Barbara, don’t be too disappointed about the lack of interest shown by the judiciary. The male dominated legal club is more comfortable in the role of lecturer. Your reference to a judge who suggested that women and children are more prone to lie than men contrasts nicely with a retired judge who has been forced to take out full page newspaper ads offering money for anyone willing to say they were driving his car.

Barbara, yourself and Dr Taylor are brave souls for daring to understand the Byzantine rules and judgments of the Family Court. You can expect an admonishment if you look too hard.
Your article details perfectly the minutiae of what is laughingly referred to as our legal system. You ask a question of two female judicial figures and acting like marionettes they turn to their male patriarch to see if an answer is allowed.

Perhaps a few demonstrations outside some judges’ residences featuring mock rape and child molestation might express our lack of confidence in our legal system. And imagine your delight if a red-faced judge runs out to plead with you to stop embarrassing his family. You could turn to the judge and say with a high level of schadenfreude: ‘No one has ejaculated your honour.; so the demo is not unduly harmful’

Thanks for your article Barbara.

The mind boggles at the thought processes of the judge that permitted the father who had confessed to sodomising his 11 year old son to have 80 days access per year. You have to imagine the judge likes little boys and one can argue that he is not a fit person to be in the family court.

"Then, in a coup de grace, a mother approached the microphone. She said her former partner had been awarded 80 days a year access to his 11-year-old son he had admitted sexually abusing. “Experts” in the case, men, had testified that since the father had not ejaculated, and therefore had not derived any satisfaction from the abuse, it was not unduly harmful."

Newsflash experts - its the penetrating that hurts not the ejaculation.

The law does seem to get it wrong in some of those extreme cases. Anybody who is a genuine ongoing risk to their child of abuse and neglect should not have unsupervised access to their children.

Now perhaps the author could have a look at the stats on family types where substantiated abuse and neglect occurs on the Child Abuse Trust website (http://www.abusedchildtrust.com.au/facts.htm#3) or the Child Abuse Clearing House.

The author might also consider the part that "innocent unless proven guilty" plays in our legal system.

Perhaps the author should consider the financial implications of gaining residency prior to the property settlement (as well as the power involved in getting back at that bastard) when she dismisses the idea that women may have motivation to lie about abuse at a higher rate than men.

She could have a look at the proportion of substantiated abuse and neglect that is sexual compared to other categories. She could have a look at the proportion that is committed by father compared to other significant adults - hard to find that one but from what I've heard fathers commit a very small proportion of child sexual abuse.

Mums new boyfriend is a much bigger risk. The auther might also consider that a notable proportion of child sexual abuse is committed by women. Estimates I've seen put it at between 25% and 35% but I can't substantiate that.

Perhaps the author should save her anger for those who use the family law system to line their own pockets. For the child protection campaigners who continue to ignore child abuse committed by women. For the child protection campaigners who act as though the only child abuse worth our concern is child sexual abuse.

R0bert

The difference between judges and yourself is that judges try to apply the law in an impartial way.

You, on the other hand, are not a judge but an advocate. Advocates don't worry about impartiality or truth; they simply try to push a political agenda.

If you made even the smallest mention that, perhaps, there'd been documented cases where false allegations of child abuse have been made, then perhaps you'd have some credibility. From the Kern County satanic abuse allegations in 1980s California ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kern_county_child_abuse_cases) to the spectacular collapse of the Outreau case in France (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4314309.stm) to the numerous cases of 'recovered memory syndrome’. There are too many horrifying examples.

It's unsurprising that social workers and psychologists working in this field have been comprehensively discredited too. It's unsurprising because they're not professionals like judges - they're advocates like you. They have a preconceived idea (in this case that all men are child abusers) and then they set about to prove it. So we get cases where social workers give ‘anatomically correct’ dolls to children and then lead them into conversations about sex. The child wants to please this ‘special adult’ and so readily agrees to the most horrible suggestions.

The sad thing about all this is the enormous damage people like you are doing to our society. Hysterics like you have robbed a generation of children of a healthy and active outdoors childhood, in a country with one of the best climates in the world, because of fear of abuse. That’s not to mention the direct victims of malicious accusations – the lost jobs, the families broken, the lives destroyed. All because of man-hating fanatics like you.

continued..

It unlikely you will have read this far because people like you don’t want to hear anything that might contradict your ‘belief’. But if you have, then please know I thank god for judges that protect us from the menace you impose, and please take my criticisms personally, because you are a threat to us all.

Fair comments eet, but quite frankly if you realised how much police time was occupied with domestic violence cases, and how few of them are resolved, you may have a different view of the effectiveness of the law.

Personally, I tend to think there are some very flawed precepts upon which our legal system is based, and whilst I can see the logic behind a system which is so heavily skewed in favour of the defendant in any given criminal case, I can't help but lament how crippled the prosecution tend to be. The system is not designed to be a fair fight, and judges are far from the unbiased arbiters you believe them to be.

