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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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...