One of the greatest shames in regards to WRD is that it is approaching the issue of violence in a piecemeal fashion.

A the author correctly points out WRD was initiated by Canadian men in 1991, the year after the massacre of 14 women engineering students.

It has metamorphosed from the murder of these 14 women in to a campaign against domestic violence.

Violence in our society is not just an issue which affects women, it affects men as well.

People like Erin Pizzey, Eeva Sodhi, Melaine Phillips and others contradict much of the feminist based research.

Researchers such as Murray Straus, Susan Steinmetz, RL McNeely, Linda Kelly, Richard Gelles, Dr Sotirios Sarantakos all publish research into DV which show men also experience DV.

Some like Pizzey, Straus, Gelles Steinmetz and McNeely have experienced death threats, personal attacks etc because of their work and research. For some researchers, researching domestic violence and the male victim is a no go area.

The author calls for men to examine their attitudes, behaviours etc. It also a time for women to examine their attitudes and behaviours.

Feminism promoted the idea of ending sex discrimination and promoting equality. To focus purely onto violence against women while ignoring the male victim, is sexist and discriminatory.

Human Rights and social justice. and they merely convenient phrases selectively applied to issues pertaining to women, or are do the phrases also pertain without discrimination to men as well.

WESNET has a board of directors that has no males in it, and there has never been any males in the board of directors of WESNET.

So WESNET is an organisation where gender bias is an integral part of the organisation.

The White Ribbon day ads feature men with amputated arms and men crawling through broken glass, but it difficult to see what that has to do with domestic violence. Much more likely that the ads are somehow symbolic of male castration.

Who are these “men’s rights activists” or “men’s rights groups”.

There are probably only 2 main groups in Australia. There would be the Lone Fathers Association, which has 30% female membership and 50% of the executive is made up of females. There would possibly be a much smaller organisation which is the Men Rights Agency, which is run by a female

If you really want to end domestic violence then all you need to do is reform the family law legislation to bring it back into line with the core principles of justice and equity. The current system, designed and implemented by the sisterhood is an absolute disgrace.

Defamatory material is standard operating procedure, false accusations are the norm, perjury is never punished, obtaining a benefit by deception is the core objective, structural administrative bias is entrenched, extrajudicial punishment is endemic and callous disregard for the rights of male persons has long been subordinated to the cynical manipulation of a seriously sick system.

Whenever I read of another murder, suicide or worse, murder suicide, I recognise another set of victims of unrestrained female excess. It takes the worst kind of mindless zealot to structure the kind of state sponsored despair that regularly produces these outcomes.

And that, folks, is the view of a stable family man in a loving and devoted marriage of 27 years who is appalled at what is inflicted on people around him in the name of "whats best for the children".

That would have to be the sickest euphemism ever.

Violence against women could result from the fact that some of them are always whingeing and complaining about their lot, despite the fact that they seem to get it all their own way when it comes to family law, health research, affirmative action, freedom from National Service (when it applied), and on and on: the list is endless. And what about the numbers of men who have had their faces slapped on the silver screen with, of course, no retaliation from the victim of female violence? Not the done thing, old boy. Perhaps if they were given one back, they might have realised the consequences of their own violence.

We men don’t have to approve of, or practise, physical violence against women or men (don’t hear much about that) to be heartily fed up with ‘women’s this’, and ‘women’s that’ non-stop.

Note that partner of Claire Carey, mentioned by the author, was ‘seriously injured’ by the ex-lover of Carey. So, what particularly makes this violence against women? Two people were involved in ‘displeasing’ the alleged killer and maimer; both were attacked.

Note also, that the author sneers at ‘so-called “men’s rights groups”’ Very aggressive and non-conciliatory coming from someone already lambasting men. And, of course, the ‘real experts’ on the commercials, which have already been discussed on OLO, are women who have ‘suffered male violence’.

Since when did suffering violence make a person expert on anything except suffering violence?

The statement from a Betty Green that: men should “wear a White Ribbon … not merely a silent statement but (as) an acceptance of responsibility and commitment to address that which continues to afflict a significant proportion of women in our community”, is another piece of women versus men rhetoric which is all too familiar. How about women taking responsibility for themselves and getting out of and avoiding situations where they are subjected to violence? Heaven knows, they have the courts and taxpayers money behind them to do so.

What happened to individual responsibility for both sexes?

White Ribbon Day is directed at men becoming involved in stopping violence against women. It is not a debate about equality of gender - its about stopping violence against women. It's not about the whole picture. Otherwise it would be called 'Stopping violence" and it might last for longer than a day.

I attended a breakfast and the main speaker, a union leader, spoke about his childhood. Dad was violent and everyone suffered from his fists and his anger. The wife, the daughters and the sons.

He said he was 15 when he stood up to dad. He did it with violence. He knew no other way. From 16 - 21 his family had the most pleasant Christmases. Dad was forced to behave.

This speaker reocgnised his mother died too early, at 49, from the effects of bex powders, cigarettes and multiple stressors. He pointed out his children were denied their grandmother, and she never met her grandchildren or great grandchildren, yet she was an excellent mother who happened to marry a man who was violent in drink. Violent to everyone.

He was not on stage whining 'what about men'. he was saying that the accumulative effects of violence on his family had been very powerful. He recognised just how many 'jokes' aren't really funny, but promote the sort of violence that killed his mother slowly but surely.

So the questions raised about white ribbon day could be dealt with in context. Are the opponents to acknowleging that violence against women is a fact (and not excused by 'but she nagged me')or 'women are violenct too' going to do anything to begin a movement to address violence? Or just criticise those who are doing something?

I know a man who said 'My wife knows that I hear her 'nagging' as her asking me to do something (once) that she knows I don't want to do. His wife said 'why doesn't he just do what he says he will?'

Congratulations to Bronwyn and Betty for their timely and well-reasoned call to men to use WRD more effectively, as a means for taking greater responsibility to counteract the violent behaviour of many of their class against women. Those who so promptly reacted to their article need to address the key issues Bronwyn and Betty identified instead of complaining about how men also suffer from violence (a separate issue from the valid focus of Bronwyn and Betty's article), "whingeing and complaining" women, and the so-called bias of contemporary efforts to give women equal rights The disturbing WRD ads and the violent attack on Claire Carey and her partner are the key issues that Bronwyn and Betty ask men to seriously consider and to act on more effectively. How about engaging in dialogue, guys, instead of spitting the dummy?