more important than any other participant. Many men will participate as fathers: but also as single men, as employees, as grandfathers, as neighbours, as friends, as shop keepers, as Rotarians, as coaches or event organisers.

The unhealthy reliance on the family unit only occurs in a society that isolates not just men – but everyone. That sits us down in front of the TV to watch reality shows and keeps us within the walls of our houses – too fearful to go out. Causing us to ignore the reality of the events, meetings and activities going on in our own community – events run and organised by women, men and children.

As for the answers to the big questions: they are different for all of us at different times in our lives.

The best we can do is keep the conversations going

…thanks for engaging in a constructive way.

D.

The research does demonstrate that men who are actively involved in their children's lives pre separation are more likely to continue to be involved in their children's lives post separation. Shared parenting also is more often an outcome for couples who split amicably, and forcing this outcome by law reform only compromises those cases that are the least likely to be suitable candidates for shared parenting in the first place. Therefore, non-custodial fathers should reflect on their involvement and behaviour as fathers before the divorce or separation and reflect on the questions of how manhood is not expressed or recieved favourably where violence and control is the expression of masculinity.

Daniel Donahoo,
“As a young father, men who deride my decision to be a dad, claim my marriage will end in divorce and label me naïve frustrate me. I am as naïve as the next man. The one thing I don’t wish to do is denounce their experience.”

Is this true is it?

Prove it.

You had an article in the press making many maligning unsubstantiated remarks about young men , and then lambasting them to get married

What was pointed out to you were some facts about marriage such as :-

• A third of all babies born today may expect divorce in their lifetime, and a quarter will never marry, if current habits persist. Marriage rates have hit a 100-year low and divorces are at a 20-year high.

• On average, couples separated after 8.3 years of marriage and got divorced about 3.5 years later.

http://www.spinneypress.com.au/183_book_desc.html

Of those parents who are non-custodial (IE fathers mostly) 76 % will see their children less than weekly, and 26 % will see their children once a year or less
http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/info/charts/contact/f2f/frequency-abs.html

These were the type of statistics and facts that that were pointed out to you, and now you try and interpret this as being an attempt to undermine your marriage.

You have intentionally attempted to misinterpret what was said to you, and in your two articles on males, you made 54 negative statements about males, without one positive statement. You also attempt to portray yourself as being some type of expert on men and marriage.

I don’t think so.

I would think you still have not understood. If you want some involvement in marriage, divorce, family law, young men, older men, fathers etc, then read up on some facts first. Anecdotal evidence is not good enough to make generalized statements about men or fathers. That belongs in a feminist camp.

The comment by Timkins "Anecdotal evidence is not good enough to make generalized statements about men or fathers. That belongs in a feminist camp." is quite unfair. Obviously he has not read the research himself.

"So, if the Part VII reforms were not a legislative response to an identified problem or to research data about what is in the best interests of children,[48] where did they come from? I suggest that they were a response to the anecdotes constantly recounted to politicians; the stories of aggrieved non-custodial fathers who told (and continue to tell) bitter tales of gender bias against them by the legal system, and particularly by the Family Court. The fathers’ rights groups have been remarkably successful in capturing the attention of the politicians. This motivation for the reforms is obvious from the Government’s Second Reading speech,[49] and from the contemporaneous Parliamentary Debates where there are numerous references to the hope that a shared parenting law would alleviate the distress of non-custodial parents, the majority of whom are fathers.[50] The fathers’ groups persistently claim that the Court is ‘biased’ against them.[51] But their claims had (and have) no empirical support: the literature and the available studies show that the Family Court makes orders (in contested cases) in favour of fathers at twice the rate of those made by consent.[52] The fathers’ anecdotes that so captured the attention of the politicians (and I should emphasise that this is a non-party political issue: the legislation was introduced by the previous Labor Government) invoked the discourses of ‘victimhood’ and ‘formal equality’[53] in much the same way as happened in the lead up to the Children Act 1989 reforms in the United Kingdom.[54]"
Law Reform by Frozen Chook, Graycar, Melbourne University Law Review 29, 2000, p.6

Mark, a heartfelt thanks for writing this piece. It is definitely something to be encouraged, as we men don’t do enough of it. Indeed, let’s take that “collective breath” together…

I still struggle with “relate, don’t fix”. Telling my daughter that I loved her but not being able to answer why, probably falls within the boundaries of that dreaded rule. However, just as this situation seems to need a “fix”, so did countless others, I found afterwards, while I was busy “relating” (talk about black and white!).

Always assume the drama. Then find solutions without these being attributable to you. You are not meant to act as if your family’s happiness or well-being depended on you. After all, there are fathers out there who DO know why they love their daughters (and let them sleep-over, go on dates, and buy them nice things).

“Being a naïve young father” provides perhaps the best chance for us of being one. If, as you say, “Eventually, you have to push on alone in search of sustained meaning”, then maybe, just maybe, your job is already done. Your loving wife may have also come to similar conclusions. This is where Timkins’ comments would come in.

“The disillusionment is further compounded when we realise there is no way to think or argue our way back to what we have lost along the way.” I connect – but what’s the solution Mr Fix-it (please don’t tell us you’ll be joining our ranks anytime soon)?

Happy, now please in English: “But their claims had (and have) no empirical support: the literature and the available studies show that the Family Court makes orders (in contested cases) in favour of fathers at twice the rate of those made by consent.” Does this men that if fathers got their way in 5% of cases “by consent”, the Family Court ruled their way in 10% of the contested cases? Sounds like progress, if true.

It's not all about you, Timmy. Read the posts of some of the blokes here who don't share your fear of women.

Morgan

Mark , its easier in life to gauge someones acts when you know where they are coming from , essentially its a window to where they have been , your article displays an alarming co dependancey on maternal figureheads and justification , this is charatorised by your God type writtings .

Whilst these writtings may be some form of overall warm fuzzy feeling for you , its fanciful to believe they are universal or even benifit the majority .

Mens status and abuse is as real as anyother section of the community however with mens issues and being a man it is systemic and instatutionalised , there is hardly anyone who feels the family courts , the criminal courts womens convictions are 29 times less for the same body of evidence given to test panels .

What it means to be a man may well reflect your position but not a great majority .

Women have had a head start on us blokes with regard to alot of self reflection and questioning of their roles in this world. Perhaps it is more a part of their nature, but I have been forced to take a good look at myself as a result of anger management. We do need to assess ourselves to try a look at our roles from every direction rather than from just a linear perspective. I have a much more positive outlook - not easy but my kids see alot more of me now and that is a big improvement from where I used to be.

I'm really glad to see men getting in there and talking about this issue. Too often in the media men are talked ABOUT instead of us listening to men talking [Elspeth Probyn in today's Australian was talking about fatherhood and citing Mens Rights instead of the more reasonable men or research on men]
The men's health website at Uni of Western Sydney tries to have a range of reports on fatherhood, boys' education, and how men can be healthier. There is a huge need for us to hear more about research on men - but not just from one point of view, feminist or non-feminist. And let's get the research out there and debated publicly. I talk to my MP about this - do you?


http://menshealth.uws.edu.au/publications.html

Two further comments. When I interviewed men for Fathers, Sons and Lovers, the oldtimers who grew up in the 1940s and 1960s said "work was a man's life. And a bit of sex was his hobby". Men and work have historically been inseparable. Today I still see men's lives as strongly identified with work; though women are now a huge part of working life too. How much does work affect our identity, leisure,and ability to exercise (or not!) Having a partner, or being alone, is also very important in the way we live. I'd like us to include gay men please guys as well as straight.

It's important that men can talk about their lives on sites like this. When you think of it, where CAN men talk these things over freely (bar the pub?) The universities are thoroughly feminised: any discussion about men is usually about men as violent; or men causing trouble to women, or kids, or other men. Public life is also very feminised: men are guarded and edit their comments for fear of attack. They did in the book I quoted above. Discussion of men in the media is dominated by women: look who writes about men's lives in the papers you read. Men on TV are usually fools and clowns. So- men go online.

“So what does it mean to be a man?”

If you need to ask the question it means you probably are not one.

Far more important is accepting that whilst men and women are different, they are all individuals with equal rights, regardless of gender.

Last year there was some debate about changing the law to make joint custody etc the presumption.

Bondi Pete, you might have “talk men’s matters” with your MP but when I emailed my federal member on the matter of changing the “child custody” and other “separation” norms she did not bother to reply – but that was nothing less than I expected from Julia Gillard.

Colin Rouge , Its good to see some real comment based on real abuse by a system and individuals , I was asked today "why arent judges doing whats right ?" I see this as simple we currently have the weakest high court and judiciary since inception , the likes of Owen Dixon whilst often quoted are in fact mis quoted , Whilst Sir Dixon made simple and forthright description his true legacey Ill stood in courts and time after time heard his definitions mis quoted , Now that in its self is a problem , the entire practice of relying on anothers findings or work is somewhat Narcisistic as its a method of gaining credit from someone elses work and not your own skills , the simple truth is the current herd of swine with their collective snouts in the trough of the public purse are better at covering their butts and making findings to them in their view , whilst totally disregarding the evidence act , in summary they take a slant choose what is relavant in their eyes and misquote learned Folk the like of leo Cussins Owen Dixon and Anthony Graham with little insight into the way these men practically and faithfully discharged their knowledge and duties , Its a wonder with political favour will a truely learned and just judge ever be found again , one who carries the dignity of the system and its combatants equally and stands the test of public opinion not just legeslation of the contrived effect of the government of the day .

Timkins,

Daniel Donahoo said: “As a young father, men who deride my decision to be a dad, claim my marriage will end in divorce and label me naïve frustrate me. I am as naïve as the next man. The one thing I don’t wish to do is denounce their experience.”

Timkins says: “…You had an article in the press making many maligning unsubstantiated remarks about young men, and then lambasting them to get married… These were the type of statistics and facts that that were pointed out to you, and now you try and interpret this as being an attempt to undermine your marriage…”

No, Timkins. I’d say you’re the one misinterpreting DDs comments. May I remind you of what you said in the forum you’re referring to (Fatherhood and Fulfilment):

“There is no doubt in my mind that you have not looked at them, but if you have been married for say 6 yrs, you have on average 6 years to go. So during the next 6 yrs, you and your organisation can study and research what is going to happen to you, and then you could write an article on that, or talk about it on radio.” Posted by Timkins, Thursday, March 10, 2005 1:18:42 PM

I'm guessing that this attitude is what he’s referring to. Your phrase, “what is going to happen to you”, is suggestive of your conviction his marriage will end in divorce.

“Lambasting” is a very strong word. I don’t think many would share your view that DD is trying to castigate people into getting married.

Anyway Timkins, I believe people here are discussing Mark Christensen’s article, not your favourite vendetta.

I think its positive men are discussing "men's issues".

Maybe one area we could spend some time on is the whinging that goes on about how women are increasingly harping on our flaws and how the legal/political system abuses men's "rights". Notions that debating forums (eg universities) have been feminised or that men can't say what they want misses the point badly. Yes, the world is becoming less masculine, but this can hardly be the fault of anyone other than the individual men involved. Women (a family or anything else) are neither the solution or the problem. All this bitching is a distraction from having to do the hard work on the only thing we can really change – ourselves.

We are free to say what we want. The central issue is men fear the consequences of saying/doing what they really believe. The dilemma with the modern, integrated, transparent world is that trying to deny our inner malaise is becoming harder and harder to do. There is no way to hide it at work, on the footy field or down at the pub. Women and the systems we have constructed for ourselves are throwing it back in our face but when this happens we immediately blame them and thus miss the the fact it was us (not them) that have missed seeing the truth along the way (the movie Alexandra’s Project is an excellent representation of this dynamic).

My other comment relates to this obsession with the facts, proof or more research. This is another crutch. The issues are universal – it’s only the circumstances that change. The essence of the struggle is shared – that's why we engage in forums like this.

A man obsessed with proof should ask himself whether he can prove why it is important he prove something. Data is necessary, but insufficient. The truth is there to be seen regardless of the so-called objective information you gather around it.

Mark

Mark

excellent post, mate. Anyone can find some kind of factoid on the net to prove their point. That doesn't make for the give and take of good communication.

Having been thru the mill of divorce, I was confronted by my own shortcomings when my ex issued a restraining order. It is 5 years since then. I spend a lot of time with my kids now and my ex and I probably communicate better than when we were together. Takes a lot of strength to take a good hard look at yourself and I have a long to go yet.

Ambo, Mark, you might be missing the bit that there are a lot of guys who have not been the problem who are getting done over by the system. It appears to be set up to deal with worse case scenario's (people who need restraining orders etc) and based on some assumptions (it is the male who is controlling and violent).

That system then gets played by some where neither of the above apply to maximise benefits to themselves. We need more studies into DV which actually interview both men and women rather than the current bulk which only report DV against women to break the myth that men are more violent in the home than women. We need more honest reaserch in a bunch of areas to break the false assumptions behind the very real bias in the family law system (including the beliefs of mediators, councillors etc). Most of all we need polygraphs in the court room

Robert,
"Domestic Violence is Gendered Violence.
Consistently research shows us that in the majority of cases,
men are the perpetrators of domestic violence.
When men are subject to domestic violence by women, the violence is not as prolonged and nor is it as extreme, they are far less likely to be injured, they are less likely to fear for their own safety, and they are likely to have more financial and social independence. (Flood)"

People like yourself continue to deny the facts and are making the situation worse for those most at risk; women and their children who flee a violent man. The false rhetoric from men's righters that continues to suggest that the research is not "honest" and the courts are "biased" do not realise the fallout. Currently, protective parents are more often NOT BELIEVED in family court and this is also affecting protective fathers. Children are being sent to live with violent parents by court order!