Sadly, these deficiencies are clearly manifested in cases of rape and sexual abuse.
The process of cross examination these days, has become more about damaging the credibility of a witness - in many cases, the victim - than it is about establishing any facts.
A competent cross examination can have just about any witness contradicting themselves, then when the jury is asked to decide upon reasonable doubt, it is all too easy for the perpetrators to get away with it. What's more, these kinds of trials are behind closed doors - I wouldn't suggest otherwise, but it does make it difficult to ascertain whether or not justice is being done.

Add to that the fact that very few sexual assault cases ever make it to trial.

What is really interesting is that in the 1980's it was beleived that children did not lie. Subsequently a large number of people but mostly men were gaoled.

Some of these children now adults are saying the abuse never happened. Of course feminists have an answer for this, such as saying that as an adult the memories of the abuse have been suspressed.

There was also a creation of the "supressed memory syndrome" which now had been totally debunked, although there may be a few die hards clinging to the flotsam.

In NZ a female Dr measured the hymens of girls and if the opening was greater than a certain amount it was deemed enough proof that sexual abuse took place. Even when the girls denied that such events ever happened.

When abuse advocates usually start beating the drum about educating the judges, it means bypassing the judical process and indocrinating judges to find a guilty verdict regardless of the evidence.

Joseph Stalin did this in Russia. It is called a 'show trial' and during the burning times people tired as witches were also denied justice.

To prejudice judges with socalled 'education' follows the education of the inquistors during the burning times. Proof guilt was always sort.

Above, we have the same JamesH who wrote a few days ago that "women are truly are the worlds most expensive commodities."
(http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4895#55209)

To Barbara Biggs (author):
Please keep up your good work in addressing deficiencies in the legal system which allows child abusers to escape justice

I find it incredible the claims that the law fails the victims.

"Sadly, these deficiencies are clearly manifested in cases of rape and sexual abuse." Turnrightthenleft.

A number of men after being convicted to things such as rape decades ago are now being found innocent because of DNA. Another such case a man spent three years in gaol.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=405385&in_page_id=1770

It is true the law fails when a guilty man walks free. The law also fails when an innocent man is gaoled. Claims that the judicary are biased in favour of the accused is nonsense and a manipulative statement to make. Sure our legal system may be flawed and our legal system is suppose to be based on the presumption of innocence, not of guilt.

Interestingly in this country sexual abuse of children by women is not reported. There is a video available titled "When Girls Do It." from Canada.

Great article
Maybe the lawyers , psychologists , and judges of the Kangaroo Court could just for one second think of the huge damage to children that parental alienation syndrome causes.People who use children as weapons of war makes it hard for non -custodial parents to see it as a court of justice

It is curious that whenever the detractors of parental alienation, syndrome or not, get up on their soap boxes to complain about it, they refer only to cases involving male sexual abuse of children using such horrendous examples to demonize anyone who should begin to defend the existence of the phenomenon and effectively kill intelligent debate.

However, there are strong and clear examples of parental alienation which do not involve child abuse of any form by the target parent who, to boot, is female. Here is a perfect example: http://www.amazon.com/They-Are-My-Children-Too/dp/1891620150/sr=8-1/qid=1158964327/ref=sr_1_1/002-7171186-9853610?ie=UTF8&s=books
. Parental alienation is real, and it is child abuse. Those who argue against it in the name of stopping child abuse should be ashamed of themselves.

JamesH - I can't deny there are mistakes made, and I tend to think the flaws in our system not only let off the guilty, but sometimes jail the innocent.

I do tend to prefer the legal models used in countries such as germany and japan, where the judge is more than merely an umpire for the prosecution and defence. In this model, the judge oversees an investigation, and no evidence is inadmissible.
In our system, evidence is often excluded because it may either prejudice the jury, or has been obtained through improper means.
What's more, the criminal history of the accused is not taken into account until sentencing - once the jury has already made a verdict.

Fair enough if a jury knew that the accused had raped ten people already, they would probably pay less attention to the evidence.

It is in these situations that having a judge decide after conducting an investigation can be an advantage.

I won't deny some men have been hard done by in our system in sexual abuse cases. Though I'd say it's a tiny proportion compared to the number of women who've been similarly mistreated.

Similarly, I can't deny that some women have been guilty of sexual abuse. But again, it's a small proportion when compared to the number of men committing these offences.

Let's see now, one one hand we have Barbara Biggs a journalist whose expertise claims rely on her alleged molestation as a child and her radical feminist beliefs, and on the other side we have the Australian judiciary and legal profession.

Ms Biggs is arguing the radical feminist mantra that everyone but them has to be 're-educated' (funny how the extreme Left and extreme Right rely on the same solutions).

The example of the female (of course!) speaker who held that there was some ancient legal precedent that women and children lie is utter hogwash, so easily dismissed by onyone who knows anything about our legal system.

Another things, how could it possibly be that the thousand of talented men and women lawyers and judges in Australia would ever go along with the sort of foul plot against women and children that this journalist would have us believe. Fair go!

There are victims who fall between the gaps and that is horrendous. Equally there are people who feel the Courts have done them wrong and quite possibly some of these allegations may have some basis in fact. Much of this has to do with the inherent complexity of family relationships and over-stretched helping resources.

But 're-education' of judges and overturning of our system of law to suit radical feminist beliefs is quite another matter indeed.

