The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Male myths hard to kill > Comments

Male myths hard to kill : Comments

By Rob Moodie, published 31/10/2006

Many of us find excuses for violence - against women in particular.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. All
The title should have been 'Feminist myths are hard to kill'

Christina Hoff Sommers ‘Who Stole Feminism” chapter Noble Lies page 203

“As it is told in the opening essay in one of the most popular textbooks in women’s studies, ‘Women; A Feminist Perspective’, “the popular expression ‘rule of thumb’ originated in English Common Law, which allowed a husband to beat his wife with a whip or stick no bigger in diameter than his thumb. The husband’s prerogative was incorporated into American Law.”

Feminist myths include things like DV increases during pregnancy and during sporting grand finals.

“The ‘rule of thumb law,’ however, turns out to be an excellent example of what may be called feminist fiction. It is not to be found in William Blackstone’s treatise on English common law. On the contrary, British law since the 1700’s prohibited wife beating.”

“The current study, which will appear this week -- again, in the Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science -- says that while the need to stop violence against women is obvious, violence against men is being ignored."

"Our society seems to harbour an implicit acceptance of women's violence as relatively harmless," writes Marilyn Kwong, the Simon Fraser University researcher who led this study.

"Furthermore, the failure to acknowledge the possibility of women's violence . . . jeopardizes the credibility of all theory and research directed toward ending violence against women."
Posted by JamesH, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 9:55:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What about the reported incidence of violence in same sex relationships, in particular by lesbian couples.

What about abuse by women? I take it that controlling behaviour, bullying and psychological abuse are not restricted to men and can be just as harmful.

Alienation of children, almost always by mothers, where the father and the relatives on his side are excluded by seeing the children. Isn't that violence too?

The TV ads that demonise men just get viewers' backs up. What about something more even handed - something that reflects reality?

What about something practical to support male adolescents, youths and men? Guilt only goes so far, the need is for some real $$ for programs to build the fragile egos of boys and young men especially.

All the federal government and government funded agencies do is talk and print brochures. What about some funding for outdoor challenges and work experience for male youth? What about some 'no strings' $$ for voluntary bodies like Scouting? What about drop in centres?

Best of all, why not talk with boys and men to find out what the problems are from their end and arrive at some practical solutions?

As for the Sheik in the news, he would not be here were it not for the political interference of Mr Keating and that reminds me, what about some ethics in political leadership - by men and women.
Posted by Cornflower, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 11:08:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I wholeheartedly agree with the article.

As an Australian male, I can verify 100% that there is indeed a problem with male attitudes towards women. You'd think these sorts of attitudes would have faded away long ago, but apparently not. It's a shame the causes are so hard to identify as well.

Perhaps more disturbing is the 'backlash' against government campaigns to correct the problem. Men are crying 'discrimination', as though they are being unfairly targeted. I really can't understand where they're coming from. Men commit the overwhelming majortity of domestic violence, and a specific targetting campaign is therefore justified. Nobody is saying that violence against men doesn't happen, or shouldn't be enforced, but let's get some perspective here!

I think a lot of it comes down to the false attitudes men have about themselves. I don't think men realise that there is a lot less separating the genders than they realise. We are much more like women than a lot of men realise, and vice-versa. There are many myths that need to be eliminated similarly.

Men think they are better drivers than women, for instance. This is patently false, both statistically, and as shown by the comparative insurance premiums paid by women and men (guess who pays more?).
Men assume they are less emotional than women. I believe this is also false, given what I've seen of other blokes.

All in all, the sooner we defeat these myths, the better.
Posted by Booster, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 11:46:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said Booster. I too like the article and the slant that it puts on the problem. I grew up in an area where men and women were considered to be of equal value, and have been shocked by some attitudes in other parts of NSW that I have since lived in. A lot of the men that I have met wont commit violence themselves, but view it as a situation where "she was asking for it" if they know of a particular occurrence.

Again, it is not to say that women dont commit violent acts, but they are less frequent overall. Whilst each act of DV should be addressed, overall there is a bigger problem with the acts of men towards women.

Until the attitudes of men are changed, the problem will remain.
Posted by Country Gal, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 12:48:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It cuts both ways. For example, child neglect is rife as is the psychological abuse of spouses and children. In these areas women represent the vast majority of perpetrators.

Yet the community belief is that a woman, especially and mother, would not do such things. This myth makes it difficult to assist vulnerable children who must feel society has no interest in their suffering.

It makes no sense to concentrate on one area of problem to the exclusion of others.

TV advertisements and brochures may placate certain interests but it does nothing about the causes and at best is about symptoms only.

There is no dispute that some relationships and some individuals have serious problems but we need a holistic approach to get anywhere at all. Taking one element in isolation is flawed, especially where that element is known to be highly politicised.

Not referring to the author, but gender politics played by people who should know better are particularly unhelpful. Still, maybe that says something about what is successful in competing for government grants.
Posted by Cornflower, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 3:35:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Booster said, “men are crying discrimination….”

Booster, no matter what you say men are being discriminated against, for instance try contacting the office for the status of men? Do men not desreve to have such an office? How about telling of the equality in health spending between primarily womens health problems (e.g. breast cancer) and primarily men’s health problems (e.g prostrate cancer). How about then factoring in the fact that a man’s life expectancy is far less than a women’s? However are you yourself crying about men crying? Sounds very much like what's not good for the goose is good for the gander.

Booster also said “Men commit the overwhelming majortity of domestic violence, and a specific targetting campaign is therefore justified.”

As for committing the vast majority of domestic violence, you Booster, are showing how you act very similar to what you see as the men’s way. There are multitudes of studies that show a) the faults behind the myth you state and b) that in fact marginally, women are the main perpetrators of domestic violence. However even if men were the main/majority it does not justify only part of the problem being looked at/ignored. Why should a male not have the support afforded to a female in the same position? Where is the equality in that? You appear to condone the maltreatment of another person based not upon their situation but upon their gender, is that what equality is about
Posted by Herald4Truth, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 4:42:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sounds like Herald4Truth has missed the point.

I won't deny that men have problems. But to suggest that domestic violence campaigns for the protection of women are somehow sexist or unequal is just plain stupid. We've all seen the ads: "Violence against women, Australia says no!". If there are statistics showing that women are responsible for anywhere near the level of violence towards their partners as men are, then I'll take everything back. But the only statistics I've seen show an overwhelming (>95%) are perpetrated by men. Like it or not, women have it far worse than men. Sure, men will complain about the family court and its supposed bias, and how child support is supposedly ruining men (never mind that statistically the women receiving support remain poorer than the man), but they will have to face the reality that they are not victimised nearly as often or on as great a scale. The size of the effort in solving the problem depends on the size of the problem. The idea that women are as frequently violent as men is just another men's group fantasy.

Nowhere did I say that violence against men or abuse should be tolerated - quite the opposite, it should be investigated and punished. But there has to be perspective in the law. If heroin is being used by 90% of addicts, do we give equal law enforcement to LSD? Of course not. Government is perfectly justified in focusing propotionally on the problems it faces. Big problems need big efforts, small ones not so much
Posted by Booster, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 5:52:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Booster wrote,
"Men think they are better drivers than women, for instance. This is patently false, both statistically, and as shown by the comparative insurance premiums paid by women and men (guess who pays more?)."

I didn't know women got car insurance cheaper than males. It's a shame because it’s just another case of discrimination against men. Women go to the doctors more frequently than men and demand more intervention in their health; so do men get a discount on their medicare levy? No, in fact as men tend to be more career oriented they earn more, meaning they pay more into medicare. Hence not only do men use less medical services than women do but they pay a disproportionately higher amount into medicare. Its just another case of discrimination is fine so long as it’s against men.

As for more males have accidents than women. Well, I agree men do take more risks than women do but they also drive an awful lot more than women do to. How many female taxi drivers, lorry drivers, bus, or hire car drivers do you see? Most professional drivers are men. What about all those tradesmen constantly driving from job to job? The fact is men drive much more than women. Driving is also all about eye hand coordination. If you're seriously trying to tell me women have better eye hand coordination (on average) than men, then you need to check out of feminism 101 and into reality. Formula 1 drivers are all men for a reason.
Posted by eet, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 6:13:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part 1 -

Now you listen here, Mr Moodie, and that lapdog researcher of yours, yes you know the one, your game is up. Not a day goes by without more and more good men and women waking up to what is going on with the false information put out by state Labor governments about family (domestic) violence (FV) and violence against women.

Oh! What false information? Everything is squeaky clean and can be supported by empirical evidence, I can imagine him saying.

