Having recently met and talked with a Psychologist who had work in the family court for more than two decades.

The Family Courts were described as a hostile enviroment and that more than 90% of the abuse within the court system was perpetrated by the mothers.

Of course the Family Court is a secret court.

I challange those in power to conduct research which is unbiased, and does not use advocacy research techniques, to see who is really telling the truth.

Lift the veil of secrecy and open the courts to public scrutiny. Lets find out what are really internet myths and what is in fact reality.

Tom's Tale
http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2004/0922rolph.html

The Anatomy of Abuse
http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2004/0407rolph.html

Erin Pizzey in her discussion paper on violent women, labelled them as family terrorists and as terrorists they are hidden from view.

“Family Court orders require the mothers to hand their child into the care of a person that the child has told them has physically and or sexually abused the child.”

And family courts also give protection to malevolent women who manipulate the system to improve there financial circumstances, regardless of the emotional and developmental needs of their children.

JamesH “The Family Courts were described as a hostile enviroment and that more than 90% of the abuse within the court system was perpetrated by the mothers.”

I can well believe that James - good post!

Not all men are abusers, as many women are abusive as men, although the way women abuse it tends to be more psychological and less physical, where the bruises do not show, do not heal but remain buried under the surface and cripple over a lifetime.

In another post I have described the lies and manipulation my ex used.

What the leading comments of this article should say is

“Family Courts must protect children from abusive parents, of either gender.”

The family court and Dr Elspeth McInnes, if they have any pretense to represent the basic (let alone the best) interests of children, need to stop assuming all wrong is automatically sourced from the father.

As for the rest of Dr Elspeth McInnes article, the usual one-eyed and one-sided drivel we expect from the corp of feminist politico cadres

Why does Dr Elspeth McInnes shy away from including child neglect and psychological harm in her (implied) definition of child abuse?

To use a narrow definition of child abuse is to condemn the greater number of children up to the age of 18 to suffering in silence.

A skewed, narrow definition of child abuse further victimises the children concerned by effectively concealing their cases from sight, excluding them from resource allocation and help and ultimately convincing them that their cases are indeed hopeless.

What about focussing of the needs of the children and leave the feminist politics for another day?

Some 60 years ago the government of Germany listened to the cries of people looking for a scapegoat to promote their own agendas.

It brought about the rise of Nazism.

Today people bleat about the alledged crimes perpetrated against 'poor, downtrodden single mothers' by the 'mean, violent and nasty fathers.'

The true victims of family law are the children who are denied their fathers by a system that encourages lies and deceit for the financial benefit of these vindictive mothers making the allegations.

I would like Doc McInness to show some REAL statistics showing PROVEN abuse. I would also like to see how many allegations are made in the courts - with the amount of false allegation and the absurd '9 in 10' rule it would mean that an overwhelming number of men are abusing their children within Australian society.

One in three marriages end in divorce in Australia. Most are instigated by the mother. Most court proceedings include allegations of domestic violence. By simple laws of averages, your allegations say that most men then are abusers if you consider '9 in 10' have 'substance.' Did your father do this Doctor? Mine didn't.

Any proof you can provide Doctor - or is this another attempt to find a scapegoat to promote the agenda?

I don't care who is doing the abusing, it chills me to the bone to think that any child is being forced to see a parent who is harming them by our courts.
Instead of using child abuse as a vehicle to beat up on feminists (yet again), or on men, how about we all start worrying about the safety of children?
it seems the rights of kids always get lost in the intransigent positions of both sides, particularly those who feel they have personally suffered injustice at the hands of the courts and an ex partner.
I don't know if 90% of abusers are female, but one thing I do know, 100% of the abusers are adults, and it's be nice if the rest of us started acting like adults, rather than sullen schoolchildren - you know "my gender's nicer than your gender, nyah,nyah, nayh."

This may be an interesting read, “These Boots are Made for Walking: Why Most Divorce Filers Are Women” by Dr Brinig who says, "Children are the most important asset in a marriage and the partner who expects to get sole custody is by far the more likely to file for divorce." The question of custody absolutely swamps all the other variables – sadly, I know this from experience.

Interestingly enough, we’re following the way of many American States where new legislation, in shifting from sole custody - which usually went to the mother - towards joint custody involving shared parental responsibility and often more equal share of residence of children. These are the States which show substantial dips in the divorce rate. It is argued, joint custody provides a deterrent for divorce by constraining rights to relocate and requiring couples to continue to share parenting - hence denying opportunity for one parent to punish the other by removing the children. Seems fair enough.

To those who argue, “What about the women who are coerced into remaining within a violent relationship through a change in custody laws?" – statistics don’t bear this fear out. Brinig's research shows few women (6 per cent) name cruelty as their reason for leaving. Research by the Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) shows women usually give other reasons for leaving their marriages - communication problems, lack of common interests, etc, with only 10 per cent citing violence.

Perhaps our legislated for “no-fault divorce” has been an over reaction? We've thrown everything out with the bath water. Basically, “no-fault divorce” seems to have merely exacerbated the problem. Ironically, Dr Mc.Innes wants to, in her own over reaction, legislate for a 'fault clause' - legislation of this type, sadly, will only add to the violence.

ena, "I don't know if 90% of abusers are female, but one thing I do know, 100% of the abusers are adults, and it's be nice if the rest of us started acting like adults, rather than sullen schoolchildren - you know "my gender's nicer than your gender, nyah,nyah, nayh."

So far it does not seem to have turned into a feminist bashing exercise, that unfortunatly may happen. Nor as far as I can see a my gender's nicer than your gender except by the author.

No suggestions that 90% of abusers are female (some abusers are children by the way - step brothers and sisters etc).

Elspeth has as is her style written a dishonest piece which suggests a significant genderisation of child abuse which isn't supported by the evidence.

You will have seen this plenty of times before but I'll keep posting it when discussions are based around the generalised concept of protecting kids from fathers rather than from abusive parents http://www.abusedchildtrust.com.au/facts.htm#3

Elspeth is not interested in protecting children, she is interested in better outcomes for women at the expense of children and their fathers.

If she had genuine interest in protecting kids she would write about protecting kids from harmful parents rather than just harmful male parents.

Elspeth might also write about means to make false claims of abuse less attractive to someone seeking primary care (and the house, car etc).

The article is rightly condemmed.

R0bert

Dr Elspeth supports women and children escaping/experiencing violence. That's where HER expertise lies. Others support men.

I welcome the post that reminds us that those who quibble about who is worse - men or women - miss the point that all of them are gown up children - once boys and girls. Some have been abused. some abuse.

Lets have a discussion of what's to be done FOR the children.

Lets get a lead from www.courageouskids.net a web prepared by children who have grown up in a hostile, pro abuser environment and learn from what they say - not what their parents said.

Have a look at another web www.kidsindistress.org.au a collection of many issues facing people whose children disclose abuse by a parent.

If you care about CHILDREN, lets spend some time in their interests.

Sorry Cotter, but I find you way off the mark. If the best interests of the child are to be maintained then every effort should be biased strongly in support of the family. From the child's perspective, in most instances it is, they need and desire both parents. The ideal is not always possible - but this is the one worth aiming for. The caveat hoped for by some our social reformers is we're now able to totally re-define 'family' - another piece of ‘quackery’ linked to the moral relativism of our time.

What is wrong with society that so many men are not accountable for their behaviours and actions? The decent men do not feel an unjustified need to invalidate the experiences of so many children and women. And they understand what feminism is about. Women ARE NOT responsible for men's actions. Although saying that, there are many women who are complicit in supporting these defensive men.

These men are the people my father warned me about

Trintz,

1. Who are these men who aren't accountable for their behaviours and actions?

2. What "behaviours and actions"?

3. How many is "so many"?

4. How many are "so many children and women"?

5. Which men are defensive?

6. Who are these complicit women?

7. What exactly is it that you are talking about here?

trinz

You may not have bothered to look at Roberts link I will paste a relevant part.

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

I assume the remaining 8% are children in institutions.

More women than men kill their own children.

Lets forget about genders, there are bad mothers and bad fathers, blaming one gender or another is futile.

