"A new ideology based on the seeds of marxism emerged in the 1960s and 1970s and it was called feminism"

What a weak argument- yes, some feminists are marxists, but certainly not all. As I've said before, I identify as a feminist (because I believe that neither sex is superior to the other, and that both should therefore be treated fairly in society), but I do not subsribe to Marxist thought. The author contradicts himself on this point by referring to Christina Hoff Sommers, who suprisingly enough, identifies herself as a feminist, and as far as I am aware, is not a Marxist.

Also, it is evident that feminism was around before the 1960s and 70s- that is why the feminism of this era is referred to as second-wave feminism.

I am not sure of the exact details of the Canadian domestic violence act, but I am generally for extra legal protection for victims of domestic violence because it a serious problem, regardless of the gender of the victim. Although, according to a study done by VicHealth, "domestic violence is the single greatest risk factor associated with death, disease and disability for younger Victorian women" (young menaing 18-44). Also, according to a study by Monsah University researchers, "Coroner's data showed that deaths in women due to assault were more likely to be the result of domestic violence compared with men, and that 90% of all domestic violence deaths occur in women". Our legal system needs to maintain a balance between protecting the innocent who are accused of crimes, as well as protecting those who are victims of crime, and that includes those who are at risk of death from domestic violence

la1985, your acceptance of government advocacy data relating to the incidence and nature of domestic violence is cute, but worrying. I recommend an article which appeared in these pages just over a year ago, to present a well argued case for viewing these statistics with some considerable suspicion -

On Line Opinion
Domestic violence - a statistical 'shock and awe' campaign?
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3538

Naturally, the article created considerable debate.

I suggest that the latest and most authoritative data on this matter can be found here -

Australia Bureau of Statistics Personal Safety Survey 2005
http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/6609ADCA83BBB30ACA2571C50074B5B7/$File/49060_2005_Reissue.pdf

It's a somewhat lengthy document, but it does reveal that during the 12 months of 2005, when comparing genders with regard to physical assault in the home (DV) that they estimated, both reported and unreported incidents -

Women as victim
101,600 events, about 1.3% of female population, about 1 woman in 77 affected.

Men as victim
60,900 events, about 0.8% of male population, about 1 man in 125 affected.

This gives you a rough estimate of female to male ratio of about 2:1, which affects about 2.1% of the entire population.

In light of the ABS figures, I find it difficult to believe Vic Health's claim that "domestic violence is the single greatest risk factor associated with death, disease and disability for younger Victorian women" (young meaning 18-44)".

Very difficult indeed.

I think the author of this piece would enjoy life under the Taleban, and I warmly invite him to move to those parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan where his views of women are widely shared.

As a person who has been involved with UNIFEM in Austrlalia, I find this article slightly insulting.

To think that women who have the audacity to stand up for themselves and to demand equal treatment and respect are somehow the seeds of Stalin is somewhat bewildering. I would remind the author that while Marx and Engels were writing Das Kapital, women couldn't vote, couldn't borrow money and couldn't be elected to public office. I personally think that Ibsen's The Dolls House, did more for the spread and promotion of feminist ideals than Marxism ever did.

Feminsim wasn't born out of some grand narrative on power structures. It was born out of an inequality in society. To say that those who stood up against this inequality have all perscribed to a certain set of beliefs is laughable.

www.whiteribbonday.org.au

If one believes that females should NOT be given a right of self defense against violence against their persons, or the persons of their children, then one can call any such right communistic, or femininist.

Do females have the right not to be harmed in their physical persons (just like males)? If that is communistic, that's news to me. I thought the communists are the ones who do not respect individual rights, that they are the ones who as with the Khmer Rouge and Stalin, kill indiscriminately.

Does the Family Violence bill specify that the arresting officer have a reasonable basis for making an arrest? Doesn't "reasonable basis" mean there must be some factual basis or factual reason to believe violence has been committed, or will be committed if an arrest is not made?

So then why demonize those females who wish not to be beaten, raped, or their children to suffer the same, and those who wish to protect them, by comparing any such efforts to communism?

Finally, what is communist doctrine? When Jesus said to the Jewish males who asked him if the adulterous woman should be stoned -- that he who is without sin, cast the first stone, was Jesus being a communist and a feminist, as well? How about "humane" and a just God?

The impulse to kill or otherwise harm should be circumscribed by laws that prevent it.

Is there a big problem in Tasmania with females being injured by their spouses? Then it is the role of government to deal with it, based on the facts, rather than to allow it to continue.

Without that, there is a private right to assault, to rape, to kill. There is no private right to commit criminal acts.

As for bail, I understand there is no absolute ban on bail. It is conditioned on the likelyhood of harm to the alleged victim should the perpetrator be released.

I agree, if not the weakest of all times it certainly is the worst article I have ever read on this forum. I am surprised it is here at all.

Self-avowed feminists? makes it sound as if they admitted to a crime...feminism is about equality, and I would be rather worried about a magistrate who did not believe in gender equality!

Feminism can be radical of course, like all movements, but one should be careful to distinguish between these forms and others.

Feminism has been a powerful liberating movement, for both men and women, and one of the most succesful in history, I think in this climate of feminism-bashing we forget what the situation was like just a few decades ago. With both genders forced to conform to very restrictive gender roles. Feminism has given us the freedom to think outside those roles and each find our path as human beings.

At its core, feminism is simply a belief that neither gender is superior to the other, and this belief the author compares to the racist beliefs of Aryan nation. I am speechless.

And anyway, the connection with Marxism is rather tenuous, marxists have never been that interested in gender politics, in fact, that was a problem for left-wing women in the 60s and 70s, they often felt that their own specific problems were ignored by the left-wing movements who were much more interested in class-struggle.

I feel insulted by this article, and I am a man!!