Yes, but you don't tell the truth about the nature of those statistics. You don't tell the truth about how your data comes ONLY from police reports where ONLY men are arrested at FV incidents, because Nixon has instructed her Vic Police to do that and ONLY that, even where no evidence of genuine violence exists. Just the "feeling" of fear is all that is required. Even just a raised voice. So, of course the "official" police record will only show female victims and male perpetrators. A man suffering serious violence doesn't stand a chance. There is no way a man is going to report an attack by a female partner, knowing fully well that HE will be the one arrested and charged, even when he is the victim.

And then you expect us to believe you?

The ABS "Australian Safety Study, 2005", the very best study of its kind in the world to date that has ever been conducted, PROVES BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that family violence is not a one way street of men bashing women.

Details of ABS survey "physical assault in a home by opposite sex" over a 12 month period shows -

Women (both reported and unreported) 125,100 - 1.6% of adult female population, affects 1 in 61 women.

Men (both reported and unreported) 60,900 - 0.8% of adult male population, affects 1 in 125 men.

This is from the most authoritative survey ever done in the world to date, from the most trustworthy of research establishments and it is both fresh and recent.

Continued...
Posted by Maximus, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 6:46:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part 2 -

These figures are the most accurate that exist in the world today. And it doesn't even take into account abuse/violence against children, who are most at risk from mothers and de-facto partners, not biological fathers.

Now there's your facts Mr Moodie. The ratio is roughly 2:1, women to men. There is NO "epidemic" of violence against women. Even combined, we're only talking about 2.4% of the entire Australian adult population. This is hardly a massive problem. In fact it proves that 97.6% of the Australian adult population get along in family situations just fine. So why are you spinning us this rubbish as a national problem?

Do you not read important ABS data Mr Moodie?

Do you believe all the spin you receive from your advocacy researchers Mr Moodie?

Or do you have some other motive for telling the Australian population what amounts to misrepresentation and misinformation?

Why would you tell us such a story?

Come on Mr Moodie, tell the good men and women of Australia, especially Victorians who might vote for you, exactly why you present such a peculiar and twisted picture, which creates division within the community, causes mistrust between the sexes, destroys traditional families and is anything BUT in the best interests of any child.

Do tell us Mr Moodie. We're all waiting to hear your version of the facts.

How about an article Mr Moodie, before the Vic elections, on this very page, explaining why you have written the unmitigated nonsense that you have just presented here, when the empirical evidence of a quality Commonwealth of Australia research organisation, the Australian Bureau of Stastistics proves that overwhelmingly men are the victims of violence in Australia, not women.

And what are you doing about that Mr Moodie?

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an aswer folks.

Tomorrow I hope to address the broader issues of the myth of violence against women - if I haven't been suspended overnight.
Posted by Maximus, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 6:46:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Booster,
No I did not miss your point at all. The fixing of the problem that you talk of, results in thousands of children being denied access to their fathers, to their uncles and aunts, to their grandparents, often based not upon actual violence or abuse, but based upon false allegations of such.

To ignore part of the problem is not going to fix the problem unless by accident. In this sort of situation it will likely lead to an increase in violence as more and more hide behind the protective veil of the “Australia say No to violence against women, campaign. Why not just “Australia says No to violence”? Is it so very hard to just omit the one word? It would then also cover the most in need of protection children.

You mention not being aware of any studies that show domestic violence as it is. There are many. Check out Sara Vigneri’s abuse index. Another is Fiebert’s summary of 122 scholarly investigations, 99 empirical studies and 23 reviews, gaining an aggregate sample size of 77,000 which basically concludes that domestic violence is very much not specific to a gender but to other factors, such as alcohol. There are few in Australia, because there is little funding. The latest ABS personal safety study, as was published earlier this year, had to fund the male side of the study, whilst the female side of the study (66% if I recall correctly) was funded by the OSW (again if I recall correctly). This study showed a dramatic increase in the amount of violence perpetrated by women since the last study and since the running of the campaign. What does that say about the campaign that you support?
Posted by Herald4Truth, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 7:26:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rob Moodie's article 'Male Myths Hard to Kill' has generated numerous impassioned responses since being posted less than twenty four hours ago. What intrigues and perhaps dismays me most about several of these responses is their utterly defensive tone. More specifically, some respondents to Moodie's article seem to be asking: Why is he focusing on male violence against women? Why don't we look at the violence and abuse that women commit?

Now, I don't wish to suggest that women's violence against others is nonexistent or 'trivial'. It is not, and must at no time be tolerated or overlooked. However, as statistics show, male violence against women is a far more prevalent problem in today's world. This violence ranges from the behaviour depicted in the DVD that has been given considerable publicity of late to instances of domestic abuse to snide remarks in the office, street, over the phone.

The suggestion that Moodie overemphasises male violence (when - apparently - the sisters are doin' it to others)is, at best, simplistic. At worst, it suggests that violence (and here I include acts of sexual violence such as rape and incest) is somehow gender neutral - when, as history has showed us, it certainly hasn't been.
Posted by jayt, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 7:55:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't know much about statistics in this area, but I do know a few cops, and they tell me consistently, that 90% of their job involves domestic violence related calls.

These guys don't work out west either.

I think that's pretty disturbing, and maybe not a "feminist myth".
Posted by Stomont, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 9:48:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anybody who has ever committed a crime has attempted to justify or mitigate their actions by pointing out another's. We all want the freedom, but we all don't want the responsibility of maintaining those freedoms, nor are we all capable of leading, nor are we all capable of realizing the nature of our actions. There are those who stand on their own two feet, and there are those who find comfort in the mob, followers.
Posted by aqvarivs, Wednesday, 1 November 2006 12:02:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
but I do know a few cops, and they tell me consistently, that 90% of their job involves domestic violence related calls.

Posted by Stomont, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 9:48:01 PM

I also know a few cops and they say that women are just as likely to be the perpetrator. Except the blokes on the receiving end, will not press charges.

If you don't believe just ask them.
Posted by JamesH, Wednesday, 1 November 2006 5:24:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Re police assistance and intervention in domestic violence situations:

As a male I am aware of the 'Australia says No' campaign, but I have also been offered the assistance of the local Police Domestic Violence Liaison Officer, to assist me with the violence carried out against me by my wife.

I have nothing but good to say about the constabulary. They have been helpful, when faced with difficult situations, but they are hampered by a system that forces them to treat men and women differently.

Firstly, if I had acted as my wife has acted I would have had several AVOs put in place to try to prevent further violence, but as one police officer told me, no magistrate is going to put an AVO in place against a 'sick woman'. My wife suffers from a Personality Disorder, exacerbated by alcohol consumption: when the police remove her from our home, or car in some instances (10 times at last count) for my safety or to prevent her from self harm, she is taken to a hospital.

If I had the same disorder and acted in the same way, I would be taken into custody and most likely charged.

Can anyone else here see a double standard?

Another aspect is the nature of violence. Men being physically stronger are more likely to use their hands. Women however are much more likely to use a weapon. Women also can use 'violence' that doesn't usually count as violence. My wife's "speciality", because she doesn't work, is to deliberately keep me awake through the night by talking/ranting/shouting. But in most instances sleep deprivation is not considered a form of violence. I cannot imagine anyone being charged with that offence, but its effect is as real as a hit or a slap.

We have to recognise that there is no acceptable level of violence in domestic situations from either gender.
Posted by Hamlet, Wednesday, 1 November 2006 8:55:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well put arguement Hamlet. You have neatly summarised the problems at the other end of the spectrum, without launching into a rant against women. There is hope for us all yet!

I agree that there is a problem when a system treats perpetrators differently based on their sex. Perhaps in some cases there should be more sympathy and empathy demonstrated towards perpetrators where an underlying condition is fuelling their problems. Its a tough situation though.

I dont agree though that sleep deprivation is domestic violence though. Abuse, yes. I can appreciate the consequences, as would most people with children especially those that have had colicky babies. How you control this though is a very difficult question. How do you measure it, record it, punish it? Not sure that it is a matter for criminal intervention?? I'm open to correction though.
Posted by Country Gal, Wednesday, 1 November 2006 11:58:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Country Girl said, "You have neatly summarised the problems at the other end of the spectrum, without launching into a rant against women. There is hope for us all yet!"

Maybe you should upbraid the author for the rant against men and that can be seen from the title alone, viz., "Male myths are hard to kill".

I think what respondents are trying to pint out is that such myths do not apply to men alone and a balanced, holistic approach is needed. Otherwise it is seen as gender bashing.

Mind you, for forty years gender bashing has been a good way to lever into government funds and for some it is bread on the table.
Posted by Cornflower, Wednesday, 1 November 2006 1:35:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are some remarkable moments in the comments following this article, and in other responses to gender issues. For simply presenting statistics which show that violence is committed at least as frequently by women as by men, and thus suggesting that to focus on male violence is unfair, the men and women who hold such views are accused of being defensive, part of a backlash, and even accused implicitly (by posters such as aqvarivs) of making excuses for their own crimes.