Lets strive to make sure no child is abused by anybody

Well, Relda, I accept that in your opinion, focusing on the children is 'way off the mark'. I dont really think so.

Of course children do better in an intact family of two loving parents SO LONG AS THE FAMILY IS SAFE.

I think it is the ones who are not safe that are the problem. From what i've read about control and domination in relationships the 'victim' often tries every possible way they can to comply with the demands of the 'abuser' so they too can achieve that status of a happy family. But there comes a time when they give up and leave.

Not all. There are manipulative, violent PEOPLE who are only prepared to stay in a relationship so long as they get what they want - that is their needs dominate.

Trinz,

“The decent men do not feel an unjustified need to invalidate the experiences of so many children and women.”

Presumably the decent men you have in mind are the ones who do not criticise feminist ideology, or the ones complicit only in female forms of child abuse. Decent men, who would not question paternity fraud for example – for this would be against the best interests of both mother and child.

If “Women ARE NOT responsible for men's actions” then, neither should men be held responsible for women’s actions. The way many comments read, I would be surprised to see many women claiming responsibility for anything other than success achieved through one’s own virtue and hard work. Failures, as with paternity, are often misattributed.

Cotter, "that those who quibble about who is worse - men or women - miss the point" - I think you are missing the point. The author has a long history of fighting for inequality in family law matters and dissing men. So far the post's have not really dropped to the quibble about who is worse except by some bagging men who object to Elspeth's sexist slander.

ena, I didn't back up my earlier comment about the involvement of children in child abuse. Not a full coverage but part of the issue is covered in

"Acknowledgement that children and adolescents may commit acts of sexual abuse has only occurred relatively recently (Vizard, Monck, & Misch, 1995). The National Children's Home (1992, as cited in Masson, 1995) reported that it is estimated that between one-quarter to one-third of sexual abuse cases in the UK are perpetrated by a child or young person."

The source article is an interesting read

"Who abuses children?

Compiled by Nick Richardson and Leah Bromfield, National Child Protection Clearinghouse. Published by the Australian Institute of Family Studies
ISSN 1448-9112 (Online)" http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/sheets/rs7.html

I hope that my response to your comment does not come across as an attack, you are a poster who I have a lot of respect for so if I've phrased this to strongly I'm sorry. I worry that the work of people like Elspeth is taken seriously enough in some quarters that it does real harm to real people (children and adults).

R0bert

From Child Protection and Family Law report:

Research published in l994 indicated that sexual abuse allegations are made in a significant number of cases concerning children. The Family Court's study of 294 judgments in defended cases from all over Australia heard in l990, found that 7% of cases involved allegations of sexual abuse by the child's father, and in another 3% of cases it was alleged that the children had been abused by another adult such as a stepfather or other relative. Thus, the study concluded that in l0% of the defended hearings in the Family Court, the Court had to deal with the question of alleged sexual abuse....

A review of l997 Family Court data confirmed that a significant child abuse workload was a feature of the cases coming to court, which might subsequently result in court proceedings. The review examined over 700 cases awaiting pre-hearing conferences in the Melbourne registry of the Family Court and found that more than 40% of children's cases involved allegations of some form of child abuse....

Courts exercising jurisdiction under the Family Law Act have a limited capacity to generate independent evidence in the area of allegations of child abuse. There is often an "evidence vacuum"....
A study completed in l997 in South Australia found that in 34% of cases involving child sexual abuse there was no investigation by the child protection authority....

...nearly half of all calls made to its central Helpline do not lead to an investigatory response....

Child welfare authorities do not have a general investigatory role....

Brown and her colleagues found that a substantial number of children in their first study were experiencing significant distress. 28% had severe emotional or psychiatric problems.....

Robert,
You are right, of course, sometimes it is siblings or cousins who do the abusing, but their abuse is not generally the issue in child custody cases.
I really think we have to stop fighting about gender ( and you're right again, the author does that too) and start worrying about kids and making them safe.
I do not want to be part of the blame men game, when I talk of feminism it is about women taking responsibility for their own lives. For the life of me, I can't see why any reasonable human would object to that.
The men in my life ( apart from some very sexist experiences in the work place) I love, respect and honour. I do that because they also love, respect and honour me.
Indeed, I said to my husband tonight that he is the only man I know who could sit in a forum of 100 women and not feel remotely uncomfortable. It is the highest compliment I could pay. He is truly gender-blind, and so truly at ease with his own identity. My daughters are very, very lucky, as am I.

I read this article (and the overly emotive and poorly-written 'poem'), and I felt sickened. The poem was puerile, fetid nonsense that should never have seen the light of day.
How can this person make these statements?
How can she assume that non-custodial dads are always the perpetrators of violence/abuse?
What about the Mothers?
As politically incorrect as it is for me to say this-women are just as (if not more) abusive as men.
But, women are more prone to use psychological abuse than men.
My children have been taught to hate their father....and I have never been abusive on any level. I suppose that Ms McInnes would tell me that it's my fault anyway?
For Ms McInnes to spew out this article only demonstrates the hatred that she has for men.
Frankly, anybody espousing this level of hatred should, at best, be ignored.
By the way, I refuse to use the honorific of "Dr." in relation to Ms. McInnes. The Doctor honorific implies acknowledgement of a degree of professionalism on her part. As she is clearly not exhibiting professionalism in any manner, the title of Doctor should be ignored.

ena
In extolling the sensitivity of your spouse to feminism you said he was "gender-blind".

However given your claimed interest in equality shouldn't the PC term for his sublime state of gender unawareness be "gender-sight-impaired", not "gender-blind"?

What about you though? If you were as gender-sight-impaired as your spouse, why would you be contributing to this thread?

Oh bother, maybe I put "gender unawareness" where I mean "gender awareness". Is the path to gender-sight-impairment one of increasing, or decreasing awareness?

There was no hint of the trouble to come as I rocked up to pick the kids up for my access visit. Previously there never had been any trouble.

This time as I prepared to leave with the kids, my son became hysterical not wanting to leave his mother. He was frightened that she was going to die. He had not been going to school for the whole week previously. A fact I did not know.

Eventually it unravelled that his mother and her current boyfriend had had a blazing row where threats of violence were issued and he was terrified that his mother was going to be killed.

Much later it had emerged that he had called the police. I don't know how many times he has done this, but when I asked him why? he said it was because mum and the boyfriend were fighting.

Sometimes the real truth does not emerge until much later after the judges have made the final consent orders.

68f of the family law is a joke.

It is interesting to read the arguments that do not focus on the issue at hand because:
a) the focus of the issue at hand is diverted to other arguments that deflect from the truth eg.:- "more than 90% of the abuse within the court system was perpetrated by the mothers."
It is clear that family violence is overwhelmingly gendered i.e. men are the largest group of perpetrators. Domestic violence and child abuse go hand in hand.
"In 1999, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) developed a comprehensive set of guidelines designed to help caseworkers, advocates, and judges establish collaborative structures and develop policies and procedures that would enhance the safety and well-being of domestic violence victims and their children. Since its release, The Greenbook, which was formally titled “Effective Intervention in Domestic Violence & Child Maltreatment Cases: Guidelines for Policy and Practice,” has assisted numerous domestic violence advocates, child welfare workers, and family court judges in building a collaborative approach to working with families experiencing domestic violence and child maltreatment. http://www.usdoj.gov/ovw/greenbook.htm
b) This FACT doesn't suit advocates of men who abuse so they decry the researchers, eg.:- "I challenge those in power to conduct research which is unbiased, and does not use advocacy research techniques, to see who is really telling the truth."
c) When arguing a point that has no legitimate reasoning, name calling is employed instead, eg:- "And family courts also give protection to malevolent women who manipulate the system to improve there financial circumstances, regardless of the emotional and developmental needs of their children."
d) They attack the messenger- "As for the rest of Dr Elspeth McInnes article, the usual one-eyed and one-sided drivel we expect from the corp of feminist politico cadres."
continued...

e) Although women also abuse children, in the family court the cases who present are more often those where men use abuse against spouses and children. A good way to mislead from this point is to challenge them with points that have no relevance, eg.:-"One in three marriages end in divorce in Australia. Most are instigated by the mother. Most court proceedings include allegations of domestic violence. By simple laws of averages, your allegations say that most men then are abusers if you consider '9 in 10' have 'substance.' Did your father do this Doctor? Mine didn't."
f) Challenging the definition of family violence and child abuse is a good way to justify actions that they themselves may have used eg.:- "Why does Dr Elspeth McInnes shy away from including child neglect and psychological harm in her (implied) definition of child abuse? To use a narrow definition of child abuse is to condemn the greater number of children up to the age of 18 to suffering in silence."
g) The fact is that the standard of proof in family court is just about impossible to attain, particularly for child sexual abuse, therefore, allegations are not substantiated. This doesn't mean the allegation has been proven wrong. It just means that the abuser has gotten away with it.

continued...