I am not surprised that Ms Biggs did not impress the convention she skoke at because lawyers are always unimpressed with rhetoric and jingoism.

Ms Biggs was miffed by her reception. So what? Bluff doesn't always allow a speaker to wing it through, huh?

Has anyone who has posted here ever even met a judge? Listened to more than a 10 second sound bite? Or read a judgement or two?

Judge's don't spring completely formed out of a stack of law books complete with wigs and gowns. Most have families with children, they all have mothers and fathers. Some have been victims of crime, or know someone who is a victim of crime. They read newspapers, they watch TV, they have friends who are not lawyers and judges.

And what do judge's have to 'work with' when it comes to justice? They have to meet community expectations, something they they actually try to do. They often have interpret and apply incredibly difficult to understand acts of parliament.

Many judges would dearly love to be able to tailor sentencing regimes better for the offenders before them, but they are also limited by the systems put in place by elected governments, who nearly all want to spend as little on justice as possible while expecting the system to work to benefit the community.

Most judges could earn more money staying in private practice as barristers or solicitors than they can by accepting appointment to the bench.

They also must live with the fact that every judgement that they make, with the exception of the absolutely elevated justices of the High Court, can be appealed to a higher court, and that these higher courts can sometimes deal brutally with their decisions. Judges work under major scrutiny and they cannot hide their work.

Lastly, nearly everyone who appears before them have their own agendas. Judges have no agenda, except justice. They have nothing to gain by not applying justice fairly.

And no, I am not a lawyer, I am not related to a judge, I have just had more experience than many people to see judges at work.

So next time you may be tempted to judge judges, ask yourself if you could do a better job with the available tools and systems?

I agree with you completely Hamlet.

JamesH and TurnRightthenLeft,

You both make points about the number of guilty men who go free, or innocent men convicted by the legal system, but you're both missing an important point about the radical feminist agenda. Radical feminists like Barbara Biggs see ALL men as guilty of sexual violence. An innocent man going to jail is of no consequence to them because as far as they're concerned he, like all men, IS a sexual predator, but perhaps just hadn't had the opportunity to prey upon a women or child YET. In other words, an innocent man who goes to jail is just saving a women or child from certain abuse anyway.

Now you know what Barbara means by 're-education'.

Barbara,
you are brave and unflinching.
most men do not abuse, but some men do.
most women do not abuse, but some women do.
it is uncomfortable for any of us to recognise that children are abused and mostly their abusers get away with it. judges are no different from the rest of us, they would prefer to believe it did not happen, but, sometimes, it does.
gender politics have no place here, this is about children. The only reason the lesser numbers of female judges matter when it comes to child abuse, is that women are conditioned much more than men to regard the treatment of children as their direct responsibility.
Barbara, I admire you, those men who automatically assume that any criticism of some men is directed at all men do themselves and their sex a disservice. Do not allow their foolish and defensive comments to deflect you in your fight to protect boys and girls.

ena, Barbera appears to be advocating for the assumption that a "male" accused of abuse be treated as guilty with little opportunity to defend themselves. She dismisses out of hand the very real behaviours that turn family law into a nightmare for so many caught in it's web.

If her article had included at least some of the other side of the picture, calls for serious consequences for those who make false claims of abuse (child or DV) in the family law system then it might have carried some weight. As it stands its more of the same genderised junk that creates the divide. Barbera appears to be one of the feminists that is hurting the cause of those who want equality rather than a special deal.

David Latimer, it is the same JamesH but you might also consider that I'm the same R0bert who has been abused by maximus and others for defending moderate feminists. Barbera appears to be pushing an agenda that should be offensive to all who want equality. She is not protecting children, rather advocating for a system where the most unscrupulous parent wins (as long as that parent is female).

An accusation by someone with an axe to grind and who stands to gain materially if the accusation is believed is not proof and needs to be tested as thoroughly as any other accusation.

R0bert

One of the extraordinary things to me is the assumption that it should be judges who should be deciding the fates of children, fathers and mothers. Just think who judges are? They are career lawyers with old school WASP connections.

They’d probably barely recognize their own kids if they came across them in the street. When these career-liars were home they probably started and ended their fathering by doing little more than beating whichever of their kids their wives told them they had to punish. That is, of course, if the kids were there – most of the year they would be away at boarding school from the youngest legal age one can send ones children away from home. And these guys almost certainly got the same treatment themselves when they were kids – who are they to judge good fatherhood? Most of them probably wouldn’t know a good father if they fell across one

I find it rather interesting that Biggs is assumed to be a radical feminist, when most of what she has said seems pretty reasonable to me. Okay, it's feminist, but I didn't see any assumption all men are evil.

Eet - if it is true that Biggs hates all men, then perhaps I'd re-evaluate my position, though I'd need to see statements from ms Biggs indicating that this is the case.
Your statement 'radical feminists like Barbara Biggs' tends to paint a wide number of feminists with one brush.

Until I see some indication that Ms Biggs is attempting to do more than address problems with our legal system, I can't help but feel many posts here have been formulated from assumptions.

TurnRightThenLeft, the article seemed to me to be pushing an agenda where men accused of child sexual abuse are left with few options to defend themselves and without any kind of counter balance. I've heard Hetty Johnson say that she is willing to see innocent men go to jail if it might save a child from sexual abuse. Barbara's article seemed to share some of the same one sided approach.