You'd think men’s rights groups were as far to the right as Neo-Nazis. But it seems that many people don't want to know the facts. Even after being informed of numerous studies which dispel the myth of male dominated violence, posters continue to argue that the majority of abuse is committed by males. (This is a common occurrence in response to such issues on this forum.)

DV is a human rights issue. As long as the approach to DV is presented merely as the perpetuation of patriarchal dominance, it will continue to receive vigorous criticism. Apart from alienating the sexes from each other, it is also unlikely to work, because it’s only dealing with one part of the problem. Unfortunately, as DV continues unabated, I fear that the government approach will become increasing hard-line. (We may also see increasingly explicit advertising- think TAC and QUIT- interestingly, when the effectiveness of such advertising wanes, the response has been to ramp up the impact, rather than questioning whether it is the best approach.)

I should point out that I have taken a long time to reach this view. As a naive young man straight out of high school, I fell head-over-heels for an amazing girl. The fact that she held a knife to my throat on our second date did nothing to shake my absolute devotion to her. (Common story, huh?) Over the course of a couple of years, I let her completely dominate my life- from trivial things like how long I spent in the shower, or how much noise I made when I got a cup of tea,
Posted by dozer, Wednesday, 1 November 2006 3:48:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont...

to alienating me from both friends and family. I swallowed, uneasily, a lot of feminist theory at university, and experienced first hand how such propaganda can be used to justify abusive behaviour. For example, she convinced me that any expression of anger on my part, no matter how trivial or justified, was evidence of my capacity for violence, a capacity which all men share, causing me to suppress such feelings.

Aside from the knife incident, I experienced many instances of psychological and emotional abuse. I can assure all that JamesH is not the first to experience sleep deprivation. Even after we broke up, the control continued until I finally learned to stand up for myself. Unable to handle the new, assertive ex-boyfriend, (as opposed to the P-whipped pushover I used to be,) our friendship ended abruptly.

Having emerged from this, I wondered if I was alone, or at best part of a very small minority. After all, my ex had experienced awful abuse at the hands of her father, (something which always caused me to downplay my own situation,) and was in desperate need of psychological help, so surely this was just an extreme case? But I have become increasingly aware of the physical, emotional and sexual abuse, among friends and family, and by numerous stories on the net, perpetrated against both sexes, by both sexes. As I have grown in confidence, I have become increasingly aware of the need to stand up to bullying from both sexes. (Bullying tactics differ little between the sexes.)

But the message I get from popular culture, government advertising, news and current affairs, and much mainstream information about DV, focuses on the idea of the male as perpetrator and the female as victim.

Simply put, it is not an accurate reflection of my own experience.

And it fails to reflect the experience of many others. The views on this page are not part of some small but virulent extremist backlash. They represent a broad section of the community, and it is imperative that they gain a voice in the mainstream media.
Posted by dozer, Wednesday, 1 November 2006 3:49:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dozer, well said.

Countrygal - violence, to me, is any action that is not consented to, that causes physical or emotional harm to another person. To deliberately keep someone awake when they wish to sleep, with the intention of causing that person discomfort is a form of violence.

See

http://www.community.nsw.gov.au/html/child_protect/dv.htm

Verbal abuse is considered a component of domestic violence when it is a woman being abused, but it is not often considered as a component of abuse against males. I guess men are supposed to be able to take being told that they are a lousy lover, a bad father, a poor provider etc without it being considered as abuse.

It is widely acknowledged that sleep deprivation is a form of torture. The extent in a domestic situation obviously being less than that in an interrogation, but the intention is still the same. This becomes evident when I tell you that the most likely times for my wife's attacks being before important exams and job interviews. It got to the stage when I would not tell her of these.

You ask how this is to be quantified? I would suggest that if a woman complained of being harassed in this way, the police would remove the male perpetrator.

And I just heard on the TV that 'white ribbon' day is coming up soon - wear a white ribbon to show that you won't be party to violence against women.

See

http://www.whiteribbonday.org.au/index.cgi?tid=33

Why not be against all violence? The organisers of White Ribbon Day, by clearly stating that wearing a white is: "a visible sign that the wearer does not support or condone the use of violence against women or children;

Read that carefully – it deliberately excludes male victims of violence, and as such condones that violence, claiming that men must not be worthy of having that violence condemned. The omission says much. So long as a man doesn’t commit violence against women or children, as far as White Ribbon Day is concerned, a man can be a murderer, of men, and all is okay.
Posted by Hamlet, Wednesday, 1 November 2006 5:32:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think I might wear a black ribbon on the day.
Posted by JamesH, Wednesday, 1 November 2006 5:44:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Why not be against all violence? The organisers of White Ribbon Day, by clearly stating that wearing a white is: "a visible sign that the wearer does not support or condone the use of violence against women or children;

Read that carefully – it deliberately excludes male victims of violence, and as such condones that violence, claiming that men must not be worthy of having that violence condemned."

Hamlet, maybe you should have read the contents of the website more closely. In the frequently asked question part, it is stated:

"The organisers of the White Ribbon Campaign share the concern about the high rates of violence inflicted on males in Australia. As the 2006 Resource Kit states, "Males too are often the victims of violence. While boys and men are the large majority of perpetrators of violence, boys and men often are also the victims. Males are bashed up, bullied and sexually assaulted. Ending violence to girls and women and ending violence to boys and men are part of the same struggle - to create a world based on equality, justice and non-violence." (The Resource Kits of previous years have said something similar.) We would be thrilled to see a major public campaign in Australia addressing the violence that men experience. Such a campaign would be an invaluable complement to campaigns such as the White Ribbon Campaign”.

Just because there isn’t a campaign to stop violence against men, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t endeavour to stop the violence perpetrated against women. I for one am volunteering to hand out white ribbons at Martin Place on the 24th and the Tri-Nations game on the 25th, so if you are a Sydneysider it would be great if you came and bought one
Posted by la1985, Wednesday, 1 November 2006 7:20:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Booster,

"If there are statistics showing that women are responsible for anywhere near the level of violence towards their partners as men are, then I'll take everything back. "

From a study which sampled experience of DV across the broad community rather than in target groups (such as people in a DV shelter). To the best of my knowledge this is independant work not sponsored by a mens group. A range of studies conducted around the western world over many years have shown similar results. We hit each other at similar rates. Please compare the sample methodology of this study to the studies which show men do the overwhelming majority of DV and ask yourself which is more likely to get a realistic outcome - assuming that those studies tell you where the data came from.

http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/dom/heady99.htm
% Victims
Men Women
Injured, needed first aid 1.8 1.2
Needed treatment by a doctor or nurse 1.5 1.1
Pain as bad as hitting thumb with a hammer, or worse 1.9 1.9
Called the police or other government authority 1.3 1.7

and
To sum up:

Men were just as likely to report being physically assaulted by their partners as women. Further, women and men were about equally likely to admit being violent themselves.

Men and women report experiencing about the same levels of pain and need for medical attention resulting from domestic violence.

Violence runs in couples. In over 50% of partnerships in which violence occurred both partners struck each other.

People who had violent parents were significantly more likely than others to be violent to their own partners and to be victims of violence themselves. On the other hand, a huge majority of people whose parents were violent do not assault their own partners. Moreover, the vast majority of those who are violent did not have violent parents.

Part 1 of 2

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 1 November 2006 8:14:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part 2 of 2 - more of the summary

The first two results run counter to conventional wisdom and to the hypotheses with which we began the paper. However, some degree of confirmation or at least plausibility derives from the fact that men’s and women’s reports on rates of domestic violence more or less agree. If the women are to be believed (as they have been by previous investigators), then so are the men. Further, the results relating to women being as violent as men are in line with some recent American research.

Of course it takes more than one survey to overturn received wisdom. It is fair to ask researchers how much confidence they have in their own findings. We are reasonably confident about the first and third results; that female and male partners assault each other about equally often and that violence runs in couples. Nor do we have reason to doubt that the offspring of violent parents are unlikely to be violent themselves, albeit at greater risk of being violent than are the children of non-violent parents. We have much less confidence in the second result, finding it hard to credit that women injure men as seriously as men injure women. We hope that our measures of the severity of injury and pain were a reasonable first attempt. Nevertheless, in future work it will be important to compare subjective assessments of severity to more reliable and objective measures.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 1 November 2006 8:15:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part 1 -

The Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal Safety Survey, 2005, revealed overwhelmingly that men were the greatest victims of social violence in Australia (estimated 1,007,500 men and 740,000 women over a 12 month period - they didn't count the kids). In fact men are over 36% more likely to be the victims of any kind of violence in their daily lives.

So much for your "myths" Mr Moodie.

The ABS survey presents the true picture of what's going on in Australia today, it begs the question, it seriously does, why is Mr Moodie grandstanding on a platform which only represents women as the victims of violence?

Why does he not call for an end to all violence, mythical or otherwise?

Why does he not call for an end to all violence, ACTUAL?