Happy's previous post is yet another attempt of a biased feminist to promote their standard line men=bad, women=victim. The overwhelming number of statistics used by people like her are skewed to portray women as victims so as to maintain the mountains of funding poured by western governments into institutes like the National Council of Single Mothers and THEIR children.

Compare the mountains of cash thrown into women's interest organisation versus men. Think: where is the office of men's affairs comparable to women's affairs in Australia? There is none.

No one here is saying abuse doesn't happen. The reality is it is NOT at the levels as portrayed by sheep like McInness. Men and women are victims AND perpetrators. No concrete, unbiased investigation has been conducted to highlight male victims nor female perpetrators. Until this time, there will be nothing but the biased lies of feminist organisation trying to maintain their funding at the same levels.

Feminist authors White and Kowalski put an interesting slant on things, they suggest that maintaining the myth of the non-aggressive woman "sustains male power" by rendering women as weak, helpless, and in need of male protection. "By deconstructing the myth of the non aggressive woman, the trap of gendered dualism (male/female: powerful/weak: perpetrator/victim) is recognized and the advantages of the myth to men is diminished" – it seems when ‘equalizing’ the sexes we provide a double edged sword - the culpability of both equally proportioned and strangely revealed. Violence, properly, understood is an aberration all too common. It is true, most violent crime is committed by men. But we have already noticed that, as women assert their rights to full participation in the social and economic world, those statistics are changing. Women are as likely to become the physical abusers in this brave new world.

Our feminist authors continue and suggest aggression among women has been ignored because it has been defined narrowly in terms of physical aggression. As a result of much female aggression having "gone unnoticed and thus unnamed....female physical aggression seems more unexpected, becomes labelled irrational, and is denied legitimacy”. Throughout the centuries, civilisations have placed women on a plinth – we need understand this, instinctively, we have always known the power contained in their virtue.

With a misguided beckoning, do we now take them down to make them ‘Happy’? In the name of equality do we pass to them an appendage and a latent, masculine aggression? The virtue of the ‘weaker’ sex is a subtlety lost on many a radical feminist. Passing too, so it seems, is this quaintly chivalrous and protective male now reminiscent of a distant era.

I read the poem and I found it to be a realistic snapshot of what life can be for some...Child abuse whether perpetrated by male or female is an unforgivible act on any innocent child...The fact is that this poem is a viewpoint.....its not an attack on all men. If a man wrote the same poem exchanging he for she I would assume he would perhaps get backlashing from the opposite gender too?
I believe the point Dr McInnes makes is that the laws that are put into place are failing us. Nobody wants to see children abused, and made to be with their perpetrator but told they must because its law....Why should the perpetrator have any rights to their child when they have comitted such a crime against them?
We need to always have feedback and discussion and the freedom to express our opinion. Thats how we are then able to work towards creating the right laws that do protect the right person . In this case the child who unfortunately more often than not wears the brunt as a result of people who put themselves above their childrens basic human rights.

Whether children are cousins, sisters. brothers, sons, daughters etc, they will probably grow up to be adults.

Many will then become 'parents'. Many will then use what they learned as they grew up to model what they will avoid, and the ones of concern to me will repeat the sins of their experience by victimising others. Others will choose to abuse because they can.

Girls grow up, boys grow up. My mum and dad used to discuss the differences in being mum, to being dad. He was envious of the experience of pregnancy, and acknowledged his feelings to us must be different because mum did the mothering and he mostly waited til we grew and he could kick and throw things with us. My sister was quite boyish but became a great mum and aunty. The boys became good dads. Our parents didn't abuse by the standards then, but would be too tough by today's standards.

And yet there was sexual abuse. An uncle, my father's brother. He was a child once, brought up with dad yet he chose to abused boys, and his own kids. He went to jail. There were many other victims. I never heard of any sexual abuse by any of the women in that family - but perhaps we were just 'lucky'.

Not all abused children grow into abusive adults. Is there any chance the issue of how to help whatever child is abused, by whomever (including but not restricted to natural parents) could be seen to be part of the discussion.

Is there any chance the actual experiences of real people - men, women and children suffering from apalling sytems abuse on top of physical, mental and sexual abuse can be discussed with a view to progressing the issue?

If not, I guess i'll just move on, again.

ruby1, well reasoned and well argued. You certainly won't get any argument from me over your expressions of opinion, which I believe are coming from a good place.

So, taking it a bit further, I'll ask some questions.

Child abuse, sexual or otherwise is a very serious matter. Where there are allegations of abuse, then it should be treated with the utmost seriousness by everybody. But it seemingly is not. Seemingly, for I have had no personal experience of Family Court (FC), allegations, emanating from mothers, or their counsel, against fathers are rife. So why is it that FC judges, clerks of the court, whoever, don't bring these criminal acts to the attention of the law?

If they do, then why does the law not act upon them and bring the alleged perpetrators to justice?

If the law is acting and bringing these alleged perpetrators to justice, why is it that I don't hear of these things in the media?

If perpetrators are being dealt with by the judiciary properly, as they should, then there should be hundreds of these cases attracting great media attention and public outcry. But apart from rants like this from McInnes and her advocacy chums, there doesn't seem to be any. Why not?

Now some answers. I figure that the issue of child abuse is most probably blown out of all proportion by the "abuse" industry who make their living through it and secondly, I don't think judges and the like believe these allegations made in FC and dismiss them. And if that IS the case, another question, why aren't the false accusers subjected to criminal action for perjury?

Until these anomalies are investigated, made transparent for the public and myself to see, I just can't believe the claims by McInnes.

And why isn't she calling for the very same things I've just outlined?

There's something wrong going on here and frankly I do not believe the claims made by McInnes have any credibility whatsoever.

Relda “then every effort should be biased strongly in support of the family.”

Disagree Relda, there is no worse place for bringing up children than a household effected by a war of attrition between the two parents.

The “family” was fragmented and broken before the parents got to seeking divorce. Divorce is, in fact, the recognition that what was supposed to be a "family" has not worked and change is inevitable.

I sincerely believe that children are best served by having an ongoing and nurturing relationship with two separated parents, than being traumatized by close and continuous exposure to parental dysfunction due to the stress of two adults pretending there is anything “beneficial” to be gained in pursuing a loveless marriage.

What is Best for the children is for them to know and interact fully with both parents and for both parents to put aside there differences for the benefit of their children.

For such a scenario to have best chances of success, the family law court, the CSA and every other organization and institution involved needs to accept the EQUAL responsibility, authority and necessity of both parents in the role of bringing up their children.

Dear Cornflower.
I have never been remotely PC and gender-blind works for me.
Its a simple concept really, he sees the people around him as people. He doesn't do that thing that some men do of getting nervous and self concious (and lame and naff) when in a room with a majority of women. He simply neither notices or cares, they are individuals just as a room full of men would be. That's why I married him and that's why he is such an outstanding father of daughters. He has no prescriptive role for them, no idea of what they should or should not aspire to. They can take "headship" over a man any time they want to as far as he is concerned. Indeed, I suspect he'd insist on it, and he will support them in their ambitions and desires as he has supported me; their difficult, argumentative and unconventional mother.
He has nothing to prove, and the idea of hitting someone is utterly foreign to him. Interestingly, his father identified as gay, perhaps there was something fundamentally liberating in that as far as rigid gender roles are concerned.