Maybe Barbera could have addressed some of the following
- penalties for those who make false claims of abuse
- condemnation of those who use this stuff for personal agenda's
- child protection advocates who ignore the vast majority of abuse and portray child abuse as though it was only about child sexual abuse

If she had done some of the above the article might have been something different.

R0bert

David Latimer, last time I did maths 1 + 1 = 2.

The person I really admire is Sabine Dardenne.

(The doctors and the psychiatrists she rejected outright. "The psychiatrist was the worst," she says. "I didn't want to go, my mother made me, and I only went once. This woman showed me splotches of ink, asked me what they were. I said, splotches of ink. She showed me a picture of a little girl with flowers, asked me what it was. I said, a little girl with flowers. She said, is that all? I said, of course it is! That's the day I understood that if I wasn't careful I really would go mad - not with what had happened, but with all the whys and the wherefores afterwards."

She resisted her parents too, particularly her mother, who wanted badly to be confided in, to share her burden. "I just wasn't going to do it," she says. "There was no point. It had happened, it was over, end of story. Telling her about it would not have changed that, and it would only have made her feel 10 times worse.")

Do women lie? Yes and according to the research they are much better at it than men, and yes men do lie as well.

The hardest thing is sorting out who is actually telling the truth.

Professor Daphne Patai in her books often comments on the use of 'Sophistry' basically it is a manipulative technique to appeal to the biases and prejudices of people. Reading the article it seems to base its appeal on appealing to the biases and prejudices of the reader.

There is an angry bunch of (presumably) men around here coming up with some very dubious arguments. Just some examples:

eet says above: "radical feminists see ALL men as guilty of sexual violence."
This is a classic straw man - eet, if you want to refute someone's argument, it is essential to first understand that argument. Radical feminists have never said that all men were guilty of sexual violence, so the argument you are fighting is of your own creation.

RObert says above: "fathers commit a very small proportion of child sexual abuse."
How many studies need to conclude that fathers commit a large proportion of child sexual abuse before wishful thinkers such as yourself accept it? This does not mean that ALL sexual abuse is committed by fathers, or that mothers never commit sexual abuse. But to say that fathers commit a "very small proportion" of child sexual abuse is simply incorrect.

Hamlet says above "Judges have no agenda, except justice."
How can anyone possible make this claim?? It is at best naive, at worst utterly disingenuous.

And JamesH makes a fascinatingly revealing comment about his admiration for a girl who apparently refused psychiatric/psychological treatment after some traumatic event. He quotes her as saying "It had happened, it was over, end of story. Telling her about it would not have changed that."
In other words, this is not a girl who is refusing to be brainwashed into believing something bad happened to her, it is a girl who believes something bad happened to her AND WHO IS CHOOSING TO KEEP QUIET ABOUT IT. And it is that that JamesH is admiring her for.

"All men are rapists and that's all they are" -- Marilyn French, Author, "The Women's Room"

"I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire." -- Robin Morgan

"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies." -- Andrea Dworkin

"Men are the enemies of women."

"In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent." Catharine MacKinnon,

Gee Hedgepig it didnt take long to find the quotes you claim never existed, I guess I was having a bad deam and these quotes never happened.

Do not put words into my mouth Hedgepig. I admire Sabine because she had the fortitude not to fall in the trap of counselling. She is at the point where some people if they are fortunate enough to reach it, may reach it after many years of counselling.

OK something bad happened to me, I accept that and now it is time for me to get on with the rest of my life. It's called coming to terms with what happened and not letting it destroy the rest of your life.

JamesH, "The Women's Room" is a work of fiction - sometimes made up people say bad things.
I do concede your point about Catharine Mackinnon. She is one radical feminist who does equate heterosexual intercourse with rape. One.
The other quotes were not saying "all men are guilty of sexual violence".

I did not put words in your mouth. I quoted you, and interpreted what you said.

Surely if someone has had a traumatic experience it is reasonable for them to want to seek support and assistance from professionals, (some of whom are better at their jobs than others) It seems also reasonable to want to hold the perpetrator of the trauma accountable. I guess I don't understand why Barbara Biggs and others are so "dangerous" (to use eet's word) for speaking up about their experiences of abuse, and about the inadequacies of our legal system.

Hedgepig,

Like R0bert, I too have heard Hetty Johnson say she would be happy to see an innocent man go to jail if it might save a child from sexual abuse. She is probably Australia's most prominent sexual abuse campaigner, so if her implicit belief is all men are abusers it's not unreasonable to assume other feminists believe the same thing.

JamesH provided some good quotes too. Others aren't hard to find:

"Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice." -- Andrea Dworkin

"All men are rapists and that's all they are" -- Marilyn French, Authoress; (later, adviser to Al Gore's Presidential Campaign.)

Lots more at:
http://wiki.mensactivism.org/index.php/Radical_Feminist_Quotes

The truly scary thing is, if people like Hetty Johnson are basically saying all men are rapists/abusers publicly, then what must they be thinking privately. It beggars belief.

