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

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.

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...

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.

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?

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.