Here is the Violence Against Women groups’ pro-forma for appropriate interpersonal communication if you are talking to a male -

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18888667-1248,00.html
- Includes video link to proposed new ad

They also believe this is appropriate use of government funds.

I don't see a lot of difference between this and the AWB payments to Saddam Hussein. Both cases give a big dollar boost to a minority interest group, but in reality endorse, and encourage, the behaviour you claim to be opposed to.

BD - I don't get to say this often so I'll grab the opportunity "Nice post".

On topic - I'd like to see the corresponding brochure "Never believe your violence is his fault". The base concept that we are not accountable for someone elses actions (maybe for our contribution to those actions though) is good but does not seem to be evenly applied.

Of topic - glad you had a nice trip.

R0bert

Hamlet, sorry I forgot to respond to your post last night (I was in shock at finding a post of BD's that I liked - if I've understood it correctly).

I'm hoping that you are being satirical in your most recent post. I really don't think that most women think that men are responsible for 100% of all DV. I've not any who claim that women never do wrong, that understanding does not always get applied to the rest of the discussion.

Many people have been badly mislead by the dishonest studies and the flagrant lies into believing that rates of DV and child abuse are massively genderised across the general community (I'm undecided about some cultural groups, gender based DV may still be regarded as OK amongst some groups but I don't know).

It's kind of interesting that no-one has come back with comment on the government "substantiated child abuse and neglect" stats I posted early in the discussion. Given how frequently the idea of protecting children is floated in this debate the stats on substantiated child abuse and neglect (and the child death stats) should be providing a real wake up call for buys into the child protection thing as a basis for keeping dads away from their kids. Maybe sufficient cause to start looking at the DV claims with a bit more scepticism. Alas silence has reigned supreme.

There are some men out there who abuse their partners and or children in horrendous manners but for every one of them there is a woman doing the similar. It is my understanding that in over 50% of DV situations the partners will be assaulting each other.

The continued assumption that relationship violence is a male thing perpetuates the cycle of violence and needs to be stopped.

Likewise the idea that it is OK to do real harm to a former partner and children based on fears which cannot be shown to be reasonable needs to be consigned as a footnote in history. Something historians can look back at and wonder how that could ever have been "acceptable".

R0bert

Is Chopper Read’s commercial meant to invoke a “reasonable” fear of violence, and if so, does it not promote the idea it is OK to fight violence with violence? The next logical step would be pre-emption – surely the doctrine of the day.

Chopper … what a gentleman! Perhaps a new super-hero cartoon character that works from his prison cell, just using his contacts from the outside (and the media), to protect children of Australia against their evil biological and social dads.

Robert.....

*grin* :)

On the Brochure..its a stupid concept to claim that either 'His' or..'Her'violence is never 'your' fault.

Men are more 'physical' ..women are more 'vocal'. The title of such brochure is innappropriate. It should be something like "Solutions to Violence". But the title is clearly 'anti male', saying ...

No matter how much you goad him, humiliate him, annoy him, lie about him, are unfaithful to him, etc.. its NOT YOUR FAULT. But if he responds with isolating, abusing, (verbally) lying about, tormenting, threatening, humiliating her in public.. as long as it is not 'pysical' this is all OK ? of course not.

Or are they referring to ALL THAT kind of non physical violence also ?

Back on my trip ...being in a chatty mood, I said something to the chick in front of me in the checkout line, who said she was going home to cook,and said 'get him to cook' and she replied there is no 'him', not married, living with parents..the only men she meets are scumbags.. pity.

The checkout chick was an Asian.. named 'Alice' and of course, I just HAD to ask "Does your address include the word 'Wonderland'" ? :) which she thought was pretty funny.. YES!.. one to me (corney but it worked :)

BD, "Solutions to Violence" would be nice but I suspect that what is more important for most brochures is not the detailed content inside but the catchy one liner on the cover - the bit we remember.

The cynic in me wonders if some of those in the industry don't really want solutions to violence, their careers depend on it.

Your comment about the woman who only meets scumbags is sad, that does not seem to be an isolated view (as with men who find it hard to meet women they can respect).

How much is that a consequence of the things people look for in a prospective partner? Could it be that many of the things we are taught to value too often come with a price. Women who go hunting for tough agressive guys might find that is exactly what they get. Guys who look for a woman who puts enormous effort into her personal maintenance might find they get a partner who cares little for anything outside herself and her own needs and wants.

Maybe a bit less focus on outward appearance and status items and many people might find that there are a lot of good people out there.

R0bert