Col wonderfully put. A marriage holding together but loveless and conflict ridden is not a good place for kids to grow up. Torn between parents engaged in an unnecessary ongoing brawl to divide up the assets, the kids and one parties income is an unhealthy place for kids to grow up.

A loving family with both parents committed to each other and the family is the best place for kids, if they can't have that give them two parents who love them and who work together to raise them.

We need to work towards a system that minimises the incentives for ongoing conflict.
- Make sure property is not the spoils of a successful residency grab by means fair or foul.
- Make it more attractive for parents to share the care of kids.
- Keep divorced parents out of each others pay packets.
- Investigate allegations of abuse seriously and deal with them appropriately.

relda, Patricia Pearson makes a similar point. The misrepresentation of female violence is hurting women who want to be taken seriously. The ongoing portrayal of women as somehow unable to make responsible decisions or as less able to control their actions because of emotional issues harms the woman who wants equality in opportunity and responsibility.

happy, "It is clear that family violence is overwhelmingly gendered i.e. men are the largest group of perpetrators. Domestic violence and child abuse go hand in hand.". No it is not clear.

What is clear is that some groups deliberately and systematically misrepresent the issue for their own purposes. A range of studies done outside of the traditional advocacy framework have shown that DV is not particularly genderised. The only part that may be significantly genderised is the level of serious injury (not overwhelmingly so).

I've posted links to the Child Abuse Trust website, Steve Maddon posted a relevant section of it. Look at who does the substantiated abuse and neglect and tell me how child abuse is overwhelmingly genderised.

You might also try the following on DV and tell me where they got it wrong http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/dom/heady99.htm

Robert

Col,
So we aren’t talking at cross purposes, the principles underpinning the changes to the Family Law Act give a broad direction to where we’re headed, these are:

· children have a right to know both parents and to be protected from harm;
· parenting is a responsibility that should be shared, providing this does not put children at risk of harm; and
· parents and children benefit when parenting arrangements after separation are resolved outside the court system.
The system hopefully, is heading toward something less adversarial where outside interference is kept minimal – despite the sham of the current child support payment scheme.

Maximus sums up well what I thought of the McInnes article.

I guess we’d all save ourselves a lot of angst if we got our relationships right before inflicting our baggage onto the next generation. The best governments can do is to provide an appropriate legislative framework – as individuals, however, we'll always be charged with getting ‘our own houses in order’, albeit, a fragmenting society or community doesn’t help.

The concept of shared parenting after separation is a good step towards strengthening the family – the onus is placed back onto the parents. Those who absolutely need to separate will – many, however, will be forced to consider any superfluous reasons for splitting. Childcare, healthcare, schooling etc. are the practical government help measures given in shoring up ‘family’.

The reality is, people continue to want and value family life, the 'breadwinner' model is now disappearing with new structures emerging - 80 per cent of all children, however, live with both their natural parents. Family is the 'soil' on which kids thrive. The extended family network is important and appears alive and well, if it were not so, the number of unsupported people on our streets would be far greater than it is.

To a large extent, it will continue to be a matter of integrity and veracity as to how successful and cohesive a society we’ll be.

"He has nothing to prove, and the idea of hitting someone is utterly foreign to him."

It is almost in the subconscious female vernaclar(sic) that there has to be a reference somewhere about blokes hitting someone. It is perhaps more like that 'negging' technique that pick up artist use.

In a discussion paper "Who kills whom and why by Jenny Morgan, Law School, University of Melbourne, she examines the murders of 90 children in Victoria over a ten year period from 1985-95. 58 children were killed either by parents or step-parents. She found that men and women were almost equally responsible for the murder of children, mothers killed 22 and men killed 24. Unfortunately her paper does not account for the murders of 12 children.

All the mothers who committed murder, murdered their own biological children. No children were recorded as being murdered by their step-mothers.

Of the 24 children who were murdered by men 62.5% were murdered by their step-father.

37 or 80% of children who were murdered, were either murdered by their mother or stepfather.

Fathers who murdered their biological children accounted for just 9 murders or 20%.

Fatal assault is defined as being usually an assault committed with the intention of punishing the child rather than killing them.

In 13 of the 15 cases of fatal assault it was the mother's defacto that killed the child. In 5 cases it was the mother that killed the child as a result of fatal assualt.

JamesH,
I do not dispute that many men never hit someone or that many women often feel like doing so - and may do so, that wasn't my point, and it'd be good if you didn't read my post so selectively.
I'm not terribly impressed by the "your gender's just as nasty as my gender so how dare you point the finger" argument. Children should be protected, from whoever wants to hurt them. "nough said.

The family court has moved on; its grip by feminist led propaganda has been pried with the Shared Parenting Responsibility Act that now instructs that the court must order 'parent child meaningful relationships' in separation...so it seems the new tact in 2006 to continue the unbalanced woman dominated family control of our children is promote a 'fearful child dogma' particularly under 7 years of age, while the family court struggles to effectively address false allegations getting unlawful legal power...

Unfortunately, the emerging fact is the woman's control of a young child is through the power of fear to strict obedience to her power and authority and the long term harm it has caused, which the feminists appears to be countering by the role reversal strategy of 'child fears father' and still try to keep the now discredited 'father is violent' dogma based on corrupted statistics which now being set straight by valid studies.

I wonder what the feminist strategy will be to the increasing power and force of men to strengthen the surrogacy laws to allow a man who has set his life to have a child, but does not want to be in a relationship with a woman to do so, to allow this. More feminst lies and deceit to damage the name of such fatherchild families to allow this happening... let the conflict begin...

Sam

My ex-wife used to abuse my children, causing bruising and even bleeding on occasion. She never denied it. The court acknowledged it but she was still given custody despite the facts that: both children said they wanted to live with me, the children's counsellors had identified that the children did not feel safe with my ex-wife and they did feel safe with me, my ex-wife was a full-time professional working away from home and I was working part-time from home and I had been the primary carer of the children for 2 years prior to the separation.

My son developed paranoid schizophrenia and is now homeless, god only knows where, - my daughter became an ice-queen and cut herself off completely moving to Europe.

Dr McInnes's bias in portraying family violence as something 'men do to women and children' is thoroughly offensive. I could expect this from some ratbag crackpot. The fact that it comes so confidently from someone with her position without any sort of censure by her employers or the culture in general shows just how deeply entrenched this bias is in the culture and how readily accepted.

I notice even in programs like SBS's Insight when women use the terms 'perpetrator & men' and, 'women & victim' interchangeably the moderator doesnt pick anyone up on it (apparently it reflects her own ignorance).

Women get real - look at the stats, look at the studies from all around the world that prove that women engage in an enormous amount of violence. Even discounting emotional/psychological aggression (which anyone who has ever had anything to do with women knows they use far more than physical violence) women perpetrate huge volumes of violence both toward men and toward children. Women are responsible for the great bulk of child abuse and while that has to be taken in the context of women doing the bulk of the childcare that does not make it ok.

If you lack academic references on the extent of female violence try this to start:
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

Quite right Rob513264.

Just off the wire and into the mainstream -

Sydney Morning Herald
Defacto couple guilty of child abuse
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/he-hurted-me-in-the-shower-toddler/2006/10/20/1160851115980.html

"The toddler had been whipped with a kettle cord by her mother and burnt in the shower by her mother's de facto husband because she was not toilet trained, Wollongong District Court heard yesterday."

Well, where was her real dad?

We don't know, but statistically she would have been a lot safer with him that in the most dangerous place in the world for a toddler - with a single mother and her defacto.

Enough said, except to point out the typical man-slander headline of the article - He hurted me in the shower: toddler - leaving saintly mum completely out of the picture despite the fact that from the text it would seem that mum was the instigator of the violence. This focus on men as perpetrators is a repeating behaviour of Fairfax and other lefty publications and sub-editors.

Maximus, I thought the story showed that the mother AND a male each criminally assaulted that poor little child. If that male had children of his own too, would they perhaps be at risk?

Here are some sobering stats – please don’t shoot the messenger.