Why does he not propose policies to investigate and solve problems of violence that besets all Victorians? Especially that of men as victims, they being overwhelmingly underrepresented by Vic government policies it would seem, either myth or factual.

These are reasonable questions.

Continued...
Posted by Maximus, Wednesday, 1 November 2006 9:52:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part 2 -

Mr Moodie writes an article that says that "Male myths are hard to kill". Well perhaps they are Mr Moodie. Especially when you try to substitute truth with myths of your own. Cooking numbers is nothing new in the domain of "persuasive" politics, but that aside, I am heartened by the contributions of upstanding and regular contributors to this page in their reasoned, and in some case, personally painful anecdotes appearing above, who share their stories to enlighten us.

I am not heartened by the contributors whose identities have appeared in support of Mr Moodie - identities I've never seen before, and as such, I wonder why they're posting on this topic, not being regular contributors.

I'll leave that matter to each to evaluate that assertion. The ABS data are extremely enlightening. Mr Moodie's claims, not supported by data here, are open to conjecture at best, and probable dismissal at worst. If this is the best that Mr Moodie can muster, then good luck Victoria.

Here is a man who purports to be Victoria's Health Minister, yet he appears to care only about the health of one half of his constituents. More men die from prostate cancer than women of breast cancer, but what is his prostate cancer policy? More men than women are the physical and emotional victims of violence, but what are his health policies for this?

He doesn't have any.

It's a good thing I don't live in Victoria Mr Moodie, because I certainly wouldn't be voting for you or anyone else in your party who appears to value one half of the population over and above the other half.

A personal opinion of mine, you understand.
Posted by Maximus, Wednesday, 1 November 2006 9:52:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm writing to address the claim that the ABS survey gives us much idea of domestic violence against women versus against men.

(Part 1)

From the PSS data, a total of 73,800 females and 21,200 males experienced at least one incident of physical assault by a current or previous other-sex partner in the last 12 months (ABS 2005: 30).

(…) Because of the narrow way in which the PSS measures violence, these figures do not tell us whether this violence was part of a systematic pattern of physical abuse or an isolated incident, whether it was initiated or in self-defence, whether it was instrumental or reactive, whether it was accompanied by (other) strategies of power and control, or whether it involved fear. (In addition, we only know the relationship to the perpetrator for the most recent incident.) In this regard, the PSS is similar to many other quantitative studies using measurement instruments focused on violent acts. Instruments such as the Conflict Tactics Scale focus on ‘counting the blows’, although most CTS-based studies provide more information than the PSS on the severity of the physical acts involved.

Violence prevention advocates typically use the term ‘domestic violence’ to refer to a systematic pattern of power and control exerted by one person (usually a man) against another (often a woman), involving a variety of physical and non-physical tactics of abuse and coercion, in the context of a current or former intimate relationship. It is simply not the case that every one of the 73,800 women noted above is necessarily living with this. All experienced at least one violent act by a partner in the last year: for some this was part of a regular pattern of violent physical abuse, but for others it was a rare or even reciprocated event. The PSS itself gives us some sense of this. Among women who had experienced violence by a current or previous partner since the age of 15, for a little over half (54.2 per cent) there had been more than one incident (ABS 2006a: 37)
Posted by Michael Flood, Thursday, 2 November 2006 9:11:23 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Part 2)
Related to this issue, noting how many women or men were subject to at least one physical assault by a partner does not necessarily tell us much about the impact of domestic violence on the victim. Women may see the emotional impact of physical aggression as more significant than the physical impact, and the emotional impact is influenced as much by judgements of threat and intent to harm and their own self-blame as by the degree of force used or injury caused (Gordon 2000: 759). In addition, women may experience the impact of non-physical tactics of control and abuse – controlling their movements, destroying property, verbal abuse, mind games, and so on – as more damaging than physical aggression. (…)

To the extent that we use the term ‘domestic violence’ to refer to the experience of chronic abuse and subjection by a partner or ex-partner to strategies of power and control, we cannot claim that every woman or man here is a ‘victim of domestic violence’. (…)

For these same reasons, there are also real limits on the extent to which we can use PSS data to adjudicate the debate regarding women’s and men’s experiences of domestic violence. In acts-based approaches such as that used in the PSS, ‘acts’ “are stripped of theoretical and social meanings and, as such, provide an inadequate basis for describing or explaining the violent acts of men and women.” In particular, these approaches are unable to distinguish between distinct patterns of violence in heterosexual couples. Some heterosexual relationships suffer from occasional outbursts of violence by either husbands or wives during conflicts, what Johnson (2000) calls “situational couple violence”. Here, the violence is relatively minor, both partners practise it, it is expressive in meaning, it tends not to escalate over time, and injuries are rare. In situations of “intimate terrorism” on the other hand, one partner (usually the man) uses violence and other controlling tactics to assert or restore power and authority. The violence is more severe, it is asymmetrical, it is instrumental in meaning, it tends to escalate, and injuries are more likely.
Posted by Michael Flood, Thursday, 2 November 2006 9:16:03 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Murray Straus conducted "Dominanca and Symmetry in Partner Violence by Male and Female University Students"
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID41E2.pdf

Women are as violent as their male companions - and sometimes more so, according to a controversial study presented yesterday at a domestic violence conference in Manhattan.
The survey of 13,600 college students came to the surprising conclusion that in the majority of abusive relationships, women are the perpetrators at least as often as they are the victims of violence.

About one-third of students in 32 countries said they assaulted their partner in a survey conducted by the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire.

Donald Dutton 'Domestic Violence isn't one sided'
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=2e012098-a2f8-44a6-ad48-90756f74f64a

TV3 New Zealand "Domestic Violence research shatters sterotypes"
http://www.tv3.co.nz/default.aspx?tabid=112&articleID=3672

Nuance journal no longer available online.

Australian researcher Ann Lewis & Dr Sotirios Sarantakos, Nuance, 3, December 2001, pp 1-15.

'Domestic Violence and the Male Victim'
Posted by JamesH, Thursday, 2 November 2006 9:25:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here we are running into a problem: in simply labelling either men or women as violent we are not doing anything to address the problem. The difficulty I see is that when one gender alone is labelled violent it provides an excuse for the other gender to continue its violence, and does not provide a solution for that violence.

It can actually make the violence worse, because, unfortunately if violence is denied anger and resentment can build up in the victim, leading to the victim striking out.

The battered wife syndrome defence is the classic example of this. If a victim is on the receiving end of physical, verbal or emotional violence over a period of time the victim may eventually snap, as unjustifiable this may be.

Except that when a woman snaps and strikes out it is often considered as justifiable, even if she uses a weapon. If a man does this, and he shouldn't, it is automatically condemned.

More men should learn the techniques taught by such organisations as Relationships Australia, that is, when someone is abusing you don't get angry - go out instead, go for a walk or similar. Don't respond to her aggression / violence / abuse with violence, because that is so often what is being sought. (I often take long walks)

When it is acknowleged that women can be violent and abusive it is possible to educate men to deal appropriately with that violence. When it is denied, men are stuck with the idea that what is happening to them isn't really happening, and this can have dire outcomes.

Re White Ribbon day - no I didn't go looking for their attitude towards violence against men - I shouldn't have to, it should be up there on the first page.
Posted by Hamlet, Thursday, 2 November 2006 10:22:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If we talk about violence in general rather than focusing on domestic violence, then when statistics show that men are more likely to be victims of violence than women, that violence is more likely to be perpetrated by other men rather than women. Young males are the most likely victims. Why is this not addressed? Young people are relatively powerless in society and one of the reasons is that they are not young for long - they grow out of it. There is little youth policy in Australia, it is mainly aimed at minimising the impact that youth have on "citizens".
Posted by Lainie, Thursday, 2 November 2006 1:25:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Maximus - I'll admit I haven't read up on the statistics, but I've had a fair bit to do with the police in a number of rural areas in Queensland.

From my experience I can tell you that domestic violence takes up more police time than any other crime. In some instances, more than half the police station's resources was devoted to dealing with domestic violence issues.

The other big one was of course male to male violence, largely as a result of alcohol.

The statistics of which you speak may or may not be accurate - no doubt a great deal of domestic violence goes unreported - and even if a small percentage of the population undertakes domestic violence, it appears to happen on a frequent basis.

I think there's probably some validity in your assertions about women abusing children, though I find it hard to reconcile the notion that there are comparable numbers of female attacks on men when compared to the attacks from men on women.

I dare say there are a number of men who have been hard done by, and mistreated by the system.
Whilst it's probably presumptuous of me, and I apologise in advance if this contemplation is without basis, by the tone of your response I can't help but wonder if you are one of them.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Thursday, 2 November 2006 1:36:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is it possible that one reason for the apparent (in many studies) differential in violence by genders is due to a lack of recognition of what constitutes violence?