JamesH,

I have to agree with you about Sabine Dardenne too. I saw an interview/sound bite with her and really admired her courage. Here was a woman who suffered one of the most abominable experiences imaginable, yet she was determined to live the rest of her life as normally as possible. I instantly contrasted it with the women who accused the swimming coach Scott Volkers of abusing her. She alleged he had inappropriately rubbed her leg when she was around 15. Then years later she appeared on TV with Hetty Johnson saying this guy has ruined her life. It's incredible. The guy was innocent, but even if he wasn't, hadn't someone thought of saying to this women – ‘hey it was your thigh...get over it.’ How can someone touching your thigh ruin your life? Compared with Sabine Dardenne, I thought what a fraud this woman was.

Radical feminists narrow and flex the definition of child abuse to suit their obsession with sex and the (alleged) 'patriarchy'. This serves their gender politics but it is not helpful in understanding what child abuse is or what can be done about it.

The South Australian Department of Education Training & Employment`s child protection policy definition is relevant:

- Child abuse refers to all aspects of abuse: neglect, physical, emotional and sexual.

- 'Child' refers to children, students and young people under the age of 18.

The DECS Child Protection Policy is a well researched document of some years standing which has broad application. It is a shame that in our system of government the bureaucrats in the federal government and other States must always reinvent the wheel.

www.decs.sa.gov.au/docs/filescommunities/docman/1/childprotection/pdf

Best of all, the policy is exclusively concerned about the wellbeing and safety of children.

It is a must-read for those who really want to improve the lot of Australian children.

“I turned to the work of a very interesting sociologist, Joel Best, who wrote a book called, Threatened Children, in which he talked about the social construction of child abuse as a problem. What I learned from Best was that there's a predictable process by which a group of claims-makers sets forth a problem and brings it to public attention. There are a series of stages through which the public becomes aware of the problem and begins to accept the terms of the debate as set forth by this group of claims-makers.

They engage in a series of techniques, what Best calls "expansion of the domain of the problem." The public is told that it's not simply a specific problem occurring in a specific setting, but that it's a much broader problem. That way it tends to escape from its borders, so that we become aware that the problem is much, much larger than we thought. “Professor Daphne Patai

http://www.mensrights.com.au/page27i.htm
Battered by the System. Nobody believed Frank.

Feminists only are only interested in child abuse as long as it can be used to bash men. If they were truly interested in preventing child abuse, then they would also look at and discuss the behaviour of female abusers. Admitting to female abusers would challenge the feminists patriarchal model. The major basis of their dogma.

Recently there have stories of children dying after being left in the care of their mothers, even after DOCs have been notified. The current belief system that the children are better off in the care of their mothers. If it was a father acussed the children would have been removed immediately. These children have been sacrificed in order to maintain the feminist dogma.

JamesH, "Feminists only are only interested in child abuse as long as it can be used to bash men". Have you tracked down a copy of "When She was Bad" yet?

One feminist who is doing exactly what you suggest they should.

Barbera appears to be ignoring the vast bulk of child abuse, I'm left wondering why so many who claim to be interested in child protection show so little interest in about 94% of substantated abuse and neglect

http://www.abusedchildtrust.com.au/facts.htm#2
In Queensland during 2003-04, the types of substantiated abuse were:

23% physical abuse
32% emotional abuse
39% neglect
6% sexual abuse

and of course
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

eet, I interpreted Hetty's approach as being that men's lives are not worth much and should be treated as disposable rather than an accusation that we are all child abusers.

R0bert

JamesH says above "Admitting to female abusers would challenge the feminists patriarchal model. The major basis of their dogma."

Actually, female abuse of children fits quite well into our patriarchal model. You know, man kicks woman, woman kicks child, child kicks dog.

What is most amazing about what I'm reading around here is how much power and influence you all seem to think feminists have. If only! Haven't any of you noticed the government we've had for the past ten years? You guys should be looking forward to a bright future of unchallenged male dominance - cheer up!

Hey whats with your nom de plume?

Speaking only for myself, i have learnt over the years that lieing is simply part and parcel of the feminist thing. I always read female academics with the assumption that they have relied on advocacy research or falsehoods most people are too nice to question. That is why i have decided to be 'nasty', because to be nice is most likely to be trapped in the feminist strategy. feminists have lowered the ehical standards for the entire human race. Child abuse is symptomatic of how creepy humans can be but at the same time woman getting away with murdering children and you don't hear the femos screaming aout it.

Posted by Hedgepig, Tuesday, 26 September 2006 2:32:01 PM
"Actually, female abuse of children fits quite well into our patriarchal model. You know, man kicks woman, woman kicks child, child kicks dog."

Yes that fits very nicely - if men are violent that is men's fault - if women are violent that is men's fault too. So, whenever anything anywhere is wrong - blame men - yeah, that seems pretty much the feminist position. In fact the figures show that women are not only more likely to initiate violence against children than men they are more likely to initiate violence against men than men are to initiate violence against them. Check out the just released Personal Safety Survey by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

"What is most amazing about what I'm reading around here is how much power and influence you all seem to think feminists have. If only! Haven't any of you noticed the government we've had for the past ten years?"