“Sexual abuse rates are lowest in homes with two biological parents. Rates are highest for broken homes with at least one nonbiological parent in the household, while single-parent households fall in the middle. This is also true for physical abuse and delinquency rates.” Ryan Spohn, assistant professor of sociology.
Kansas State University

The relationship between family structure and crime is so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low income and crime. This conclusion shows up time and again in the literature. Source: E. Kamarck, William Galston, Putting Children First, Progressive Policy Inst. 1990.

Kids who live with both biological parents at age 14 are significantly more likely to graduate from high school than those kids who live with a single parent, a parent and step-parent, or neither parent. Source: G.D. Sandefur (et al.), "The Effects of Parental Marital Status...", Social Forces, September 1992.

Children from mother-only families have less of an ability to delay gratification and poorer impulse control (that is, control over anger and sexual gratification.) These children also have a weaker sense of conscience or sense of right and wrong." Source: E.M. Hetherington and B. Martin, "Family Interaction" in H.C. Quay and J.S. Werry (eds.), Psychopathological Disorders of Childhood. (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1979).

Fatherless children are at a dramatically greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, suicide, poor educational performance, teen pregnancy, and criminality. Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, Survey on Child Health, Washington, DC, 1993.
85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home. Source: Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections 1992.

72% of adolescent murderers grew up without fathers. 60% of America's rapists grew up the same way. Source: D. Cornell (et al.), Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 5. 1987. And N. Davidson, "Life Without Father," Policy Review. 1990.

Cotter, how do you do?

In answer to your question - I haven't the first idea, nor would I even hazard a guess. Unless you actually have intimate knowledge of the people, how could anybody know the answer to that?

And yes, TWO people were involved, a mother and a defacto husband. That's explicit in the article. So two questions -

1 - Why did the headline only specify the man? It is clear from the article that the woman instigated violence over the issue the night before the man became violent in support. He was not the initial instigator of violence concerning the issue.

2 - In your post you refer to the woman as the "mother" - correct title - and do not refer to her as a female. But then you refer to the man as "a male"? His correct title is defacto husband. Why do you make this distinction of treatment for one and not the other? A little bias creeping in? Have a think about it. It was probably unintentional, but it does gives clues to some peolple's ways of thinking and subconscious values.

Let us all hope the poor child can find someone out there who'll love her and be kind to her. But I fear her pain has just begun. Shocking.

"He hurted me in the shower: toddler " it leaves enough to the imagination to fill in the gaps.

What was an adult doing in a shower that could hurt a toddler?

Journo's are not above or should I say low enough to leave essential details out to implie other things happen.

there ought to be a law agianst this. (just kidding)

G'day Maximus,

I take your point re media - I notice the attention grabbing / newspaper selling headlines are often misleading.

What I have noticed about these posts, is the apparent difficulty to understand that people are not statistics, and statistics do not apply to all the people - for example my sister has successfully raised (after extreme violence against her by the natural father) two children, who both completed high school and graduated from university. The children had no long term effects from the violence and abuse they had seen and experienced because she made it her business to learn how to recover well, and everything she could about how to raise children from separated families. She always disliked the term 'single parent, as if that was her aim when she had the children during a marriage.

She went through a dreadful time in court, but never stopped the children seeing their father. They needed some counselling and she arranged it for them.

I went to court with her. All I can say is that what I saw there was disgraceful - I saw lawyers and judges who were abusive and certainly not just. She survived because she had good family.

She can't be the only female who respects and loves men but can see where the system fails men, women and most importantly, children.

You are quite right Cotter, statistics do tend to straight-jacket people. They can serve as general guide but they can also be misleading, misinterpreted and narrowly defined.

People are able to defy the statistics, go against the odds and prove them wrong when applied to themsleves. For the individual therefore, they prove nothing - for the general population or society, however, they give portent to emerging change or trend.

Families are in question, symptoms of neglect and abuse have arisen. The McInnes article offers little toward treatment, it has merely given a particular bias of judgement toward certain statistics.

Yawn .... most of the contributors to this 'debate' have merely perpetrated abusive anti-feminist rhetoric that confirms the reality of family violence that many women and children experience. None of you could even manage to engage in any meaningful way with Happy's clearly enunciated critique of your political strategies aimed at silencing those who challenge your power. Your are just too boring ...

Viviane,

"Yawn .... most of the contributors to this 'debate' have merely perpetrated abusive anti-feminist rhetoric that confirms the reality of family violence that many women and children experience. None of you could even manage to engage in any meaningful way with Happy's clearly enunciated critique of your political strategies aimed at silencing those who challenge your power. Your are just too boring ... "

Viviane, what is being confirmed by your post is some of the claims about the dishonest approach by some feminists to the issue. Kind of makes it hard for feminists who are serious about equality to be taken seriously.

No attempts by yourself or Happy to address the independant statistics on child abuse referenced to by myself and others, rather a broadscale slander of all who oppose the myth of overwhelming genderisation in child abuse.

Child abuse is not a gender issue, the sooner those seeking to misuse the issue for that purpose stop doing so the sooner we might be able to do more to protect children from the abusers.

Do you have anything to contribute?

R0bert

viviane

It is always good to see a new opinion on OLO, unfortunately you have provided nothing.

I take issue with Happy's assertion " The fact is that the standard of proof in family court is just about impossible to attain, particularly for child sexual abuse, therefore, allegations are not substantiated. This doesn't mean the allegation has been proven wrong. It just means that the abuser has gotten away with it."

If allegations are not substantiated then they cannot be acted on. I can allege you are a hairy legged lesbian but until I can prove it this is just an allegation.

An allegation is a statement of a fact by a party in a pleading, which the party claims it will prove. Allegations remain assertions without proof, only claims until they are proved.

Is sexual assualt hard to prove? I think not. Agreed most perpetrators of sexual assault are men, but false assertions must be proven.

Viviane, are you saying that we must accept feminist research without question?

Are you saying we must accept feminist doctrine without questioning?

How come it is socially, legally acceptable to critise and challange men no matter how inappropriate it maybe.

Feminists promote the idea of equality, human rights and social justice, but only when selectively applied to women. Are men to be excluded from Equality, human rights and social justice?

Men are often critised for not communicating? do we have to have a special board which rules what is acceptable and not acceptable for men to communicate about?

Over the last four decades men have been on the receiving end of extreme negative publicity. I initially supported feminism and a few decades of reading and studying I no longer support the corrupted form of feminism it has become.

Viviane “Yawn . . . . ” posted 2:30:50 PM

The first word of your first post, Viviane.

Obviously you are overdue for your afternoon nap.

As for your criticism of other posters, when you can come up with something to justify the misanthropic attitude of Elspeth McInnes, then please produce it. Until then, you will remain what I suspect you are, a “one post and begone” troll.

Close the door on your way down to troll-world.

Perhaps McInnes and posters taking part in this discussion may wish to ponder these very recent, fresh articles -

BBC
Mother spared jail for baby death
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/6076112.stm

Despite the fact that this mother murdered her baby in some sort of demented frenzy - "depression" they called it, legitimising infanticide - any normally conscienced person, with only a spoonful of human morality must know that this was a most horrible and heinous crime. Despite that, the mother gets sympathy and is "spared" jail. I ask you where is the justice?

Is this the justice that McInnes seeks - a woman can do no wrong and is ALWAYS the victim?

Then in contrast consider this next development inspired by Iemma in NSW -

The Australian
Children to be removed from dangerous homes
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20635779-2702,00.html

Hmm, I wonder if Iemma understands exactly what Pandora's box he is opening here? The results could be an example of political correctness shooting itself in the foot. I can't think that McInnes will be pleased by this development if she understands who is really the perpetrator of the majority of child abuse. Only time will tell.

McInnes should really be held to account for her sexist usage that implies that all victims are women and all perpetrators are men. A person in her position should be aware or should make themselves aware of the actual statistics in the fields upon which she so frequently comments.