Women recognise verbal abuse as domestic violence, whereas many men simply think that this is the way that it is.

A man may not see a slap across the face from the woman as a form of domestic violence. They just see it as a slap across the face.

Both men and women are capable of throwing things at each other, it is an old comedy idea that when a woman is upset with her husband she throws the dishes at him, and he ducks. But this is violence.

Destruction of property is also violence, but this is often laughed off. When I was studying history at uni the class took a look at an archaeological dig at the Rocks. Fragments of valuable china were found at the bottom of a well: The lecturer stated, with a smile on her face, that this was when a woman found out that her de-facto's real wife was returning, so she destroyed the family china before she left... Yes, you are smiling too, but that was also domestic violence.

If it was a man, today, who did this then he would be considered a perpetrator of domestic violence.

Even today we have the expression that ‘Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned’ isa way of justifying violence, without recognising it as violence.

So, if men are told that women don’t commit violence, how are they to interpret the actions of women who are violent?

If domestic violence is so narrowly defined as to be only that committed by a male against a female, that is ‘violence against women’, then it is actually saying that violence, when committed by a female, is acceptable, and this in turn will lead to more violence, when a male, who sees that a female’s actions are not considered as violent, is tempted to act in the same way, instead of simply maintaining his dignity and walking away.
Posted by Hamlet, Thursday, 2 November 2006 10:35:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Erin Pizzey

http://www.fathersforlife.org/pizzey/failfamt.htm

Feminist journalists and radical feminist editors in publishing houses controlled the flow of information to the public. By now the feminist movement had a strangle hold on the subject of domestic violence. They had found a cause to further their political vision of a world without the family and without men. They also had the access to money. The abuse industry was born.

Because of my opposition to the hijacking of the refuge movement, I was a target for abuse. Anywhere I spoke there was a contingent of screaming, heckling feminists waiting for me. Hounslow Council decided to proceed against me in court and I was packed to go to prison for most of the twelve years that I ran my refuge. Abusive telephone calls to my home, death threats and bomb scares, became a way of living for me and for my family. Finally, the bomb squad, asked me to have all my mail delivered to their head quarters. The final outrage occurred when I was asked to travel to Aberdeen University to stand as a candidate for the post of Rector for the University in 1981. I was hopeful that I could have an influence on the young students at the university. At the polling booths Scottish Women’s Aid made it their business to hand out leaflets claiming that I believed that women ‘invited violence,’ and ‘provoked male violence,’ this was the gist of their message.
Posted by JamesH, Friday, 3 November 2006 4:39:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Hamlet. I'm interested by yours and TRTL's latest entries. They make an important point: that until you've experienced or witnessed it, one can be completely unaware of the problem of dv by women against men. I grew up with a very controlling father, so I'd experienced male domination. And I am part of a whole new generation of men who have been socialized not to hit women, to listen, empathise, and not make assumptions about what they can do. It simply seemed inconceivable that domestic violence against men could be a widespread problem. TRTL's comment "I find it hard to reconcile the notion that there are comparable numbers of female attacks on men when compared to the attacks from men on women," is common and understandable. Such observations even appear in some research papers whose statistics appear to confirm it.

Furthermore, it wasn't until I'd broken out of a dominating relationship that I started to rigorously question feminist theory which says that men use violence en masse to assert their dominance and perpetuate the patriarchy. A number of writers on the subject state that they are angry they ever gave such ideas the slightest bit of credibility, and I find myself in agreement. A very interesting article "Feminist Social Explanations are Wrong" http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=1480, (which I'm sure many of us have read,) takes a different approach. It argues that the social and cultural changes which have occurred over the last 30 or 40 years were necessary, inevitable, and a good thing.

However, although the feminist movement was the vehicle through which such changes could occur, many of its core assumptions were wrong. In particular, the idea that males are by nature violent, oppressive, emotionally stunted, and that such flaws were the origin for the oppressive nature of the male dominated world, is completely debunked. Unfortunately, it is this theory which informs current policy towards domestic violence.

This concept also informs the idea that female violence is primarily in self-defence, or "not violence" as Hamlet has pointed out. Again, this argument is undermined by evidence http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID41E2.pdf, p. 13 & 18,

cont...
Posted by dozer, Friday, 3 November 2006 5:36:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
that a rise in female violence is directly linked to increasing levels of female dominance in a relationship. (The same is true for males.) Thus it is factors such as dominance by one partner over another, alcohol and drug abuse, stress, which lead to domestic violence, not the base nature of males.

Shakira Hussein's excellent recent article http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5095, links the perceived alienation of some 2nd generation Muslim male immigrants, to a seemingly pathological hatred of women. This could also shed light on the disgraceful actions in the DVD which inspired Moody's article. Whether they were 5th generation Anglo or 2nd generation muslim, could we not view this episode as the actions of alienated young men? But feminist theory blinkers us to this possibility, and thus hinders possible remedies to dealing with the problem of male violence against women.

Surely there are many men, young and old, to whom the concept of "The Patriarchy" is completely foreign. I often feel myself asking, "what has "The Patriarchy" ever done for me. The notion of masculinity itself is under attack, (and it's not just blokes saying this- Melanie Phillips makes this point, and the comments of CountryGal, OZgirl and CornFlower on this forum are refreshing to see.) There's nothing wrong with socializing society into accepting equality of the sexes and teaching men "do not hit women." But with the aforementioned feminist theories regarding the nature of masculinity underpinning this socialization, the self hate it inflicts on men does more harm than good.

Finally, (and sorry if my use of the English language is making me sound like a total ponce,) although it's not femo-bashing, it does appear that many of these dv/gender debates do seem to end up with just a few of us (male and female) talking amongst ourselves. We're presenting a lot of double-posts, but a common response to being in a losing position on this forum seems to be to just ignore one's opponent. Come on people, take us on. This is a debate forum, not a self-help forum for battered men...
Posted by dozer, Friday, 3 November 2006 5:37:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
dozer, " but a common response to being in a losing position on this forum seems to be to just ignore one's opponent".

Good point, I've posted links and key statistics from the Abused Child Trust and other seemingly independant sources on these forums on numerous ocasions and I've not seen a single poster respond to the stats.

They either ignore them and continue on with claims of overwhelming genderisation in the perpetration of child abuse or just go silent. None have ever attempted to tell me why those stats don't reflect the reality of our society.

Likewise with the results of the study I referenced on DV earlier in this thread. The full article explains their collection methodology and the steps they have taken to exclude bias in the sampling. The authors admit they came up with a different result than what was expected. They question their own findings on the level of injury experienced.

Again nobody has posted a critique that showed why the results can be ignored, I don't recall any poster pushing that line that DV is overwhelmingly genderised ever responding to the research or the key findings (or retracting earlier comments).

Some peoples myths are indeed hard to kill.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 3 November 2006 6:25:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think it is about time to begin to summarise and close up this debate.

What has it all been about?

Mr Moodie, a Vic MP, the Health Minister, facing re-election in a month's time wanted to test the waters on the issue of violence against women (VAW) as a primary plank for his party's re-election. In fact, he's choreographed the release of a report, "Two steps forward and one step back", mentioned, to coincide with the launch of the election - last weekend every news journal in Australia ran reports of this "research", and I do use that term extremely loosely.

Next, is the coincidence of the Vic state elections coinciding with "White Ribbon Day", which he honestly pointed out in his article. This, of course is NO coincidence, but a convenient duality. And that's what this article by Moodie is really all about. To test the waters about man/woman hatred and how that would relate to votes in the box for his pro-VAW policies.

Let me tell you that mightily pleased I have been by the posts that I have read above. They have shown that the issue Moodie wants to run on is nothing but a bald-faced lie and you the posters of the comments above have told him so. I feel confident that whilst "White Ribbon Day" will feature prominently on ALP re-election day, they won't be pushing it as much as they would have done had you good people not spoken your mind. A win for the people.

There is so much more to discuss about this issue and the article scribed by Moodie and its relationship to policies, but time and space limit my voice.

I'd just like to thank those who have spoken openly and frankly about their life experiences, which have clearly been painful episodes in their lives, so the rest of us can garner a picture of reality - not something it would seem that Moodie and his researcher, Flood, would like us to know.

To all I thank you for your honesty and decency.
Posted by Maximus, Friday, 3 November 2006 7:50:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One of the great ommissions in this debate has been verbal and emotional abuse which is often claimed, including by women, to be the most damaging types of abuse.

I was interested to get figures on these types of abuse from the ABS as their Personal Safety Survey did canvass these issues. Unfortunately the only figures made freely available by the ABS are those on Physical and Sexual Assault where men are the dominant perpetrators.

I suspect that as a Women's Group was funding a large part of this survey that they have deemed that figures on emotional types of abuse be not included in the Summary. I suspect that women engage in this 'most damaging type of abuse' much more frequently than men and Women's Groups do not want this kind of information getting out as it puts paid to the idea that violence against women is the only real problem in Family Violence.