Yeah, I have. It set up an Office for the Status of Women. It empowered the "Equal Rights Commissioner" Pru Goward - one of the most rampant misandrists in Australia and every university in the country has a department of Women's Studies. Men have no equivalent lobby groups.

Your comments simply show a complete lack of appreciation of what it is like to be an ordinary man in the modern world. I dont mean high flying CEO's or PM's I mean being an ordinary guy in Australian in 2006

Citizen said: "Speaking only for myself, i have learnt over the years that lieing is simply part and parcel of the feminist thing."

Well said and many women and men would agree with you.

People get very frustrated with radical feminists' disregard for the truth and their continual concoction of 'facts'- which they fiercely defend even when proven to be lies.

Radical feminism was and is always about rhetoric - a zone where truth is flexible. To a feminist a person with ethics is a fool. It is a game of bullying and bluff.

In Lewis Carrol's Through The Looking Glass, Humpty Dumpty says "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less." Humpty Dumpty could easily have been a feminist.

You cannot deal in good faith with feminists because they refuse to act in good faith.

Rob513264 wrote: It(The Howard Government) set up an Office for the Status of Women. It empowered the "Equal Rights Commissioner" Pru Goward - one of the most rampant misandrists in Australia

If you can find feminism in this government, we really must be inhabiting parallel universes.

Rob513264 wrote: Your comments simply show a complete lack of appreciation of what it is like to be an ordinary man in the modern world. I dont mean high flying CEO's or PM's I mean being an ordinary guy in Australian in 2006

Isn't it a bit odd to blame the troubles of the ordinary man on ordinary women who just want a bit of equality, instead of blaming those troubles on the the people with actual power such as those "high-flying CEOs or PMs"? Or is it just easier and safer to blame a group of people who don't have a lot of money and influence? (And if you come up with some statistics now that prove that women actually get paid far more than men for equivalent work and that all the major players in the world are actually women disguised as men I really..well, actually I really won't be very surprised).

Good on you, hedgepig, but you have entered the club of blokes who use "feminist" sometimes with the epithet "radical" attached to attack any and all attempts to point out that women may have suffered and in some instances may continue to suffer from an endemic imbalance of power. Part of the evidence of this is that any and all examples of women holding any power (office of status of women- absorbed by this govt into the office of that well known feminist sympathiser the PM) over their own fate are seen as dastardly plots aimed at cutting off all men's balls. Like some of the religious who seem terrified of any alternative points of view, this desperate defensiveness would appear to indicate that some men's balls are very fragile appendages indeed.
Barbara's article seemed reasonable enough to me. After reading her books, it is hardly surprising she might have a rather heightened suspicion of powerful men in the legal profession. Nowhere did I see her claim that all men are abusers, she did suggest many men may have a harder time understanding the fears and feelings of the abused than women. Given some of the responses above, I'd say they have certainly helped support her case.

Erin Pizzey wrote that she wasn't seeing social workers graduate from universites but political activists.

Eeva Sohdi wrote about what she saw as activist judges.
http://www.fathersforlife.org/Sodhi/remarks_McLachlin1.htm

"Both McLachlin and L'Heureux-Dubé are self-confessed feminists. In a just society no law can be applied according to the personal agenda or perception of a judge, especially if that judge openly embraces such radical ideology as feminism. We could hardly tolerate a member of the Aryan Nation to deliver a verdict concerning racial tolerance.

If our judges and law enforcement agencies are, indeed, trained by an organization which bases its dogma on partial truths and outright lies, as shown..., then they can be seen to be participants in the effort to subvert justice."

ena, thankyou. I think I've fallen into the newbie trap of letting the crazies get on my goat. It's so hard to let some of their remarks go unanswered, yet ultimately it is futile arguing with people who firmly believe they are a disadvantaged group because women make two-thirds the money they do instead of only half.
I'll pick my battles more sensibly in future (hopefully!)

PS. check out Maximus's jibe to me on the Dissing Men thread about being irrational because of PMS - talk about making my point for me!

HedgePig unfortunately maximus just likes being nasty. He prefers to express himself in extremist terms. That does not invalidate the points others are making nor does it make those with a differing viewpoint to your own loonies.

Differences in income do not justify discrimination or villification in other areas (and I'm not convinced that women get less for the same work, just that we pay some occupations differently to others).

Did you have a look at the substantiated child abuse stats, I suspect not but it would be interesting to see how someone with your viewpoints deals with them. You could also have a look at the stats from the NSW Child Death Review Team on who kills children. http://text.kids.nsw.gov.au/files/cdrt_fatal_abuse_neglect2003.pdf and table 4.3 page 48 if you don't want to read the whole thing.

Most parents (male or female) are not child abusers and most substiated child abuse is not sexual.

Kids are at a greater risk of abuse living exclusively with one parent, I've not seen stats on child abuse in shared parenting situations but suspect that a relationship with both parents provides a better chance that the child will have someone to talk to about abuse and the fact that parents get a break also helps reduce the chance of much abuse.

Kids should never be separated from a parent on the unsubstantiated allegations of one parent, abuse allegations should be investigated thoroughly and independantly and malicious allegations should carry meaningful penalties.