If the men's rights campaigners do not represent the violent men in our society, then stop defending them.

The question of what it means to be a man is valid and needs to continue to be addressed with reference to the males that use violence in their interactions. Real men need to stand up and declare this is not tolerated, instead of defending it.

Mark, lovely piece and it's so nice to know that there are men that can say it like it is and share their experience from their point of view (as did DD as well). Sometimes it's no so easy to figure out what the emotions are. Everyone's experience is different and parenting, from a male or female perspective can only be individual, regardless that nappy changing should be an olympic sport. I have two gorgeous female friends with great partners and their whole take on the parenting issue was totally different, as was their partners. One was a "here we have these wonderful human beings in our care" and the other was "can't wait till they get older and off my hands". Both went through to their second husbands who have had wonderful relationships with their children. The outcome seems to be great. That's why we can listen to the statistics (and let's face it) dysfunctional people breed dysfunctionaal kids. But anecdotes are pretty real too. Thanks for sharing them.

Laing and Kamsler (1990, p.169) argue that:
‘…mainstream theories of abuse, such as the “dysfunctional family” approach camouflage the powerful role of the offender.’

Thanks, Di. I have an excellent relationship with my four kids and ex-wife. I’m even living (temporarily) in her home at present!

RObert, I think your observations are accurate. The issue is how we change the situation. I think we give men false hope by implying it’s the system’s fault insofar as it encourages them to look for a solution in the same place, when there is none. Men need to get beyond this idea. And in a bizarre way I think this is what women are saying to us through their growing rejection of various male caricatures (eg Aussie bloke, snag, metrosexual, whatever).

Men are already exposed to sufficient advice on how to be better - that's why we have mothers. What we need now is a new-found faith in ourselves and our fellow men to be strong enough to see that only we can save ourselves. Believing someone or something else can make it better condemns us to the kind of less-than-absolute freedom that is manifest today and so distresses “happy” and others.

My view (apart from my very solid Biblical one) is that we just plain 'have it too good'. Asking the question about what it means to be a man, seems to point to a social situation where our male/female roles are not forced upon us by conditions and circumstances.
If we suddenly found ourselves out past the black stump, and had a few kids tagging along and 'the little woman', we would VERY quickly work out who does what and why ! The man would go out hunting, build a shelter, while the woman did cooking, looked after the kids and the living area.

The problem is, having been 'delivered' from this darkness by the profits of slave owning empires, of the huge material gains of opium wars, Industrial revolutions, etc, suddenly we have a lot of choices which a less materially abundant situation would afford us.

Then there is the rise of feminism, striving to re-define we guysin tamer, more managable ways.

This reminds me of the frog in the beaker of water raised to a temperature which eventually kills the frog, which doesnt realize what is happening.

Mark,

Having reread your piece and your comments, marked all the dots, then joined them … I now get something resembling a dinosaur. Where exactly are you leading us with this? Without clarification, I can only conclude that your cryptic philosophical musings will add to the confusion, isolation and fear.

Seeker...... man, get out and dig a ditch :)

Boaz, a bit wet for that here today ;-)

happy, there have been studies done across the western world over a number of years which suggest that DV rates and severities are not Gendered Violence. One study done by researchers from Melbourne and La Trobe Uni's looks at this issue and touches on some of the problems with much of the research. A copy can be found at http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/dom/heady99.htm - worth a read. You might also have a look at a book by feminist author Patricia Pearson called "When She Was Bad" regarding female violence and the damage done to feminist ideals by the continued dishonesty about female violence. Another useful place to look is state government child abuse stats - Qld stats for 2003-2004 (http://www.abusedchildtrust.com.au/content/child_abuse_2.asp#)
Family types involved in substantiated abuse and neglect:
27% two parent - natural families
23% two parent - other families
37% single female parent families (has been 42% in recent years)
5% single male parent families

You could also wade through the report of the NSW Child Death Review team (http://www.kids.nsw.gov.au/publications/fatalneglect.html). There is a section on who is killing kids and dads are not sticking out like a sore thumb.

Of course you could look at the Qld Govt Health web site which has the following gems (http://www.health.qld.gov.au/violence/domestic/default.asp).
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE is the physical, sexual, emotional or
psychological abuse of trust and power between partners in a
spousal relationship.
Most (85% to 98%) domestic violence is perpetrated by men against
women.

Most of us in the mens rights movement are very opposed to protecting genuinely abusive and or violent men. What we are upset about is the use of a dishonest portrayal of fathers to support outcomes which are damaging to our children and ourselves

Love the article, Mark, but wonder if what men (and women) really need to be thinking about is what it means to be human? I think that is, perhaps, when some women began to cast off the stereotype of gender and became free to explore themselves as people, when they realised they were human first and women second.
We seem to be returning to a time where we emphasise our differences, rather than talking together about our similarities.
I have been married to the same bloke for almost 30 years, very happily. I have one other friend my age who is similarly blessed, together we discussed why one day. Why had our marriages lasted when others had not, (she does not have kids, I do)?We decided it was because the power in the relationship was equally shared, neither partner dominated the other, while both had their own acknowledged areas of control. My husband cooks, I clean up. I do the washing, he does the vacuuming. Both couples very different, but it was mutual respect and affection and humour that seemed to be the glue that held us together, room for us both to be who we were, who we are now, and who we may be in the future. Room to grow and change in other words.

“who it is we should love and what it means to be a man.”

If the author has questions about this he could refer to the “Man Menu” at http://magazines.ivillage.com/cosmopolitan/archive/0,,284400,00.html that contains articles from “Is Your Guy Hooking Up at Work?” To “55 Things You Can Learn About a Guy in 10 Minutes” to “The 5 Secrets of Sexual Touch”

(NB. All these articles are written be females so they are safe to read)

Now questions could be asked regards all the things written about males in various articles:-
1/ Are they true?
2/ Are these articles written by experts?

Because so little reliable research has been undertaken into males, and so much written about males is contradictory, then one has to presume that very little that has been written about males is actually true, and most articles are written by complete non-experts, who really should not be written these articles that can create so many misconceptions regards males.

Perhaps this is why some people now believe that men are feeling "isolated" and "fearful". It has come from the press, like the press has made so many women feel isolated and fearful. Those who label men with everything from being “Peter Pans” to being “fearful” are no better than “Spin Sisters” who try and brainwash women into feeling “victimised” and in need of a “makeover”

There is also another question as to why feminists aren’t complaining about the way males are portrayed. They want men to take stereotyping of the female gender seriously, but they don’t seem to take stereotyping of the male gender very seriously and have rarely mention ed it.

And of course if a male complains about stereotyping of the male gender, or points out real facts about men in society, then he can be stereotyped or labelled with anything from being “misogynist” to being “poor” to having a secret “agenda”, to having a “vendetta” etc, and of course these same people believe that none of their accusations need be substantiated in anyway, but believe that these accusations are true simply because they have been made.

enaj, very nicely put.

BOAZ_David, does your theory still hold is the "little lady" is a better hunter than you? Perhaps she was a champion archer before you ended up in the bush, your eyesight might be failing or a host of other reasons. Do the families needs override the need to stick with traditional roles?

There was an good segment last night on sixty minutes on housedads. A number of cases where the mothers career appeared to be more useful to the family than the fathers so the father became the stay at home parent(in one case still employed but mum was away at sea with the navy so dad took a desk job to allow him to be the prime carer). Everybody put the family first, dads dealing with the social stigma of being the stay at home parent and the impact on future career, mums giving up time with their kids. One of the benefits of improving opportunities for women is that more dads may get the opportunity to do this without it being an economically stupid decision for the family.

Good points from both enaj and RObert. Both sexes can and often do work together for the good of the family. We are human beings first who happen to be born either male or female, black or white (or whatever). Much better to concentrate on our similarities which are legion than our differences which are few.

Ambo has mentioned anger management and it is sad but true that most (and I acknowledge not all) domestic violence is perpetrated by men - I was a victim of it myself for 8 long years in my twenties. It took me every bit of courage I had to leave.

This is one of the many reasons why it is heartening to see men talking to and about themselves. Fortunately I have managed to move on from that bleak period in my life and it was partly due to the fantastic support I have had from other men. We all need to look at our roles and men need emancipation from the narrow rigidity of their traditional roles just as much as women.

Together we can hold up the sky.

To be a man you must be a feminist.

Ringtail, thanks for your comments.

Sorry to hear that you have suffered from an abusive partner and I'm glad to hear that you are out of it.

How certain are you that the balance is tipped as much along gender lines as you currently believe? I agree that it is a widely held perception (eg my earlier reference to the QLD Health web site).

To the best of my knowledge the references in the earlier post were to legit, unbiased information. Nothing conclusive in their own right but hopefully enough for people to notice that some of the stats don't line up with what they are being repeatedly told.

If men are more violent in the home why are they not hurting and killing a lot more kids than women?

What are the inbuilt biases in the data collection used to support the types of claims made by Qld Health and others?

The DV study I refered to attempts to ensure that there are no inbuilt bias's in their data collection and to the best of my knowledge the researchers are not tied to any one side of the debate.

In my view the portrayal of men as much more agressive and violent in the home is hurting men in their view of themselves and relationships between men and women. It is also helping women who abuse men (emotionally or physically) to excuse themselves - I don't understand the logic but expect it runs along the lines of "men are violent not women so my choice to hurt my partner must be because he deserves it". Leslie Cannolds comments (Humanised or hypocrite - does Abbott have clay feet?) about women opposed to abortion excusing their own choice to have an abortion looked familiar dispite the very different issues involved.

It is not a lot of fun to have an abusive spouse and find no support because people assume that if a woman gets violent she must have a good reason or be told that "she is smaller than you so she can't hurt you".

"...self-described battered husbands, men’s rights group members and some scholars maintain that there are significant numbers of battered men, that battered men are indeed a social problem worthy of attention and that there are as many male victims of violence as female. The last claim is a significant distortion of well-grounded research data." Domestic Violence: Not an Even Playing Field by R.J. Gelles

happy, the issue of DV is off topic. The impact on male self image from being portrayed as much more violent in the home is not. Interesting to see you quoting R.J.Gelles, is that the Richard Gelles Patricia involved in studies refered to by Patricia Pearson?

"Their random survey of 3,218 American homes uncovered that severe abuse was committed equally by men and women. Minor, but recurring, violence was also on a par, with 1.6 percent of women and 12 percent of men reporting that they hit, slapped, or kicked their partners." along with mention of later work with similar results.

Pearson also makes the following comment
"What began as a nuanced discussion of one of the most volatile arenas of human relating had been reduced to bigoted creed. Men are evil. Women are god. Domestic violence is wife beating, and any man who finds himself at the receiving end of a woman's fist is a liar or a freak." -P127 When She was Bad.

Have a look at the child abuse and child death stats, and think about the mantra of protecting women and children in light of those stats.

All research used in this area should go to pains to ensure that it can be seen as impartial, no gender specific studies paraded as something else or other tricks of the trade. For those who have had a violent or abusive female spouse the continual failure to recognise the issue by authorities, social workers and society is another nail in the coffin.

In my life, I've known more than a few men who've beaten their wives (including my father). When I say 'beaten', I mean brutally punched, kicked and terrorised.

I've rarely heard of the reverse situation, and even then only in fictional depictions. A slap is not a beating.

I mean, I haven't heard of any demand for "men's refuges", or other sanctuaries for men brutalised by women. Sounds like some kind of sick joke to me.

garra, sorry to hear that you have had your life impacted by DV. It is an horrific thing for all involved. Please note that my concerns in this area about the impact on victims of dismissal of their plight not a defence of perpetrators.

Rather than dismiss DV against men as a sick joke please have a look at the child abuse stats or read the Heady, Scott, de Vaus paper mentioned in previous post. My understanding is that the stats for hospital treatment for serious injury resulting from DV is not extremely genderised, there is some difference but not to the level you might expect from the manner DV is publicised or from your experience.

Some excerpts from the Headey, Scott, de Vaus paper

"The hypotheses we test are thus based on ‘majority’ professional and public opinion: (6)

- Men are significantly more likely to physically assault their female partners than vice-versa.

- The injuries inflicted by male partners are significantly more serious than those inflicted by female partners.

- Men who physically assault their partners are likely to be the sons of fathers who were violent to their own wives.

- Women who are physically assaulted are likely to be the daughters of violent fathers and of mothers who were assaulted."
~
"To sum up:

- Men were just as likely to report being physically assaulted by their partners as women. Further, women and men were about equally likely to admit being violent themselves.

- Men and women report experiencing about the same levels of pain and need for medical attention resulting from domestic violence.

- Violence runs in couples. In over 50% of partnerships in which violence occurred both partners struck each other.

- People who had violent parents were significantly more likely than others to be violent to their own partners and to be victims of violence themselves. On the other hand, a huge majority of people whose parents were violent do not assault their own partners. Moreover, the vast majority of those who are violent did not have violent parents.
" - word limit.

Having been through extreme physical violence perpetrated by the Senior intake in the RAAF apprentice scheme.. laying awake at nights, not knowing who to find help from or when the next drunken rampage would begin, often having to listen to the sickening thud of fist against flesh on one of my intake mates for an hour at a time, 16 yrs old and first time away from home, beatings, bashings, flushes, forced eating of used condoms attempted on some of us, humiliation of having to spit polish their shoes, being belted continously until the whole of my chest and shoulder was blue, I identify with the plight of battered women.

One thing is for sure, there is nothing about being a 'man' in any of that.

Rancid, Happy, Garra, Robert

Rancid
“To be a man you must be a feminist.”

There is no elaboration or substantiation on this, but if this statement is a type of axiom then the following statement would also be true:- “To be a woman you must be a masculinist”

Now if these two statements were combined then it leads to the following statement:- To be a woman or a man you must be a feminist and a masculinist.

So in the last statement, both men and women would have to be aware of social injustices occurring to all people, and not just to one gender. Unfortunately I can’t see this occurring if so many people only believe in the first statement.

Happy, Garra, Robert
Perhaps many people like to see things in black and white, so they like to see a “good” guy (who is beyond reproach) and a “bad” guy (who must be reformed), and in the past it has been more convenient to have males portrayed as the “bad” guys who need to reform. Examples of this occur in this article (Eg. “men still struggle to remember: relate, don’t fix”, “It is this stumbling quest that has left men feeling isolated and fearful” etc)

In terms of DV studies, there have been many that have resulted in highly conflicting findings, and many DV studies have been highly gender biased, (eg the 1996 ABS study into domestic violence), and have only considered male abuse of females, and not female abuse of other females, children, or males. So such studies then lead to false perceptions that females are always the victim, and males are always the bad guys who have to be reformed. But there is a considerable amount of evidence now showing that female violence (including physical, emotional, sexual, and financial violence) towards other females, men and children is quite common, but often under-reported. Perhaps too many people are too uncomfortable in accepting that female violence occurs, and males are not always the bad guys.

Timkins, it is kind of interesting how focussed some people are on ignoring the plight of men suffering DV isn't it? The effort some take to specify their concern for female victims rather than take a stand against all DV. Even if DV was as genderised as some believe the unwillingness of some to have compassion for the male victims is an interesting give away. Even if only 10%(I don't buy that) then don't those 10% deserve sympathy or are they as Patricia Peason suggested they are viewed "any man who finds himself at the receiving end of a woman's fist is a liar or a freak"?

I note that no one has come back to point out technical flaws or obvious bias in the material I referenced in earlier posts (maybe the "Abused child trust" is a front for a radical mens group, if so I would like to know).

Maybe the lack of compassion for suffering men is part of what Mark Christensen is wondering about when he wrote "It is this stumbling quest that has left men feeling isolated and fearful.". If I am feeling at all isolated and fearful it is because significant parts of my life are in the hands of a system which gives every appearance of being genderised and does not seem to give a rats how much harm it does me in the interests of helping someone else. A system in which people seem to take especial care to make it clear that men don't count by explicitly excluding them when for the same effort they could be included - "all victims of DV" is as easy to say as "women and children". Lucky there is more to life than home, family etc.

In my ten years as an ambulance officer I have witnessed and cleaned up the messy after math of a lot of male violence. I have even been guilty of it myself when I trashed my ex wife's home and have spent the past 3 years restablishing trust with my kids who were understandebly traumatised by my rage.

The only time I have seen evidence of female violence was in self defence (she had training in martial arts). I have no doubt that there are violent women, however in relation to male agression it is way lower. I'm not going to quote stats - I have my own direct experience here. Also I believe this forum is about what it means to be a man, not 'lets blame women for our short comings'. While I am sure that there are psychologically and physically vindictive women out there - they really are a minority in comparision to male violence.

I do agree that the victims of female aggression require just as much support as the legions of victims of male rage.

The evidence of male aggression is all around us, every day; on the roads, at sport, in pubs and in the home. All I know is if I'm walking down a dark street late at night and someone is approaching me I would prefer them to be female. Men simply are more dangerous. Feel like I'm stating the bleeding obvious.

As men, we need to take a good hard look at ourselves - its not easy, its not pleasant. So please use this forum constructively instead of blaming women - which is something that goes on ad nauseum on this website.

"To even off the debate playing field it seems one piece of statistical evidence (that women and men hit one another in roughly equal numbers) is hauled out from my 1985 research - and distorted - to “prove” the position on violence against men. However, the critical rate of injury and homicide statistics provided in that same research are often eliminated altogether, or reduced to a parenthetical statement saying that “men typically do more damage.” The statement that men and women hit one another in roughly equal numbers is true, however, it cannot be made in a vacuum without the qualifiers that a) women are seriously injured at seven times the rate of men and b) that women are killed by partners at more than two times the rate of men.
Thus, when we look at injuries resulting from violence involving male and female partners, it is categorically false to imply that there are the same number of “battered” men as there are battered women. Research shows that nearly 90 percent of battering victims are women and only about ten percent are men.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: Not even a level playing field by Richard J. Gelles

The most brutal, terrorizing and continuing pattern of harmful intimate violence is carried out primarily by men.
Indeed, men are hit by their wives, they are injured, and some are killed. But, are all men hit by women “battered?” No. Men who beat their wives, who use emotional abuse and blackmail to control their wives, and are then hit or even harmed, cannot be considered battered men. A battered man is one who is physically injured by a wife or partner and has not physically struck or psychologically provoked her.
My estimate is that there are about 100,000 battered men in the United States each year - a much smaller number than the two to four million battered women - but hardly trivial.
Despite the fact that indeed, there are battered men too, it is misogynistic to paint the entire issue of domestic violence with a broad brush and make it appears as though men are victimized by their partners as much as women. It is not a simple case of simple numbers. The media, policy makers, and the public cannot simply ignore - or reduce to a parenthetical status the outcomes of violence, which leave more than 1,400 women dead each year and millions physically and/or psychologically scarred for life."

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE Not even a level playing field by Richard J Gelles

So RObert, be a man and desist with your men's rights rantings about DV. What does it mean to be a man? Own up to the truth for starters, and realize that the men's rights focus is men, not children. The fallout from this is that children and their mothers are currently abused and have even been killed on court ordered contact.

'Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the Church, and gave himself up for her" (Ephesians)

Kinda says it all I reckon, thats what men should be.

Boaz, mate, nice sentiment, but a bit simplistic. Most male violence is committed against other men. So p'rhaps s/b 'men love each other as jesus loved his church'. Davidjs should get a kick out of that!

I am being facetious. To me being a man is taking responsbility for my actions and accepting that women have a right to their own POV - whether you like it or not.

Love yous all.

When it comes to DV studies, it appears that there are few standards applied to those studies, and so DV studies often result in varying conclusions. That is a problem that Social Science must solve eventually.

It is unquestionable that violence outside the home is predominately carried out by males, but in many articles written on males, violence often becomes the main focus, and most articles overlook the fact that the majority of buildings are built by males, the majority of food is grown by males, the majority of inventions come from males, the majority of art is produced by males, and males pay the majority of personal income tax etc. Without males society would collapse very quickly.

When looked at objectively, the male gender is very much involved in keeping the ship afloat in very practical terms, and that has been occurring for centuries, and it is the main “strength” of males.

Those males who do carry out violence, break the law etc are in a minority, but they are a problem for all. What is now also a problem for all is discrimination of males, because if maleness in all its facets is to be reduced, then who is going to build the buildings, grow the food, invent the inventions, produce the art, pay the income tax etc.

Articles that only highlight the negative aspects of maleness are a part of discrimination of males. Articles that only highlight the positive aspects of females eventually discriminate against males also. I think what many males are now seeking is a level playing field, where openness and unbiased information regards both genders is made available. If this is regarded as being misogyny, then that is a problem of discrimination as well.

"most articles overlook the fact that the majority of buildings are built by males, the majority of food is grown by males, the majority of inventions come from males, the majority of art is produced by males, and males pay the majority of personal income tax etc. Without males society would collapse very quickly."

Timtam: I know I have declared a moratorium on your posts but I couldn't let this one go by.

1. Women have only been participating in greater numbers and in a wider variety of professions during the past 30 years or so. Hence the majority of male, engineers, architects, ditch diggers etc.

2. This is still a patriachal society, despite your paranoia regarding 'feminist infiltration': big business, universities, media, urinating standing up and anything else except pregnancy is still in the male dominated world.

3. Stop with the anti female diatribe and tell us what you believe makes you a man?

And just for the record I am a fully qualified Landscape Architect (4 years applied science) and my sister is an electronics engineer (she currently designs components for formula one racing). We both have paid income tax all our lives - not mention HECS. And in obtaining my degree I dug many a dig and erected many a structure.

RINGTAIL.....you legend you :)
but ur SISTER is the one I'm now lusting after 0_- electronics ? hmmmm better give her my email and we can start cross fertilizing some electronic ideas. If she comes up with any bright idea she wants manufactured, give me a call.

Ok ok.. chill.. I'm being light hearted Dont have kittens.

Being male, is usually being the stronger complement to the 'couple' arrangment involving a male and female. I don't see why this has to be so complicated.

While some men apparently have had experiences in their relationships with women that have left them feeling bitter and twisted, this does not excuse the sheer disingenuousness of those who attempt to claim that domestic violence is not overwhelmingly a crime that is perpetrated by men against women. Like I said previously, where is the demand for 'men's refuges' for men seeking respite from abusive women? There isn't one because the problem doesn't really exist.

Other men in this thread would have us believe that men are 'stronger' than women and should be dominant, and reinforce this with biblical quotes. Just as well no Christian husbands beat their wives, eh? 'Specially when they get a bit uppity...

I'm impressed by guys like "Ambo" who have evidently had the guts to to take a good honest look at themselves and amend their behaviour towards their families accordingly. That's being a real man, in my opinion.

Real men enjoy equal relationships with women (and, indeed, with other men), and don't need to prop up their egos by attempting to be dominant.

Sure there are violent men - who would dispute it? This is acknowledged in our society in ways such as forcible removal of men from their homes, women’s refuges, and Family Court decisions. It is so ingrained in our belief systems, that it is often assumed without question.

My personal experience includes little or no physical violence, but if I was a younger Ambo, I could understand how provocation could play a part. As it was in my case, long term appeasement was employed up to the point of almost total disconnection. Eventually it became so obviously unsustainable that she had to go.

While there was some “light” physical violence coming from my ex (no-one ever needed to go to hospital:-), I had on 2-3 occasions had to push her away when attacking me, and similarly, at times protect the children from whatever psychosis she happened to be suffering on the day. There was never any reason for me to claim the battered husband label, as it was the emotional violence that was most constant, and most unbearable. I don’t know what her issues were. I hope she has learnt something along the way as she tries to cling on to the youngest child from our marriage. Hope that child does not turn out more psychologically damaged, only because she unconditionally loved her mother. Hope that the almost $20k in child support (over 35k of gross, while I'm also supporting another child at home) still qualifies me as father, and falls within the bounds of what it means to be a man.

While I acknowledge the comments of Ambo and others, it is about time we studied factors such as DV in more serious ways. Claiming it is always the fault of males, no longer makes any sense to me, especially at a time when broken families are so prevalent and so much is at stake.

Ringtail, Garra

Ringtail:-
Your labelling of myself is typically unsubstantiated, (ie. made up) and I have noted a considerable number of unsubstantiated statements being made about the male gender in the press and in the academic world, and very often the male gender is being portrayed negatively with very few positive statements being made about males, which is a form of stereotyping and discrimination.

It appears that science has long known about the natural predilections or “strengths” that the genders have for certain tasks, and it has nothing to do with “patriarchy” (eg “Among young adults, six out of every seven males outperform the average female in the ability to create dynamic mental representations of the physical world.” http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/kleinfeld200501250746.asp )

However if you or anyone else wants to learn more about the male gender or what it is to be a man, or if you think that males are in need of much or total reform, then try a very real experiment.

Live in any society anywhere, but don’t go into any buildings built by a male, don’t use anything invented by a male, don’t eat any food produced by a male, don’t have any type of contact with any art produced by a male, don’t use something paid for by taxes that have originally come from a male etc.

And when carrying out this experiment (that can be very easily carried out at anytime), know that men have lived for considerable periods of time with minimal being origionaly provided by females (eg from onboard sailing ships to onboard space stations), so no one should be getting too negative, too maligning or too unappreciative of the male gender.

Garra,
Before you become too preoccupied with unsubstantiated labelling of others as being “bitter”, “twisted” etc, or become too preoccupied with DV statistics that negatively portray the male gender, perhaps you should read articles at http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/00000006DC52.htm or http://www.safe4all.org/essays/thomas_james which describes just a few of the ways that DV statistics can be distorted so as to stereotype the male gender, and act as a form of misandrist propaganda.

This posting has taken a strange turn , Whilst I fully expect women to turn on men sence any weakness and contrive to exploit it I am beside myself that men who dont understand what it is to be a man take pedantic views and distortions at being critisized for their opinions . generally dignity sets a human apart from the rest mant woman Ive known behave in a dignified manner , perhaps the greatest area where men fall down is once they are appointed family court judges , as not a sole could reasonable say the Family court system is either just dignified or even on the most basic level bound and conducted by rules of evidence or social dignity.

Generally Ive put various facts to large sample audiences and not a one agreed or accepted family court findings .

Like slavery or subversion if you deny dignity and justice is a formalised equitable proposition suposedly conducted with dignity , if you take that levelling of the play feild and justice then your sure to get dissillusioned folks in society .

It appears to me that is where this posting has gone and somewhat lost on what one persons view of co dependant relationships goes to constituting manhood.

Garra this is for you ,not to offend but to enlighten .
The overwhelming majority of domestic abuse is against children ,
Systemic abusers are crafty and take advantage of the low social status of children to abuse them with very little chance of being caught .