I realize that this is only speculation but it is not speculation by choice. I would love for those figures to be released and if anyone has access to those figures I would call on them to post them here - if someone wants to end the speculation, it is very easy - release the figures!
Posted by Rob513264, Saturday, 4 November 2006 3:28:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"One of the great ommissions in this debate has been verbal and emotional abuse which is often claimed, including by women, to be the most damaging types of abuse."

Posted by Rob513264, Saturday, 4 November 2006 3:28:57 AM

I saw an article which stated basically that one of the strongest indicators for domestic violence (physical) was an emotional abusive, manipulative wife.

It may not be politically correct and I think alot of people avoid saying this, even though it seems to rather obvious. I have known bullies who will taunt and ridicule the victim and then cry innocent when the victim retaliates with physical violence.
Posted by JamesH, Sunday, 5 November 2006 6:03:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JamesH, there is still no excuse for retaliatory violence. Instead men need to learn not to play that particular game: to take measures to protect themselves by having a good grounding by having good affirming mates, or, and this may be heretical, by having female friends / workmates / sisters etc, or by getting affirmation through a supportive faith community (church etc) or even, if appropriate, by attending a 12 step program such as al-anon, CODA or slaa or similar (there has to be some underlying reason why an otherwise functional man stays with an abusive woman).

I only got through my arts degree in my mid forties with the support of an wonderful Internet woman friend. We were both having problems, so for four years we communicated nearly daily: if you are being torn down at home, you need to get built up somehow, from somewhere else.

Another thing that men have to learn is to detach: to recognise that if a woman is verbally abusive then that is her problem. Striking back in any way shape or form only demeans us as males. Instead we must keep acting with love, if only as a way of helping us feel good about ourselves.

Lastly, detachment, whether physical, by going to another room, or by going for a walk, perhaps spending the night somewhere else, and considering leaving, if you can. This can be difficult if the violence is also against children and a man may try to stay to shield the kids.

Remember, if a woman gets violent, call the police: If she gets physically out of control: call the police. Any attempt to restrain her, except in self defence or to prevent her from self harm is assault. If she chooses, for example, to destroy the TV then let her - but call the police: Better a destroyed TV than you being charged and having a criminal record.
Posted by Hamlet, Sunday, 5 November 2006 12:13:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
From what they are led to understand, people imagine that domestic violence involves physical injury and it is very common. This being so, why don't you see thousands of women with black eyes or physcal incapacity in the street and in shopping centres?

Obviously the definition of domestic violence is very broad, both in the actions that could be construed as DV and the 'injuries' (or other proof) that are evidence of DV. But if a broad definition is to be used to suit the needs of one gender, why not be fair and apply the same definition to the other gender and why leave same sex couples out?

I think this is why JamesH and others have cause to feel hard done by. After all, their demand and it is reasonable, is for honesty in reporting (and in policy), nothing more.

Ah, but there is an industry and guvvy grants at stake, you say.....
Posted by Cornflower, Sunday, 5 November 2006 5:01:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I saw an article which stated basically that one of the strongest indicators for domestic violence (physical) was an emotional abusive, manipulative wife.

It may not be politically correct and I think alot of people avoid saying this, even though it seems to rather obvious. I have known bullies who will taunt and ridicule the victim and then cry innocent when the victim retaliates with physical violence."

You're right James H that such a statement is not politically correct- it is about as politically incorrect as shiek hilaly's comments. You are basically saying that women are 'asking for it' in situations of domestic violence. Funnily enough, it undermines your repeated argument that men suffer dv just as much as women, because if that is the case then men must be 'asking for it' by being emotionally abusive just as much as women are. You constantly attack feminists as blaming evrything that's wrong in the world on men, but you yourself seem hell-bent on blaming everything that ever goes wrong on women, and the tragedy is that you don't seem to be able to recognise this.

Maybe you should widen your consideration past our relatively advanced society and think about the situation in the rest of the world. For instance, women in India have acid thrown on them by their husbands and are killed for lack of sufficient dowry- I hardly think dv is gender-neutral in such instances. This study gives the latest and most accurate international figures:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/05/news/women.php

For example, 71% of rural ethiopian women are subject to dv- it is a serious problem, whether you recognise it or not.
Posted by fallen angel, Sunday, 5 November 2006 11:22:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hamlet said: "JamesH, there is still no excuse for retaliatory violence."

Then why do so many women get to use it as an excuse for their violence and why do courts so often except it - even when they kill the man and so he cant defend himself against the charges of abuse?

Even Milosovic couldnt be found guilty after he had died but many Western men are found de-facto guilty of spousal abuse, after they are dead, even though there was no record of previous violence and no evidence to support the charge AND the woman killed the man while he was asleep.

There is an interesting story that Murray Straus tells about a man who was watching TV when his wife came home drunk and stabbed him - when he called the police and they came around his wife lied and said 'I was just protecting myself' and the police arrested him - keeping him in a cell all night with an untreated stab wound.

When I rang the police after my wife threatened to shoot me - they actually laughed down the phone. Men with their eyes open know that in the real world they are very likely to come off second best if they involve the police. This is one of the key factors why men do not report DV.
Posted by Rob513264, Monday, 6 November 2006 12:37:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
fallen angel, you may be right about conditions in the third world - most of us here are not close enough to tell. Likewise some sections of Australian society may have differing rates to the general community - there is plenty of talk about DV in some indiginous communities but I'm not close enough to tell fact from fiction.

The original article though did not seem to be targetting ethopian men or men in remote communities. It appeared to make some broad brush allegations about main stream australian men.

Allegations that are not supported by an honest look at the available statistics and the kind of assumptions that underpin some of them. Studies which don't used a biased collection method consistently show that DV in the western world is not significantly genderised. Men and women commit it at about equal rates.

Similar story for substantiated child abuse and neglect when you allow for the time in care (women commit more of it but have more of the care).

Unfortunately some sections of the feminist movement have made women as the victims of DV their poster issue to keep people interested. It's hard to move on from there.

The idea that DV is a male thing has become a mantra that few will question regardless of what the facts are. Studies that show otherwise are ignored (and their authors professional lives may suffer).

If DV is an issues in India or Uganda then talk about DV in those countries but don't use it to support the lie in this country.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 6 November 2006 5:54:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Posted by fallen angel, Sunday, 5 November 2006 11:22:19 PM

Interesting that quote about ethiopia. I live in Australia, not ethiopia.

Guess what fallen angel is not domestic violence more than physical violence? or so we are told, yet the debate degenerates down to who does the most physical damage or who is bigger, stronger, whilst ignoring the emotional, psychological etc etc forms of domestic violence.

UN Violence Report laced with myths and misandry
http://www.ifeminists.net/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.5

Well feminists have spent the last four or more decades blaming men for everything wrong with the world. Producing propaganda and myths, distorting facts. So what is wrong with challangeing this misandry?

I listened and heard the feminist anti male message for a long time and I am sick of it. The vast majority of the messages are nothing but manipulation.

If we really want to deal effectively with DV then it needs an holistic approach. If it means confronting women about their own negative abusive behaviour then so be it.

The message I am hearing is that women do not want to take responsibility for their own behaviour. They would just rather sit back and blame men.

Gee fallen angel you just have to be the victim.

Erin Pizzey has written about what she calls the family terrorist.

"The family well may be characterized 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 behavior, 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.")
Posted by JamesH, Monday, 6 November 2006 6:08:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
James, at least we now know where those stats which don't detail the collection methods and which show an "overwhelming" genderisation of DV come from - a village in africa.

I'd always though that they were a result of basing the studies entirely from info gathered in female DV shelters.

Do the child abuse stats that show that children need protection from fathers come from the same village or a different one? Clearly they don't originate in Australia either, the published stats from groups like the Abused Child Trust make that "overwhelmingly" obvious.

That leaves the question, what can we do about DV and child abuse rates in Africa? Add them to the list of massive problems facing that continent.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 6 November 2006 8:04:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are a number of ways to rig research so that the findings support your hypothesis.

Firstly only collect data which supports your hypothesis and ignore all other data. Like for example only collect data showing women are victims of domestic violence and not to collect data on men being victims.

Secondly, only research one aspect. For example the ABS womens safety survey did not ask women if they ever abused men. It only asked them if they had been abused.

Thirdly construct the research questions to support your hypothesis. "When did he last hit you?" or "When was the last time you hit her?"

Marie Claire magazine ran a promotion "Its time to talk!" but the magazine only wanted women to talk and for men to remain silent.

Fourthly, use a mismash of data and present it in varying ways, such as in some incidences percentages of percentages, 100% of 10% or to use raw figures. What ever looks the most impressive. Remember that scare about HRT causing an increase in heart attacks. It double a womans risk. In that it double the increased risk from 0.06% to 0.12% of women taking HRT.