Apart from the harm to innocent fathers, grandparents and others posed by Barbera's approach it also risks placing children further into harms way.

R0bert

Hedgepig,

“Feminism begs to differ, but unisex brain is a fantasy
So, says Janet Albrechtsen, girls and boys are different after all. D'oh”

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20481754-32522,00.html

“ONLY a girl could write The Female Brain and walk away with life and reputation intact. This new book may be contentious, but in fact modern science is merely playing catch-up with what we know intuitively. Girls are different from boys.
Mind-blowing news, huh?”

Yes men and women are different -common sense says so - that is why both are needed in the nurturing years of children - where-ever possible and safe .Why a agenda or 'ism' continues to demonize one gender is beyond belief and without reason and credible balance ? "Outside influences" are detrimental to the vulnerable and confused kids.The vile PAS is my enemy and only constructive discussion will help in our war against parents using it in the judicial system - regardless or whether "he" is lawyered up$$$$$ or "she" is just a vengeful /vindictive mother. PAS is often displayed as wrongful behaviour by a irrational adult who is hell bent on destroying the primal bonds of love forming between one parent and their alienated children .The sadness in the children's tiny hearts make many a estranged parent struggle for breath as the excruciating pain inside eats away like a cancerous cyst.

My my what short memories people have.

I guess it is really time to educate our judges, but not in the way suggested in this article.

It wasn't that long ago when it was claimed that silcone breast implants were causing all these health problems in women who have them.

Research was conducted and published, experts witnesses appeared supporting the claims that silcone implants caused health problems. Many of these people actually committed perjury.

Thousands of women recieved compensation and a company bankrupted on false claims. The media aided and abetted the claim makers.

Our judges need to educated to be more sceptical.

The claim that silcone implants caused health problems would not succeed today.

Less than a century ago similar tactics were used in the formation of the order of the white feather, the objective was to shame men into joining the armed services.

Justice fueled by the mob mentality and hysteria is not justice. It is corruption.

it seems to me to be a fact that judges in postions highest power in this country are themselves peadophiles..

That is why child rapists and molestation cases receive pathetic and very suspiciously light sentences.

I dont care if not one other person on here does agree with a word Ive said..I believe that fact to be the reason for this.

Judges as in most other professions of responsibility and status watch each others backs and protect each other.

The times one could count whereby a judge, politician, lawyer,teacher and on it goes, has been exposed as homosexual or a peadophile tells me that Im very close to the truth and it revolts me in the strongest possible sense.

There will be those that come on and say that homosexuality is NOT linked to peadophilia and I say rubbish...

My brother was molested as a small boy by a peadophile(he was 8) and was consistently right into his teens we found out later..these monsters were well recognised by our family as homosexuals but also had a penchant for children..male and female ..one tried to get friendly with me...but being older I was wise to him.

He went onto become homosexual himself believing that he must be because of what had happened to him as a small boy, his experience had completley confused his sense of self...he became a male prostitute in Kings Cross for a few yrs.

Often these pple seek these powerful positions for thesevery reasons..they can control and become untouchable, that IS WHY they are so dangerous.

Theft in this country rape of grown women,and no penetration needs to take place mind..(1st hand experience because this happened to a friend )

carries far harsher penalties in this country than the rape and cruelty inflicted on tiny innocent babies and children.

A case for the death penalty to be bought back if ever I heard one.

Did anyone else happen to catch this article in Saturday's Age?

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/public-softer-on-crime-than-judges-study-finds/2006/09/29/1159337341315.html

The second and third paragraphs read:

"If anything, people who were made familiar with the circumstances of a violent crime and offenders were more lenient and less likely to believe they should be jailed for long periods, said criminologist Austin Lovegrove.

The results include members of the public discounting by a third a jail sentence for a rapist who attacked a woman in her home. "When they realise they are sentencing a real person, then it gets trickier for the bulk of people," Dr Lovegrove said. "They have to think about the woman who has to look after two children, the armed robber who has a pathetic background, the white-collar criminal who has ruined his life."

It is also worthwhile remembering that in the vast majority of sex assault cases that go to trial, the decision is made by a jury, that is members of the public, not by judges. It is the jury who decides who lies, not a judicial officer.

Where a magistrate, in a committal hearing, declines to send a case to trial, the DPP can still bring the matter before a jury through the use of ex officio indictments.

Or are some here suggesting that jury trials should be abolished, judges 're-educated' to produce guilty verdicts in spite of evidence, or perhaps the re-introduction of the rack in order to get 'confessions' out of people (read: "men") who are accused of sexual assault?

If the problem is with Family Law, then maybe evidence, and accusations, gathered in those proceedings should be able to be used more in (or perhaps be automatically be referred to)criminal courts, after all the best way of removing an abusive father from parenting is to put him in gaol. Pity that fathers in gaol cannot easily pay child support, which is maybe why that course is not followed.

Also, criminal courts tend to take perjury very seriously.

Women do not lie more than men - they simply change the truth into something more convenient more often. It always amazes me how many women's ex's turned out to be complete bastards/losers whatever especially when another woman is finding exactly the same qualities in that man that his wife found before she needed to build a custody case against him ala Heather Mills McCartney.

Hasnt it ever occurred to any women that it is completely untenable to assert that so many men undergo complete Jekyll and Hyde transformations just at the time that she wants custody?

Women have only the other women who have abused the advantage of being automatically believed to thank for delivering the current situation where they have to 'shock horror' provide proof just like everyone else running any other sort of case before the courts. We used to believe women whenever they said they had been abused now we know - as was said by one young girl quoted in Odd Girl Out 'There is an evil in girls that there just isnt in boys'.

YOU ARE SO...RIGHT ABOUT EDUCATING JUDGES AND MAGISTRATES REGARDING ISSUES OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE. HAVING JUST COPPED ONE OF THESE MAGISTRATE'S, WHO ALLOWED A WHOLE DAY'S QUESTIONING OF MY 10 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER BY A Q.C. - I AM TOTALLY IN AGREEMENT WITH YOU. THE MAGISTRATE WAS INSENSITIVE, RUDE AND ARROGANT TOWARDS ME IN THE WITNESS BOX. HE ALLOWED THE ACCUSED REPRESENTATIVE Q.C. TO ASK WHATEVER HE WANTED OF ME AND THEN LEAD THE ACCUSED THROUGH HIS TESTIMONY (WHICH WAS JUST ONE LIE AFTER ANOTHER) AND EFFECTIVELY "SILENCED" ME BY ALLOWING EVERY OBJECTION MADE BY THE ACCUSED Q.C. TO QUESTIONS PUT TO ME BY THE POLICE PROSECUTOR. THAT'S WHAT WE CALL A "JUSTICE" SYSTEM. THE LEGAL SYSTEM IS A SHAM AND A TOTAL DISGRACE TO THIS COUNTRY. THESE MALE JUDGES AND MAGISTRATES SHOULD NOT BE SITTING ON SUCH CASES AS THESE - THEY HAVE NO IDEA HOW IT FEELS TO BE ABUSED BY A MAN AND IN FACT I REALLY THINK THAT THEY COULD BE IDENTIFYING WITH THE ACCUSED. I KNOW THE MAGISTRATE THAT SAT ON OUR CASE WAS COMPLETELY BIASED TOWARDS THE ACCUSED. HIS SUMMING UP OF THE CASE WAS PATHETIC, AS WERE HIS REASONS (SUPPOSEDLY BASED IN LAW) FOR FINDING THE ACCUSING 'NOT GUILTY'. I WILL NOT STOP HERE - TAKING THIS MATTER FURTHER AND EXPOSING THESE CALLOUS PIGS FOR WHAT THEY REALLY ARE - PEDOPHILE PROTECTORS - IS NOW HIGH ON MY PERSONAL AGENDA.

We need to bridge the reality divide here.

The cases of child abuse in the original article where the Family Court failed to protect the child are inexcusable. We obviously need to protect children from child abuse !

According to the ABS Personal Safety Study 2006, about 0.9% of people experienced child abuse by one of their parents, about 94% perpetrated by the father, 6% by the mother.

(I believe the data to be somewhat inaccurate, and even the ABS says that this statistic has a relative standard error of 25-50% and should be used with caution. But for the purposes of argument, let us assume it to be accurate).

So child sex abuse is highly 'gendered'. However, its incidence is less than 1% of the population.

The question is, can we assume a father to be guilty, based only on the claims of the mother, where there is no evidence ? Can we assume 'guilty' until proven 'innocent' ?

The 'Prevent Child Abuse' campaigners refuse to admit that there are many instances of false accusations. True - here I do not have reliable figures, and we need reliable surveys into this diffult area. But I know from personal experience it happens. And judges know it too.

(hopefully the moderator will allow me to continue on the next post)

(continued from my last post)

Further, parental alienation happens, and mothers appear to be far more willing to engage in parental alienation than fathers. Again we need studies and statistics to verify this. But from regular anecdotal evidence it is obvious.

Forget 'Parental Alienation Syndrome'. Who cares about whether the behaviour phenomenon accords with precise psychiatric definitions of a 'syndrome'? Until the 'Prevent Child Abuse' movement recognises this behaviour pattern which is most prevelant amongst separated mothers (over-protection, insecurity, controlling behavour - who knows ?), it will not win support from large sections of the community - who also want to improve the protection of children from child abuse.

So how do we distinguish between legitimate claims of child abuse and false claims ? That is the question hopefully we can all agree on as a key question.

Firstly, if there is no evidence of child abuse, the child must not be deprived of access to the accused parent.

However, where there are unsubstantiated allegations made, a case worker (or two) should be assigned for regular interaction with the child or children in question, and BOTH parents should be scrutinised. Parents should have access to the reports by the case worker(s) and there should be some sort of Ombudsman if it is felt there is bias or unprofessionalism on the part of the case worker.

We can teach children over the age of about three years to express themselves if they feel they have been touched in a way which made them feel uncomfortable. We can also teach them not to keep any secrets which either parent may have asked them to keep.

There is no need to make the child suspicious of a particular parent - it can be a general learning which can be applied by the child to either parent. Perhaps these lessons can be taught to groups of children.

There are probably many more ways to protect children from child abuse. This is what this forum should be about.

(one final post to come)