For example: Children in Australia are just over 25% MORE likely to suffer abuse if they live in a female-headed single parent family than if they live in a male-headed single parent family:

‘...in Victoria the rate of substantiations for children in female sole-parent families was 17.8 per 1000, and the rate for children in male-headed one parent families was 14.3 per 1000 (Table 2.12; unpublished ABS Data)’ Source:
http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/cws/cpa04-05/cpa04-05.pdf

Take particular note that this is a rate per 1000 head of population not a total number, so the female defence that women commit more child abuse because women spend more time looking after children is corrected for.

While this does not imply that it is the female who commits the abuse ('step-fathers' are common sources of abuse) it raises a very serious point for the criterion of 'in the best interests of the children' since it clearly shows that children are significantly more safe if left with their fathers after separation than they are if they are left with their mothers.

Rob513264 “McInnes should really be held to account”

Agree but do not hold your breath. Remember, with “tenure” comes the right to preach to us common folk from the top of the ivory tower, regardless of how addled and defective the thinking.

Again, ACOSS is a think tank of the inept where the common denominator is a desire to interfere and micro manage other peoples lives.

It seems interesting to me that no-one is defending McInnes' stance.

Social Worker Has Interesting Perspective on Domestic Violence, Child Abuse
One of my readers is a social worker who has an interesting, insider's perspective on domestic violence and child abuse. He wrote me after reading my columns on AB 2051. The social worker wrote:

"I have been a child protection investigator and currently work in a capacity where I do therapy with families in crisis, usually dealing with CPS in some way. I do not have statistics but a majority of abuse/neglect cases are related to behaviors of women, either in picking loser guys for boyfriends or they are the perpetrators.

"One of the worst abuse investigations I ever did the mother was the perpetrator, and a few years ago I worked a case where the mother beat her 4 year old daughter to death. The child had so many marks you could hardly find a place not marked-bruised, cut, or scraped.

"Regarding domestic violence, I agree that men are usually the perpetrators. However, there are many cases where the men are arrested for simply trying to get way from the wife/girlfriend punching or throwing things at him. I also often run into cases where a woman has lied about what she has said to police to keep a father away from his children in divorce/separation cases. It is a very common tactic in divorces, and in most cases the courts will take what the woman says as fact when there is absolutely no truth in the accusations. And protective orders are issued with false allegations, which results in supervised visitation or no visitation between fathers and their children, or no chance for custody of the children

It seems interesting to me that no-one is defending McInnes' stance.
Posted by Rob513264, Thursday, 26 October 2006 1:15:39 AM

What is also interesting is that the arguments against examples like McInnes are becoming more sophisticated and based on evidence.

The second things is that also if blokes were not challanging these concepts the other side would be feeding off each others posts and saying how bad, terrible, horrible men are!

The usual "Ain't men awful" type of crap. whilst ignoring the perps within their own ranks.

I guess some women just have to be victims, regardless.

Posted by JamesH, Thursday, 26 October 2006 6:41:06 AM
"The second thing is that also if blokes were not challanging these concepts the other side would be feeding off each others posts and saying how bad, terrible, horrible men are!

I guess some women just have to be victims, regardless."

I am one of those who thought simply stating the obvious would be enough but when I found misandrists were not giving any cred to 'the obvious' I did the research and have posted the findings of studies etc all over the place.

What I am finding now is that the misandrists have simply changed tack - in the face of strong evidence against their stand they simply leave the debate. I am afraid that the lack of response by the misandrists to this thread reflects that new strategy.

It is interesting that one of the most powerful voices for change to Custody Law is coming from the Second Wives Club, ie women who are complaining about not getting to see their step-children often enough because of unfair custody provisions.

It is interesting that the wishes of female step-parents seem more important to the culture than the wishes of male biological parents.

I am going through the Family Court at the momement. The magistrate does not care that the childrens father has beaten the kids and emotionally tourtured them. (I had proof of everything). The police child protection dept told me "unless your child dies or is beated black and blue, there is nothing we can do about it".I have tried to get the father charged but the DCD and the Police child protection unit say "you just have different ways of discipling"
The father even told the kids thier pets were dead. I am meant to tell the kids that it is good to go to thier fathers. I told my lawyer l can't say that. I am the only one who cares about them. No wonder there are so many mixed up teens around. When the family court make them go to there dads where they are abused. The father will not give the 9year old his asthma meds either.I think the family court needs to protect children more.It's not fair.

Posted by ROMEY, Monday, 30 October 2006 4:36:10 PM

I am sorry to hear about that. You will not get any arguement from me in that both genders are capable of abuse.

Yes, both genders are capable of abuse. The father in this situation has a girlfriend who hates me and the children. She is very mean to the children too. It's awful, she gives the kids alcohol. The kids are 9 and 12. The police can't prove that there was alcohol in the bottle though, so once again no charges can be laid. She won't give the kids any medicine either, not even for a headache. She smokes ciggerettes in the car whilst the kids are in there. The DCD say "lots of people do that". As my ex partner can't me any more, he hurts the children instead. The "LAWS" are written eg;child abuse. But it's all words no action. I am very annoyed with the system

As usual, the men's rights campaigners are consistent with their tactics that have gained them so much in the family law reform and cost so much to the victims of domestic violence-
usually protective mothers and their children but hang on- also-
protective fathers.
The fact is that the idea that allegations in family court litigation of children are false has also impacted cases where fathers have raised these.

Now the cases where children need protection are treated equally as if the protective parent is making these allegations for strategic purposes- male or female.
( big round of applause for the men’s rights work in this area!)

That does not mean that women are equally responsible for domestic violence. Domestic violence is still and has always been a gendered issue in the fact that most of the victims are female, and a lesser number of victims are male. Most perpetrators are male, and a lesser number exist that are female.
Furthermore, the male victims of domestic violence fare better when they leave. Women fare much worse.

Only someone with an agenda that seeks to dismiss, minimise and justify their own violence argues that males and females are equally responsible for horrific number of domestic violence in the world today.

It reminds me of my 10 year old son crying because he was in trouble after hitting his 8 year old sister. His excuse then was also, "But she did it too!"

Women emerge as aggressors in Alberta survey
67% of women questioned say they started severe conflicts

by Brad Evenson and Carol Milstone
http://www.franks.org/fr01060.htm

"Only someone with an agenda that seeks to dismiss, minimise and justify their own violence argues that males and females are equally responsible for horrific number of domestic violence in the world today.

It reminds me of my 10 year old son crying because he was in trouble after hitting his 8 year old sister. His excuse then was also, "But she did it too!" Posted by happy, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 6:51:43 AM

Did your daughter get into trouble as well?

My daughter is morely likely to hit or scratch her brother than he her and she does get into trouble. If the both hit each other then they both get into trouble.

Violence is unacceptable regardless of gender.

You are correct happy in that those with an agenda seek to dismiss, minimize their own violence. Except it has been the feminists who have fought long and hard to minimize the violence committed by women.

Erin Pizzey labeled these women as family terrorists.

If you are really concerned about domestic violence then examine research which does not have the feminist agenda.
http://www.mediaradar.org/index.php

Linda Kelly
http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/dom/kelly03.pdf

The men's rights campaigners like to move the goal posts. The issue was 'domestic violence' and what do men's rights advocates do? They do not stay focused on the issue but predictably redirect the focus off the topic-

Eg. “Did your daughter get into trouble as well?”

From the study by Kelly-

As the definition of “physical violence” used in the various CTS-based studies ranges from “throwing something” to “using a knife or gun,” wives arguably could compare to husbands in
use and frequency of violent behavior, but not in the severity of the type of violence employed.

Yet, such per category differences did not evidence that men were unquestionably more prone to acts of severe domestic violence than women.

pp.798, 799

That women are also capable of domestic violence is not denied.
That the majority of domestic violence, mostly severe and deadly domestic violence perpetrators is male is a fact.
That many of these perpetrators end up in family court is well established.
That some of these are women is known.
That many of these cases involve men that have abused their wives and children is the reality.
That the court doesn’t recognize abusers male or female is the distressing truth.
This has happened because people who use violence are more likely people who are manipulative and therefore are in their element in the adversarial system.

Now watch the posts pour in justifying male violence and employ name calling in the absence of a fair and equitable approach.

"Now watch the posts pour in justifying male violence and employ name calling in the absence of a fair and equitable approach."

I'm watching, OK I give up.

Seriously Happy many of your "facts" are not, they are views that have been pushed with the support of biased statistics and outright lies which many have come to hold as such fundamental truths that they refuse to question them or examine any evidence that suggests otherwise.

Did you look at the stats on substantiated child abuse and neglect I referenced earlier in the discussion? Did you consider the implications of those stats when compared to your core beliefs about family violence?

The mens groups have raised awareness of the issue of false claims of DV and that does have a cost. Blaming those groups for the genuine cases that get ignored is hardly fair.

Much fairer to lay the blame at the feet of those who use false claims of abuse as a tactic to help get a better outcome from a divorce. There is where the real problem lies.

By the way has there been any posts justifying "male violence"? I don't recall any.

R0bert

Posted by happy, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 10:38:17 AM

Happy you posted that your son got into trouble for retaliating against his sister who hit him first.

Congratulations you have successfully taught your son who is caught between you and his sister, that justice is blind and taught your daughter that she can abuse her brother with impunity.

There is a book on Parenting which points out that when there is conflict between brothers and sisters, it is the male child who will get the blame, it does not matter whether he is the oldest or youngest, even when he never started the conflict.

“Now watch the posts pour in justifying male violence” Happy

Nobody is justifying male violence!

What is really interesting is that domestic (family) violence (abuse) covers a whole range of behaviours, yet when it comes to the debate it always degenerates down to who does the most physical damage and who is more frequently doing the physical damage. Yet according to the advocates, the abuse (violence) is much more than physical.

http://www.mediaradar.org/WCHWMDS_excerpt.php?segment=1

“Dear Abby: Thank you for printing the warning signs of an abusive partner. However, you have unfairly portrayed men as the only abusers. Not so; women can also be abusers.
My brother was married to a physically abusive woman who exhibited all 15 points you mentioned in your column. It wasn't until he joined a support group and realized he wasn’t the only man who got beat up by a woman.
After much research, I find that women are just as abusive as men in relationships.
Women are able to get away with abusing men because most men are too embarrassed to report it. With the massive attention now given to domestic violence, it’s time the other side of the story is told.
— E. V. Liland, Dallas1

Even men who share their personal experiences find that, instead of empathy, they get the response Dear Abby gave this man: “Women have it worse.”

Posted by ROMEY, Monday, 30 October 2006 4:36:10 PM
"The magistrate does not care that the childrens father has beaten the kids and emotionally tourtured them. (I had proof of everything)...
The father even told the kids thier pets were dead. ...When the family court make them go to there dads where they are abused. The father will not give the 9year old his asthma meds either.I think the family court needs to protect children more.It's not fair."

In my case my ex-wife not only abused the kids but she never even denied it and she was given full custody. She killed my daughters pets whenever my daughter came on access to my place so my daughter stopped coming. The FC gives access to abusive Dads but it gives custody to abusive Mums. It's not fair either - the courts need to protect the children.

Posted by happy, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 10:38:17 AM
"The men's rights campaigners like to move the goal posts. The issue was 'domestic violence' and what do men's rights advocates do? They do not stay focused on the issue but predictably redirect the focus off the topic...Now watch the posts pour in justifying male violence and employ name calling in the absence of a fair and equitable approach."

From a paper on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Domestic Abuse group, "the emotional and verbal abuse is the most damaging". I am sorry I dont have the exact reference but this valuation of emotional abuse is common enough to let it stand without specific reference I think.

I presume you would consider 'a fair and equitable approach' to include 'emotional and verbal abuse'. But these figures are not quoted by feminists, why? Because women engage in these types of abuse far more frequently than do men and in the words of the Aboriginal women these are the worst types of abuse - any fair and equitable assessment of DV MUST include verbal and emotional abuse. I am not trying to woman bash but simply get both sides of the story out. We need to stop all forms of family violence from both sexes.

Rob513264-
You are absolutely right- the courts favour the abusive parents every time; male or female.
I personally know of 2 cases where the protective fathers could not protect their children. Why? Because the men’s rights advocates have pushed a hard line for a long time that allegations raised in family court are for strategic purposes only. I also know of more case than I care to think of abusive fathers where there is substantiation of sexual abuse but the court will not order ‘no contact.’ These children are then forced to see the adult that sexually abused them. When the abusive parent then sees them for some time on supervised contact, they can then apply for unsupervised contact; it will be ordered, eventually.
I feel for you and your children. I know.

Found this gem today!

Is Misandry protecting Mothers who murder and Maim
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/11/06/is-misandry-protecting-mothers-who-murder-and-maim/

By Teri Stoddard

I’m a woman and I used to believe what the media said about men. Now I know better.

The media constantly exposes us to inaccurate, negative impressions of and statements about men. In looking for the root of the problem I found a network of people who benefit from misandry. Many of these people work for or with the family courts or domestic violence services, often both. I wonder if the Violence Against Women Act funds misandry. As I wrote in It’s Not Your Mother’s Fathers Movement Anymore, I watched as representatives from domestic violence and feminist organizations slandered fathers to defeat California’s 2005 Shared Parenting bill:

“Fathers who seek custody, they’re not all great fathers.” That was the truth according to Mira Fox, who runs Child Abuse Solutions, Inc…Fox said, “Children are often given into the custody of abusive fathers”…

Fox’s organization, by her own testimony that day, trains people in the family court system how to litigate and adjudicate child sexual abuse cases. Is Fox guilty of misandry or ignorance? The January 2005 Male Perpetrators of Child Maltreatment states:

…fathers are, “less likely than other male perpetrators to be involved in sexual abuse.”

The Administration for Children and Families says:

In 2004, 45.6% of child victims were maltreated by their mothers acting alone or with other and only 19.5 percent were maltreated by their fathers acting alone or with other.

use the link to read the rest of the article.

The above link contains 3 videos posted on Youtube, which show women abusing children.

I do not have the stomach to watch more than about 90 seconds of women abusing children.

The issue is that while mothers and fathers can and do abuse children, the overwhelming domestic violence perpetrators are male, like it or not, that is a fact. No amount of diverting the issue to mother abuse is going to change the fact that domestic violence is primarily and overwhelmingly a male dominated crime.

The fact is that in cases before the family court, domestic violence and child abuse have become the core business. While only about 6% of all divorcing couples end in litigation over children, keeping in mind that child protection has become the main business of family court, it only stands to reason that out of that 6% there will be a large portion of those case that involve child abuse and its close ally- domestic violence.

Here is another research result that father’s rights advocates would prefer did not exist-

“Results of this analysis show that neglect is the most common form of intentionally fabricated maltreatment, while anonymous reporters and non-custodial parents (usually fathers) most frequently prompt intentionally false reports. Of the intentionally false allegations of maltreatment, custodial parents (usually mothers) and victimized children were least likely to fabricate reports of abuse or neglect.”

False Allegations of Abuse and Neglect When Parents Separate, Nico Trocmé
University of Toronto, Faculty of Social Work and Nick Bala, Queen’s University Law School, Re-Submitted to Child Abuse & Neglect, May 28, 2004

While child abuse by either gender is not acceptable, the insistence by the father’s rights advocates that all the researchers got it wrong just doesn’t fly. The end result is that protective parents are more likely to lose their children in family court because allegations are treated first and foremost as lies by the judiciary. Protective fathers are also not believed, thanks to the insistence by those advocates that insist that allegations are strategic, not genuine.


Fox is right when she states that, “Children are often given into the custody of abusive fathers”…The question is when are men going to stand up against the males that abuse their children and then get custody?

Posted by happy, Wednesday, 1 November 2006 4:49:47 PM
“Rob513264- You are absolutely right- the courts favour the abusive parents every time”

You apparently misunderstood my position. I never said anything like “the courts favour the abusive parents every time”. My case was heard in 1990 things may have changed somewhat in the interim but my experience was that the default was that the mother get custody even if she was abusive, if she could cook up a reasonable explanation for her own abusive behaviour – she blamed me for her violence and the judge agreed. It is odd how a husband is not only held responsible for any violence he might commit himself but also for his wife’s violence whereas the wife is held free from responsibility not only for any violence on her husband’s part but also for any of her own.

One impression I did get of non-sex based bias in the courts was that, since no-one in court actually knows anything about the people involved and only hear the stories each side tells, those who are prepared to lie and distort what they say to conform to the current biases in the court process are likely to do much better than poor old schlokmos who go in with the naïve idea of telling the truth – especially as the truth is often stranger, ie harder to believe, than fiction, particularly a fiction that is fabricated precisely on the basis of its ‘believability’.

Happy, "The issue is that while mothers and fathers can and do abuse children, the overwhelming domestic violence perpetrators are male, like it or not, that is a fact. No amount of diverting the issue to mother abuse is going to change the fact that domestic violence is primarily and overwhelmingly a male dominated crime. "

Please comment on the findings of http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/dom/heady99.htm

A study which attempts to avoid bias in the data collection stage.
Can you fault their methodology, identify reasons why the researchers might have sought a particular outcome, explain why the findings are consistant with other similar studies where the data is collected across the community rather from a select target group and where male and female's are treated alike.

I've posted details from that study on numerous occasions and no supporter of the idea that DV is overwhelmingly genderised has ever (to my knowledge) responded to it or provided any reasons why they choose to ignore such clear results.

Likewise you might look at the figures on substantiated abuse and neglect from groups like the Abused Child Trust, the Child Abuse Clearing House, the NSW Child Death Review Team and tell me why they overwhelmingly misrepresent who is harming kids.

Or you can just pretend that independant evidence is not there and stick to your stats collected from womens help lines, female DV shelters and the family court. Always remember to ensure that the study is funded in part by a womens group (or government body with that as an empahasis), the results are much more reliable that way.

R0bert

Can't comment because link doesn't work, much like the argument that the research that demosnstrates DV is gendered is sponsored by DV shelters and women.

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061105/OPINION/611050324/1006/NEWS05

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5077

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

Perjorative responses attacking the credibility of these men merely serve to imply that father's rights and men's rights advocates represent those that use violence in their personal relationships.

happy, "Perjorative responses attacking the credibility of these men merely serve to imply that father's rights and men's rights advocates represent those that use violence in their personal relationships. "

So would it be safe to assume that your support for a genderised view of DV implies that you represent women who use violence in their personal relationships or was your comment just another baseless slur against those who have had enough of the particular lies being addressed here. The old "I can't argue the point so I'll throw a nasty insult" tactic. A form of violence by some definitions.

The link to the paper was working recently, I copied some findings and summary points to a post. It's also available at http://www.mensrights.com.au/page13y.htm and

Professor Bruce Headey, Associate Professor Dorothy Scott, Professor David de Vaus, “Domestic Violence In Australia: Are Women And Men Equally Violent”? in International Social Science Surveys Australia, Volume 2, Number 3: July 1999 if you have access to those types of resources.

I looked at the links you supplied but all appeared to be working from very definite assumptions regarding the genderisation of DV and extrapolating from there. None showed any sign of having asked the basic question being raised by Headey, Scott and de Vaus - "Are Women and Men Equally Violent?"

I also located another paper by Michael Flood which explains why he does not like the paper I refer to (what a surprise) or similar work. Same problem, he uses some base assumptions and rejects anything which goes against those assumptions.

Some food for thought at http://menshealth.uws.edu.au/documents/Dishonesty%20in%20the%20DV%20Industry.doc
http://www.abusedchildtrust.com.au/facts.htm#3
http://www.kids.nsw.gov.au/publications/cdrt2000.html

If you are actually serious get a copy of feminist author Patrica Pearson's book "When She Was Bad" - the lies about female violence don't just hurt men and children, they hurt women as well.

R0bert

I know there is a good deal of self-deception surrounding any type of violence within families but I don’t believe that women are as blind to their own acts of emotional violence as they pretend to be. For example, even women who have never taken part in this kind of violence, know what a bitch-circle is and how they operate.

One girl quoted in Rachel Simmons' excellent Odd Girl Out said, 'there is an evil in girls that just doesnt exist in boys' and throughout my life I have known several women who make friends almost exclusively amongst men because they find other women so nasty and manipulative. So while female violence is much more subtle than male violence, any women that claims that she doesnt know what we are talking about when we talk about ‘female violence’ is very naive or simply lying.

Rob513264

I have heard other women refer to women as 'bitches.'

Erin Pizzey in her discussion paper on violent women.

"The family well may be characterised as violent, incestuous, dysfunctional, and unhappy, but it is the terrorist or tyrant who is primarily responsible for initiating conflict, imposing histrionic outbursts upon otherwise calm situations, or (more subtly and invisibly) quietly manipulating other family members into uproar through guilt, cunning taunts, and barely perceptive provocations. (The quiet manipulative terrorist usually is the most undetected terrorist. Through the subtle creation of perpetual turmoil, this terrorist may virtually drive other family members to alcoholism, to drug-addiction, to explosive behaviour, to suicide. The other family members, therefore, are often misperceived as the 'family problem' and the hidden terrorist as the saintly woman who 'puts up with it all.')"

yes women are aware of it, but find it unacceptable to acknowldge it and it's more acceptable to blame the man.

I actually found this article by searching for information on child abuse because my daughter is the victim of such a situation. I have also scoured the law libraries, and I invite any of you to do the same.

As many of you seem to want to believe that surely this just cannot be true, then read these legal cases studies. As the cases published are only a portion of the cases that go through the court, and the court would publish those they choose, why are there very few that state the child was protected under unnacceptable risk scenarios?

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinosrch.cgi?method=boolean;meta=%2Fau;mask_path=au%2Fcases%2Fcth%2Ffamily_ct;mask_world=;query=sexual%20abuse;results=20;rank=on;callback=off;legisopt=;view=date;max=;collapse-level=0;offset=0

Here are some more links for you -

http://www.kidsindistress.org.au/

http://www.courageouskids.net/
(yes it is from the US but it you dont think we will have a generation of abused kids that dont have these problems in the future then...)

Whilst the delivery of this article may be perceived by some to be against one sex, and whilst many of you have banged heads about which sex is doing the abusing, that fact that any of you bothered to read the article shows that you have an interest in the subject. Very few people would intentionally read an article like this without some bias already in their minds. I think that maybe we need to calm down about our own feelings of defensiveness for our gender, and automatic blame for the other gender, and focus on the reason this article was written and published in the first place.

Yes, there are demonised Dads - women that use their kids for financial gain are evil. They are extremely narcissistic and care nothing for what they are doing to the man they once loved, or for the future of the kids they are supposedly so desperate to protect. These are the very women that have created a situation where accusers are no longer believed.
continued next post...

Continued...

However, there are men that also abuse the system. An abusive man would not have to be too clever to realise that his wife cannot stay with him if he is abusing them - sexually or otherwise, without CPS removing the kids and putting them in foster care. If she leaves him with the kids, the court takes the view that she is vengeful. So either way, if he is so inclined to be a vile devious abuser, he wins both ways.

If we remove any perceived gender bias in this article (that seems to be upsetting so many people here) there are facts that any reasonable and intelligent person cannot avoid.
If the accuser cannot prove their case, in many cases the children will be removed from their care and given to the 'alleged' abuser. Why would the court do such a terrible thing? Well the court takes the view that above and beyond all, the importance of a child having a relationship with both parents is paramount. Of course this is the case, in 'normal' situations. However, if the accusing parent cannot prove their case, then they are the ones seen to be causing psychological trauma to the child. In most cases, suddenly the mother (men rarely accuse because it makes them look weak) becomes the abuser!

Dont we have an obligation to our next generation to protect them? Dont we have it in us to pull our own egos out of the equation and work this out?

Or, here's another idea! Lets put our heads in the sand. Pretend its not happening. How are these kids going to grow up? If we are not protecting them now, why should we expect them to protect us when they are running the country in a few decades? If they are doctors, lawyers and politicians are they going to be fighting for our rights? Are they going to be helping us when we need them?

Why cant we do this for them now? They are innocent victims of a system run by us!