There are many other methods used in manipulating data and research.
Posted by JamesH, Monday, 6 November 2006 9:51:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The point I was trying to make about the rest of thw world is that if you take a broader perspective, dv is a gendered issue. To quote from the article I linked to, "At all sites, from Bangkok to rural Peru, the presence of a controlling partner - a man who tried to restrict a woman's movements or was jealous of her outside contacts - was associated with a higher likelihood of abuse." To me, that suggests that it is an inequality in relationships that increases the likelihood of dv, and therefore if you have a society with a prevalence for having a male 'head' of the family that has control over everyone else in the family (including their partner), then you will have more female victims of dv. Thankfully in this country we promote the idea of equal relationships, which lessens the chance of abusive power relationships developing. So for me, a widespread prevalence of dv isn't about men being inherently violent and evil which is absurd, but about social structures of inequality.

James H, once again you accuse feminists of blaming men for everything and then turn around and blame women for everything in a startling display of hypocrisy. Do you not think your message is anti-female? (I certainly think being termed a 'family terrorist' is offensive). Do you not think you are playing the victim by depicting women as evil manipulative cows who want nothing more than to ruin men's lives?

BTW I posted before under fallen angel because I was having computer issues, sorry if this caused confusion.
Posted by la1985, Monday, 6 November 2006 10:32:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keep responses on topic.
Do not flame.
Do not "shout" (use capital letters excessively).
Do not post the same message across multiple threads.
Do not attempt to circumvent suspensions.
Observe copyright and defamation laws
Posted by Romany, Monday, 6 November 2006 12:21:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The above are the rules which pertain to everyone who posts on OLO. Once again the same people who consistently show utter disregard for these rules have monopolized the thread. There is nothing new about the opinions they offer, there is nothing different about what they say – in scores of other threads they have used the same inflammatory language, provided the same evidence – usually from partisan sources or quoted out of context – and utilized their right to express themselves in order to publicise the fact that their own personal experiences have been unfortunate and they intend never to let go of them. They utilize these threads therapeutically, it seems, in order to vent anger through abuse under the cover of anonymity.

These posters are absent from discussion on articles other than those which can in any way be turned towards their own personal prejudices. Whenever new posters appear on “their” threads they combine to bully dissenters away and monopolise the thread to such an extent that it becomes a dialogue of smug “proof” that their views are the prevailing ones. I have protested before about this behaviour and so have other posters who look to OLO as a place for balanced discussion, adult behaviour, refreshing view points and perhaps an opportunity to increase our knowledge and understanding through other people.
This thread has become inane. Do you not have the wit to recognize that each post you submit serves as text-book proof of the validity of the article
Posted by Romany, Monday, 6 November 2006 12:22:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Romany,

These are serious allegations regarding our conduct, and your arguments must be challenged.

Regarding the forum rules- Take a look over the history of this thread. Most time successive capital letters are used, it's for acronyms, like DV.

Copyright and defamation laws- If you are engaged in an argument, and you don't provide evidence, you get shot down for making unsubstantiated assertions. If you quote a source, and provide a link to that source, surely that is appropriate footnoting? And no-one has named their tormentor.

In the same vein, regarding the cover of anonymity, surely we are protecting the identities of our abusers as well. (This doesn't affect me, but perhaps some posters have children?)

Regarding monopolization of the thread/ bullying of dissenters: It is very difficult to bully in a debate over the internet. Firstly, one is, as you say, anonymous. Second, one has time to analyse an opponent's argument, draft and redraft a response if necessary, and provide sufficient evidence. (Ironically, I find this enormously refreshing, as regardless of whether my opponent is a bully, using 'verbal machine-gunning' techniques (see http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2004/0407rolph.html, under the heading “The Victim’s Relationship to the Abuser), or merely engaged in friendly debate, I find it very difficult to respond systematically when confronted face to face. I find it much easier to respond to an argument in writing.) Providing a 700 word response to an issue about which one cares deeply is not bullying. When engaging people as skilled in forming an argument as can be found on this forum, anything less that a watertight argument receives a battering- (yes I know, I just couldn't resist the pun.)

Surely ‘prejudice’ is by definition uninformed.

This is only the second thread I have been involved with on OLO. In my first experience, (see “Kurd sellout- latest edition,”) I was shocked by the arrogance of my opponents, who among other things, appeared to find my username hilarious. However, I laboriously produced a number of rigorous replies, but was largely ignored. I hope my long responses didn’t hurt their feelings.

Having said this,

cont...
Posted by dozer, Monday, 6 November 2006 5:45:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont...

I appreciate la1985 and Romany (and Lev) for continuing to engage us.

The issue of physical assault in retaliation for verbal or emotional abuse has been misrepresented. As Hamlet states, there is no excuse for physical violence. But as Rob513264 has pointed out, this excuse is regularly used to defend women's violence against men. In extreme cases (battered wife syndrome) this is understandable, but regardless, one gets the perception from society that men who are victims of female physical violence are getting what they deserve. Simply put, there should not be a double standard. Violence is unacceptable, full-stop. We are also raising the point that verbal/emotional/psychological abuse is used by both men and women, but again, both the extent and effect of that committed by women appears to be either ignored or excused.

To la 1985,

You have made a good point regarding the rest of the world. (Regardless of the original focus on DV in Australia, which provoked our ire.) I agree with you, and studies show, that countries with better levels of male-female equality exhibit lower rates of male-initiated DV. However, I have taken issue with the fact that DV policy in this country focuses almost entirely on male-initiated DV, which is a reflection of flawed Feminist theory. The Feminist movement was right to point to the inequalities of the system, and to work to remedy them. However, much Feminist literature went further than challenging social structures of inequality, and argued that there is something inherently wrong with masculinity itself. This ideology can be seen across a broad range of issues, with a corresponding attempt to ‘feminise’ masculinity out of its bad habits. In relation to DV, this ideology prevents policy makers from taking a comprehensive approach in dealing with male and female violence. If applied in the rest of the world, it will have the same lopsided results.

Surely la1985 and Romany, this argument deserves to be engaged? If our sources are partisan or quoted out of context, or, indeed, wrong, give us specific examples. Or, in challenging the dominant narrative, am I merely being infantile?
Posted by dozer, Monday, 6 November 2006 5:46:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There was a good article by Michael Gray last year on OLO entitled "Domestic violence - a statistical 'shock and awe' campaign?" (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5077). Rob Moodie should read it and if he was then actually serious about working out myth from reality (and I doubt that he is) start investigating the (gender political) background to the 1996 Women's Safety Survey (WSS) - truely one of the worst peices of 'social research' ever. That survey was apparently fully funded by the Office of Status of Women (OSW) (as indeed was the later Acess Economics study that claimed domestic violence (against women only of course) cost the nation $8 billion a year - based largely on the WSS study of course).

If the tobacco industry funded a study finding smoking to be good for your health we would regard it as junk research. So we should too with the OSW funded WSS study. But they were very clever getting the ABS to sign off on it. A lot of pressure was applied to get that result. Interestingly with this latest (PSS) survey OSW only funded 50% of it and OSW (now called something else) are not as powerful as they used to be. So surprise, surprise, the results were quite different to the WSS findings. I suspect if you could get the ABS to do a survey that had no meddling and pressure from the OSW types, the result might be even more surprising. The real message that the DV industry is trying to peddle is not simply the 'universal victimhood of women' - it is a re-packaging of the failed 1970's slogan 'all men are bastards'. Some are. Most aren't. And some women are surprisingly violent and viscious. Men like Moodie should start to wake up. They won't of course because they have been fooled into thinking they are in the vanguard of some chivalrous crusade to protect women from the 'rest of us'. Thank God the mainstream of society aren't buying it.

QKay
Posted by QKAY, Monday, 6 November 2006 7:52:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I found this interesting piece at

http://www.theage.com.au/news/education-news/cyber-bullies-are-wrecking-lives/2006/09/30/1159337347814.html?page=2

"a 2006 survey by the National Coalition Against Bullying and teen magazine Girlfriend, which found 42 per cent of 12 to 15-year-old girls reported being intimidated or denigrated online or by text messaging. Ms McCaffrey says both boys and girls cyber-bully, although more research has been done into girls doing it.

"Often very nice kids who would not bully face to face hide behind the anonymity of the internet," she says. "They feed off each other and it becomes a frenzy as to who can be the nastiest or most obscene - their parents would be horrified if they knew." "

Yes, it says that both boys and girls are doing cyber-bullying. I do not deny DV from both genders. I see a parallel between bullying and DV.

Another interesting article can be found at:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/they-just-want-to-be-loved/2005/10/30/1130607152238.html

" 'Dr Spears said while the girls indicated they used all forms of bullying, including physical bullying, the most common form was verbal, directly or indirectly.

