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.