My mother committed outstandingly disgracefull violent and repeatative acts of humiliation denorgration and violence against me all my childhood , I servived on the streets as soon as I could get away and built what I thought was a sucessfull life in bussiness family and socialy cognitive conduct , all the while with zero tolerance for child abuse , In effect it effected the way I see the world relationships and my tolerance levels .I did this not knowing why but fearing becoming violent abusive and manipulating .

Some time ago after not having any contact by my choice as a healthy practice for my sanity never having reconsiled what was done to me. I accepted it as abusive and not my fault , I learnt a lesson never to be forgoten, Abusive people dont change ,as soon as I was being falsely accussed of violence and child sexual abuse myself by my ex wife instructed by my violentmy mother a family court lawyer as a tool for sucess in the family courts she came as witness against me and proud as punch admitted and described serious abuse in court before a Judge , who in his findings didnt know what to make of it .
I think a SENCE OF DUTY of justice and dignity just isnt present in judges.

Treat and promote differences and dignity and a better world will follow

happy, have you bothered to look at the "abused child trust" web site or the "NSW Child Death review team" report referenced in an earlier posting? What is being done now is not protecting kids, it is putting them in harms way. The mens rights movement is most directly about addressing some of the harm being done to men in a biased system, seeking a level playing field. We are also very concerned about the harm being done to our kids by the current system, not incompatible goals.

The DV paper referenced in the earlier post included the following point in relation to serious injury -
"Among injury presentations positively identified as domestic violence in a large, recent study of five Victorian hospitals, women outnumbered men by nearly 5 to 1 (Monash University Accident Research Centre, 1994). However the disproportion in serious injuries was less extreme, with 24% of the men and 13% of the women requiring hospital admission. Issues of labelling, misreporting by patients, and selectivity in willingness to seek help make it difficult to generalise from clinical studies."

I'm not trying to attack or blame women in this, I am trying to stop the unreasonable denegration of men that occurs in relation to family violence. In the end we will both probably continue believing that the stats we favour are the real one's. I can say I honestly try to avoid stats which are likley to have an inbuilt bias - I would not consider using DV stats which were collected only from men yet many quite happily use stats collected entirely from women.

I think this issue is sympomatic of some of the issues facing men which are contributing to the kind of lost state described in the article. I am trying to stay on topic and at the same time provide backing for my comments - not an easy line.

RObert - if you haven't already seen it, an excellent essay on the Family Court entitled, "Kangaroo Court" Family Law in Australia, is in the current (# 17) issue of Quarterly Essay written by historian John Hirst. Not knowing too much about the machinations of the Family Court I decided to have a look. The travesties illustrated are literally heartbreaking. The essay is well worth a look and shows a glimpse of one aspect of what it means to be a man in Australia.

Tony

Again:
Domestic Violence is Gendered Violence
Domestic violence is not just about physical violence. It takes many forms –physical, sexual, verbal, financial and emotional. These forms of abusive and manipulative behaviours are about maintaining power and control of women by male abusers. (Mullender and Morley 1994). The key component of the dynamics of domestic violence are the concepts of gender and power: Men as a social group have greater power than women and violence is an important way by which men maintain their dominant position. (Laing)
Consistently research shows us that in the majority of cases,
men are the perpetrators of domestic violence. (Flood)
The fathers’ groups persistently claim that the Court is ‘biased’ against them.[51] But their claims had (and have) no empirical support: the literature and the available studies show that the Family Court makes orders (in contested cases) in favour of fathers at twice the rate of those made by consent.[52] The fathers’ anecdotes that so captured the attention of the politicians (and I should emphasise that this is a non-party political issue: the legislation was introduced by the previous Labor Government) invoked the discourses of ‘victimhood’ and ‘formal equality’
Moreover, there have been some very serious outcomes that endanger children and their carers.[56]Law Reform by Frozen Chook, Graycar MULR 2000

Unfortunately, the field of family law has become less a terrain of debate and more a battlefield, with landmines (such as the recent child support proposals) going off in every direction. For every anecdote or story that has swayed a politician, family law and policy researchers could provide not only alternative anecdotes but also research data that contradict that story.[93] Yet, just like the stories of lesbians and single heterosexual women scandalously having children with impunity (as opposed to with men), the stories of frozen chooks influence the politicians. Stories about the women who actually use fertility services, data about the real life poverty of children and the women who care for them, and about the violence that characterises many of the relationships from which they are trying to escape, all remain unheard.[94] Law Refrom by Frozen Chook, Graycar MULR 2000

John Hirst's assertion that the Family Court is offensive to families is so off the mark it is remarkable and terrible in conclusions.
In the rush to respond to the anecdotes of father's greivances, children are the greatest victims in Family Court.
It is a deplorable fact that children are routinely placed in contact with abusive parents, mostly male.
It is a unpardonable sin that in Australia today, children are abused and have been killed on court ordered contact. This is because the rhetoric coming out of the “father’s” side of the debate has the ears of the politicians, and dangerously uniformed speakers. Such is the case with John Hirst.

Happy,
I’m not sure what you are on about. You seem to want to quote people such as Graycar and Flood (who both seem to turn a blind eye to abuse perpetrated by females) and then say that other people such as Hirst should have no say.

So much for democracy or freedom of speech, and it is now becoming essential for males in particular to demand their rights to be heard in areas such as family law, as much about families in Australia cannot continue. In their present shape, Australian families are non-sustainable.

I think you should also have a good look at how many DV studies are put together, (eg “Thomas also skewers the current "research base" for domestic violence, noting that much of the purported "research" into domestic violence is characterized by critical flaws; on an intellectual level, these problems included deep-seated prejudices against males based on many researchers’ feminist-based assumptions about the inherently violent nature of males, the unacceptability of all male violence (even it is for self-defense) against females, and the presumptively defensive or insignificant nature of violence by women toward their male victims. Data about female perpetrators of child abuse are apparently overlooked” http://www.safe4all.org/essays/thomas_james ) NB this is from a DV site.

It is totally remarkable that men have tolerated so much that has been thrown at them in the press and in academia, but that tolerance is no longer a “strength”, because unless males do something about this wide spread discrimination and bias, then families are doomed for a start.

If you have not one positive word to say about males, then you too can try and live in a world that has no male involvement (EG where there is nothing built, invented, or produced by a male). That may help you to take a more objective or wide ranging look at the male gender, as I have noted time and again, those who have nothing positive to say about males still have no hesitation in using all the things produced by males.

So, Timkins, you have alot to say about how men are constantly put down by women all the time about absolutely everything and that men make ALL the contributions to society and women just whine about it and they have control of the media and universities and yet you can't say one positive thing about women.

Can U?

Zena
You seem to be trying to wave about the “misogynist” card, which has as much credibility as the “domestic violence” card, or the “patriarchy” card.

I believe your original post has also been edited, possibly because it was offensive.

To answer your question:- There are many women I admire, and generally these are strong minded women who are not easily swayed by propaganda or indoctrination, and can look at an issue from different perspectives.

It would be important to note that in my postings, I attempt to substantiate what I say by references to many other sources, and I would think that between 50% - 75% of those other sources are written by women who do show strong minds, and there can be more references written by such women if you like:-

http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon_02_24_05hm.html,
http://www.bgnews.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/02/25/421f30b5e14c1,
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=6353,
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,152553,00.html,
http://www.smh.com.au/news/Opinion/End-of-the-stereotype/2005/04/10/1113071851393.html?oneclick=true,
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12628394%255E32522,00.html
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9302/articles/vlahos.html)

If I was somehow anti-female, or if I did not think that all those women I have referenced (now or in the past) did not have good qualities, then obviously I would not be referencing them. But generally I don’t like to see lies, deceit, or biased studies about anyone, male or female.

You are also free at any time to carry out the experiment of not using anything built, invented, or produced by a male. By carrying out that experiment you may get a new perspective on males, or what it means to be a man.

Timkins

Do you really believe men feel good about themselves when they say to women and the universe: “You will come to love and appreciate me when you have to do without me”? I believe these were the thoughts running through my father’s mind just before he put the gun to his head and pulled the trigger.

Men are making their happiness contingent on women, families and the legal system. This can only result in us blaming others for our sense of frustration and entrapment. Yet when a woman (or a man) points this out, the cry goes out “bias” or “discrimination”. This avoids the issue entirely - arguing is our last line of defence.

Men need to take responsibility for their own contentment, although this doesn't mean we can't stand together in our solitude. This is the only real choice. If we don’t, each individual man – of his own accord – condemns himself to never finding the freedom he craves.

We only find this truth hard to accept because we lack a reason for it being the case. Instead we blame, in preference to acknowledging we do not know why our creator would give us free will only in order for us to surrender it to him and those he sent to comfort us.

Regardless of the dilemma, what a man really offers the world remains unconditional, indefinable and always there to be shared if he opens his heart.

Mark

“It is a deplorable fact that children are routinely placed in contact with abusive parents, mostly male.
It is a unpardonable sin that in Australia today, children are abused and have been killed on court ordered contact. This is because the rhetoric coming out of the “father’s” side of the debate has the ears of the politicians, and dangerously uniformed speakers...”
So says Happy. The vast majority of children in our society are not at risk from their biological fathers. Most abuse of children is perpetrated by the mothers new partner or other family members. “(p)rofessionals may expect that non-biological parents are more likely to maltreat children in their care, and thus, injured children with a non-biological parent may be more likely to be diagnosed as being maltreated (Gelles & Harrop, 1991)."

It might be more helpful if you dealt with facts rather than personal prejudices. Fathers generally love their children and they have a right to play a part in their lives. Anyone listening to you would think that every man is a wife beater and child abuser.

Men may inflict the majority of physical violence, but women are no slouches when it comes to dishing out the emotional abuse. Some of the goings on in the family court are proof of this.

Happy makes much of the fact that men get a better deal when a matter is put before the court than if settled privately. Why would so many men settle? I would suggest they don’t have the funds, and there’s not much point because even if they win the court won’t enforce its own orders against a recalcitrant parent.

Hopefully one day Happy will stop viewing everything with the closed mind mentality of female/male, victim/perpetrator. Maybe s/he will realize that generally it is not in the best interests of a child to have no contact with their father, and that not all men are pigs.
What does it mean to be a man? It means many things, but an abuser of women and children is not one of them. No matter what Happy may think.

I do not think a man is an abuser or women and children. That is a child in the body of a grown up. I understand that I am referring to a narrow group when I am referring to the child abuse cases in family court.
It is however interesting to note that the independent think-tank Access Economics has revealed in their findings that Domestic Violence is the biggest health risk for Australian women.
Disturbing research released 16 June 2004 indicates that 'intimate partner violence constitutes almost nine per cent of the total disease burden in women up to the age of 45 years.

“This is a ground breaking study and the results are shocking,” Chief Executive Officer of the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (VicHealth), Dr Rob Moodie said.
The study, The Health Costs of Violence: Measuring the Burden of Disease Caused by Intimate Partner Violence, found that this form of violence is responsible for more ill-health and premature death among Victorian women under the age of 45 than any other well known risk factors including high blood pressure, obesity and smoking.'

Even though there are some female perpetrators of domestic violence, it is high time that the real men of today stand united against the substantial group of abusers that are responsible for this epidemic of violence against women and often also their children.
The more you defend the abusers, claiming that the majority of the researchers are all wrong, the more you expose your own weakness in your masculinity.

Intempore
“You will come to love and appreciate me when you have to do without me”

Did I say that did I?

For those people who want to mock or malign males as a form of entertainment (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/03/1062548898574.html?oneclick=true), or for commercial gain ( http://aca.ninemsn.com.au/stories/8.asp), or as a part of their politics (http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2003/0812roberts.html) then they can try the very real experiment of living without males, and see how long they last. That experiment would be a very real and practical form of education for them.

There must be concerns for boys and young men when the media or persons in academia so often negatively portray the male gender because this can seriously affect the self-esteem of males, and eventually it will affect many females also. For males, there has been everything from “all men are rapists” to men are now “lost and confused”, and I think it time that this type of generalised unsubstantiated nonsense about males is taken out of the media.

However, when it comes to Family Law matters the situation is very real indeed, and I would think that if the present divorce rate and Family Law system continues, then there is no logical reason for a man to get married and have children unless he wants to be emotionally and economically wrecked and loose nearly all contact with his children, and that will statistically happen on avg 12 yrs after the marriage.

Believing that this happens to only a very few men, or is likely to happen to some other male only, is just hiding ones head in the sand and if any man doubts it, then they can try the experiment of going through the Family Law system. (see http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,12605581,00.html )

You can agree with every negative unsubstantiated statement made about males, and you can agree with such things as the current Family Law system, but don’t expect all other males to be doing the same.

Being a bloke myself, I have no interest in "maligning males", but this latest piece of warped logic from "Timkins" takes misogynist silliness to new levels. Even I can see the link between his disingenuous plea for those who question outdated male gender roles to live without male-created goods and services, and the obviously heartfelt post from "Intempore" (which "Timkins" dismisses offhandedly).

"Timkins" has attempted previously to take me to task for suggesting that those unfortunate men who are apparently obsessed with offloading responsibility for their own situations onto 'evil feminists' are "bitter and twisted". I'll leave it to objective readers who could be bothered wading through his voluminous obsessive posts to these forums to decide whether or not my assessment is substantiated.

As a twice-divorced man who has learnt through my experiences, I take issue with his statement above men who marry are likely "to be emotionally and economically wrecked and loose nearly all contact with his children". My exes areamong my best friends, I see my kids (and grandkids) as often as I like, and I am far from emotionally and/or economically wrecked.

The trick is to stop blaming others for our own failings, both at the level of the individual and collectively as men.

Happy – do I really have to defend myself against charges of supporting abusers? What gives you the idea that I think all research is wrong? I don’t deny the fact that some men abuse women and children. My point was that a child is most safe when it is with its biological mother and father, and that it’s generally in the best interests of a child to have regular contact with their father. Do you disagree with this? If so, why?

You’ve moved the whole debate from the treatment of men by the family court to one of violence against women, as if the latter justifies the former. It does not.

The difference happy, is that if mothers were being treated the same way by the family court I’d be just as concerned. Unfairness is unfairness, no matter who cops it.

If the condemnation of the appalling treatment meted out to men in the family court calls my masculinity into question; then you can call me Shirley.

Yes Garra, we are the responsible sex, and should not blame anyone for our own failings. Our expectations should be lowered and our standards raised above those of the frolicking sex. I am not going to ask you to share your personal failings with us. Surely, we will all independently learn this very same secret after we acquire a couple of divorces and some grandchildren under our belts. Hey, even my ex may become my very best friend when I am no longer compelled to support her laziness, and have no further interest in sex.

And Garra, you being a ladies man and all, a gentleman’s gentleman, so to speak – what exactly are our collective failings? Blaming women? The law? Having expectations?

It’s a good thing the women don’t blame us men (or the law), for their predicament for that would surely constitute hypocrisy - right? We may individually, from time to time, suffer their scorn, but collectively, we rock their world! Right? They appreciate our collective efforts to raise their children, build their buildings etc. etc.

Bozzie,
You go Shirley!

Thanks for the question, "Seeker". I think that several aspects of our/yours/my failings are evident in this statement:

"Hey, even my ex may become my very best friend when I am no longer compelled to support her laziness, and have no further interest in sex"

I can remember thinking like that, and how bitter and sad I was. Fortunately I got over it, and learnt to have more meaningful relationships with women (and children...even with other men).

And sweet heaven forfend the day that I "have no further interest in sex"!

Yeah, right ...

That's no explanation for anything Garra.

No doubt we'll all reach that comfort zone eventually.

Seeker, this particular forum concerns what it means to be a man - not a big whinge about how women are good, bad or ugly. So far you haven't stated what makes you a man.

For me it IS about responsibility, having a good relationship with my ex and most importantly with my kids, yes she has custody - she wasn't the who trashes houses. I also have solid friendships with a number of women - their support has helped me resolve alot of issues I had going thru my divorce.

Now seeker time to take a good hard look at yourself - can be painful - are you man enough?

Garra,

So I’m “misogynist”, “warped” etc. Is this true is it, or is this just puerile name calling in an attempt to silence someone? The vast majority of my postings are in response to people who call me various names.

“The trick is to stop blaming others for our own failings, both at the level of the individual and collectively as men.”

This is a discriminatory statement, and it is also at the centre of the original article, as it implies that men only must change, and women need not change anything. A less discriminatory and more credible statement would be:-

“The trick is to stop blaming others for our own failings, both at the level of the individual and collectively as men or women.”

You can read something about the economic affects of divorce at http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12768570%255E601,00.html

This article is typically biased towards the women, but on average the mother becomes asset rich / cash poor and many eventually depend on welfare accordingly. The father is plunged into debt, and he often becomes a slave of the workplace so as to work his way out of that debt. So the life for many men becomes a form of workplace slavery, combined with fortnightly visits to his children, combined with being regularly negatively portrayed by people in the media and also in academia. You can accept this life for many men if you like.

In regards to DV studies:- I have seen the studies produced by people such as Australia’s Dr Michael Flood, who also advocates that men must change but not women also. He also advocates, (or at least advertises), slogans such as “Hit them where it hurts”, “My Goddess creamed your God”, “Riots not diets”, “The Pope's mother had no choice”, “Die guppy scum!” etc http://www.xyonline.net/slogansandgraffiti.shtml.

Hardly very responsible slogans from someone being paid by the tax payer, and many of his studies on men are on par with his slogans. You can accept all that also, or maybe you are too afraid of being called “misogynist” should you object.

Well said from a typical mysoginist, men's rights defender, as usual using “Dodgy methods and bogus statistics”. You didn't mention they are examples of feminist slogans. How convenient to omit such slogans he especially likes: 'Men can stop rape'; 'Ask,listen,repect'; 'No sex without consent'; 'Men get raped too.'
How about: 'Break the silence, on men's violence.' What real men would have a problem with that? It's time to focus on the responsibilities to the larger crowd rather than men's rights rights.

"Timkins", I didn't call you warped or misogynist... that was you. I was referring to the repetitive twaddle that you post here about the supposed discrimination against men in our society. Personally, I'd rather not speculate about what you are like in person.

Like somebody else said early in this thread, it's not all about you, "Timkins".

Happy, Garra
It is interesting that when I have ever made a posting that has been critical of males, eg http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3299#5622 there has been almost no criticism of myself (although I was once called various names for suggesting that science does not known how the universe was created).

However when I have made criticisms of the female gender, there is almost immediate name calling of myself together with the most minimal of substantiation, and such lack of substantiation is the essence of my posting to this article, which suggests that men are “lost”, “fearful” etc, but the only research that I know of that suggests that men are in such circumstances is research connected to Family Law.

So I would view this article as another bit of media that stereotypes the male gender unfairly and negatively, as there has been minimal research connected to the various statements made about males in this article. There is a lot of that type of media around, and to help substantiate this I refer to one of the very few articles in the media that has looked at the issue of male stereotyping http://www.smh.com.au/news/Opinion/End-of-the-stereotype/2005/04/10/1113071851393.html?oneclick=true

That article in SMH is titled “Everybody loves lazy stereotyping of male roles” and I agree fully with it, and I think that this article by Mark is no different to what is described in that SMH article.

Garra, am so with you on this one about Timkins, who can reference till the cows come home but his thread treads otherwise. Certain facts reveal themselves that we can't deny and they are: men are the overwhelming majority of perpetuators of abuse and violence against women and children. THat is not to deny that women and children do abuse, but stats are stats. This has got a lot to do with our society which has permeated from a patriarchial society. Our legacy, one might say. Women's lib/feminism is the backlash of being a bit sick and tired about it. Which naturally causes an imbalance. So what does one do about it? We can all quote and reference ad nauseum but the only move will come from the ground. Yes, family courts are imbalanced toward the female AT THE MOMENT but the only thing to change that is a groundswell of collectivism from interested parties. That's how things change. At the moment, due to the stats on male violence, society, as reflected by the judicial system will go the female. They may suffer neglect (and all associated problems), but that's the balance at the moment. Whilst I would hate to be a male with paternal interests in this society, i can see why it's come about historically. Women have put up with a heap of imbalances in the past. To address this, just remember "it's not all about you!"

Remember, we are living in quite a big age at the moment, it's big societical change, as well as technological. Some things won't move fast enough for us individuals that matter.

Ambo,

If for you being a man means being responsible, having a good relationship with your ex and your children, as well as a few other women and men we usually call friends, than that’s great. Your newly acquired self-control not to trash houses is admirable, and I don’t mean to demean your achievement in any way. Your lowered expectations will ensure you never again become disappointed or frustrated enough to resort to violence. Nothing but applause from me.

You accept her having custody of your children because “she wasn't the [one] who trashes houses”. Some others on this forum, have never been violent, and still choose to retain their higher expectations (whether beneficial or not to their health). In other words, other men may have different ideas about what it means to be a man.

If I was to take up your challenge and attempt to answer your question, I would firstly say that I see myself as an individual human member of a wider society as well as that of smaller groups and communities. My male perspective is only invoked when some other reference point is introduced, such as females. Talk about families, I think as a male. Mention Family Court, I cannot help but feel male. Quote DV stats, and I shrink as a male at low temperatures.

I think this is not a particularly fun time to be a male (if it ever was). It is difficult for someone who believes in equality of opportunity (but not necessarily, outcomes), and equality of the sexes (but with obvious biological differences), being constantly reminded of contradictory evidence that is hard to ignore.

And furthermore …

It’s a bit like saying we’d all be happier without Timkins to remind us of just how badly we are doing as men. I don’t believe Mark Christensen is claiming we are doing so well either. The only promise to enlightenment, is change – some sort of change. I don’t accept that only men need to change, but men more so, should now expect, … no, collectively demand, certain changes. Perhaps it is like Di says – as I read it – it is a temporary societal imbalance that will eventually reach it’s new equilibrium - if only in readiness to react to the next pressure point with it’s own subsequent readjustment.

Seeker: "Your lowered expectations will ensure you never again become disappointed or frustrated enough to resort to violence"

Not too sure what you mean by 'lowered expectation'. The custody arrangements for my kids was based on a number of issues - not just my single outburst - I was trying to make a point about male violence.

I have achieved good relationships in both my private life and professional life. I sense that you are in fact demeaning my honesty here. Behaving responsibly is necessary for both sexes. Perhaps the question is "what does it mean to be an adult" rather than just a man or for that matter a woman.

Maybe, seeker, you're just a bit jealous that I have achieved some sense of equilibrium in my life which you have yet to attain.

Di, your comments "men are the overwhelming majority of perpetuators of abuse and violence against women and children" and "stats are stats".
Stats are not stats if you bias the collection. The DV issue is hard to prove, Child abuse is easier to prove. The following samples from government resources don't tend to show men as an overwhelming majority of perpetrators.

NSW Govt NSW Child Death Review Team report on "Fatal assault and neglect of children and young people"
http://www.kids.nsw.gov.au/files/cdrt_fatal_abuse_neglect2003.pdf
Table 4.3 (page 63) Suspect’s relationship to child by fatal assault group.

Suspects...........Non-Accidental..Mental..Family.....Teenagers..Total
...................injury..........illness..breakdown
Familial
Biological mother..3...............4........0...........0 .........7
only
Biological father..6...............0........5...........0..........11
Mother and father..3...............0........0...........0..........3
Mother and male....2...............0........0...........0..........2
de facto
Male de facto......2...............2........0...........0..........4
only
Foster mother......1...............0........0...........0..........1
Male relative......1...............0........0...........0..........1

Qld Govt Substantiated Child abuse stats
http://www.abusedchildtrust.com.au/content/child_abuse_2.asp#
Family types involved in substantiated abuse and neglect:

27% two parent - natural families

23% two parent - other families

37% single female parent families

5% single male parent families

Unfortunately these don't show who actually does the abuse and neglect.

The Australian Government Child Protection Clearinghouse is also worth a look

Child Protection Australia 2002-03
http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/cws/cpa02-03/cpa02-03-c02.pdf
Page 12 provides summary data on family type, national stats on P13 but not copied into this post for space reasons.

The following extract provides clarification the proportion of children living in different family types.

"Children of female sole parents accounted for a relatively high proportion of children in substantiations. However, the children of male sole parents are also over-represented in relation to their frequency in the general population. This becomes evident when these data are translated into rates of substantiations in relation to the size of the population group. For example, in Victoria the rate of substantiations for children in female sole-parent families was 19.2 per 1,000, and the rate for children in male-headed one-parent families was 17.2 per 1,000 (Table 2.12; ABS 1997)."

Why is it that some correspondents are so much in denial concerning the fact that violence - domestic or otherwise - is very predominantly the province of the male gender? No amount of reference to media articles, dodgy studies or misinterpreted stats will alter the reality that men are much more violent than women are.

What is the point of reproducing the above statistics? The NSW figures refer only to deaths, and the numbers are so small that it is not possible to extrapolate statistically significant trends from them. The Qld stats might be more useful, but they don't tell us anything about who perpetrated (and/or perpetuated) the violence.

While there may be some merit in investigating apparent inequities in custodial and child support arrangements following relationship/marriage breakdowns, "men's rights" activists do their cause no favours by bleating incessantly and disingenuously about evil feminists, supposedly violent women and lazy ex-wives.

Real men recognise that, while many improvements have been made, we still have a long way to go before real equality between the genders is achieved in our society, and are willing to cede some of their dominance to women in order that this may occur.

Remember, women are still under-represented in boardrooms, all levels of politics and upper management, earn less than men, and are still beaten and murdered by us at rates that should make us men ashamed. Instead, some men are apparently very much in denial.

garra, you appear to be reading a lot into the post that is not there. Earlier posts have included references from a feminist author (Patricia Pearson) who attempts to address some of these issues honestly - from the viewpoint that lies about female violence are actually hurting women.

I try very hard not to use dodgy stats, I made a point of stating that the child abuse and neglect stats did not state who was the perpetrator. Thankfully the death stats are a small sample, the patterns vary over time (sometimes women kill more kids than men during family breakdown etc) but always the overall number of kids killed by their parents are not notable for the gender of the parent doing the killing (some categories are genderised, fathers generally kill more kids during family breakdown, mothers generally kill more where mental illness is an issue).

None of us to the best of my knowledge are denying that men are more physically violent outside the home, what is being challenged is the strident assertion that we are a much greater risk in the home than women (especially to our own kids).

I agree that the stats provided are not exhaustive however they should be sufficient to get people who continue to assert that "men are the overwhelming majority of perpetuators of abuse and violence against women and children" to question the basis of that belief about harm to children.

The DV issue is more clouded, some appear to work from the basis that DV is gendered and then collect stats which reflect that assertion such as not collecting stats from male victims and reporting the results without pointing out that omission. As previously mentioned studies which collect stats from both genders seem not look so overwhelmingly genderised. Add some space for social factors and there appears to be almost no gender factor, just individuals of either sex who harm partners and children in the home.

R0bert, if you are trying to claim that most DV is perpetrated by women I suggest you spend some time at a women's shelter like I did the very final time my so called husband beat my face into a pulp and look into the eyes of fearful, scarred women. I am so upset I can hardly write this - you clearly don't get out much.

Being a man means taking responsibility for your actions!

I have never struck any one in my life - I don't know any women who ever have attacked their partners or their children.

GROW UP - quit bitching about women. And stand up for yourself. I am utterly fed up with the tripe in this forum. I still get headaches from the fracture I received to my skull.

Take a look at emergency rooms some Saturday night, go to womens shelters, why don't you do some volunteer work in these places?

Quoting those paltry, pointless stats when women and children are bleeding from the hands of their partners and fathers.... you ARE the problem.

Welcome Back Ringy, I see the stump is healed now :)

yes, I sympathise, I have no argument about males being more violent or aggressive, its part of the male make up. The warrior, the hunter, the protector. The more important issue is the "control" of this aspect of our humanity.

"But the fruit of the Spirit is Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Self control". <== emPHAsis on the last one.

A lot of violence comes from unfulfilled, frustrated, empty lives. Some men cannot find answers, or dont want the answers they do find, some have been scarred themselves, some are just plain ratbags.

To be a man is to recognize our manhood in its biological and psychological uniqueness, embrace it and most of all control it in a self sacrificial way for our beloved female better halves. They keep us sane and make life so much better for being a part of it with us.

Ringy, I still bear emotional scars from the Air Force, its the only thing I remember which could move me to acts of brutality against a particular individual, (now that I'm big enuf to deal with him) but, I prefer the peace of mind I spoke of above, so I don't dwell.

Lets put the stats away, stop trying to 'win an argument' and be what we are (gender wise) in all its fullness and be a part of peoples healing rather than grind against them with figures.

I would think well compiled stats are very important, as they can help eliminate base, help in determining where resources should be spent etc.

In terms of child abuse there is a recent fact sheet prepared by the AIFS at http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/sheets/rs7.html

In the area of child sexual abuse, males predominate, although this form of child abuse constitutes less than 10% of child abuse, and the natural father is much less likely to abuse his own children than other males. In the areas of neglect and physical, emotional abuse, then men and women are about equal, and these three areas each constitute about 30% of child abuse.

An interesting observation in the area of child physical abuse, is that the male can hurt the child but unintentionally (ie underestimates his strength).

However all this goes against the often stereotypic image of the male as the perpetrator of nearly all child abuse.

In regards to male / female rates of conflict, there is the report “Australian Couples in Millennium Three” http://www.facs.gov.au/internet/facsinternet.nsf/aboutfacs/programs/families-ResearchPapers.htm that was commissioned for the Department of Families and Community Services, and compiled after extensive consultation with many other people.

It contains the following:- “The prevalence of male-to-female versus female-to-male violence is approximately equal …Furthermore, in the majority of couples in which there is physical aggression, both the man and the woman report being violent toward each other .…However, relative to female-to-male physical aggression, male-to-female physical aggression typically is more severe, more likely to lead to physical injury, and more often associated with the victim feeling fearful of their partner”

Again the rates of injury may have something to do with physical size, but the rates of aggression and violence between the genders are similar, and overall it is not just men that have to “change their ways” but equally women in nearly every aspect.

The issue of workplace can be read about in books such as “Why men earn more” http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0814472109/104-8027733-9371958?v=glance and some of the factors mentioned in that book are also becoming evident in the HILDA survey results.

Timkins, you have just gotta be a virgo or capricorn re your anal quoting of stats. (with all due respect to others out there that may share the same star sign). Some really good, anecdotal sharing of experiences has been written in this forum (which has certainly enlightened me about where different experiences can be shared and makes me think outside my particular square - and thank you especially Ringtail) and you just keep throwing stats around like yesterday's confetti. I think it was Ambo that said that we should all take responsibility for our actions re abuse towards others, not as man or woman but as adults. So true. And estrogen, testosterone and life and how we deal with our learned behaviour rears their ugly heads on a scary, and often, not intentional basis. But we live with the consequences and they help shape society. To continually quote stats is rather boring and does nothing to the debate, other than prove you've got to much time on your hands to be too introspective about any article that is posted here.

Di said “Certain facts reveal themselves that we can't deny and they are: men are the overwhelming majority of perpetuators of abuse and violence against women and children.”

Unfortunately the “facts” are not this way at all. Stereotyping and anecdotal evidence maybe, but the studies I have referenced were from government sites, and those studies were taxpayer funded.

If you prefer that the world is filled with anecdotal evidence only, and government bases its policies and decisions on anecdotal evidence, then you will have no say in how government spends your tax, you will have no say in anything government does, and government or the law can do whatever it likes to any citizen whatsoever based totally on anecdotal evidence, (and various government have done this to millions of people)

If you prefer to hear only negative comments made about males, and only positive comments made about females, then there is plenty of media for that, but unfortunately the majority of it is in the area of fiction.

Narcisststs use highly emotive persuading language. They spend much energy blaming others rather than reflecting on their own behaviour.
Some excerpts from this forum discussion:
RObert:
"We need more honest research"

"to break the false assumptions"

"behind the very real bias in the family law system
"Most of all we need polygraphs in the court room"
"the inbuilt biases in the data collection"
"the portrayal of men as much more agressive and violent in the home is hurting men in their view of themselves and relationships between men and women"
"interesting how focussed some people are on ignoring the plight of men suffering DV isn't it?"
"Even if DV was as genderised as some believe the unwillingness of some to have compassion for the male victims"
TIMKINS:
"Just another unsubstantiated, male maligning article that shows little research"

"so little reliable research has been undertaken into males, and so much written about males is contradictory, then one has to presume that very little that has been written about males is actually true"
"many maligning unsubstantiated remarks about young men "
"lambasting them to get married"
"most articles are written by complete non-experts"
"can be stereotyped or labelled with anything from being “misogynist” to being “poor” to having a secret “agenda”, to having a “vendetta” "
"these same people believe that none of their accusations need be substantiated in anyway"
"many DV studies have been highly gender biased"

and.....
"appears that there are few standards applied to those studies"
"It is unquestionable that violence outside the home is predominately carried out by males, but "
"in many articles written on males, violence often becomes the main focus"

duh....they're about DV!
"most articles overlook the fact that the majority of buildings are built by males"

....so ignore the violence already. You gotta roof over your head. What more do you want!
"the majority of food is grown by males"
... you eat don't you, when the swelling goes down.
", the majority of inventions come from males"

IUD, the pill, breast implants, come on!
"the majority of art is produced by males"

...so sensitive....
"males pay the majority of personal income tax etc"

....that goes to fund the refuge!
"Without males society would collapse very quickly."
....what about without controlling, violent males the DV stats would decrease dramatically and only male refuges need to be funded.
"When looked at objectively, the male gender is very much involved in keeping the ship afloat in very practical terms"
"that has been occurring for centuries"
geez...
"Graycar and Flood (who both seem to turn a blind eye to abuse perpetrated by females) "
bloody experts......
"So much for democracy or freedom of speech"
how dare they disagree....
"feminist-based assumptions "
"the unacceptability of all male violence (even it is for self-defense) against females"
"Data about female perpetrators of child abuse are apparently overlooked"
RObert and Timkins- You represent what is known as the mens' rights campaigners.

Enough already- go get therapy.

Happy, you are such a misnomer ;-)
If women are now done with ownership of narcissism, I would be happy to take some of it for my own personal use.

Wow, what a debate. I just heard about it and have signed up. Seeing that my work is being both quoted and misquoted, I thought I'd better direct people to the source.

You can find my short, acccessible piece on claims about women’s versus men’s violence here: http://www.xyonline.net/husbandbattering.shtml.

And this piece by Michael Kimmel gives a lengthier, more academic discussion: http://www.xyonline.net/malevictims.shtml

For more general readings on men and men's issues, see:

http://www.xyonline.net/articles.shtml

And for further critiques of ‘fathers’ rights’ and ‘men’s rights’ claims about family law, violence, custody, etc., here:

http://www.xyonline.net/articles.shtml#Violence

And here: http://www.xyonline.net/articles.shtml#father

Best wishes,

michael flood.

Thank you Michael Flood, what an absolute gold mine of information you have provided. Explains alot behind the motives of many a poster here. Now could the real men please stand up?

ringtail, I'm saddened that you have chosen to resort to personal abuse rather than debate. Your involvement in discussion is normally at a much higher level so I will assume that your own experience has made it difficult for you to be subjective about it.

It is not being a man that means taking responsibility for your actions but rather being an adult. I don't have a particular need to differentiate between being a man and being an adult.

I care about truth, I care about a system which makes a bigger hurdle of my role in my son's life not because of anything I have done but rather because of what I believe to be incorrect views about men and family violence. My manhood does not need to be expressed in sitting silently by while that happens.

Be an adult and have a look at the stats Timkins and I have provided on child abuse and then tell me they clearly support the view that men are the perpetrators of child abuse in an overwhelming percentage of cases.

A number of people on this site yourself included have made very derogaratory (although commonly accepted) statements about gender and family violence. I believe those views to be contrary to the facts and have endeavoured to show some evidence that the picture is either wrong or in more doubt than many would believe.

I am not and have never tried to suggest that women are the perpetrators in the majority of DV. I am saying that I don't believe the issue is truly genderised (again aspects of it may be but not the overall picture). That is not an attack on women, it is a statement that DV is about the perpetrator not their gender.

I have said before in this forum that I am opposed to all family violence regardless of the gender of the perpetrator. Can and will you say the same?

I have been absorbed by the debate on all the issues and statistics flying around - it appears that no matter how many stats or research is quoted, opinions will not change.

Perhaps if you got out into the real world you would see for yourself. I have spent 7 years in the Family Court watching and listening and hearing the evidence. I could not say how many cases I have sat through - all cases of domestic violence and child abuse and all perpetrated by the father. They all have the same elements same personality types - you could almost just change the names and in many cases the outcomes were the same.
Some where in all these words and emotions common sense was lost!And it is the children who continue to suffer.
Perhaps if you spent some time at the emergency room of the hospital or at the refuges and saw the impact on women and children from the effects of domestic violence and sexual abuse and saw the raw emotions of children this may open your eyes.( I suspect that even this would not change your minds.)

I feel your resentment to women your bitterness your anger- it is eating away at you and with a bit of luck it may just gobble you up!

Robert, I have not resorted to personal abuse of you - don't be so touchy. I have had direct experience of being bashed and intimidated by men and am offended by your attempts to deny the fact of male violence.

You state "I have said before in this forum that I am opposed to all family violence regardless of the gender of the perpetrator. Can and will you say the same?" Are you trying to make a very poor joke here?
Of course I oppose all forms of violence from war thru to domestic.

Have you not read the succinct and informative posts provided by Michael Flood - clearly not.

Of course ALL victims of violence should be respected and treated - however you have been pushing an agenda for which there is little proof. As I have suggested just go to an emergency room one Satuday night and see for yourself the victims of male violence.

You say you are saddened -- I say you are furthering the violence inflicted upon me by attempting to deny the fact that men need to grow up and take responsibility for their behaviour in all its forms.

Shame!

While it is gratifying to see links provided by such as Michael Flood, I am dismayed by the politics of denial put forward by those such as timkins, seeker and robert.

Guys, we ARE agressive many of us attempt control of women and other men and children by use of intimidation and violence. As I have stated previously I see the bloody results of this every day in my job.

Why do you try to discredit women while failing to modify your own behaviour and assist other men to come to terms with theirs. Robert I found your comments to ringtail very patronising - she has every right to feel aggrieved and you are denying her this right. Do you call this manly behaviour?

I am puzzled by the ultimate goal of the anti-female posters - by denying women sovereignty you are also denying your own opportunity to stand side by side with your sisters as equals. I guess you don't even know what you are missing by alienating women. Well, leaves more for me then.

;)

Would people much prefer if I said the following:-

All women are wonderful
All men are complete trash

I can only reiterate, that if someone makes a negative statement about the male gender (or says that the male gender is in need of reform), then there is almost no questioning of this, even if that statement is completely anecdotal or not referenced or substantiated in any way, and the original article is an example where everything in it is almost completely anecdotal and unsubstantiated.

However if someone makes a negative statement about the female gender, they can be called everything from being “misogynist” to being “ignorant” to being a “Virgo”.

If they reference statistics, they can be called “anal”. If they were to quote from Dr Flood’s list of highly generalised and stereotypical anti-male slogans, (eg “A male gynecologist is like an auto mechanic who never owned a car”) they would probably be regarded as being “responsible”.

If they reference dozens of articles that were written by females, they will be regarded as being “anti-female”.

If they say that continuous negative portrayal of the male gender in the media, in advertising and in large sections of academia (with minimal positive being said about males) is a form of serious discrimination, they will probably be called “men’s rights activists”.

So I will only consider serious unbiased reports and studies that do not attempt to generalise or stereotype, and probably the AIFS needs to produce another sheet shortly titled “Who’s abusing who”, to go along with their other resource sheet http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/sheets/rs7.htm

>If they were to quote from Dr Flood’s list of highly generalised and stereotypical anti-male slogans, (eg “A male gynecologist is like an auto mechanic who never owned a car”) they would probably be regarded as being “responsible”.

True, these slogans are generalising. In collecting them and making them available on the XYonline website, I hardly intend them to be interpreted as accurate accounts of men, or women for that matter.

To see what I do consider to be a fair perspective on men, see e.g.;
http://www.xyonline.net/misc/pffaq.html
http://www.xyonline.net/3princip.shtml

Best wishes,

michael flood.

Timkins, you say it all in that you want it to be all of us saying men are trash and women are right. Where's your grey area? In every forum you are pushing a barrow whose wheels inevitably fall off. It's not about who's more right or wrong as a gender. It's about us making up society and changing things. Keep quoting your stats but they will never prove that the main perpetrators of DV and abuse are men no matter how much you tweak them. That is a fact as well as anecdotally. You seem to think that all women writing on this forum are male bashing and there is no common ground. YOu have a chip on your shoulder as big as Texas. I'll bet you never go near a forum where you can't weave the male vs female thing into it. And no more references please about how many percentages of how many blahs equals family court decisions.

Michael Flood
“I hardly intend them to be interpreted as accurate accounts of men, or women for that matter.”

However you have not substantiated why you have such slogans for “banners and graffiti” on your web-site.

Gynecologists would have much objection to your first slogan under the heading of “Funny/interesting sayings by women”, but to look at the next statement:- “A man's got to do what a man's got to do. A woman must do what he can't.”

No substantiation or elaboration of this statement, and such statements regards men are highly typical of many statements being made about men in the media, within feminism, and within much of Social Science, although such unsubstantiated statements do little but alienate and create divisions between the genders.

Many journalists will make such statements in an endeavor to sell more copies of their newspapers and magazines, and much of this was exposed by persons such as Myrna Blyth. http://www.myrnablyth.com/pages/1/

Many people in Social Science and feminism have also made such statements in an endeavor to demonize the male gender, and portray men as being incompetent and in need of much reform, (and probably get more from the tax payer’s pocket also). Much of this was exposed by people such as Christine Stolba. http://www.educationreview.homestead.com/2002WomensStudies.html

So much written about the male gender is unsubstantiated, stereotyped and generalized, but persons such as yourself have rarely mentioned it in your literature, but seem to want to add to it through such things as your list of sexist, stereotyping anti-male and also anti-heterosexual slogans.

You have also been advocating much to men over many years, so there are two suggested things you can do to be a man:-

-Become a masculinist as well as a feminist.
-Do the experiment of living without anything built, invented or produced by a male (and I can assure you that you will very quickly gain fresh and new perspectives on the male gender by doing this experiment)

I will see the results of the above suggestions by seeing how long your list of sexist stereotyping slogans remains on your web-site.

SShhh! Quiet everyone - no male self reflection that may result in anything negative about men. Why? Timkins is a very sensitive lad.

Ambo
So now I’m “sensitive”. That must goes along with being labelled “misogynist”, “unevolved”, “ignorant”, “anal”, “Virgo”, having “a chip” etc, etc, etc.

A lot that has been written about males, but you find me information about the male gender that is not generalised, stereotyped, anecdotal, myth, half-truths, or just plain “made up”.

You find me the unbiased, tax payer funded Social Scientists who are prepared to give the truth about the male gender, and don’t think in terms of “Behind ever successful male there is a surprised woman” or “I’m straight, but it may just be a passing phase”, or “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle”

And while you are at it, you can find me information about the female gender that is not generalised, stereotyped, anecdotal, myth, half-truths, or just plain “made up” also.

Once you have found that information about both genders, then I will reflect on that information.

A doctorate in women’s studies, does not make a man. It provides for a career.

While we can applaud Dr Michael Flood’s efforts in educating young boys against violence, we cannot support his indifference to the plight of men. If Pro-feminism is to be promoted as a credible option for dissatisfied men, it would need to take a more active role in advancing equality of both sexes. Teaching young women about social, gender, and family responsibility would therefore be part of the same package. Women’s studies alone, do not promote engagement in one’s society. Double standards that are so typical in most variants of feminism, do not buy a lot of support in the wider community.

I for one, would support more child care places, and tax deduction for such costs of employment, especially in single-mother households, if a more consistent approach is taken. If men are still expected to be bound by ridiculous child support formulae, then don’t blame us for being indifferent on child care provisions and their wider implications. Why should separated and divorced fathers support two households without any tax system acknowledgement, and when those calculated amounts are based on income rather than costs? Still, basing them on arbitrary, “one figure fits all” costs, would then highlight the fact that men don’t have any say in how their children are raised.

Why are men being forced to support children who are not biologically theirs, simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time (or length of time)?

How about widening reproductive choices for men? How about giving men some abortion rights – if not abortion, then relinquishment … this is not a “women have them, so we want them too” kind of argument. It is about equality – assuming that men are big and ugly enough to take care of themselves, ignores the real pain inflicted on them. It is the kind of pain women have worked hard to extinguish over the last few decades – but only for themselves.

The majority of correspondents to this forum have attempted to reflect upon what it means to be a man - by its nature this is a very subjective, unquantifiable process. When one takes a look at oneself no doubt there is the discovery of both good and bad qualities. For myself, this has meant looking at loss of control and gaining a new self respect when I have managed to deal with life issues such as divorce.

I know I much prefer being a man to coping as a woman - I can't imagine what it is like to have a period every month. I have noticed in the course of my work that when partnered with a female officer, the public will generally look to me first rather than my female partner for direction, whether or not I am the most knowledgeable. Men are often given respect without having to earn it, whereas women have to prove themselves over and over again. I am not judged by my appearance as much as women are.

As human beings, as men and women we each have our weaknesses and strengths, yet for some in this forum it appears that asking what it means to be a man has turned into a competition about who is the worst sex. A futile and pointless excercise which achieves nothing and is a very sad indictment on those who pursue it.

To those who have contributed thoughtfully to this discussion I thank you. To those who demand a level of proof limited by their own self imposed restrictions I can only feel sadness for your alienation.

Ambo,

Don’t thank us – thank you ;-)

“I have noticed in the course of my work that when partnered with a female officer, the public will generally look to me first rather than my female partner for direction, whether or not I am the most knowledgeable.”

Could this bias be caused by men who preceded you? You know the ones – the ones with solutions. Perhaps interaction with the public in your line of work as an Ambo, is not one that requires “relating” so much, for otherwise they would have surely dialled a non-000 number.

Seeker, THANK YOU, for illustrating Ambo's point so succintly

"turned into a competition about who is the worst sex. A futile and pointless excercise which achieves nothing and is a very sad indictment on those who pursue it."

Ambo,

“To those who demand a level of proof limited by their own self imposed restrictions I can only feel sadness for your alienation.”

The article is not on “one” man, it is on men in general, and that is the objection to these types of articles that can so easily stereotype and lead to “mythconceptions”.

There have also been many tax payer’s funded university courses run on the subject of “gender”, and maybe the pinnacle of all that would be Dr Michael Flood’s list of slogans about men and women that I have been quoting from (and which he deems suitable for banners and graffiti).

So before labelling me names or making inferences about self imposed restrictions etc could you please find me the information about the male and female gender, that is not generalised, stereotyped, anecdotal, myth, half-truths, or just plain “made up”.

If you can’t easily find that information, then maybe you have a complaint with the media and with Social Science.

While there " many tax payer’s (sic) funded university courses run on the subject of “gender" ", clearly "Timkins" hasn't attended any of them. If he had, he may have learnt to distinguish between valid social research and the 'men's rights' propaganda that he loves to quote. He might even have learnt how to find "the information about the male and female gender, that is not generalised, stereotyped, anecdotal, myth, half-truths, or just plain “made up” " for himself, rather than repeatedly bleating for the rest of us to do it for him.

Timkins, the nicest thing anyone reading your posts could describe you as is a .....Virgo.

Quoting and misquoting all go to make opinions without the merit to stand on their merits seem more reliable , as to which gender is the more violent you must define the terms of reference . you only need watch the super nanny to see the mothers are constantly slapping their children , now im sure you can argue that the mother does everything and that out of frustration or over load or over worked these justifications do not detract from the real senario , My mother was violent at least hourly on what it seems females can justify , whilst the same level by the father against the mother would result in AVO's and dirt slinging in any court that she could entertain . I have many friends and have discussed the issue openly in non judgemental ways and all agree that their mother was more likely the one who struck and tried to recruit the child to her positions throughout their childhood , whilst I agree my father struck me I was not as contrived but that goes to no way vicariously endorse his behaviour , it seems that why abuse and assaults on children are justifiable to posters in this forum that the same or lesser abuses against woman create a storm ,It is both tactical and common for woman to mislead and contrive assaults against themselves whilst turning a blind eye to what they themselves commit as a gender , I havent included any stats as my circle a of friends comprises an excellant cross section of race wealth and social status , my be we would all benifit from a balanced general view in our courts as we all seem to be as one that the courts are failing us.

>>“I hardly intend them to be interpreted as accurate accounts of men, or women for that matter.”
>However you have not substantiated why you have such slogans for “banners and graffiti” on your web-site.

I put up this document because I think that some of these slogans *are* useful for marches, banners, graffiti, etc., while others are thought-provoking and interesting. However, I can also see that others are stereotyping or unhelpful. So, I'll work through them and trim the collection.

> There have also been many tax payer’s funded university courses run on the subject of “gender”, and maybe the pinnacle of all that would be Dr Michael Flood’s list of slogans about men and women that I have been quoting from).

Not in the slightest. The pinnacle of academic research at least on *men* and gender would be the books and articles collected here: http://mensbiblio.xyonline.net/bestreading.html#Heading1

> While we can applaud Dr Michael Flood’s efforts in educating young boys against violence, we cannot support his indifference to the plight of men. If Pro-feminism is to be promoted as a credible option for dissatisfied men, [snip]
>I for one, would support more child care places, and tax deduction for such costs of employment, especially in single-mother households, if a more consistent approach is taken.

As would I. I’ve made a detailed argument for better government and community support for fathers (and mothers) to be able to balance work and family, e.g. in my piece on ‘promoting the positive role of fathers’ here: http://www.xyonline.net/articles.shtml#father

And pro-feminist men have been important advocates for addressing boys’ and men’s wellbeing in such areas as fathering, health, education, sexuality and relationships, and so on. But rather than blaming women or feminism for the poor state e.g. of men’s health, we argue that men’s lives are limited or constrained often because of narrow and harmful models of masculinity, models of how to be a man.

To give an example, I wrote the following in response to yet another incident where a man was physically assaulted and killed: http://www.xyonline.net/booze.shtml

Best wishes,

michael flood.

Ringtail, Dr Michael Flood

Ringtail,
It is interesting that your link on “Man” in Wikipedia states:- “Men are often considered to be more: aggressive than women. However, in interpersonal relationships, most research has found that men and women are equally aggressive. Men do tend to be more aggressive outside of the home.”

This is what I and others have already said. See also the recent study on anger in the article “Grumpy old men are a myth. It's the women who rage” at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1550074,00.html

However I also think that the female gender is becoming quite aggressive outside of the home also, and this is now being written about in books such as “Queen Bees and Wanna Bees” http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=8Y4UE0JB6d&isbn=1400047927&itm=1

This book inspired the movie “Mean Girls” but the author Rosalind Wiseman may be called “misogynist”, “ignorant”, “Men’s rights activist”, “twisted”, “un-evolved”, “anal”, “Virgo”, etc like I have been labeled if that makes people feel better

Dr Michael Flood
You may have overlooked it but I have previously referred to a comprehensive report on men and women (ie:- Couples in Millennium Three” http://www.facs.gov.au/internet/facsinternet.nsf/aboutfacs/programs/families-ResearchPapers.htm ) That report was specially commissioned by the Department of Families and Community Services, and it would be a good starting point for possible solutions to many problems now confronting men and women in Australia.

However it does not advocate slogans such as “I am a marvelous housekeeper. Every time I leave a man I keep his house.” or “He may have hairs on his chest — but sister, so does Lassie.”.

It is interesting that only now you have decided that many of the slogans on your web-site can be regarded as being offensive to many men, despite your years of taxpayer funded teaching and research into men and relationships at different Australian universities.

If you choose to take out the slogans that are blatantly anti-male and anti-heterosexual, you can also look at those slogans that only represent half-truths. For example:- In an egalitarian world, the slogan “Against violence against women” should readily become “Against violence against women and men”

>the female gender is becoming quite aggressive outside of the home

Although this too has been exaggerated. See: http://www.vawnet.org/DomesticViolence/Research/VAWnetDocs/AR_GirlsViolence.php

>I have previously referred to Couples in Millennium Three [snip] it would be a good starting point for possible solutions to many problems now confronting men and women

It’s got some useful material, no question, but I was disappointed to see that it also uncritically re-hashes claims about DV as gender-neutral – studies showing this are virtually all based on the Conflict Tactics Scale, a controversial method for measuring violence that I and many others have criticised.

> It is interesting that only now you have decided that many of the slogans on your web-site can be regarded as being offensive to many men, despite your years of [snip].

The fact is, I haven’t even thought about this collection for years, and was only reminded that the document was on there by your postings. So now I’ll revise it. However, we’re likely to also read the slogans differently, in that what you hear as male-bashing ‘misandry’ I’m more likely to read as playful complaint. Anyway, now that I’ve promised to revise it, do you want to stop using it as the main basis of your criticisms?

> you can also look at those slogans that only represent half-truths. For example:- In an egalitarian world, the slogan “Against violence against women” should readily become “Against violence against women and men”

Not at all. In a protest directed at the violence women suffer, then the first slogan is perfectly appropriate. Similarly, if we were protesting against the violence men suffer, then slogans focused on this would also be appropriate. Frankly, I’d love to see some serious community action on the violence men experience – and this would need to focus largely on violence done to boys and men by other boys and men. Because we men are at greatest risk of assault and murder at the hands of other men.

Finally, criticising aspects of men’s behaviour or position is not necessarily anti-male, although it can be. See: http://www.xyonline.net/Anti.shtml

Best,

michael flood.

Dr Michael Flood,

I would agree that there is much conflicting data regards DV, but that is a problem for Social Science to sort out, because it seems that Social Science has not come up with a standardised reliable way of measuring DV (incorporating physical, emotional, sexual, financial violence etc). That standardised way of measuring DV is well overdue, and Social Science can’t be arguing with the general public when Social Scientists can’t form consensuses amongst themselves.

Such things as the Duluth model for DV re-education programs are also in need of review http://www.eurowrc.org/05.education/education_en/15.edu_en.htm

The feminist idea that men subjugate women in our society is also archaic and in need of much substantiation and review. Feminists seem to base all belief that women “only” are being disadvantaged in some way, and feminists will continuously ignore any disadvantage being experienced by the male gender. Therefore feminism is not an egalitarian or democratic system, and it had best become egalitarian and democratic or it has no future. There would be a lot of men who wouldn’t give a Social Scientist or a feminist the time of day, because of the way they have portrayed men in the past.

In regards to violence against men and boys, I have seen studies showing that men are much less likely to report DV than women, mothers are less likely to breast feed sons than daughters, mothers are more likely to hit sons than daughters etc. Inside the home, violence is just as likely from women as from men, but of course that situation does not sit well with feminist doctrine. http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/sheets/rs7.html

If you want credibility with your web-site, then you could review the lot, (“funny” anti-male slogans and all), as slogans become a highly condensed form of general doctrine, and would have a lot of meaning for many people.

I don’t see much humour in the situation for many men. http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/info/charts/contact/f2f/frequency-abs.html, http://www.sos-family.org.au/Stories/separateddads.asp and taking out all the stereotyped portrayal of men, Social Science actually knows very little about men http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/papers/smyth5.html That is another area in much need of improvement within Social Science.

Dr Michael Flood,

I’ve read a number of links you provided to xyonline, and you espouse two basic views:

Fathers are incapable of being mothers; mothers are in the best interest of children,
and
Men are not women; men should be more like women.

No doubt these views tie in well with your graffiti page - as Timkins rightly points out - it is no wonder social scientists cannot agree on their science.

An article on xyonline that can be deconstructed to similar ideals, did touch me though. It was Daddy, do better - Daddy's girls change his life, by Richard Jones:

“My daughters' unrelenting love for me not only transformed my pitiful perspective on parenting, but also the way I think of and treat women altogether. They were resplendent rays of sun under which my heart warmed to the idea of fatherhood, and as I reached a profound awareness of their solidarity with all "sistas," I awakened to the powerful and practical realization that I could not give them proper respect without also showing the same respect to all women. Moreover, I was making indelible impressions on them as the first man to love and be loved by them, and I no longer wanted to bequeath to them negative images and ideas of femininity, masculinity, love, friendship, and human relationships in general.”

The next paragraph was even better and almost drew tears. It pretty much says that you have to sacrifice your maleness for love (or possibly Christianity), in order to achieve nirvana/heaven.

And then comes the epiphany – as much as “being a man”, is a prerequisite, it is equally a detriment. An ugly, risky, thankless task, which only males seem to aspire to – a role where love and provision are paramount, but when the love fails, provision (and sometimes, manhood - but not fatherhood), you get to keep. Pity the women.

>you espouse two basic views: Fathers are incapable of being mothers; mothers are in the best interest of children, and
Men are not women; men should be more like women.

The first is a really profound misreading of my work. Have a look at http://www.xyonline.net/downloads/Fatherhood_DP59.pdf. I argue here that other than the biologically distinct contributions of birth and breastfeeding, mothers and fathers are equally capable of providing nurturing parenting to children. Both can be equally valuable, or terrible, parents. And I argue at length that the best interests of children are served by *quality parenting*, and that this is possible in a variety of household types, whether nuclear, single mother or single father, lesbian or gay, extended, and so on. See e.g. the sub-section on "Parental harmony and positive parenting".
The second issue is more complicated. I do think that men will benefit from being more open to stereotypically feminine qualities such as nurturance, compassion, and emotional expressiveness. (Funnily enough, it's precisely these qualities that *involved* fathers develop.) Similarly, women will benefit from being more open to stereotypically masculine qualities such as strength, courage, authority, and so on.
There are two key problems with the models of how to be a man with which boys and men grow up. First, they are limiting and unhealthy for boys and men: they limit our relations with others, our friendships and relationships, and our own physical, emotional and spiritual wellbeing. Second, they are damaging and oppressive for women, girls, and other men. In other words, they are dangerous for others. The old model of manhood encourages violence towards women and other men, and a destructive spirit of aggressive domination and competition.
Some of these qualities associated with masculinity are positive (strength and assertiveness for example), while others are negative and destructive (aggressiveness and insensitivity). There are two problems here: (a) Men miss out on some of the positive qualities of femininity. (b) Men are expected to follow the model all the time. Men are supposed to be unafraid, tough and confident all the time.

Dr Michael Flood,

The paper you reference is mainly on men as fathers, but there are times when men are not directly parents, such as when men are at work, (and I might add that if men did not work then society would collapse very rapidly). Also men create much of the art and culture in society, although males are normally stereotyped as being unemotional.

But parenting is important because the majority of men want to be parents, although divorce, separation and Family Law are now very relevant, because if more young men knew their statistically likely fate, they would no longer want to be parents.

With the divorce rate at 1,000 per week (and ? number of separations in de-facto relationships) then questions should be asked.

Can society sustain this rate?
Is this rate good for children who eventually grow up to be men and women?
What can be done to reduce this rate?

I once looked, but I could find minimal research into such questions, and it could be that Social Science is avoiding such questions. Perhaps too many Social Scientists are following basic feminist philosophy of wanting to eliminate marriage and have de-facto relationships (although de-facto relationships are more fragile, produce worse rates of poverty, STD, promiscuity, child abuse, abortion, DV etc.)

However nearly everything said about fathers in that paper could also be said about mothers, particularly if they were expected to be the main breadwinners also (and numerous surveys routinely show that the mother expects the father to be the main breadwinner)

Any idea that non-custodial fathers (and there now are many 100,000’s of them ) can be proper parents when they see their children once a fortnight or less is simply absurd, together with any idea that the majority of fathers are accepting of this situation.

If a divorced or separated father has a “minimum” of $10,000, a few spare years, and a good solicitor he can try for some extra parenting time. Many men don’t have those types of resources of course, and so they have to accept what is presently the norm.

Dr Michael Flood,

Thank you for taking the time to share your science.

My first point was related to divorced fathers, and in that context, cannot be brushed aside as “profound misreading” of your work. For example, in http://www.xyonline.net/downloads/Joint_custody_DP59.pdf, you say “A rebuttable presumption of joint custody would apply to the five per cent of divorcing couples with children whose cases are decided in the Family Court.” - you then proceed to destroy any hope of average men sharing the parenting.

Even if the father was willing to give up all work at separation – too late. Even as in your utopian society, where the pre-separation father was an equally effective parent - exerted equal effort, and achieved equal outcomes – unless by consent, or unless it can be proved that the mother is unfit (in which case both are unfit, since we presumed they are equally effective), the father would be extremely naive to expect a 50% chance of success. That is, providing he has the guts or the resources to contest the case in the first place.

How many men have to be broken by a system fed by such science, in its quest for that seemingly undefinable and therefore, probably unattainable, equality?

In the meantime, nature will almost certainly continue to dream up its own designs, regardless of what we, its human social engineers and legislators, have to say. Hopefully our children will eventually endorse our tinkering, but more importantly, let us hope they never get carried away with the idea that it’s all about their best interests.

Ringtail, I'm probably wasting keystrokes but I will try again.
I am not making any attempt to support or brush over male violence. I have no proof or belief that it is at a lower level than stated in various reports. My contention is that the under reporting of female violence in the home both against other adults and children is creating an unbalanced view of family violence which has a number of flow on impacts.

- The victim of such violence (physical or otherwise) finds it very hard to get help, especially if the victim is a male and physically bigger than the abuser. What is he supposed to do?
- The abuser does not know she needs help. How many spots on TV have you seen where female violence against a male is shown in either a neutral manner or portrayed as acceptable?
There are more issues worth considering but those two are sufficient.

R0bert

>My contention is that the under reporting of female violence in the home both against other adults and children is creating an unbalanced view...

Timkins wrote too that, "I have seen studies showing that men are much less likely to report DV [domestic violence] than women".

Yes, men underreport, but so do women. I've seen no evidence that men are more likely to underreport than women are, and the reverse seems true. I wrote the following as part of a longer piece exploring men's experience of DV;

It has been argued that men are likely to under-estimate and under-report their subjection to domestic violence by women, because admitting such victimization and vulnerability is emasculating (George 1994, 149). For example, many of the twenty male victims in an Australian qualitative study said that they did not report the domestic violence because of their humiliation at not being to handle themselves as men, a sense that as men they had to fix things themselves, and the expectation that police would laugh at them or be biased towards them (Stockdale 1998, 63). Men’s under-reporting is cited as one key reason why reported rates of domestic violence do not substantiate claims for widespread ‘husband battering’. However, it is well documented that female victims also under-report their victimization, and there is no evidence that men are more likely than women to do so. In fact, the evidence is that men tend to over-estimate their partner’s violence (e.g. because of the masculine norm that violence is only legitimate if in retaliation for violence already committed) while women under-estimate their partner’s violence (e.g. in normalizing and excusing it). On the other hand, men tend to under-estimate their own violence, while women tend to over-estimate theirs (because women using violence is a greater transgression of gender norms and thus more memorable) (Kimmel 2001, 10-11). Currie (1998) too finds that men upgrade women’s violent behaviour, finding it ‘notable’ and ‘remarkable’, while women discount, under-estimate, downplay and normalize the violent behaviour of their male partners.

The full text of Kimmel's piece is here: http://www.xyonline.net/malevictims.shtml. See pp. 11-12.

michael flood.

Dr Flood, I have not had opportunity to follow the reference yet (nor to digest most of the last weeks comments, I've had a big week). Sorry if I've missed relevant material from that period.

My concern is more to do with the public reporting of DV than individual reporting.

I am concerned when I see published DV info which does not reflect the complexity of the issue or is just straight out dishonest. Earlier in this thread I referenced the Qld Health Web site which has the following gem (http://www.health.qld.gov.au/violence/domestic/default.asp).

"DOMESTIC VIOLENCE is the physical, sexual, emotional or psychological abuse of trust and power between partners in a spousal relationship. Most (85% to 98%) domestic violence is perpetrated by men against women."

Now try and fit the description of DV to the 85%-98% figure.

This thread has included comments regarding men being the perpetrator in the overwhelming majority of child abuse cases. Government stats appear to show fairly clearly that this is not the case.

I think the continual focus on genderising the family violence is inhibiting the finding of real solutions. I suspect the issue has little to do with chromozones and lots to do with cultural values.

The lack of support for men with violent female spouses is certainly devestating for the men involved. Too many people who should know better excuse such violence on the basis that "she is smaller than you so she is unlikely to do real harm to you".

Take the genderisation out of the issues, denounce family violence regardless of the gender of the perpetrator and there should be no basis for complaint.

I spent 13 years in a job that put me in direct contact with literally hundreds of domestic violence situations. These ranged from yelling and screaming to murder and everything in between. My own personal observations are:

1. Men are the overwhelming instigators of domestic violence against women.
2. When is comes to non-sexual child abuse, men and women are as bad as one another.
3. When it comes to emotional abuse, men and women are as bad as one another.
4. Men being victims of physical violence by women is unusual. And when I did see it, I’m sorry to say, usually the man absolutely, 100% deserved everything he got and more.
5. If alcohol consumption was made illegal the rates of domestic violence against women and children would fall dramatically.

I realise that point 4 above might upset some, but I found that a lot of instances where a woman physically attacked a man was a direct result of intense provocation. One example is a woman who returned home to find her husband sexually abusing their 3 year old son.

Another relevant fact is that a man physically abusing a women does so in the knowledge that he can inflict as much or as little damage upon her as he wishes. Women generally can’t inflict the same sort of damage upon a man and know this (unless they use a weapon). Generally men punch, women slap.

The people involved in trying to curb domestic violence should really concentrate more on addressing the alcohol problem that is present in our society. I don’t think that people realise the extent of this problem. We all hear about the drunken violence that takes place in our inner city night-club districts every weekend, but most alcohol consumption takes place in the home and is a real destroyer of lives. I know that it is a major factor in domestic violence. If there was no such thing as alcohol, the work loads of our police, ambulance and casualty ward doctors and nurses would drop by half.

PEOPLE !!

can we try to turn this thread away from a discussion on domestic violence and bring it BACK to 'what does it mean to be a man' ?

I've pretty much said what I wanted to in previous posts, but this repetition of statistics about DV is getting monotonous and irrelevant to the point. (and to the point of 'oh no, they are STILL on about that')

At the moment its filled with morbid self analysis and speculation on 'who beats the crap out of the other more' and frankly, that is more about 'social problems' than 'male identity'.

MIcheal touched on an aspect with his "Men dont want to report DV against them because they don't want to be seen to be weak" (words like that) so.. lets explore more about male psychology.

EXAMPLE One of my suppliers bounced a survey of me yesterday, She said "What does this mean "Mr right and Mr 'right now' " ? I said "clearly its about the bloke u want to spend your life with and the bloke you want to bonk now" It turned out that 90% of the guys she had surveyed answered like that, and most of the women saw it more as 'Ok for now as a partner, but not long term' The 'bonking' bit did not figure so largely in female thinking.

So, perhaps this tells us something about ourselves.