"They are quite clear that their type of bullying is verbal and inflicting a mental hurt," she said, adding that boys tended to be more physical.' "

This shows that at school level that girls are capable of recognising that verbal abuse is a type of violence. This is not to justify physical violence, but to illustrate that verbal abuse is designed to inflict hurt.

Why haven't feminist groups come out and denied these studies and evidence? Maybe they haven't realised that this evidence, that people often carry their bullying behaviour from the school yard into their adult relationships, counters the idea of women as victims and men as perpetrators.

And sometimes bullying behaviour, Romany, can take the form of denying others arguments and experience. Of course we take part in discussions that interest us, that touch raw nerves. Often it is in those areas that we have done a bit of research or devoted some thought. Or are you seeking to deny us a voice?
Posted by Hamlet, Monday, 6 November 2006 8:05:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pt 1

Michael Flood wrote…

“In acts-based approaches such as that used in the PSS, ...‘acts’ “are stripped of theoretical and social meanings and, as such, provide an inadequate basis for describing or explaining the violent acts of men and women.”

And…

Violence prevention advocates typically use the term ‘domestic violence’ to refer to a systematic pattern of power and control exerted by one person (usually a man) against another (often a woman)…. “In addition, women may experience the impact of non-physical tactics of control and abuse – controlling their movements, destroying property, verbal abuse, mind games, and so on – as more damaging than physical aggression. (…)

At least Flood acknowledges in the first paragraph that women are actually capable of violent acts. Quite a statement for you Michael. But then he delves into the notion that a systematic pattern of power and control is ‘usually exerted by the man’. My partner was a victim of this kind of control by her ex husband (which of course included financial control) and I have known a couple of other women who were the victim of it. But of all the women (and relationships) I have known over almost 50 years this ‘man controlling the woman’ vision is a relative rarity. More often, it was virtually in the reverse. The man fearful of ‘getting in the doghouse’, or having to ‘spend the night on the couch’, willingly handing over his pay packet each week because his wife ran all the household budgeting (and was often smarter with finances).

Cont'd
Posted by QKAY, Monday, 6 November 2006 8:34:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Romany and la1985

have a look at this site and read the articles! Look at the research.

http://www.mediaradar.org/

and this article;

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."

la1985!

Erin Pizzey who opened the worlds first refuge wrote the article in which she describes violent women as family terrorists. (Do your research girl)

The hypocrisy lies in the fact that feminists only want to present one side of the debate. If exposing female violence is anti woman, then exposing male violence is anti male.

If you claim to support equality, human rights and social justice, then you must support expanding the debate beyond misandric propaganda. If you do not support this then you are supporting totalitarianism and equality, human rights and social justice are just meaningless terms.

Some of your statements about me are manipulative and abusive and I am past caring about what some people like you may say or write about me.

One of my ah ha moments is the realization of how critical and judgemental some members of your gender are!

Warren Farrell wrote a book titled "Women don't hear what men don't say" he should have titled it "Women don't want to hear what men are saying."

Toby Green (Psychologist) wrote that some women actually believe that they are better people than men.
Posted by JamesH, Tuesday, 7 November 2006 6:39:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Before you buy a white ribbon read this.

DISHONESTY IN THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INDUSTRY, 2006
Micheal Woods
Senior Lecturer
University of Western Sydney
http://menshealth.uws.edu.au/documents/Dishonesty%20in%20the%20DV%20Industry.doc
Posted by JamesH, Thursday, 9 November 2006 8:06:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/document.do?id=ENGACT770192006
Posted by happy, Monday, 27 November 2006 9:49:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
From the link posted by happy

"Amnesty International calls on the Council of Europe to ensure that a European methodology for the systematic collection of statistical data on domestic violence disaggregated by sex, type of violence and perpetrator, as well as by the relationship of the perpetrator to the victim is elaborated and made available for implementation to the Council of Europe member states by the end of the campaign, March 2008."

Yes to that.

Unfortunately the article is also laced with comments suggesting an insistence on genderisation of the issue - the old catchcry of "Stop violence against women" appearing to give the definition of what is meant by stopping DV.

I counted five specific references to women as the victims of DV and not a single one refering to men (or children) as the victims of DV.

Apparently this is one issue where the needs of a claimed minority (male victims) don't matter at all to some.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 27 November 2006 10:58:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Happy, I read your link so now it's your turn to read mine.

I've included an extract from the article for those who don't like following links.

http://www.ncfmla.org/gelles.html

"My colleague Murray Straus has found that every study among more than 30 describing some type of sample that is not self-selective (an example of self-selected samples are samples of women in battered woman shelters or women responding to advertisements recruiting research subjects; non-select selective samples are community samples, samples of college students, or representative samples) has found a rate of assault by women on male partners that is about the same as the rate by men on female partners. The only exception to this is the U.S. Justice Department’s Uniform Crime Statistics, the National Survey of Crime Victims, and the U.S. Department of Justice National Survey of Violence against Women."

For the record I don't know anything about the site the article is posted on and am not providing endorsement for that site but from what I've read on the topic the work of Gelles, Straus and Steinmetz has been key to the study of family violence.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 27 November 2006 6:19:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"If there are statistics showing that women are responsible for anywhere near the level of violence towards their partners as men are, then I'll take everything back. "
=
Time to take everything back then Robert.

Erin Pizzey was the founder of a women's shelter in Chiswick, England, the first modern battered women's shelter in the world. She found that of the first 100 women who came to her shelter, 62 were as or more violent than the partners they tried to escape from -- only to return to their partners time and again because of their addiction to pain and violence, violence that they persistently did their best to bring about. Over a period of ten years, Erin Pizzey became involved with about 5,000 women and their children who came through her shelter. She has written a number of books on domestic violence, one of which, Prone to Violence, addresses the issue of women's abuse and violence.
Posted by sparticusss, Wednesday, 29 November 2006 6:17:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ASKING FOR IT

This is a serious issue that the ivory tower hermits of the universities do not address.

It's hard to do so among intellectuals, of both genders, where husband bashing is just as unthinkable as wife bashing.

But it's a real world out there.

From the ivory towers come's the preaching that "there's no such thing as asking for it! It's never your fault. Women never bring it among themselves."

But try these copybook examples from the real world.

= She had thrown half the kitchen at him over a fortnight. Conecting on several occasions! Now she had him cornered in the lounge and was taunting him. "Come on ya gutless barstard. Hit me. Ya havent got the guts."
(To get some real idea try a little gender reversal. Make it a male doing the taunting. If a wife hit a husbnad, who was behaving that way, would you call it "asking for it" I would.)

= She had been, essentially date raped, by her bf. And no way she could ever prove to police that it was non consentual. She was howling on the shoulders of her gf's. One of the gf's suggested. "Why don't you break up with him and go out with Greg instead. You know he's always had the hots fo you?" The reaction! "What? That geek? Forget it" From a little firther listening in I was able to gather that this Greg character was nobodys geek. In fact the only real differece was that he didn't abuse his girlfreinds.

So yes! In the real world there are SOME women who definiely do ask for it. Literally! And there are SOME women/bimbos who definitely bring it on themselves.
Posted by sparticusss, Friday, 1 December 2006 7:39:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm a man who has been sexually harassed and stalked by a woman. It happens. I've also been the victim of a malicious AVO by the same woman who created an email account using my name and sent herself a series of death/rape threat emails. While the police later investigated, tracked their origin back to her and squeezed a confession out of her, the court granted her the AVO despite the obvious dodginess of her claim. They pass them out like tic-tacs.

I've also seen the flipside. I've seen 6 female friends forced to leave their jobs because of incessant harassment from dirty old men. A recent HREOC study showed that in the 20 years since the introduction of sexual harassment legislation there has been absolutely no change in the incidence of sexual harassment except there are more male victims now.

As for domestic violence there is a rapdily growing body of scientifically sound research showing no gender difference. Most studies show that in 50% of cases both partners are violent towards each other, in 25% it's male-to-female violence and in 25% it's female-to-male violence.

Some interesting extras to add to this thread.

Did you know that under Howard the OSW has seen a major loss of funding? Then it came election time and Howard threw $70 million into a blatant grab for the 'chic-vote'. And what I heard from a friend who works in government is that the campaign the OSW proposed is not the one Howard ran. They wanted an inclusive anti-domestic violence campaign - saying no to violence against men, women and children. The OSW has openly called for more research into men as victims of domestic violence.

And this white-ribbon thing is a complete tragedy. Real feminists (as opposed to rabid man-haters) should be appalled. Instead of empowering women to say "I deserve better than an abusive partner, this relationship is over" the message is "women are weak and need their menfolk to protect them". Down this road lies the final death of real feminism - a movement aimed at eliminating constricting gender roles and myths.
Posted by Bombles, Sunday, 21 January 2007 11:30:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy